Payment for Political and Public Service
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1954.tb01307.x |
| Author | Hilda R. Kahn |
| Published date | 01 June 1954 |
| Date | 01 June 1954 |
Payment
for
Political and Public Service
By
HILDA
R.
KAHN
This
article surreys the reniuneration
of
national and local politicians
and
of
the members
of
the Boards
of
cerruiri Public Corporations.
It
is
parr
of
a general
suwey
being made by Misc Kalin
of
Bedford
College
for
the
purpose
of
a
Ph.D.
dissertntion.
MEMBERS
OF
PARLIAMENT
PAYMENT
to Members of Parliament at the rate of A400 per annum was
introduced in 1911 although, we are told,l this was merely the return
to a tradition current from the time when Edward
I
instituted Parliament
until late in the 17th century. There was no change in parliamentary
remuneration during the period 1911-1931,2 but in the latter year-the time
of the financial crisis-the salary was reduced to A360.
It
was subsequently
restored by stages and in 1937 was raised to E600 per annum, at which figure
it remained throughout the war.
Like most of their constituents, M.P.s had a rise in the early post-war
period. In March, 1946, a Select Committee
“
appointed to consider the
expenses incurred in connection with their parliamentary and official duties
by Mcmbers
. .
.’’
issued their Report,:’ their major recommendation being
that the parliamentary salary should be raised to A1,OOO per annum, of which
A500
was to constitute an automatically tax-free expense allowance. In
framing their recommendations, the Committee made clear that they did
not regard the sum to be paid to a Mcmber as a professional salary. They
pointed out that, though a Member may be called upon to devote a great
deal of time to the business
of
the House, he had complete freedom
co
allot
his time between his parliamentary duties and his personal affairs, and added
that
“it
would be most unwise to take this freedom from him by paying
such a figure as would unequivocally demand his full time in return.” They
therefore reiterated the principle first laid down by Lloyd George when he
introduced the payment of Members in 1911 that the sum must suffice to
enable the M.P.
“
to maintain himself comfortably and honourably, but
not luxuriously
”
;
in addition, a Member should be allowed his reasonable
expenses
“
wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance
of his duties.”
The Government accepted the Select Committee’s recommendations in
substance, and on 30th April, 1946, the Chancellor of the Exchequer
announced that the Government proposed that, with effect from 1st April,
1946, every Member other than a Minister, Junior Minister
or
officer of
the House, should in future be entitled to a salary of
+J,OOO
a year in place
of A600, but that there should be no change in the prcscnt procedure for
claiming relief from income tax in respect of expenses.’ This question of
M.P.s’ expenses is a thorny one. Members are granted certain privileges
such as free first-class travel by rail, sea
or
air between home, constituency
and Westminsters and free telephone services (local calls only) at the House
of Commons. Also, El00 out of their salary of
jJ,OOO
is
automatically
tax-free, and if a Member can show that his expenses exceed this figure,
he can claim further relief, under ordinary income tax procedure, up to the
181
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
full amount of his salary. What is important here, however, is that in many
cases this so-called salary is largely
“
eaten up
”
by heavy and unavoidable
expenditure on secretarial help, postages, entertaining and
so
forth, which
have to be defrayed out of an M.P.’s own pocket.
During the
“
wage-freeze
”
of 1948-50 there were occasional, but
unsuccessful, attempts to reduce the salaries of M.P.s (as of Ministers), in
particular
at
the time of the 1949
“
devaluation
”
crisis. Since then, however,
the emphasis has shifted in the opposite direction and a joint Labour-Liberal
deputation in April, 1953, made an approach to the Prime Minister and
Government in view of the growing evidence of the financial difficulties
facing many back-benchers.
It
may be added that already in 1946 E1,OOO
per annum, in terms of purchasing power, fell short-though only just-
of A400 in 1911, and according to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
a salary of L1,480 per annum would hzve been required in March, 1953,
to equal, in real terms, the 1911 figure. Or, putting
it
another way and
taking the post-war salary as our starting point, the purchasing power
of
El,OOO
in December, 1952, had shrunk, as compared with 1946, to a mere
E685.6
?‘he latest development has been the appointment
of
another Select
Committee, who have now issued their Report.’ The Committee was
precluded from a consideration
of
“
fundamentals
”
and stated that
“
the
House may at some future date wish to consider, in broader terms than
Your Committee are instructed to, the status and degree of financial indepen-
dence appropriate to Members of Parliament
.
. .”,
adding that in Common-
wealth and foreign countries more generous treatment was meted out to
members of the lcgislaturc (para. 62). Meanwhile, the main revelation in
the Committee’s Report was that out of the
El,OOO
a year paid to
M.P.s,
they have, on the average, to pay out
E750
on expenses
“
wholly, exclusively
and necessarily
”
incurred in the performance of their duties, while from
the remainder a further sum has to be found for other outgoings-such as
the use of a car or hospitality for constituents-hardly less necessary, even
though not allowed by the Inland Revenue (para.
51).
Even if these latter
are ignored and on the basis of
“
allowable
”
expenditure only, the average
Member has left from his parliamentary
“
salary” a mere
E250
for the
maintenance
of
himself and his family. This evidence left the Committee
“
no option but to report that the expenses necessarily entailed by Membership
of Parliament are such that the present payment of El,OOO a year is not
sufficient
. .
.”
(para.
52);
the Committee therefore recommended that
the parliamentary salary be increased to E1,500, and with this they linked
a
recommendation for
a
non-contributory pension scheme. The Report
caused a considerable amount of controversy-in the press rather than in
Parliament-and on 14th April the Prime Minister stated that in the view
of H.M. Government it would not be right in present circumstances to
proceed in the particular manner recommended. Various alternatives were
outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
House
on 13th May,
but at a further Debate on 24th May a motion in favour of the
E500
“
straight
increase
”
was passed on a free vote by a substantial majority, an amendment
-which had the blessing of the Chancellor-for an expenses allowance
of
up to
Q00
being defeateda8
It
is likely that the Government will feel them-
182
To continue reading
Request your trial