§ Notwithstanding anything in any Rule or Statute to the contrary it shall be lawful to deduct as expenses from any profits or gains by way of earned income any cost incurred by a blind person in travelling to or from his work over and above that which would normally be incurred by a person not incapacitated by blindness.—[Mr. Hogg.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HoggI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This concession for which I ask is one which I hope will meet with the general sympathy of the Committee. The object of this new Clause is to put a blind person in at least as favourable a position as if he were not blind. Under the present law, ordinarily speaking, the expenses of travelling cannot be deducted from earned income for Income Tax purposes. But it is quite obvious that a blind person has more travelling expenses than other people. He may have to hire a guide. I was moved to put down this Clause by a case in my own constituency. I was approached by the local organisation for the blind about the case of a blind war-worker, a gentleman totally blind, who ordinarily would not be in employment at all. In addition to his bus fares he had to pay 12s. 6d. a week to 2197 a guide to lead him from his house to the bus stop, and not unnaturally he desired to deduct 12s. 6d. a week from his earned income for the purpose of Income Tax. Otherwise, lie was obviously having to pay out, by reason of the fact that he was blind, a sum far greater than a worker who is not blind.
Originally, I thought this was a matter which could be dealt with by one of the concessions about which we have been hearing, the extra-statutory concessions, or under war legislation. I asked a Question of the Chancellor with these objects in mind. This is the answer I got:
As I explained in reply to your question in the House on 28th March the general position is that no Income Tax deduction is allowable to an employee in respect of the exper.ses of travelling to and from his work, Under Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1941, or Section 26 of the Finance Act, 5942, however, an employee whose place of work or residence has changed through circumstances connected with the war can claim Income Tax deduction, up to £10 in the year, in respect of any additional expenses of travelling to and from work which he has to bear by reason of the change. These Sections only give relief to employees whose travelling expenses to their places of work were increased because war conditions, had necessitated a change in their place of work or place of residence. They do not extend to cases where there is no question of a change of the place of am employee's work or residence, and therefore do not afford any relief in the case of Mr. Wright, who had no employment before November, 1943.Then the Chancellor goes on to say that he has sympathy with this case, and that suggestions have been made from time to time that a blind person should be given special relief from Income Tax because of his disability, and he says:It has never been possible to accept these suggestions.I feel that the Committee will support me when I ask for this concession.Blind people all over the civilised world, and even in countries not civilised, have been the subject of special consideration and special compassion from time immemorial. It is only fair, in my submission, that when a blind person has the courage and determination to go to work he should be put, as regards expenses, in exactly the same position as a person who is not blind. To do that it is necessary to make him a special concession. The concession for which I am asking is that any blind person should be entitled to deduct as expenses from any profits or 2198 gains by way of earned income, any cost incurred by him in travelling to and from his work over and above that which would normally be incurred by a person not incapacitated by blindness. I am not asking that he should be privileged in any way, that he should be entitled to deduct his bus fare, but that if, like my constituent, he has to employ a guide, or perhaps keep a dog to take him to his place of work, he should be entitled to deduct the cost as an expense, which commonsense tells us it is.
§ Mr. Tinker (Leigh)I would like to support this new Clause. I think everybody will be in sympathy with it, though the Chancellor will have a difficulty in determining how the concession can be granted without running the risk of its being infringed. If that could be made easy I do not think there would be any doubt the Chancellor would agree to it. There cannot be many blind people affected by this, but they are certainly put to greater expense than the ordinary person. They are entitled to some practical sympathy from those who enjoy good health and eyesight. We all want to do what we can for a blind person and if he is doing some extra work for the war we ought to meet him as well as we can. I have seen people led by dogs and assisted across the road by other people. One has deep sympathy with such cases. We have an opportunity, without incurring a big financial liability, to show our feeling for them.
§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)I would like to support this new Clause. I happen to be the honorary treasurer of an eye hospital where we deal with many thousands of people suffering from blindness. It would be a concession of no consequence to the national revenue if such people could be afforded the facilities suggested by my hon. Friend. Take, for example, the case of Sir Beachcroft Towse, our blind V.C., a man who has done magnificent service for the community since the last war. It seems absurd that in travelling from place to place in this country, doing public service of incalculable value, he should have to pay his own expenses without any con-cession on the part of the Exchequer. There are many other blind persons doing magnificent work. We have in our munitions factories facilities to enable blind persons to be trained, even in the most 2199 delicate work connected with components of war weapons. These people sometimes have to travel considerable distances to their employment. It is only reasonable in these cases that the concession suggested should be made. I believe that the sympCommittee will be with the blind, and it will be a practical manifestation of it if we can say to the country that the House of Commons is prepared to recognise the work which the blind have been doing, at great personal sacrifice, for the war effort.
§ Sir W. WaylandI would like to support the proposed new Clause. As chairman of a blind club I recognise the difficulties. A great number of the blind have to be led to the club. I doubt whether the great majority or any of them come within the scope of Income Tax, and there must be very few who would come under the proposed new Clause. I suppose 99 per cent. of the blind people of this country do not come within the Income Tax laws, but there must be some who come within those laws during the war, and I think that the Chancellor might make this concession. It would not mean much to the Exchequer; yet it would go very far towards ameliorating the financial condition of some of these people who are giving their services during the war, whereas they would not be working in time of peace.
§ Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyme)I have always maintained that this country, which comes, presumably, in the category of civilised countries, does relatively little for the blind. Most blind people are among the lower-paid workers when they are in gainful occupation, and, when they have no other means of subsistence, they come in the lowest categories from an economic point of view. Unfortunately, we have not the figures, but the number of blind workers cannot be high. I should imagine that those relatively few blind people who are working under war conditions, and who have to face, among other things, the blackout, a still greater difficulty in the case of blind people, will require assistance from either an animal or a person. If the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has erred at all he has erred, if I may say so, on the side of under-statement, because our imagination and our sym- 2200 pathies are one thing, but our practical support is what the blind require. In no circumstances would this concession be likely to be abused, and it would impose on the Exchequer no great degree of sacrifice as far as money is concerned. Therefore, I think the new Clause ought to commend itself to Members on all sides of the Committee.
§ Sir Frank Sanderson (Ealing)I rise to support this new Clause. I think there is a general feeling in all parts of the Committee that it is a Clause which my right hon. Friend might accept. I appreciate, however, the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), that there may be some difficulty in arriving at a formula which would make it possible to determine what expenditure has in fact been incurred. Perhaps, if my right hon. Friend is not able to accept this new Clause, he might consider, between now and the Report stage, framing a Clause which would achieve the object which we all have so close at heart.
§ Mr. AsshetonThe hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who put his case so persuasively, said that he felt sure there would be a general, measure of sympathy in the Committee. It is certainly true that there is a general measure of sympathy for blind people. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is not here to deal with this question, because I know that he has taken a particular interest in the case of Mr. Wright, about whom the hon. Member had written to him. He gave his personal attention to that case. But, however much sympathy we may have with these cases, there are one or two considerations which I would like to put before the Committee. It is really not possible to use the Income Tax legislation as a means of ironing out all the sad inequalities which there are in human nature, in human suffering, and in human circumstances. There was, as the Committee is aware, a very comprehensive Report by a Royal Commission on Income Tax, over which the late Lord Colwyn presided, and they gave great attention to examining, particularly, allowances and expenses of all kinds. I would like to read what the Royal Commission said with regard to this matter, because they were an important Commission, and they gave close attention to evidence on these problems. They said: 2201
We have been asked to recommend allowances for expenses arising out of illness or disability such as the travelling expenses of attendants of disabled person; 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.In 1939 the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) moved a new Clause to the Finance Bill, to grant certain increased personal allowances to blind people. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Simon, rejected that Clause. He said:I am sorry to say that sympathetic as we may feel I think we ought not to accept this proposal, for it is one of an entirely novel character to which there is really no end. It is essential for the purposes of the Income Tax as it has been devised and administered by various Governments in this country that the reliefs that are given should not be those given on personal grounds of disability or suffering but are simply reliefs to different categories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1939; Vol. 349, C. 1011.]Where would such a concession lead us? The case made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford is a strong case; but is the case any less strong for a lame or infirm person who finds difficulty in travelling?
§ Mr. HoggI do not think that my right hon. Friend's question to me is quite pertinent. The new Clause relates to travelling expenses for a person who is actually in work, that is to say, expenses which he actually incurs in work. It is not a claim for relief for somebody who happens to be suffering from a disability.
§ Mr. AsshetonI suggest that, if a lame or infirm person has great difficulty in getting to work, and he has to take taxi-cabs instead of ordinary public conveyances, it is difficult to differentiate between him and a blind person. There are all sorts of cases which come very close to that. We are constantly being asked for allowances for people who have to bear the expense of artificial limbs, or aids to hearing for the deaf, and so on, and even for those who have to use spectacles. Once you have departed from this rule which the Royal Commission laid down, and which all Chancellors of 2202 the Exchequer have adhered to ever since, I do not think you will be able to avoid going down the slippery slope of concession after concession. Because there are hard cases it does not necessarily mean that we have to alter the law. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that Report of the Royal Commission, and to come to the conclusion, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done, that, although we are very loath to do so, we ought to resist the Clause.
§ Sir P. HannonSurely the wholly blind are placed in a different category from other people; but my right hon. Friend, in the speech he has made, has brought the blind into the same category as all other infirm people. It has been the policy of successive Governments, and the sentiment of the House on many occasions, that the blind should be placed in a category of their own.
§ Mr. AsshetonI should like to meet that case, which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), who has very great sympathies in this matter. It may be that, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) said, we do very little for the blind—I am expressing no opinion about that—but I suggest that it is not the proper way to deal with this matter through the Income Tax laws.
§ Mr. MackThe views of the Royal Commission are not necessarily sacrosanct, and the right hon. Gentleman has himself admitted that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has made not only a persuasive, but a good, case. Whatever may be said about other people who suffer physical incapacity, the blind are in a very different category, because they have lost one of the best senses, and theirs is an incomparably greater disability than any other loss from which people normally suffer. The fact that others may—only "may"—take advantage of the concessions, or that legislation may subsequently be passed to take into account other people physically affected, is not in itself a reason for depriving the blind of a privilege to which they are justly entitled.
§ Mr. HoggI am going to ask my right hon. Friend if he cannot see his way to think again, in view of the very strongly-expressed opinion of the Committee. I appreciate, and I respect, his desire to protect the Revenue from pure sentimen- 2203 tality in matters of taxation. That is a task which all of us, at some time or another, have to fulfil. But I feel that the object of discussions in this Committee is to make clear that some concessions are possible without infringing that general consideration, and I ask him if he cannot think again. He said, to begin with, that all the inequalities of this mortal life cannot be ironed out by taxation. How heartily I agree with him. But if we can find an inequality of a particular kind which can be ironed out, I am sure we would all want to do it. I am not asking for some privilege to compensate the blind man for his blindness. That would be just the thing which the Royal Commission reported against, no doubt rightly. What I am saying is that when a blind worker goes to a factory, and incurs additional expense, attributable to his blindness, he ought to be put in the same position for purposes of taxation as if he were not blind. I am not asking for a privilege but for equality. The inequality I am complaining of is not an inequality of life, but an inequality which is imposed upon him by the system of taxation. I am asking that that inequality should be reduced. I think that, on reflection, my right hon. Friend may come to the conclusion that his reference to the Royal Commission was not altogether in point. I am sure, from the passage which he read, that the Royal Commission had in. mind relief from the effect of disability. I am asking for something which ordinary common sense would tell us is an expense to be allowed as an expense in respect of earned income.
I do not think that this opens the door to a great flood of further concessions. We have the definite tradition, in all civilised countries, that the blind are entitled to a special position because they are disabled. Even if it were not so, I should not be very much afraid that one or two concessions of this kind would lead us very far. I feel that my right hon. Friend will, on reflection, be able to do something for us because this is a case, quite apart from one's own human feelings in the matter, which it is quite impossible to explain to the outside world as being just. I am not afraid that there is any real danger of abuses. To begin with, before anyone can be entitled to this relief, they must be suffering from a perfectly ascertainable disability. Nobody 2204 can effectively pretend to be blind when he is not—or very few people anyway—so that it limits the field either way.
§ Mr. TinkerIt is only politicians that can pretend to be blind.
§ The Deputy-ChairmanThis discussion has gone on for a very long time, and I must remind the Committee that they have a great deal of work to do, and that, if we are to go into all these sidelines, it will take a considerable time.
§ Mr. HoggI was only proposing to show that it would not lead to abuses. There are a great number of travelling expenses and the Income Tax authorities have found it perfectly possible, within limits, to prevent abuses. I do not see why they should not be able, equally, to do it in the case of an ascertained blind man.
§ Mr. McEntee (Walthamstow, West)In spite of the fact that the discussion has gone on for quite a long time, I think it is so important that it might legitimately go on a little longer. I think the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is right, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not right in the reply he gave to the hon. Member. It has been said by the hon. Member for Oxford that concessions are made now for travelling expenses to all kinds of people, including most of us here. They have also been made in connection with the war, to certain workmen, whose expenses, because of the war, are higher than they would otherwise be. If that is so, why cannot the concession be extended just a little further? The fact that there are sympathetic reasons for its extension does not appear to me to be any reason against its extension. Sympathy ought rather to be in favour of extension than against it. The findings of the Royal Commission have been mentioned. I wish the Government were always as anxious to accept the findings of a Royal Commission, as they appear to be in this case, but my experience leads me to think that whenever the findings are going to cost money, the Chancellor is never very favourable to them. He is always anxious to quote precedents, where Royal Commissions have reported unfavourably, and to show that their decisions were right.
The number of people affected by this proposal would be very small. In the first place, the blind person, for whom the concession is asked, must be working. In the second place, he must be earning 2205 sufficient to enable him to be an Income Tax payer, and, in the third place, he must be able to satisfy the Income Tax people that he is, as a matter of fact, as a consequence of his blindness, caused expense over and above the amount which a normal person would spend travelling to the same job at the same place. If the Chancellor makes a concession, as he is doing, to a normal being, not afflicted by any infirmity at all, because the actual cost of his travelling from his home to his job has increased because of the war, surely he can extend it and make the concession that is asked for in this suggested addition to the Clause on behalf of blind persons? The Chancellor is always very sympathetic in these things, but his sympathy does not always extend to giving them what they ask. I think this is a special case, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might think again, as he has been asked to do, between now and a later stage of the Bill, and see if he cannot meet this point.
§ Mr. TinkerMay I make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary? Some time ago we had a difficulty with the then Chancellor, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, over payments for school fees. So strongly did the feeling run that the right hon. Gentleman was asked to leave the matter over and to meet a deputation to consider ways of getting over the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman agreed and said he would like to meet a certain number of people and have a talk with them about it. We did not get a settlement that year, but next year he did meet the point. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should not reach a final conclusion to-day, but that he should meet people and point out the difficulties, and see if there is not some way out. It is obvious that the feeling of the Committee is in favour of something being done. I do not want to challenge the Government, but I am of opinion that, if the question is carried to a vote, it will be decided against them. I ask the Minister not to be too hard, but to consider the appeals made by other hon. Members, and I suggest that we ought to consider every point of view before we reach a final decision.
§ Mr. AsshetonI know the Committee will acquit me of any lack of sympathy and will realise that I am basing my case on what I consider to be a matter of 2206 principle, and certainly not on the question of pounds, shillings and pence, the Chancellor would not have taken this decision, or come to this view at all. I think the proposal which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has made is One which I can reasonably accept, in that I can assure the Committee that the Chancellor would, of course, be ready to have discussions with hon. Members later. But I must ask the Committee to reject this Clause. There is no question of allowing the Clause to pass, and I am bound to say, so that there should be no misunderstanding between my hon. Friends and myself, that I think the deputation will find, when they come to meet the Chancellor on this matter and discuss this subject with him, that there are very powerful reasons indeed, which make it difficult to accept a Clause of this nature. Having said so much, I hope I may now ask the Committee to reject the Clause.
§ Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.