§ (1) Where any individual shows that he has during the year in respect of which an assessment of Income Tax has been made upon him incurred expenditure due to the 1534 confinement of his wife, including the fees of physicians and nurses and other costs immediately attributable to the confinement he shall, on making a claim, for the purpose be entitled to repayment of the amount of the tax on the expenditure so incurred.
§ (2) All the provisions of the Income Tax Acts which relate to claims for any allowance or deduction or the proof to be given with respect to those claims shall apply to claims for repayment under this Section, and the proof to be given with respect to those claims.—[Major Hills.]
§ Major HILLSI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Though I did not get the support of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) on the last new Clause, I am quite certain that I shall get it on this one, for this new Clause allows the father to deduct from his Income Tax return the cost of his wife's confinement, and that deduction is to be allowed whatever may be the number of children. It becomes an increasing benefit, not according to the wealth or position of the parent, but according to the number of the family. This is meant for the encouragement of children. The hon. Member for Don Valley complained that nothing was proposed to be done on the last occasion in respect of those whose incomes were below the Income Tax limit. I submit to him that the class at the bottom of the Income Tax ladder is a very valuable class. It represents people on their way up in the world, and it is very important that they should be encouraged and produce children. The more children they produce, the bigger the family, and therefore there would be less chance of that family becoming extinct. I said a short time ago that unless there were three children to each married pair the stock would die out.
I do not know whether I can expect or hope for any more favourable treatment from my right hon. Friend, but I would put this to the Committee. The cost of confinement is a very heavy cost, and a bigger proportionate cost to parents with small incomes. Though the parents with a small income may not have an expensive doctor and nurse, the proportionate cost is much greater. Therefore, this Clause does fulfil all the requirements that the hon. Member for 1535 Don Valley thought should be attached to a reform of this sort. It is one that encourages the production of large families, and it is one which benefits, especially, the poorer families. In the hope that this smaller concession may meet with a more favourable reception, I beg to move the Clause.
§ Mr. McNEILLI am afraid I must say "No" to this new Clause, as I did to the last one. I cannot see any reason why my hon. and gallant Friend desires to move this particular Clause, which appears to be a sort of converse to birth control, for his purpose here is to encourage an increase of population. Apart from anything else, that is not the function of taxation. However desirable it may be to increase the population, I submit that it is not the function of the Treasury, not the function of taxation, to promote movements of that sort.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWhy do we have children's allowances at all? Why are the present children's allowances permitted by the State?
§ Mr. McNEILLThey are not allowed for the purpose of encouraging large families at all. They are to enable the parent of the family to discharge his duty to his family, which is quite a different thing. This Clause is open to exactly the same objection as the last one. That is to say, the less the claimant requires the more he gets. It is an encouragement to people to be very reckless in regard to the class of medical attendance and nursing and nursing homes they select. They go to a very fashionable ladies' doctor and a very fashionable neighbourhood and take very expensive rooms in a nursing home in the neighbourhood of Cavendish Square—and all this expense my hon. and gallant Friend's wants, to a certain extent, to be borne by the State. That is to say, part of the expenses so incurred are to be a deduction from the tax which otherwise they would have to pay. I see no reason for that whatever. Why, if a man is to be assisted in this particular way with regard to taxation on account of the confinement of his wife, apart altogether from my hon. and gallant Friend's objects, should he not get similar assistance in other ill-nesses 1536 much more dangerous and probably more onerous from the financial point of view?
Look at the sort of demands that immediately would be made on the Treasury. I have no doubt there are heaps of hon. Members here who could bring very hard cases. They could bring forward cases within their own knowledge perhaps of men in very straitened circumstances whose wives required a very dangerous operation which could only be performed, perhaps, by some very skilful and expensive surgeon. Why should a man be denied that particular assistance, if his neighbour, when in the ordinary course of nature his wife goes through a confinement—a very much less dangerous situation than that of many requiring surgical treatment—could get assistance in the way proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend? I think on that ground alone we ought to resist this proposal. I am fortified again by the views of the Royal Commission very often quoted in this House. Hon. Members will no doubt remember the passage to which I refer. I will read it to the Committee, because it lays down a very important principle.
We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability, such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled persons; or to give compassionate rebate to persons who are compelled to maintain and pay personal attendants; or special relief to disabled persons in view of their decreased earning capacity. These claims, while differing in degree, all arise out of the personal or domestic circumstances of the taxpayer, and although we are conscious that in particular cases the operation of the general rule may result in individual hardship, we feel that we cannot advise any general relaxation of the principles on which the tax is levied.That is a very sound principle which I think the House of Commons ought to maintain, otherwise we shall be met with all kinds of demands for those hard cases which, when they are recited in this House, arouse every one's sympathies. Unless the House of Commons lays down some very definite financial rule upon which we must impose taxation, instead of allowing themselves to be swayed by sentiment or appeals, however sincere and eloquent they may be, we shall only get into great difficulties. I hope the Committee will support the Government in refusing this request.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe Financial Secretary has not met the point at all. This is not a question of compassion. We are not citing hard cases. We are citing the case of men with meagre incomes, young people who before they become engaged discuss the question as to whether they shall have a a family or not. They certainly discuss the question after they are married. They sum up the cost. It is the cost which prevents them. The ordinary minded man and woman on getting married wants to have children, but the cost is a deterrent. They decide that it is too expensive, that is the only reason for their not having children. Is that a good thing for the State? Do we want to encourage these people to have children, or do we not? I thought the Conservative party was the great Imperialistic party and that they wanted a great young vigorous stock to spring up.
§ Mr. McNEILLHear, hear!
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe Financial Secretary agrees. The intention of this Clause, it may need improvement, is to encourage young people who marry to have children. It is not proposing to give a compassionate allowance to the sick and imbecile, but to encourage young healthy people to bring families into the world for the good of the State.
§ Mr. McNEILLIf the hon. and gallant Member thinks that that is what I said, or whether he is merely using his genius as a dialectician, I do not know, but I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that these hard cases would have a, much greater claim than the young couple.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThe hon. Gentleman read from the Report of the Royal Commission, and he said that he would prefer to grant a rebate to the old people with one foot in the grave than to pay for this attendance. He would not give any encouragement at all. We should take an Imperial view of this matter; that the State should do something to help young couples who are getting married to have children. Perhaps we shall make a little progress before next Friday.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.