HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND (Hansard, 5 May 1948)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)
I would like to ask the Financial Secretary whether this is a change from established practice.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Under the 1939 Act the House decided not to come upon the taxpayer in any shape or form, and Members were to forgo the normal allowance allowed to members of a superannuation fund on the contributions they make to the fund. The Act of 1939 embodied that principle. Under this Act we are going to make it possible for an affirmative Resolution of this House to alter the rates 1406 and benefits, and particularly the rates of contribution. That will mean that we shall require this Resolution in order that when such affirmative Resolution is agreed and passed, it comes within the rules of Order and Members will not then be able to claim Income Tax rebate on what can be considered as a superannuation contribution paid to the Fund.

Lieut.-Colonel-Elliot
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will consider, whether, as this is to become a permanent feature of our affairs, the principle decided so long ago should be maintained. It seems to me that for a compulsory deduction such as this it is reasonable to consider whether it should be allowed to rank as a deduction for income tax purposes. I should have thought there were analogies more in line with allowing it to rank as a deduction than in adopting the practice set forth in this Motion. I think the Financial Secretary will be well advised to give this further consideration, and to take counsel, through the usual channels, before the Resolution reaches the Report stage, and is actually made part of the statute we are now considering. After this period of time, when we are setting up a quasi-permanent machine without coming back to the House for authority and making it possible to alter the provisions of the statute, we ought to consider if the procedure set forth in this Motion is proper.

§ Sir C. MacAndrew
I think my right hon. and gallant Friend's point is worthy of attention because when the 1939 Act was passed taxation was at a very different level from what it is now. I would remind the Committee that I pointed out in December, when we were dealing with this matter, that the top grade Super Tax man—assuming such a person is an hon. Member of this House—would require £480 in order to raise his contribution of £12 a year. This is an enormous sum of money and it is something which should not be overlooked.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Personally, I have always taken the view that the House has been perhaps needlessly sensitive on this point and if the sum of £12 is to be paid, I think hon. Members are entitled, as the law allows, to a proper rebate in the same way as any other taxpayer. But in 1939, hon. Members in their wisdom decided they would not owe anything to the nation and would not 1407 accept, as I think it was put at that time, "a subsidy from the public." They did not want any subsidy in this way and that was a view embodied in the Act of 1939. The Government have taken the view that it was desirable to continue that arrangement. I make no complaint of it, but perhaps it is unfortunate that the Select Committee did not make reference to this and recommend a change. All that we have done in this Motion is to meet what we think amounts to the general view of the House of Commons. This is a domestic and non-party matter, and if the majority of the Committee is agreeable to this change no one will be more pleased about it than I. I cannot say how it can be done, but I do ask the Committee to pass this Motion. It will be possible later, during the Committee stage, if the Committee wish, to rescind this provision in the 1939 Act and allow for something to be done to alter the Resolution. At the moment I must ask the Committee to agree. We would like the Resolution tonight.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I am sorry to rise again, but as the right hon. Gentleman says, this is a domestic affair. It is true that the Select Committee did not refer to it, but the matter is now before this Committee. It would be, I think, more orthodox for the right hon. Gentleman to adjourn consideration of the Motion. I do not think any hon. Member would say that this would delay the Bill. If it is decided to table another Motion, it would be much more easy to do that if we had not passed the Motion and thus committed ourselves. Speaking on the spur of the moment, I think that to hold this over until another evening would be a course to be commended because no one would have been committed and it would be possible, after consultation through the usual channels, to decide what could be done. It would allow consideration of a matter which, in my view, the Committee would like to think about further.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I am sorry, but I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I must ask the Committee to let us have this Resolution because I am by no means certain that a majority of the House would decide, on reflection, to rescind it. By passing it tonight, we do no harm, and I am not, on the spur of the moment, clear as to how we should act to allow rebate on these contributions. 1408 When that time comes we shall find a method of dealing with it. Obviously if we are going to do that, no Ways and Means Resolution is required either tonight or in respect of contributions payable under 1939 Act. Therefore, the best course is to accept this Motion with the assurance from me that I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to what has been said tonight, and if on further stages of the Bill this Committee decides in its wisdom to rescind the provisions, I am sure the Government would fall in with the demand with alacrity.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I do not wish to be obstinate, but I would have thought there would be no injury to any interests through adjourning the consideration of this Motion. It does not hold up the Bill in any way, and merely to postpone until another day the consideration of the Motion seems to me to be eminently the more businesslike way of dealing with the matter. Unless the Financial Secretary assures us to the contrary, I cannot see that any damage would be done to any interest or even to the passing of the Bill. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman cannot fall in with the suggestion and have the matter continued on another day.

§ Sir C. MacAndrew
On that point, surely if Income Tax is allowed as a charge it would not matter whether this passes. Therefore, by passing it it does not matter very much.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I understand the situation is that if we pass this now no harm will be done if later on an Amendment to the Bill were moved and carried. This is simply a protection, and what is in the Bill will not necessarily come under what we do on this Resolution. That being so I hope the Committee will pass it now.