ACRIMONIOUS DEBATE IN COMMONS ON PRIME MINISTERS SALARY

Evening Star, Issue 26136, 25 June 1947, Page 5

ACRIMONIOUS DEBATE IN COMMONS ON PRIME MINISTERS SALARY

{N.Z.P A. Special Correspondent.) (Rec. 9.30 a.m.) LONDON.' Juiie 24. When Mr R. S. Hudson pointed ’ out in the House of Commons that the tax-free salary of £4,000 a year paid to the Prime Minister is equal at present income fax rates to a taxable annual income of £IOO,OOO a year, Mr Emanuel Shinwell described the reference as “ malice.” Mr Hudson made his statement during the debate on the Electricity Bill, when Mr Walter Elliot moved a new clause to prohibit the payment of taxfree remuneration to members of any board set up to administer the Bill. Mr Hudson said that if the board granted its Members use of large ears, this was equivalent to increasing their salaries from £5,000 a year to £B,OOO,

for he understood that, with income tax and stipei-trtx, £3,000 a year was the cost of running a large oar in Britain to-day. It would be more honest for the Government to say that it intended to raise board members’ salaries than to talk about income taxexemptions and allotment of motor care. In the same way, it would be more honest if the Government said the Prime Minister Was receiving a taxable income of £IOO,OOO annually instead of describing his salary as £4.000 tax-free. Mr Shinwetl retorted angrily that the decision on Mr Attlee’s salary was reached some time ago. All the Opposition wanted to do was to create a number of bogeys and to limit the Electricity Board in every possible fashion. ‘ There was no intention of paying tax-free salaries to members of the board. Mr Beverley (Baxter closed an acrimonious debate with the statement that “ the rising tide of patronage in this country makes Irish politicians in tlie United States weep with envy.” Mr Elliot’s amendment was rejected.