§ 45. Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the payment of a salary of £400 a year now made to Members of this House, he pro poses to leave it in the absolute discretion of Members to give or withhold their ser vice to this House for which the salary is paid, or will he consider the propriety of 774 reviving the methods whereby this House formerly secured the rendering of such service, such as the practice of moving on important occasions a call of the House and fining all Members absent without good cause on the call being made, or the practice of moving for leave of absence to Members desiring for sufficient reason to intermit their service; or does he propose to suggest any new method, such as an attendance book and a proportionate diminution of salary for non-attendance, or the publication, as a Parliamentary Paper, of such a monthly or quarterly Return as will inform the constituents of each Member of the amount of service each Member gives in return for his salary?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he is aware that the hon. Member who puts the question was himself absent from 253 Divisions last year, and from 128 Divisions this year up to the time of the Adjournment?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)I am afraid I cannot answer the question of my hon. Friend on this side—
§ Mr. KELLAWAYYou can take it from me that it is so.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe present system has been such a short time in operation that the consideration of any of the suggestions made by the hon. Baronet would be premature.
§ Sir C. HUNTERAm I to understand from the answer that when an hon. Member has been elected to this House and has taken his seat, he can absent himself for the whole of the four or five years, and enjoy his pay for the whole of the time?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the suggestion of the hon. Member is well worth consideration.
§ Mr. HEWINSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in early times hon. Members had to provide sureties for their appearance in the House?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is very interesting.
§ 63. Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct the Commissioners of Inland 775 Revenue to make to all officers of the Army, Navy, and Civil Service in receipt of public pay under and up to £400 a year similar allowances in respect of Income Tax to those made to Members of this House; and, if not, why not?
§ 64. Mr. CASSELasked whether any directions or instructions were given by the Treasury to the Inland Revenue Commissioners with reference to the deduction of a uniform sum of £100 from the salaries of Members of Parliament for the purpose of Income Tax, or whether they acted entirely on their own initiative in allowing such deduction; and whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of such uniform deduction was obtained?
§ 65. Mr. FELLasked if the special allowance in respect of Income Tax made in the payment of the salaries of Members of this House is made by direction of the Treasury, and from what section of what Act is authority derived to make it?
§ 66. Mr. CASSELasked what are the detailed items of which the sum of £100 deducted from the salaries of Members for the purpose of Income Tax is made up; how much was taken by the Inland Revenue Commissioners to represent travelling expenses; and how much any other; and, if so, what items?
§ 67. Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked for the statutory authority for the recent abatement of Income Tax from the salaries paid to Members of Parliament, and by what authority such abatement was made retrospective; whether there is any precedent for abatements being made without a claim being put in for such abatement based on exemptions permitted by the Income Tax Acts; and how such abatement is consistent with Section 159 of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe deduction was allowed by direction of the Treasury. There was no occasion to consult the Law Officers. The adoption of a uniform rate in lieu of a detailed examination of each case is a matter of administrative convenience and follows the practice in other cases. The sum has not been apportioned in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras. The other points in these questions are covered by my replies to hon. Members on Wednesday and Thursday last.
§ Mr. FELLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman from what Section of the Act he derives his authority to make this deduction—I do not think that was stated last time?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt was made under Section 51, and 16 and 17 Victoria, Chapter 34.
§ Mr. CASSELWill the right hon. Gentleman now take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether a uniform reduction to Members of Parliament, irrespective of whether they have incurred the expenses or not, is justified by the Statute, and will he let me see that opinion?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will consider that suggestion.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWill the right, hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, if there is to be any similar allowance to officers of the Army and Navy?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not aware that the circumstances are similar.