HC Deb 10 October 1912 vol 42 cc534-5W

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before the Commissioners of the Treasury decided to grant an increase of salary by way of abatement of taxation to off-set certain expenses incurred by Members of this House, they had been in receipt of representations from any Member or Members that the salary heretofore granted was an insufficient or inadequate remuneration for the work to be undertaken?


asked the Chancellor whether he can state 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?


Representations were made by certain Members that these covered expenses such as are legally and habitually allowed as deductions for the purpose of assessment of Income Tax, as being in the words of Section 51 of 16 and 17 Vic, c 34, "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment" in respect of which the salaries are paid. The allowance would therefore seem to be consistent with Section 159 of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 35. As a uniform allowance had been sanctioned there was no necessity for a specific claim in such case, and it was in the ordinary course made applicable to the year in which it was decided on. Expenses of officers in the Army and Navy analogous to those for which a deduction has been allowed to Members of Parliament are not defrayed out of the officer's pay.