§ Where the payment of a bonus in addition to his agreed wages is made by the workman employing a boy helper the boy shall not be called to pay income tax on any such amount which is paid by his fellow employee as a gift or allowance.—[Mr. Daggar.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Dagger (Abertillery)I beg to Move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is quite true that we have not had up to now much encouragement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, this new Clause affects an important section of the community, and one which has never enjoyed many if any privileges, and certainly never complete justice. I refer to the miners, and especially the boys who constitute a part of the miners. The concession, if made, will not mean a great financial sacrifice on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The House is aware that certain allowances are made in the case of men employed in the mining industry, such as for the purchase of particular clothes, tools and in some instances light and many other items. There is also an allowance—and here I am not claiming to speak for Great Britain, but I can claim to speak for the industry in South Wales, Monmouthshire and Gloucestershire—in the case of colliers who are in receipt of 4s. 6d. per week 1528 they pay to their helpers or boys in excess of the payment recorded in the colliery office. The boys look upon these payments as of great importance. As an ex-miner and a helper myself at one time I can say that these payments are matters of great interest to the boys, because not only are they described as pocket money but as an amount of money they receive in addition to the regular weekly payments made to them on pay day. Here, in this case, its value is lessened to the boy—not to the man who pays it—because he has to pay Income Tax upon it, although as I pointed out, the man for whom he works is free from the payment of tax on this 4s. 6d. The helper has to pay Income Tax upon what is really, and is legitimately described as, a gift. I hope, in view of the fact that this is causing a considerable amount of irritation among boys, and in some instances among the men who make the payment, that the Chancellor will accept the new Clause, accepting my statement for what it is worth that it will only involve a very small sacrifice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Ivor ThomasI beg to second the Motion.
My views on the subject of gifts are by now familiar to the Chancellor. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) has put a very persuasive case. As he says, the sum involved is exceedingly small, because there must be relatively few boys who pay Income Tax. In any case it is an addition to the agreed figures of wages and is therefore a bona fide gift. I do not think it is necessary to argue it at great length, as the general principles governing this question have been debated at great length in the House recently. I know the Chancellor has hardened his heart to-day, as he has warned us, against concessions. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) referred to his previous amiable disposition. I am afraid he has suffered from the occupational disease of Chancellors of the Exchequer. I hope that on this occasion he will feel able to make a small concession which will be very much appreciated in all the coalfields of the country.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton)I am very glad the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) has raised this matter, as it has given me an 1529 opportunity of clearing it up from the angle of the Inland Revenue. As my hon. Friend pointed out, these sums which are paid to boy helpers in the mining industry are in fact sums of money which the miner who pays them is entitled to charge against his own Income Tax assessment as business expenses. I think if that is accepted—my hon. Friend took pains to tell the House that that was in fact the practice, and it is a practice which the Inland Revenue approves of—it is quite clear that these payments are not so much gifts as definite payments for work done.
Even if the payment is in fact in the nature of a gift, and not a payment for work done, none the less, as was pointed out when we discussed not very long ago the question of Easter offerings, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. I. Thomas) is very familiar, if gifts are made to a taxpayer and are received by him in virtue of his employment, they are taxable just as much as any other part of his income. I am sorry, therefore, that in the circumstances there is no doubt that we must continue to regard these payments as being part of the income of the boy helper, and my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Clause.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.