§ 86. Mr. CASSELasked whether the Treasury received from the Comptroller Fund Auditor-General a communication calling in question the legality of the allowance of £100, without proof of expenditure, for assessing Income Tax on the salaries of Members of Parliament, and asking whether an opinion of the Law Officers had been obtained in support of the course taken; what was the date of such communication; whether any reply was sent, and, if so, when; and whether he will lay the correspondence on this subject upon the Table of the House?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEA communication to the effect stated, dated 13th November, 1912, was received. A reply was sent on the 15th February, 1913. The correspondence on the subject has been laid before the Public Accounts Committee of this House.
§ Mr. CASSELMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not lay the correspondence on the Table, it being a matter affecting the private affairs of Members of this House; whether it is the habit of the Treasury to wait for more than two months before replying to letters; and whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers on the subject?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the usual course has been taken. The correspond- 802 ence has to be laid in the first instance before a Committee of this House. It is not an outside Committee, it is a Committee appointed by this House to investigate matters of this kind, and the correspondence is always laid before the Public Accounts Committee in the first instance. It would be a departure from the usual practice to lay it on the Table first.
§ Mr. CASSELHaving regard to the fact that this affects the private affairs of Members, will the right hon. Gentleman make a departure from the practice; and will he state why such a long time was allowed to elapse, from the 13th November, 1912, to 15th February, 1913, before replying to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI cannot answer the question without notice, but I should lave thought that the observations of the hon. Member show why the correspondence should first go before the Committee.
§ 50. Mr. CASSELasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General calling in question the legailty of a uniform allowance of £100, without proof of actual expenditure, for the purpose of assessing Income Tax on the salaries of Members of Parliament; and whether, in view of the importance of insuring that allowances which are denied to the rest of His Majesty's subjects are not illegally made to Members of Parliament, he will afford the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)Yes, Sir. This question is now engaging the attention of the Public Accounts Committee. No action will be taken until that Committee has reported.
§ Mr. CASSELWould the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to continue this practice, the propriety of which has been called in question by the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and which I think has been repeated since that attention was called to it, and will he also endeavour to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the opinion of the Law Officers on the matter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think we had better wait until the Public Accounts Committee has reported. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend will not take any action meanwhile.
§ Mr. CASSELWill the right hon. Gentleman assure us we shall have an opportunity to discuss it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, I think so.