§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Ellis Smith: In page 25, line 32, to leave out "the Exchequer," and to insert "a fund to be called the Social Security Fund."
525§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Young)I have to give the following Ruling. The Amendment would be out of order as incomplete and ineffective without some further proposal to identify or set up the fund. That further proposal is to be found in the proposed new Clause. But the new Clause is out of order as being outside the scope of the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is based upon resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means and its object is to make provision (by levying taxes and establishing or improving machinery for collecting them) for meeting expenditure authorised by Parliament: the authorising of expenditure for special purposes is not a proper subject for the Finance Bill.
§ 8.40 p.m.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI desire to raise a point of Order. I would not raise this point of Order under ordinary circumstances, but this is a special Clause that has been inserted in the Finance Bill, and, there fore, in my view, it enables us to raise a point of Order. My point of Order is based upon eight points which have been carefully looked up in Erskine May and in other proceedings of this House. There fore, Sir Robert, I hope you will be good enough to follow the eight points that I desire to raise. Before proceeding to them I consider that this Amendment raises several important constitutional points—
§ The Temporary ChairmanThe hon. Member must state his point of Order.
§ Mr. SmithMy point of Order is based upon the following eight points. On page 514 of Erskine May there is the following statement:
Providing that no new taxation is involved Standing Orders do not apply to the interception of money before it gets into the Exchequer, as by that means no new burden is imposed upon the taxpayer and no fresh charge put upon the Consolidated Fund or on monies provided by Parliament.Seeing that the Government have decided to insert this Clause in the Bill, surely it is logical that Parliament should have an opportunity of deciding how this balance should be allocated; and following upon that statement in Erskine May, and seeing that no new taxation is involved and that the proposal would not increase the burden upon the taxpayer, surely it is in order for Parliament to have an opportunity of dealing with this matter. My 526 next point is to be found on page 348 of Erskine May:The Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an Amendment to give such explanation of his Amendment as may be necessary to form a judgment upon it.On page 887—
§ The Temporary ChairmanI must ask the hon. Member not to argue the case at length, because the Chair has given its Ruling.
§ Mr. SmithThat is so, but seeing that this is a new Clause which has not been inserted before, that it is creating a precedent and is raising an important constitutional point, it is surely reasonable to ask the Chair to help us. I want it to be clear that I am not wanting to cross with the Chair at all, but that as this is an important matter and raises such an important point I feel strongly that I am right in asking the Chair to give us a little latitude. On 24th June, 1924, Mr. Speaker had been selecting Amendments, and an appeal was made to him by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I will quote from the Official Report:
Mr. Speaker: On the understanding that he will be brief, I will call the hon. Member."—[Official Report. 24th June, 1924; col. 383, Vol. 175.]The hon. Member was called and his Amendment was carried. It, therefore, seemed, since that could take place in the whole House, and as our proposal raises such an important precedent and constitutional point, that it was reasonable to ask the Chair to be generous enough to interpret the Standing Orders in a way to enable us to make an explanation of why we feel that this subject should be raised in this way. Finally, I submit the point of Order to you, Sir Dennis, and ask for your consideration now. If it cannot be given now, perhaps it might be given on the Report stage in order that we might be allowed to make an explanation on the issue that we desire to raise.
§ 8.47 p.m.
The ChairmanThe hon. Member was good enough to give me notice that he intended to question the Ruling upon which he understood that I had decided, namely, to rule his Amendment out of order. I have, therefore, had an opportunity of going into the question, and I thought it would be only courteous to him 527 and to the Committee, as well as to the hon. Member who has been good enough to assist me, by occupying the Chair, that I should come back in order to give the Committee that Ruling or to answer any questions which the hon. Member might have to put to me. The hon. Member just now quoted a case which referred to the exercise of the power of selection, but that is not the case here. I have come to the definite conclusion that this Amendment, coupled with the hon. Member's proposed new Clause, is out of order.
If there is any doubt on a matter of this kind the tradition of the Chair is that the benefit of such a doubt shall be in favour of the hon. Member who wishes to move the Motion or the Amendment, as the case may be. The present matter, however, has to do with what is in order on the Finance Bill, and, therefore, it is a matter of great importance. If the Chair comes to the conclusion, as I have done quite definitely, that an Amendment is out of order, it would be quite impossible in this case to go beyond that Ruling and to give any indulgence. The hon. Member's Amendment might have been itself in order if it had been followed by some other Amendment; that is to say, there is nothing definite in the Amendment which makes it out of order except—and this is a very important exception—that it is incomplete. In order to make it complete I have to turn to the proposed new Clause. I find it is one which I have been compelled to rule out of order. Therefore, that being out of order, the Amendment must be equally so.
I understand that the hon. Member who was in the Chair a few minutes ago has given the reasons for my decision. If the hon. Member desires to question that decision in any way I shall be quite happy to deal with his questions. I must, however, point out that the Finance Bill is a Bill of a peculiar nature. It is brought in every year for special purposes, and there are special rules and traditions of the House governing it. They have been extended to some extent in certain ways—to which I need not refer, because none of those extensions in any way applies to this particular case. The proposed new Clause would have the effect of proposing something which ought to be done by legislation for the express purpose and by the Committee of Supply. The Finance 528 Bill is not concerned with matters of that kind. It is not founded on Resolutions of the Committee of Supply but upon Resolutions in the Committee of Ways and Means. That means that the object of the Finance Bill is to find money to meet the expenditure which Parliament has sanctioned, is about to sanction or will sanction, in accordance with Estimates presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for the year.
The hon. Member will see, therefore, that to attempt to extend the Finance Bill into a means of deciding upon certain additional expenditure relating to additional funds for purposes of—I think the words of the Amendment are—"social needs"—
The ChairmanYes, to be applied to social needs; that is quite outside the scope of the Finance Bill, and would be raising a matter which should be dealt with in an altogether different manner than matters in the Finance Bill which must be dealt with by means of a Resolution in the Committee of Ways and Means. The matter proposed, on the other hand, must be dealt with by legislation and in Committee of Supply.
§ Mr. Aneurin BevanI gather that it would be competent for an hon. Member to oppose the Clause and to suggest that these moneys, instead of being used to wipe off the National Debt, should be used and held in suspense; that an argument would not be admitted addressed to the Committee as to the manner in which these moneys could immediately be used but that it would be in order to suggest that Parliament might at some time or other, in its wisdom, devote those moneys to other purposes than the purposes of the National Debt; and to indicate what those purposes might be.
The ChairmanAn hon. Member who embarked upon that line of argument would not be allowed to get very far. This is the kind of case to which I have referred again and again. It is one of those cases in which an hon. Member may be entitled just to refer to a matter but certainly not to argue it or to discuss it.
§ 8.54 p.m.
§ Mr. BateyI want to thank you, Sir Dennis, for coming to the Chair. Some of us are very keen on this Amendment and 529 we naturally thought that it would be in order. I understand your Ruling to be that the Amendment is not itself out of order but that it is out of order because the new Clause that we proposed to move later on is out of order.
The ChairmanThe hon. Member is not quite correct. I said that it might not by itself be out of order if it were complete, but it is not complete, and, therefore, by itself it is out of order.
§ Mr. BateyWhat I still understand is that, if the proposed new Clause had been differently worded, you would have been prepared to allow this Amendment to be discussed to-night —
The ChairmanThe hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, but I cannot conceive of any way in which it could have been differently worded so as to come into order.
§ Mr. BateyWe are very sorry, because we believe that this money, instead of going to the Exchequer, should be earmarked for old age pensions. We will be perfectly frank about that.
The ChairmanThat is the very thing that cannot be done in the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. GallacherYou have said that the words of the Amendment are not themselves out of order, but that the Amendment is incomplete. Surely, if it is not out of order to propose in this Amendment that there should be a Social Security Fund, it should be possible to draft a short Clause that would cover the maintenance of that Social Security Fund, say at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Surely such words could be found if there is already agreement that the proposal to set up a Social Security Fund is not in itself out of order, but is merely incomplete.
The ChairmanI have just said that I cannot conceive of anything which would have made it in order, and I am strengthened in that view by the title which hon. Members propose to give to that particular fund. Even if it were otherwise, the fact remains that there is not anything on the Order Paper that would make the Amendment complete and in order, and, therefore, it must be out of order.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 8.58 p.m.
§ Mr. E. SmithFirst of all I want to thank you, Sir Dennis, for the way in which you have dealt with the matter we have just been discussing. Having said that, I want to protest against the payment of this sum of £1,500,000 into the Exchequer in this way. I can visualise this position: Suppose that some wealthy generous people in this country decided that they wanted to make a gift to the Exchequer, perhaps of millions of pounds, in the way in which gifts have been made to philanthropic institutions or hospitals. If that were done, I contend that such sums should not go into the pool in this way, but that Parliament should have the opportunity of deciding for what purpose the gift should be used. I would say to Members in all quarters of the House that there is no more urgent and important question than the question which has been ruled out of order. If people were more familiar with the way in which our mothers and fathers are having to live on 10s. a week, with the increased cost of living and the increased mechanisation and all that it means, I am convinced that Members of the House would be more interested in the problem than they are. I am pleased to notice that interest in this matter appears to be growing among hon. Members in all parts of the House —
The ChairmanI hope that the hon. Member is not going to pursue the matter. I have indicated what would be in order.
§ Mr. SmithI quite appreciate that, and shall endeavour to keep within the limits of order as far as I possibly can. I am satisfied with having raised the problem, and I hope my view will be supported by other Members, in order that more interest may be stimulated in the question.
§ 9.1 p.m.
§ Mr. BevanThere is a point of substance in what my hon. Friend has said. Here are sums of money which accumulate to the credit of the National Debt Commissioners and which the Clause proposes should be devoted to reduction of the National Debt. The sum in itself is obviously not very substantial, and could not by itself be devoted to any wide and large purpose such as that indicated in the Amendment which has been ruled out of order, but, supposing the House 531 were to say that it is pot wise to liquidate and disperse these funds, but that it would be far better that they should be allowed to accumulate, if they were allowed to accumulate over a period of years there might be a discussion in Parliament and an indication on the part of the Government or of Members of the House of Commons that these funds, having been accumulated, should be devoted to a certain purpose.
One does not know why these balances exist at the moment. It may be because people forget that they hold stock, or because they have died and their relatives have not claimed the money; or it may be that some people holding national stock developed consciences and did not want to claim the interest. Suppose that Parliament said that in its judgment this fund ought to be devoted to some purpose which would be more attractive than merely attempting to wipe out a portion of this colossal debt, and that it should be used as the beginning of a fund for the increase of old age pensions. I am not suggesting that that is the use to which the money should be put, but the suggestion might be made. At once, if it became clear to people in the country that these unclaimed moneys were going to be used for some purpose which commanded general approval, larger numbers of people might develop more sensitive consciences and might leave larger sums of money unclaimed. I can imagine a campaign in the country on behalf of any worthy recipients of these moneys which might so stir the country as to lead to very large sums being left unclaimed, on the understanding that they would be used for these purposes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, and hon. Members on the other side of the House have told us, that the Government could not afford an increase of old age pensions. There may be many people in this country who are anxious to prove that there is enough money in the country for that purpose by not claiming their share of the outgoings on national loans, and they might say to the Government that they were perfectly willing that a certain percentage of their claims on the National Debt should remain unclaimed provided that the money was used for the purpose of increasing old age pensions. Indeed, it would afford 532 an excellent test of how much genuine and substantial support there is in the country for such a proposal on the part of people who, I believe, would be prepared to pay higher taxes in order to further it, or not to take as much revenue as they are having now if the money so sacrificed were used for such purposes as old age pensions.
The ChairmanThe hon. Member must remember that this Clause only provides for the payment of money from this particular fund into the national Exchequer. He may discuss the advisability or otherwise of doing that, but, beyond a bare reference, he must not discuss other methods of using the money.
§ Mr. BevanI agree that it would be highly improper and discourteous of me, and entirely contrary to the spirit in which we have conducted this matter, to argue the merits of increasing old age pensions at present in this country. All I would argue is that if the fund were allowed to accumulate, its very existence would suggest means to which it might be devoted, and among the uses that might be suggested are old age pensions, widows' pensions, pensions for spinsters, and things of that sort. I submit, as a point of some substance, that as soon as it became known that it might be used for that purpose, there might be an enormous increase in the amount of the fund. So it seems an injudicious and prodigal thing to disperse into the Exchequer funds which, if allowed to accumulate, might be used for better purposes than merely reducing this mountain of debt by £1,000,000 or so.
What happened during the War? I believe it is true that a very large number of people during the War refused to take payment on the loans they had made to the State, because they considered they had made fortunes out of war necessities and ought not to be recipients of interest on such money as they had lent to the State. If war broke out millions of pounds would be made in profits, and it might be that a large number of people, representing vast sums of money, would be prepared to leave their revenues unclaimed if they knew that the money was to be used for a purpose of this sort. But, otherwise, the money will merely pass into the amorphous national accounts, and nobody will be given any additional inducement to leave it unclaimed. I suggest that because of these 533 circumstances and the possibilities involved if a war broke out, because we know that large numbers of people are only too anxious to devote their incomes to worthy purposes if they could find them, it would be desirable to keep this fund in existence.
§ 9.I0 p.m.
§ Mr. GallacherI should like to say a word or two in support of the arguments which have been put forward for maintaining this fund and doing everything possible to build it up in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, instead of allowing it to be handed over to the Treasury. At any time some question might arise for which a fund of this sort would be immediately required. In this Finance Bill we are providing for a most extraordinary accumulation of money for the Government's purposes, yet if the House of Commons had to make a sudden decision that called for immediate realisation of a given amount of money, there would be the greatest difficulty in getting that money, for the simple reason that there has never been any attempt to create a fund of this kind. We know that many of the most deserving people of this country are going on short rations. Hon. Members opposite will seriously argue that the money cannot be found to meet the needs of these people. I am prepared to assert that Pharaoh had a heart as soft as butter in comparison with the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If at any time one raises with the Chancellor a question that affects some of these people who are in the most urgent need, his reply is that he has no money. If he has no money for that purpose, why does he not, instead of sapping this fund, help it to grow?
This Clause should not be in the Bill. I am certain that if the matter were left to a free vote of the House of Commons, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of an increase in old age pensions. Here is a Finance Bill the like of which has never before been seen in this country, and in the middle of it there is this provision by which the Government are to dig into the National Debt Commissioners' account for conscience money. But if this money was accumulated and used for a valuable social purpose, such as that which has been suggested from these benches, of increasing old age pensions, there would be people 534 in all parts of the country ready to give up their dividends, or ready at all times to give up a certain share of their stolen wealth in order to soothe their consciences by helping what everybody recognises to be a really good and deserving cause. It is of the greatest importance, in view of the rock-like, deadly attitude of the Government when it comes to the question of getting money for social needs, that we should try to build up an accumulation of money somewhere or other upon which we could rely for these purposes. We should either get rid of Clause 25, and provide an opportunity for accumulating money, or get rid of the Government.
§ Mr. QuibellGet rid of the Government then.
§ Mr. GallacherI am certain that if the direct needs which we have suggested are to be met and the people are to be considered at all—which they are not as far as the Finance Bill is concerned—the second alternative would meet the heart's desire of the best people of this country, namely, to get rid of the Government.
§ 9.17 p.m.
§ Mr. TinkerWe are entitled to some explanation of this matter from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Clause 23 deals with the amount allowed for meeting the National Debt charges. A total of£230,000,000 is allowed for that purpose, and in Clause 25 we are told that a certain amount can be claimed from time to time from the National Debt Commissioners from unclaimed dividends. Are we not entitled to know what resources they have from unclaimed dividends? I did not know that there was any unclaimed money. If there is a vast amount, it is time it was brought into use and not allowed to lie idle. We are told that £1,500,000 can be claimed from this fund. We on these benches constantly ask that certain money ought to be found for other purposes, and we are just as constantly told that it is impossible, owing to national stringency and the great calls for other purposes, for any extra money to be found. Anybody who examines Clause 25 will get the idea that there is a vast amount of money somewhere. We are anxious to know the total resources of this fund. If the resources are sufficiently large to meet the particular 535 purpose for which we are anxious to get hold of it, we might be able to stir the imagination of the House to agree with us. I believe that it is the general opinion in all parts of the Committee that, if there was money at all available for the purpose I have in mind, but which purpose I will not mention, that money would readily be given for that purpose. If the Financial Secretary can tell us what resources we have, we may later on be able to put down a new Clause providing for some of the money to be used in other directions. We are entitled to that information. We are prepared to carry this Debate a long way to-night unless we get to know something definite. We expect some answer before the Clause is finally passed. If that answer is satisfactory, we shall let the Clause go through, but if it is not, we shall ask the Committee to divide against it in order to show the feeling that exists on this matter.
§ 9.21 p.m.
§ Mr. SilvermanIt appears that apparently there is a fund in existence, but no one appears to know whose money it is. It seems to be money owing by the State to somebody—money which has not been claimed. If there is one thing that is perfectly clear about this matter, it is that the money does not belong to the State. This is money which the State has contracted to pay to somebody. It is not the moral right of the State to retain it for its own purposes. No private trustee would be entitled to do it. I understand that in banks up and down the country there are from time to time large sums in the way of unclaimed balances, and we would not propose at any time to allow a bank to put its unclaimed balances into a fund for distribution to its shareholders. Yet we feel ourselves to be entitled, if we are to follow the Treasury in this matter, when we have money belonging to other people and nobody comes forward to claim it, to use it for the general purposes of the community. We have no moral right to use it for our general purposes at all. This is a sovereign Assembly and no doubt it can decide to do anything it likes with anybody's money or property at any time, and I suppose that there is no legal power to prevent it from taking, not merely unclaimed dividends, but claimed dividends as well.
536 If we allowed the money to accumulate, we would have in the background a sum of money on which we could fall back from time to time to meet purposes which appeal to our sense of charity and pity, and to carry out what is due to the humbler and more hard-pressed members of the community. If we found it impossible to pay the money to the rightful owners, or if they did not choose to claim it, we could use it, if we chose, for the benefit of people who needed it more than the owners. But in no case are we entitled to put it into our own pockets and treat it as our own.
§ 9.24 p.m.
§ Mr. Garro JonesI hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be good enough to give us an answer. We are engaged in presenting a very serious problem for his consideration, which is not limited to the amount of unclaimed balances in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. It is obvious that the amount of unclaimed balances in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners is a mere fraction of the unclaimed balances in the hands of other financial institutions. It would not be in order for me to embark upon a prolonged discussion of that matter, but if there is at least £1,500,000 in the hands of the National Debt Commisisoners it is pertinent to ask how much in the way of unclaimed balances is in the hands not only of the joint stock banks but the savings banks and all those depositories of public money throughout the State. Let us examine for a moment the principles which ought to govern us in the allocation of these unclaimed balances, because the principle is the same whether the money is in the hands of the joint stock banks or the Treasury.
The Deputy-ChairmanI am afraid that we cannot discuss the principle of unclaimed balances of joint stock banks. That is outside the Clause.
§ Mr. Garro JonesI recognise the validity of that remark, but I have now concluded my remarks about the joint stock banks and was about to discuss the destination of unclaimed balances, which is the same thing whether they are in the hands of the State or of any other institution. What is an unclaimed balance? It is nothing more or less than lost property. It has been deposited in a certain place 537 and by reason of a variety of accidents it has become lost in those hands in the same way as if I left an umbrella in a tube train. There is no other valid principle which we can apply in dealing with those unclaimed balance. If I, finding an umbrella in a tube train, fail to return it to the proper quarter, I am guilty of a crime known as stealing by finding. It is precisely this crime, looked at from a higher ethical point of view, which the House of Commons is being asked to commit at the instigation of the Government. I really think that unless this money is to be allocated definitely to the whole of the community, irrespective of how much taxation they pay on the basis of need, then we are committing an unethical principle in passing this Clause.
Another matter is whether in truth this is money which ought properly to be taken into income account. It appears to me that this is not legitimate income at all. It is neither more nor less than capital, and as such it ought to be applied, if the State is going to establish a claim to it, to wiping out the National Debt and not in application to the current revenue of the year. We are entitled to some observation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This is a subject on which the greatest secrecy is always observed. From time to time there have been powerful agitations by the Press and the public for the disclosure of these unclaimed balances, but always the Government of the day has turned a deaf ear to the appeal. It is time that the House of Commons had some light thrown on the situation, and I hope that the Minister will not shirk his responsibility.
§ 9.29 p.m.
§ Captain CrookshankThere is certainly no desire not to shed light on it, and, in fact, I did shed light on it on the 3rd May. If hon. Members had been here at the time the Budget Resolutions were passed they would have an explanation on this by myself. I have nothing really to add to what I said on that occasion. I would point out to the Committee that the only effect of voting against this Clause would be that the money in this unclaimed dividends account would stay where it is and accumulate a little more during the next year. On the other hand, if the proposal in the Clause is accepted, there shall be transferred as and when the Treasury request £1,500,000 which is not required in the account for the purpose of 538 the account; it would be paid into the Exchequer for the purpose of the finances of the year. As the House, on the Report stage of the Resolutions, accepted the principle, I hope that the Committee, on this Bill, will take exactly the same view.
I should have liked to have controverted some of the statements which would have been in order if the ruling had not been given, but that is not permitted to me on this occasion either. We shall have to reserve what we had to say until some other time. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) meant just now when he said that there was no moral right to use this money for the general purpose of the community. If there is no moral right to use it for the general purpose of the community, I am not sure what moral right there is to use it for a specific purpose.
§ Mr. SilvermanIf you have in your possession money which is not yours, there may be a very different moral aspect if you proceed to use it for your own purpose, on the one hand or if, on the other, you proceed to use it for same philanthropic or altruistic purpose.
§ Captain CrookshankIt is not mine either, and we are going to use it towards the general expenditure of the State.
§ Mr. Garro JonesIs this the income from a capital sum; is this a part of the capital sum, or is it the whole of the sum of unclaimed balances in this branch of the national credit?
§ Captain CrookshankAll that was said before. Perhaps I may explain what this sum represents. Certain dividends on Government stocks are not claimed by the stockholders. After a certain period, generally five years, those sums are transferred to the National Debt Commissioners, who are liable to repay such dividends if and when they are claimed. Experience over a long period of years has shown that nothing like those claims are ever paid. The National Debt Commissioners keep an account, and what is not required for the purpose earns money by being lent, and in course of time it comes to a sum in excess of what might be considered reasonable liability. It is, relatively speaking, only quite a small sum with which we are now concerned. The position of the account at the end of the last financial year on 31st March 539 showed assets to the market value of £2,276,000. If the hon. Gentleman considers that this is a crime from the higher ethical aspect, if he looks at what I said on the previous occasion he will observe that the first time that a transaction of this kind took place, the transfer was at the time of Mr. Gladstone.
§ 9.35 P.m.
§ Mr. BateyThe Financial Secretary has tried to explain the Clause, but there is this difference between to-night and when the question was before us on 3rd May. On 3rd May we had not our attention fixed on the Clause as we have had it fixed to-night. We have had our attention fixed upon it more particularly because we could not move our Amendment. All we can do is to speak on the Clause itself. I am not clear about some of the things which the Financial Secretary has sought to explain. He talked about the National Debt Commissioners waiting five years for unclaimed dividends. Why five years? Is not the ordinary term six years? Why are the Commissioners able to claim these sums at the end of five years? What struck me was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking power to take sums not exceeding £1,500,000, but if I rightly understood the Financial Secretary he said that there was a sum of over £2,000,000 lying with the Commissioners. If that be so, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer satisfied with £1,500,000?
I disagree with the Clause and am strongly opposed to it, and I hope that there will be a Division, so that we may register our vote against the Clause. I am glad, however, that the Clause is there, because it has directed attention to money that we think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not take. It should be left for other purposes. The Clause has served to bring forward a new idea, that of a social security fund. If this Clause had not been in the Bill, we should not have thought of any such thing as a social security fund.
§ Mr. BateyI am not discussing it; I was only saying that it is a new idea. It is surprising how new ideas grow. I 540 maintain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not take this £1,500,000 and apply it to revenue purposes. When the question of Death Duties was first raised, I understand that there was considerable doubt whether that money should be taken for revenue purposes. That, however, is settled, and we cannot get away from it; but here is an opportunity for a new start with a new idea in regard to the use of these unclaimed dividends. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer claim these dividends up to the amount of £1,500,000? The Financial Secretary says that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not take the money it will be left where it is. My reply is that it would not be left there very long, because we should soon teach the Financial Secretary the purposes to which the money might be put. Some of my colleagues have stated that if this money could be devoted to charitable purposes, the idea would develop rapidly. People are not hard-hearted. Here are two announcements:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledges receipt of £18 from J.K.L.The Board of Inland Revenue acknowledges receipt of £5 conscience money from A.E.Some people have consciences. Everybody is not hard-hearted and close-fisted. If we could leave this money where it is until we could have time to develop a scheme to which the money might be put, that would be much better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking it. This money could be used as a nucleus of a fund to which people with money could subscribe, and we could use the fund for a purpose of real value to the country-It would be far better to leave the money where it is at the present time. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants money, we can tell him where he can get it. If he says that he cannot balance his Budget unless he gets this money, I would advise him to reduce the Surtax level to £1,500. He could get his money in a hundred different ways. Therefore, I say, leave this money where it is.
§ Mr. GallacherDoes the Financial Secretary not agree that a fund of this kind would be very desirable for those people who have sympathy with social reform, in view of the way that his Government have shown their lack of sympathy for the old age pensioners.
§ 9.44 p.m.
§ Mr. BevanThe financial Secretary said that the amount of money was comparatively small. It might be much larger if its destination was more practical; in other words, if it was possible for the money to be used for purposes which would appeal to the citizens. I know he cannot answer on this point, but is he not aware that this sum of £1,500,000 is more than his Government provided for the distressed areas in the first year of the Distressed Areas Bill.
§ If, therefore, £1,500,000 was regarded as more than adequate to deal with that problem, he might leave it where it is for the present, because there are many people in the distressed areas who would be far worthier recipients of this money than using it for the relief of the taxpayer. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friends will vote against the Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 102.
543| Division No. 202.] | AYES. | [9.45 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.Col. G. J. | Hannah, I. C. | Reid, W. Allan (Derby) |
| Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead) | Harris, Sir P. A. | Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) |
| Apsley, Lord | Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Aske, Sir R. W. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Rosbotham, Sir T. |
| Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Baillie, Sir A. W. M. | Hely-Hutchinson, M. R. | Rowlands, G. |
| Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | Hepworth, J. | Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R. |
| Balniel, Lord | Higgs, W. F. | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. |
| Barrie, Sir C. C. | Hogg, Hon. Q. McG. | Salman, Sir I. |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) | Holdsworth, H. | Salt, E. W. |
| Beechman, N. A. | Holmes, J. S. | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Bower, Comdr. R. T. | Hopkinson, A. | Sandeman, Sir N. S. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Horsbrugh, Florence | Sanderson, Sir F. B. |
| Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness) | Howitt, Dr. A. B. | Sandys, E. D. |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Schuster, Sir G. E. |
| Brocklebank, Sir Edmund | Hutchinson, G. C. | Shepperson, Sir E. W. |
| Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.) | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. |
| Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) | Jarvis, Sir J. J. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st) |
| Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L. | Jennings, R. | Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. |
| Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Joel, D. J. B. | Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich) |
| Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) |
| Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) | Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Smithers, Sir W. |
| Colfox, Major Sir W. P. | Jones, L. (Swansea W.) | Somerset. T. |
| Conant, Captain R. J. E. | Keeling, E. H. | Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald |
| Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) | Kerr, Colonel C I. (Montrose) | Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Spens. W. P. |
| Cox, H. B. Trevor | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld) |
| Crooke, Sir J. Smedley | Lees-Jones, J. | Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Leech, Sir J. W. | Storey, S. |
| Cross, R. H. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | Lewis, O. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Cruddas, Col. B. | Liddall, W. S. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Little, Sir E. Graham- | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Little, J. | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. | Tasker, Sir R. I. |
| Dodd, J. S. | Loftus, P. C. | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Dugdale, Captain T. L. | Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Duggan, H. J. | McCorquodale, M. S. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Edge, Sir W. | Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. |
| Ellis, Sir G. | Manningham-Buller, Sir M. | Touche, G. C. |
| Elliston, Capt. G. S. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Emery, J. F. | Markham, S. F. | Turton, R. H. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Marsden, Commander A. | Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan |
| Errington, E. | Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Erskine-Hill, A. G. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) | Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. |
| Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) | Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) | Water house, Captain C. |
| Fleming, E. L. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) | Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie |
| Fremantle, Sir F. E. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) | Wayland, Sir W. A |
| Furness, S. N. | Munro, P. | Webbe, Sir W. Harold |
| Fyfe, D. P. M. | Nall, Sir J. | Wells, Sir Sydney |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H. | White, H. Graham |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Gluckstein, L. H. | Owen, Major G. | Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Goldie, N. B. | Palmer, G. E. H. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. |
| Gower, Sir R. V. | Perkins, W. R. D. | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Ponsonby, Col. C. E. | Wragg. H. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | Radford, E. A. | Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C. |
| Grimston, R. V. | Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H. | York, C. |
| Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.) | Ramsden, Sir E. | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H | Reed, A. C. (Exeter) | Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain McEwen. |
| Hambro, A. V. | Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adams. D (Consett) | Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Messer, F. |
| Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) | Green, W. H. (Deptford) | Milner, Major J. |
| Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford) | Grenfell, D. R | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Adamson, W. M. | Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) | Naylor, T. E. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Hayday, A. | Noel-Baker, P. J. |
| Ammon, C. G. | Henderson, J.(Ardwick) | Oliver, G. H. |
| Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Paling, W. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Hills, A. (Pontefract) | Parkinson, J. A. |
| Barnes, A. J. | Hollins, A. | Pearson, A. |
| Batey, J. | Hopkin, D. | Price, M. P. |
| Bellenger, F. J. | Isaacs, G. A. | Pritt, D. N. |
| Benson, G. | Jagger, J. | Quibell, D. J. K. |
| Bevan, A. | Jenkins, A, (Pontypool) | Richards, R. (Wrexham) |
| Broad, F. A. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Ridley, G. |
| Bromfield, W. | Jones, A. C. (Shipley) | Riley, B. |
| Brown, C. (Mansfield) | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. | Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) |
| Buchanan, G. | Kirby, B. V. | Saxton, T. M. |
| Burke, W. A. | Kirkwood, O. | Silverman, S. S. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lathan, G. | Simpson, F. B. |
| Chater, D. | Lawson, J. J. | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| Cooks, F. S. | Leach, W. | Stephen, C. |
| Collindridge, F. | Lee, F. | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) |
| Cove, W. G. | Leonard, W. | Thurtle. E. |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Leslie, J. R. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Daggar, G. | Logan, D. G. | Watson, W. McL. |
| Dalton, H. | Lunn, W. | Westwood, J. |
| Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) | Macdonald, G. (Ince) | Whiteley, W. (Blaydon) |
| Davies, S.O. (Merthyr) | Mc Entee, V. La T. | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | McGhee, H. G. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Ede, J. C. | McGovern, J, | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) | MacLaren, A. | Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) |
| Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Maclean, N. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Gallacher, W. | Mainwaring, W. H. | |
| Gardner, B. W. | Marshall, F. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Garro Jones, G. M. | Mathers, G. | Mr. Tinker and Mr. Bills Smith. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 26 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.