HC Deb 07 July 1920 vol 131 cc1536-44

(1) If the claimant proves that he has living at the commencement of the year of assessment any child who is either under the age of sixteen years or who, if over the age of sixteen years at the commence- nient of that year, is receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, school, or other educational establishment, he shall, subject to the provisions of this Section, be entitled in respect of one child to a deduction of thirty-six pounds, and in respect of each subsequent child to a deduction of twenty-seven pounds.

The expression "child" in this provision includes a step-child and an illegitimate child whose parents have married each other after his birth.

(2) If the claimant proves that for the year of assessment he has the custody of and maintains at his own expense any child who is under the age of sixteen years at the commencement of that year, or who, if over the age of sixteen years at the commencement of that year, is receiving such full-time instruction as aforesaid, and that neither he nor any other individual is entitled to a deduction in respect of the same child under the foregoing provisions of this Section or under any of the other provisions of this Part of this Act, or, if any other individual is entitled to such a deduction, that that other individual has relinquished his claim thereto, he shall be entitled in respect of the child to the same deduction as if the child were a child of his.

(3) No deduction shall be allowed under this Section in respect of any child who is entitled in his own right to an income exceeding forty pounds a year:

Provided that in calculating the income of the child for the purposes of the foregoing provision no account shall be taken of any income to which the child is entitled as the holder of a scholarship, bursary, or other similar educational endowment.

(4) If any question arises as to whether any person is entitled to an allowance under this Section in respect of a child who is over the age of sixteen years, as being a child who is receiving such full-time instruction as aforesaid, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, on the request of the Income Tax Commissioners concerned, consult the Board of Education.

In the application of this Sub-section to Scotland and Ireland the Scottish Education Department and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland shall respectively be substituted for the Board of Education.

The CHAIRMAN

On the question dealt with by this Clause there are two or three Amendments, worded somewhat differently. I think the best one is that of the hon. Member for Pontypool.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "establishment" ["or other educational establishment"], to insert the words "or is wholly or mainly maintained by him while learning a trade, profession, or occupation."

We want an extension of the present privilege in the way the Amendment suggests. We have brought it forward more on the ground of those who need the help because they are more or less friendless. You have the widows of deceased soldiers who are trying to educate their children; trying to put their boys to the best trade or profession they possibly can. It is a very great hardship on these widows who are paying Income Tax if this relief is not granted. You have a section of working men in the same position, those who are trying to give their children the best trade or profession. They often have very big families and great burdens. I do not believe this will mean very much to the Chancellor. We should like him to accept this Amendment, and at the same time give to those for whom we are pleading a similar concession in the matter of education to that he was kind enough to give last year.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken heard my statement a while ago, that any concession made one year becomes the argument for demanding more the next. Up till last year no allowance for Income Tax purposes was made in respect to any child over 16. Last year, in deference to a widespread sentiment in the House—and I think representations which came especially from the Benches opposite, though joined in by others—I made a concession in the Bill on behalf of the children pursuing their general education. So long as they were pursuing their general education the concession applied. We resolved, in case of doubt as to the efficiency and character of the education, that the question must be decided in consultation with the Board of Education, and the Inland Revenue Authorities were given the right to apply to the Board of Education to help them to decide the matter. The whole object was general education. It was not apprenticeship. The latter is entirely apart. I really cannot agree to extend the concession which was made to encourage general education to those who are undergoing apprenticeship. If I were, I do not know how the hon. Member or myself would define apprenticeship for the purpose of the Amendment.

Let me remind my hon. Friend in regard to present circumstances that the Ministry of Labour actually has a scheme in operation under which a State grant is made to employers in order that the wages payable by them to apprentices may be guaranteed if the latter are of age and responsible. Accordingly, under this Amendment, we should be subsidising to the extent of their full wages, and then giving them an allowance because they were still nominally apprentices. It is not a possible proposition. I think this is the particular sort of case the hon. Member had in his mind. So far as I am concerned, I feel bound to adhere to the recommendations with which the proposal was originally pressed, and to which I acceded last year—that this concession should be made in respect to those who, after the age when they might be earning wages, continued bonâ fide their general education.

Mr. HOGGE

I have an Amendment on the Paper which, I think, for the purposes of this discussion rather differs from the one which has been chosen; because I agree to what the Chancellor has said that this Amendment does not define what is an apprenticeship. It is urged that a concession should be made to the parents who are wholly or mainly maintaining their children while learning a trade, profession, or occupation. The words I specifically use in my Amendment are, "or is apprenticed to any trade or profession." The Chancellor says, when he made up his mind that this concession should be made, it was intended to go to the education of the children who were continuing their general education. The words of the Clause, amongst other things, say, "Is receiving full-time instruction at any university, college, etc." As a mater of fact, the Chancellor knows that while they are doing that, say, at the university they may be qualifying for a profession. Take the teaching profession. The old apprenticeship system for teachers is largely done away with, and the whole course is taken while the young man or woman is working for a university degree. That is continuous education. Is it not rather hard lines that if aid is being given in one case, that in another where the parent is apprenticing his boy to such an expensive occupation as accountancy, where a necessary premium obtains, that aid should not be given? I know many parents in Scotland who borrow the money to pay a considerable premium in order to give their boy his chance. That is the same kind of thing as continuous education. At the university he is qualifying for a profession. I would like my right hon. Friend—while I sympathise with him that, to a certain extent, this goes too far—to make his concession within limits. Obviously, it depends altogether what channel the child takes; whether it comes under the definition of continuing his general education.

Take another case—that of the technical colleges. I know more about my own town than others. Take the Watt Technical College, Edinburgh, where a lad, in continuous education, may complete his studies, and come out qualified as a workman. The parent of another child might not be able to do that, but has to maintain his boy in ordinary apprenticeship. I hope my right hon. Friend grips the point. I do not press him to the extent of the Amendment, but I think there is a case to be made out for, a real bonâ fide apprenticeship. I see another Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Wood Green dealing with the question of articled occupations, which, again, is very expensive, and which parents have to provide for in advance. I should like the Chancellor, before he gives a decision on the point, to take this matter into careful consideration.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

There is a very large class which would be affected by this Amendment if carried, and which are not covered by the example given by the right hon. Gentleman, of the returned young soldier who has come back and got a grant from the Ministry of Labour. There are these two classes in particular to whom this Amendment would apply. These are children over 16 years of age. The Chancellor knows that during the War the whole education scheme of the country was upset. A great many young girls were unable to continue their education because of the drain on the manpower of the country. Now these girls are being drawn in in very many cases into occupations and trades. I am not referring to the Amendment which narrows this matter down to apprenticeship. The better Amendment is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green. There is one class which, it seems to me, it is extremely desirable should get some relief. After all, there is a tremendous surplus of girls in the world at the present moment. I refer to the younger generation of those under 21, the female children say, the class that is going to be servants. If parents could be encouraged to put this class of young children into some trade or profession at the present time the better it would be for the country. They are entirely left out. The other class is the male children who were not old enough to go into the Army, or who were unfit for it, and who went into what proved to be "blind alley" occupations, munitions, and so forth. These would have been apprenticed, and would have been learning some profession or trade. They are entirely cut out. They cannot go to the Ministry of Labour for help. I therefore say that, although our returned soldiers are a most deserving class, they are provided for. There then remains the two great classes I have mentioned. As to going a good deal too far in these various proposals, I am extremely sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not seen his way, at any rate, to propose some compromise in this matter.

Mr. JOHNSTONE

I remember last year when this matter was discussed the arguments used were these: that if a parent desired to continue the education of his children over the age of 16 we should give him every inducement to do so. But if this Amendment, proposed by the hon. Member opposite, is agreed to, it will mean that the parent, after his child reaches the age of 16, who does not make any sacrifice for the sake of his education in school or college, but put him to a trade where he will earn wages, will thereby have the benefit of this Amendment. What we desired last year was that, in view of the fact that the parents made a sacrifice to continue the education of their children after the age of 16, they should have this relief. We have no intention—it never entered into our discussion—that putting children into apprenticeships in trades or professions would entitle them to receive the benefits the Chancellor is giving in this Clause. If we agree to this Amendment we are going far beyond what was suggested last year. It will lead to enormous extension.

Mr. HOLMES

I am not quite clear as to what the Amendment means. The Chancellor referred to the fact that the Ministry of Labour were supplementing the wages of apprentices in order to give them the amount of money appropriate to their age and responsibilities. He said that if this Amendment were accepted the State would have to give it to others. Surely in the case of an apprentice receiving a grant from the Ministry of Labour the Amendment would not apply, because the words are, "wholly or mainly maintained by him." If the apprentice was receiving money as wages he could not be wholly or mainly maintained by his parents. The profession of chartered accountants, to which I belong, is one in which it is very difficult to get into, because there are not a great many of them. Under the Royal Charter each accountant is only allowed to take two articled clerks, and five years are occupied in the apprenticeship, and no-one comes in without paying a premium. Some firms pay a small salary and some none at all, during the five years, and the salary paid is generally the amount of the premium. There are a large number of men with small incomes who are endeavouring to article their sons to these professions, and who have to bear for five years the whole expense of maintaining them. It is to the national advantage that this should be encouraged, and this Amendment asks that an allowance should be made in such cases. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider his decision.

Sir P. MAGNUS

I think the whole object of this Clause will be frustrated if any one of these Amendments is adopted. It seems to me that these words have one object only, and that is to encourage children to be educated over the age of 16 at one of these institutions. In none of the cases mentioned would the object of this Clause be carried out, because they would not be receiving the general education which is specified. The case has been mentioned of a student, instead of going to the Watt Technical College in Edinburgh, being apprenticed to a trade, and the question has been asked if the cases are not similar. That would be difficult, because when a boy is apprenticed his education is not conducted in the same way as is the case at a college. It. fell to my lot to draw up the scheme of Manchester for the Watt College, and I know that the education given is very different from the training of a boy as an apprentice. I think, if we adopt any of the Amendments which are suggested, we should frustrate the object of this Clause.

Mr. GRIFFITHS

These boys do not receive any wages or salary. Take the case which has been mentioned of boys who desire to become accountants. They have to sit for examinations just the same as those who attend the colleges, and there are some parents who make very great sacrifices to educate their children, although they are apprentices. This is a case where you are dealing with people with very small incomes, and we have to assist such families, not only to learn professions, but to get their education at the same time. They will have to purchase books in order to continue the education of these boys, although they are apprenticed to trades or attached to some of the professions. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this proposal, because it will not be a big loss. If he does not, of course, we have nothing to do but depend upon his generosity. I admit the right hon. Gentleman has been very generous in regard to some of the Amendments put forward, but, as he says he is not able to accept this proposal, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel NEWMAN

I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "thirty-six" and to insert instead thereof the word "forty." I cannot understand why the word "thirty-six" has been put in the Bill at all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

May I point out that "thirty-six" in the present Finance Bill is equivalent to "forty" in the last Bill, and this follows the line of the other alteration made in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission?

Colonel NEWMAN

Does the same apply to "twenty-seven"?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes; they are adjusted under the new scheme.

Colonel NEWMAN

With that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Colonel NEWMAN

I desire to make one point. I understand that in making this adjustment 36 is equivalent to 40 and 27 is equivalent to 30. I take it that these adjustments have been made right through the Bill. It may be easy for Members of this Committee to understand this, but it is not so in regard to the people who have to fill up the Returns for the Income Tax officials, for it will make their work much more onerous and costly to the taxpayer. There will be official after official revising and refilling figures and taking out other figures in order to insert these. I have been told by an official of the great difficulties caused by constantly changing these figures. Sometimes an official if he does his duty often has to take with him an enormous mass of books. This official to whom I allude told me that to deal with a simple case he had sometimes to take a whole cab-load of official forms, and he asked me to warn the Committee that they ought to make these forms as simple as possible, and change the figures as little as possible. I do not think that is being done by changing 30 to 27 and 40 to 36.