§ Section twenty of the Finance Act, 1920 (which provides for a deduction from assessable income in respect of a widowed mother, etc.), shall have effect as if for the words "forty-five pounds" there were substituted the words "seventy-five pounds."—[Major Watts Morgan.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Major WATTS MORGANI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Clause refers to Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1920, which provides for a deduction from assessable income in respect of a widowed mother, and so on. I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee by reading the Section. I think it is quite familiar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to hon. Members. It deals with the unmarried claimant who has living with him, either his mother being a widow or a person living apart from her husband, or some other female relative. I have followed very closely and with some interest the remarks made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the previous new Clause moved by hon. Members on this Bench. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were living at a time when there ought to be no interference with all the possible money that can be raised from every source, and especially from the Income Tax. I also heard with some interest the assurance given by hon. Members below the Gangway that they were supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this direction. All of us are aware that the burdens of the Budget are enormously heavy, and some of us are aware that there are different opinions with regard to the methods which are adopted as, for instance, in regard to the 1180 contributions towards reduction of debt. However that may be, I do not think that any of the remarks offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposition to that Clause can be directed against the Clause I am now moving. I say that because I do not propose to cite any hard cases at all. The application of the Clause will be general, and I contend that at present, under the operation of the Finance Act of 1920, the burden does not fall equally upon all the persons assessed for Income Tax.
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who, like his chief, is a bachelor, to say that as far as an unmarried person living with his widowed mother or his sister is concerned, and where there are children below a certain age, the rebate or relief given now is unequal and unjust. Such a person gets a relief or deduction of £45. My proposal is to increase the amount to £75. No one can say that there is the slightest difference in the cost of maintaining a family where a man is living with his wife and two children, and the cost in the case of a young unmarried man who has got a widowed mother and two young children or a sister and two children to maintain. To their credit be it said, there are hundreds of the working classes who have denied themselves in years gone by and have maintained homes of that description. Surely we ought to encourage that as a benefit to the State, as tending to the making of good citizens, and as encouraging a higher standard of honour and chivalry amongst our young people. What better assets can you have than the raising of the standard of honour in that way? I do not know whether my proposal would mean a severe or a small 1181 loss in Income Tax, but I hope hon. Members who understand the situation will support this rectification of an injustice. When young men deny themselves many pleasures and take upon their shoulders many burdens which the State might otherwise be called upon to bear they ought to be encouraged.
§ Mr. W. CARTERI beg to second the Motion.
I hope the case which has been put will appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The arguments my hon. Friend has adduced are incontestible, and any hon. Member who wishes to treat the case fairly and honestly will give his vote in favour of the new Clause. When the breadwinner has gone and the son assumes the responsibility of financing the home and supporting his widowed mother and sisters, he should have every possible consideration. Last year, from this side of the House, a Resolution was moved which provided that where a son assumed the responsibility of supporting a home for a widowed mother, he should be placed in the same category as a married man, and have an allowance of £225 free from Income Tax. That was a reasonable proposition. We are not asking as much in this proposal. We all know what expense would be thrown on such a young man. As people get older they require special nourishment, more particularly if they are sick, and the cost is infinitely higher to-day than in the days before the War. When a son has the courage and the manliness to step into the breach when his father is dead, we ought to give him every encouragement. Previously we were told that the finances of the country would not stand it. I hope that plea will not be made now.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAMMy only purpose in intervening is to draw attention to the fact that this Amendment is distinct from a later proposal on the Paper which refers to dependent relatives. Before the Financial Secretary replies I wish to direct his attention to a very important proviso to this grant of £45. It is given only to an unmarried person who has to maintain a widowed mother or a mother who is living apart from her husband or some other female relative for the purpose of having charge or care of any brother or sister in respect of whom the deduction for children is given.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young)The last speaker has drawn a useful and an entirely accurate distinction, and I am not sure it was present in the mind of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. It seemed to me, in listening to him, that he was basing his arguments to some extent in respect of conditions more native to dependent relatives. This Amendment deals with the case of the unmarried man whose widowed mother or other female relative is living with him for the express purpose of looking after his brothers or sisters. I am sure the Committee will agree that those are circumstances which have a special claim on our sympathy. Nevertheless I have to point out that we are dealing here with a case which is capable of comparison by strict analogy with that case upon which the Committee has just made its decision. The last case discussed was the case of the widower with a female relative or some person looking after his young children. Here also we have a household which has to provide a new family head. The circumstances are the same, and of course—
§ Major MORGANIt is not a new family head; it is a new head of the family who adopts responsibility.
§ Mr. YOUNGA substituted one. The circumstances are the same, and I submit that the financial concessions allowed should be the same also. In the last case which the Committee decided the concession was maintained at £45, and it would certainly appear to be illogical to make a breach in the general outline of the scheme of allowances by making a different allowance in this case. Stress has been laid upon the difference between the allowance of £225 made in the case of a married couple and that of £180 in the case under consideration. The Committee will remember that that is a difference which had been decided upon as a matter of principle. The Royal Commission recommended that this distinction should be made in favour of the married couple. That was very deliberately and, I believe, quite advisedly accepted by the House when it first established these schemes of personal allowances, and it would be an abrupt and disproportionate breach in the conditions of these allowances to depart from that principle here. Admittedly, this is not a matter of the same magnitude as that raised in the last 1183 case, and the Committee will not require me to repeat what has already been stated as regards the maintenance of the general scheme of these allowances.
§ Mr. HAYWARDI am extremely sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury finds himself unable to accept this Amendment. The principal ground for his refusal seems to be that this case is analogous with the case dealt with under the previous Amendment, and therefore the same principle should apply. I am not quite so sure that the cases are quite analogous. The previous case was that of a widower who had young children, and who brought in a relative of the family for the purpose of looking after the young children. In such a case there is a legal obligation upon the father to maintain and provide for the children, but in the case contemplated by the present Amendment there is no such legal obligation. It is the case of an unmarried man undertaking the maintenance and the care of children and a mother for whom he has no legal liability. When it comes to considering the justice of the case, we should remember that if the unmarried person did not fulfil this obligation, for which he is not liable legally, the obligation would then rest upon the State or upon the particular locality in some form or other. This is an even stronger case than the preceding one. It is obvious that a person undertaking to discharge an obligation of this kind voluntarily should have more consideration extended to him than is afforded by the present proposal in the Bill.
§ Mr. LAWSONIt seems to me to be scarcely right that the State should
§ benefit as the result of a domestic bereavement. That is what the Amendment aims at remedying. Its object is to deal with the case of a family who lose the head and consequently lose the income which the head of the family formerly brought into the home. The eldest son then takes the responsibilities of the father upon himself, and he then discovers that in addition to losing the income of the head, the family is also penalised in respect of the amount which was formerly allowed on the income of the father. The State is thus benefiting in so far as the young man carries on the home, while a lesser amount is deducted from the taxable income of the family. The amount allowed to the boy in his new capacity as head of the family is not as much as was allowed to the father during the latter's lifetime, while at the same time he has to devote all his wages to the family. This is a very moderate Amendment. Last year we moved an Amendment which would have placed the son in exactly the same position as the father, and more consideration might be given to the moderate proposal now put forward than the Government seem to be extending to it. I know their policy has been to put up a stiff back against all Amendments, but this is a case for some consideration, more especially having regard to the point made by the hon. Member who spoke last, showing that if the boy did not accept the responsibilities for the home it would entail a financial burden on the State.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 202.
1185| Division No. 183.] | AYES. | 7.36 p.m. |
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D. | Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne) | Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J. |
| Bagley, Captain E. Ashton | Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central) | Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross) |
| Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery) | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Myers, Thomas |
| Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals) | Grundy, T. W. | Newbould, Alfred Ernest |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth) | O'Connor, Thomas P. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Hallas, Eldred | O'Grady, James |
| Bramsdon, Sir Thomas | Hartshorn, Vernon | Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.) |
| Bromfield, William | Hayday, Arthur | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Hayward, Evan | Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple) |
| Cairns, John | Hinds, John | Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend) |
| Cape, Thomas | Hodge, Rt. Hon. John | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield) | Hogge, James Myles | Robertson, John |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Holmes, J. Stanley | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe) | Irving, Dan | Seddon, J. A. |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Johnstone, Joseph | Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock) |
| Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon) | Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington) | Spencer, George A. |
| Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath) | Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M. | Swan, J. E. |
| Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot | Kenyon, Barnet | Taylor, J. |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Lawson, John James | Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West) |
| Glanville, Harold James | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Waterson, A. E. | Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| White, Charles F. (Derby, Western) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge) | Major Watts Morgan and Mr. |
| Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett) | Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.) | Frederick Hall. |
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Gilbert, James Daniel | Parker, James |
| Amery, Leopold C. M. S. | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John | Pearce, Sir William |
| Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W. | Gould, James C. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Atkey, A. R. | Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A. | Perring, William George |
| Baird, Sir John Lawrence | Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.) | Pilditch, Sir Philip |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.) | Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.) | Gregory, Holman | Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Greig, Colonel Sir James William | Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton |
| Barlow, Sir Montague | Gretton, Colonel John | Pratt, John William |
| Barnett, Major Richard W. | Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E. | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Barnston, Major Harry | Hacking, Captain Douglas H. | Purchase, H. G. |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hailwood, Augustine | Rae, H. Norman |
| Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hamilton, Major C. G. C. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Rankin, Captain James Stuart |
| Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake) | Haslam, Lewis | Remer, J. R. |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston) | Remnant, Sir James |
| Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West) | Hennessy, Major J. R. G. | Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford) |
| Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester) | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor) |
| Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith- | Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon | Rodger, A. K. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Major A. | Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E. | Roundell, Colonel R. F. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Briggs, Harold | Hood, Joseph | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n,W.) | Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur |
| Brown, Major D. C. | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian) | Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D. |
| Bruton, Sir James | Hopkins, John W. W. | Seager, Sir William |
| Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Shaw, Capt. William T. (Forfar) |
| Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James | Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) | Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South) |
| Butcher, Sir John George | Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G. | Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington) |
| Carr, W. Theodore | Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B. | Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney) |
| Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington) | Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.) | Jameson, John Gordon | Stanier, Captain Sir Beville |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Jephcott, A. R. | Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill | Jesson, C. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Sturrock, J. Leng |
| Churchman, Sir Arthur | Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke) | Sugden, W. H. |
| Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C. |
| Clough, Robert | Joynson-Hicks, Sir William | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Coats, Sir Stuart | King, Captain Henry Douglas | Thomas-Stanford, Charles |
| Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South) |
| Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale | Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale) | Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill) |
| Conway, Sir W. Martin | Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales) | Thorpe, Captain John Henry |
| Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely) | Lister, Sir R. Ashton | Tickler, Thomas George |
| Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South) | Lloyd, George Butler | Turton, Edmund Russborough |
| Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry | Lloyd-Greame, Sir P. | Waddington, R. |
| Davies, Thomas (Cirencester) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green) | Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir John Tudor |
| Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.) | Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ting d'n) | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Lorden, John William | Watson, Captain John Bertrand |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Wheler, Col. Granville C. H. |
| Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham) | M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A. | White, Col. G. D. (Southport) |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry | Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie) | Wild, Sir Ernest Edward |
| Dockrell, Sir Maurice | McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern) | Williams, C. (Tavistock) |
| Doyle, N. Grattan | M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W. | Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud |
| Du Pre, Colonel William Baring | Macleod, J. Mackintosh | Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark) | McMicking, Major Gilbert | Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M. | McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury) | Winterton, Earl |
| Falcon, Captain Michael | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Wise, Frederick |
| Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray | Maddocks, Henry | Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon) |
| Fell, Sir Arthur | Manville, Edward | Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde) |
| FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A. | Marriott, John Arthur Ransome | Woolcock, William James U. |
| Flannery, Sir James Fortescue | Middlebrook, Sir William | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Ford, Patrick Johnston | Molson, Major John Elsdale | Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward |
| Foreman, Sir Henry | Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S. | Young, E. H. (Norwich) |
| Forestier-Walker, L. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | |
| Fraser, Major Sir Keith | Nail, Major Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | Neal, Arthur | Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr. |
| Gardiner, James | Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster) | Dudley Ward. |
| Gee, Captain Robert | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |