§ 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."—[Mr. Myers.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. MYERSI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
If all the powerful arguments which were advanced on the last Clause failed to move the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is very little hope for this new Clause. I am not, however, without some measure of optimism that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee may make a concession of some importance on this Clause. We believe that this Clause demands the very earnest attention and the most serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. If it receives that consideration, we believe that it will have behind it a substantial concession. Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1920, sets forth a number of individuals who come under the exemption of the £45, and these individuals are all put on a level. We suggest that in the case of a widowed mother there is no comparison with the other people referred to in the Section. The support of a widowed mother involves special responsibility. Some of us know of that responsibility from practical experience. It is one which we readily undertake, and if we relieve the community, as we do relieve the community, when we provide a home and shelter for a widowed mother, we are entitled to some special consideration. We suggest that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this matter the consideration which it deserves some concession may result. If he will yield to our claim, as he yielded to other demands earlier in the Debate, there is no fear of what can be done in 1990 this matter. I have heard it freely commented upon that in connection with the first Division which was taken this afternoon, Income Tax and Super-tax payers have received a concession amounting to £500,000, I do not know whether that is true or not, but I am satisfied that a substantial concession was given when that Division took place. If that can be done with the alacrity with which it was done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the insignificant sum that will be needed to give the concession provided for in this Clause ought to be readily conceded.
§ Sir R. HORNEThis Clause was considered on the Finance Bill last year and did not then find acceptance. The considerations which prevailed last year are equally relevant now. In fact, the financial circumstances now are more embarrassing than they were when we were dealing with the matter a year ago. Accordingly I see no reason why the Committee should come to a different opinion now from what it did then. The hon. Member used a phrase which indicated that the concessions would not cease with the case of the widowed mother. He referred to the man who provided for a widowed mother or somebody else to take her place, and said that this extra amount should be granted in such cases. That means that while the Amendment refers merely to the case of the widowed mother, there would be various ramifications by which other people would be brought in. I cannot profess to know where it would stop, but the particular proposal contained in this Amendment would cost the revenue of the present year a sum of £120,000. In these circumstances I need not elaborate any arguments to convince the Committee that the recommendations which the Royal Commission on Income Tax made which are now embodied in our financial system should be departed from so soon unless for very good reasons, which have not been advanced in this case.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
1992§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 273.
1993§ Sir D. MACLEANI think it would be for the convenience of the Committee as a whole if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could indicate how far he intends to go to-night.
§ Mr. ADAMSONBefore the right hon. Gentleman replies, I should like to put this point to him. As far as the Labour party are concerned, we should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go on. It is well known that the Labour party are meeting in their annual conference. There is a large number of our Members who will remain here at considerable inconvenience, and, naturally, they want to take part to the fullest possible extent in the discussions on the Finance Bill. I wish to put that consideration before the Chancellor of the Exchequer before he replies to my right hon. Friend.
§ Sir R. HORNEI desire to go as far as possible, but I am conscious of the fact that if any work is to be done to-morrow I must not overstrain the energies of the Committee to-night. I am anxious to meet the convenience of the Committee to the fullest possible extent. It is absolutely necessary, however, that we should at least accomplish the discussion of the Beer Duty to-night. There is another Amendment, following immediately after that in which hon. Members of the 1994 Labour party are interested, and I desire to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, in regard to it. If he wishes to have that Amendment taken I do not think it would occupy a large amount of time, as it could be discussed with a narrow compass, and we might taken it also before we adjourn.