§ 15. Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what are the items of expense in respect of which a deduction of £100 is allowed to Members of Parliament for the purpose of Income Tax on their salaries; and whether similar deductions from salaries are allowed in any other, and, if so, what cases?
§ 23. Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain why the salaries of Members of Parliament have been increased for the past quarter owing to a reduction in the amount of Income Tax deducted; what representations were made to him on the subject; and is this to be a precedent for the allowance of a similar reduction of Income Tax in the case of other salaries earned under similar conditions?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIn assessing the duty chargeable in respect of the emoluments of any public office or employment a deduction is allowable, and is in practice allowed, in respect of the expenses of travelling, and of other expenses and disbursements wholly, exclusively, and necessarily incurred and defrayed, in the performance of the duties thereof. For administrative convenience, and after receiving representations from certain Members, I have decided that in assessing the salaries allowed to Members of Parliament from public funds, a uniform sum 338 should be adopted as the deduction to be granted in respect of such expenses.
§ Mr. CASSELWhich are the items in respect of which the allowance is made, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the travelling expenses of directors of public companies have been disallowed, and will he allow the legality of this deduction to be contested in a Court of Law?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think that the case of directors of public companies is an analogous case at all, but if travelling were an essential part of a man's work certainly travelling expenses should be allowed.
§ Mr. CASSELDoes the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the case of a London Member travelling is an essential part of his work?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am sorry to say that it is an essential part of the work of every Member of Parliament in these days to go about a great deal to address not only his own constituents but others. Apart from that there is the other point, I had to consider whether there should be a separate allowance in each case, or whether it would be better to have it uniform.
§ Mr. BAIRDIs it not the fact that in the case of other public servants, when travelling expenses are given, it is necessary to send in a bill? Why should an exception be made in the case of Members of Parliament?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEWould the right hon. Gentleman kindly give us the names of the Members who asked for it?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. I think that that would be a rather invidious thing to do.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question as to why a different procedure is pursued with regard to Members of Parliament from that which is pursued with regard to all those who are engaged in other services who have to show what their expenses are before an allowance is made?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI thought on the whole that it would be more desirable that there should be a uniform rate rather than that there should be an examination of each case and that Members of Parliament should bring up their bills and vouchers.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILUnhappy lawyers have to bring up their bills.
§ Mr. GINNELLWill the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the House the interesting information how any Member of Parliament coming, say, from Ireland, can possibly pay his necessary expenses out of £100?