HC Deb 17 February 1916 vol 80 cc244-6
52. Mr. HOGGE

asked the Prime Minister by whose authority a letter has been addressed from the Fees Office to certain Members of this House asking them whether they prefer to receive naval or military pay or to continue to receive salary from the House of Commons Estimate; whether he is aware that such Members are asked to reply at their earliest convenience; whether such a matter can be decided without the authority of Parliament; and, until such time as the House of Commons has Considered the matter, will he see that the letter is withdrawn?

53. Mr. ASHLEY

asked whether the Government have decided that no Member of Parliament serving in the Forces may draw both salary as Member of Parliament and also Service pay; why the Government have delayed eighteen months in coming to this decision; and whether it was by his authority that the Fees Office announced this decision as an accomplished fact in a letter to Service Members before these Government proposals had been brought before and approved of by this House?


His Majesty's Government recommend that no Member of Parliament should receive salary in the coming financial year both as a Member of Parliament and as a member of His Majesty's Forces. It is the intention of the Government to invite the opinion of the House on their proposal at an early date by moving a Resolution, and it was not intended to issue any notice to Members until the Resolution had been disposed of.


Am I to understand that the power to do this applies only to the House of Commons?


I have answered the question.


asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the decision of the Government that no Member of Parliament serving in the Forces may draw both salary as Member of Parliament and Service pay, he will consider the advisability of applying the same practice to retired officers now employed who receive the full pay of their appointment in addition to their retired pay?


The question of the emoluments of re-employed retired officers is under consideration.

64. Major HUNT

asked the Prime Minister whether, under the new regulations as to Parliamentary and Army and Navy pay, he can say whether a Member of Parliament keeping his Parliamentary pay can resign his commission during the War in the Army or Navy when deprived of pay, or will he be compelled to serve for the rest of the War without pay?


In the circumstances suggested an hon. and gallant Member would not be permitted by the Army Council to resign his Commission.

Major HUNT

Are we to understand that officers are to be compelled to serve as long as the War lasts, without any pay, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that officers have heavy expenses, and that in some cases a considerable amount of their pay goes in supplying deficiencies for which the Government are responsible? May I also ask whether the Law Officers of the Crown are still to go on drawing from £10,000 to £20,000 a year?


Those are three new questions which have nothing to do with the question on the Paper.