HC Deb 16 June 1947 vol 438 cc1594-611

When a taxpayer is blind crippled or otherwise incapacitated by reason of age or infirmity and in consequence is compelled to employ a housekeeper he shall be entitled to an allowance of fifty pounds in respect of that housekeeper.—[Mr. G. Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The Chairman

Mr. George Thomas.

3.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)

On a point of Order, Major Milner. I understand that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if the Clause which stands on the Order Paper in my name and that of my hon. Friend—(Constant attendant allowance)—were considered at the same time as the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas)

The Chairman

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put down a new Clause which is very similar to that proposed by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff, and I have no objection if he wishes to move the new Clause standing in the name of the hon Member for Central Cardiff.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

In moving the new Clause standing in my name, may I say that I moved a somewhat similar new Clause in connection with the first Finance Bill of 1945, and at that time the Financial Secretary to the Treasury express43 sympathy with its object?

The Chairman

Perhaps I did not make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member that I called him to move the new Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas).

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I am sorry I misunderstood you, Major Milner. I think everybody will agree that a proposal of this nature is deserving of the sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because people suffering from such an appalling infirmity as blindness require all the sympathy that can be given to them. The same applies to those who are incapacitated by some other physical disability which will always prevent them from earning their own livelihood. As I was explaining before you called me to Order, Major Milner, I spoke on this matter during the Debate on the first Finance Bill of 1945. It is true that I was concerned mainly with people who suffered from some physical disability, but the case is exactly the same whether the disability is blindness or some loss of limb, paralysis or something of that nature. Although the Financial Secretary at that time was sympathetic to my proposal, he took his stand on the report of the Royal Commission of 1920, which implied that it was impossible or, at least, undesirable to cater for individual considerations in matters of taxation. I feel, however, that it would be quite wrong to leave the matter there. Things have changed a great deal since 1920 in the realm of taxation law and taxation policy, and since then more account has been taken of individual circumstances. Indeed, I understand that under this very Bill it is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a later stage to move an Amendment allowing for certain reductions in the price of tobacco for old age pensioners—an Amendment which will be welcomed by everybody and which definitely bears out my contention that consideration should be given to individual circumstances.

I submit that the original argument of the Financial Secretary no longer holds water. For the benefit of those hon. Members of the Committee who were not present in November, 1945, when I raised this matter previously, I would explain that I have in mind the case of persons who are injured by an accident or who, perhaps, suffer from some chronic disease and are therefore quite unable to fend for themselves without someone in the nature of a housekeeper or attendant to look after them. This is obviously a rather limited category for two reasons. In the first place, men and women who may have the misfortune to be seriously injured and incapacitated as a result of an accident which occurs in the course of their employment will, to a large extent, be covered by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, Section 15 of which provides for a constant attendance allowance of 20s. a week or, in exceptional cases, 40s. a week. Similarly, men and women who received wounds or injuries as the result of their service in the Forces are also eligible for a constant attendance allowance of 20s. a week or, in exceptional cases, 40s. a week, under Article 14 of the Royal Warrant.

It is clear, therefore, that the great majority of people who are prevented from following any employment owing to an accident or disease will be covered by these two categories, and that only comparatively few will be left out and will be in need of financial assistance. It is for this reason that I feel that the Committee ought to press the Chancellor to give them some relief. A point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary on the previous occasion was that there might be some difficulty in deciding whether a person was or was not sufficiently disabled to qualify for an allowance of this nature. Once again I cannot agree with his argument because obviously there must be in existence—for dealing both with those who come under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and those who come under Article 14 of the Royal Warrant—some method for grading applicants for an allowance and for deciding whether or not they are eligible. Surely it is perfectly simple to use some similar rules for grading people who may suffer from an accident incurred in civil life. In the past 25 years a great deal of useful social legislation has been passed by the House, but unfortunately there are still anomalies in various directions, and this is one. This small section of people, scattered throughout the country, who are not at all vocal but deserve our sympathy, are left out. This new Clause is designed to give them some slight assistance, and we ask the Government to pay serious attention to the point.

These civilian injured or disabled people are at present in a very difficult position. They have no pension. They may be living upon the charity of relations, and in many cases they are probably rather a serious financial burden on those relatives. In other cases they may be living on small fixed incomes obtained as a result of the investment of money paid to them by way of compensation for the accident they suffered. The cost of living has risen considerably since 1939. In 1939 it might have been possible for these injured persons to employ someone to look after them and wheel them about in bath chairs. It is now probably quite impossible for these unfortunate people to find the necessary funds to continue to employ any attendant. This is a matter which ought to be looked upon with great sympathy by the Government. This is a modest Clause designed to bring justice to a small, unlucky and, I am afraid, forgotten section of the community, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to accept it.

Mr. Mellish (Rotherhithe)

I wish to support this new Clause. Only recently there was brought to my notice a case which throws this matter into relief and puts it in its true perspective. A lady in my Division who had suffered from infantile paralysis since birth has overcome that handicap and is being employed in some important offices in the city, earning a certain sum of money. She has always employed a relation to do her household work, and as a result of that she has been able to claim the dependants' allowance as Income Tax relief. Now her sister has left her and she does not get that allowance. There is a case for people suffering from a disability of some description which makes it impossible for them to do any work in their homes and impossible to earn a normal livelihood. This new Clause is very reasonable and Should be supported in all parts of the Committee.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Heywood and Radcliffe)

The hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas), who was to have moved this new Clause, is not able to be here this afternoon, and I am sorry that I was not here to move it when it was called. I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) for the full and detailed way in which he has put the case which my hon. Friend and I should have put. There is little that remains to be said, but I would emphasise that, as the hon. and gallant Member said, the purpose of this Clause is to remove an anomaly and to bring benefit and help to a number of fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own, have fallen on misfortune. I cannot believe that it has been the intention of other Governments or that it is the intention of His Majesty's present advisers to leave this small section of the community unprovided for in this way. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it possible to make this concession and to bring this relief to these unfortunate and deserving people.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

The case has been put for the blind and crippled, and I would like to put the case for the old, the infirm and the widower. It often happens that someone who has attained the age of 70 or more suddenly becomes a widower. Throughout his life he has been accustomed to rely upon his wife, and when at that age he finds himself a widower it is rather late for him to learn and he finds himself unable to look after himself. That is the sort of case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind. It is obvious that the man must have someone to look after him, and it is eminently reasonable that an allowance should be made.

Mr. Daggar (Abertillery)

There are one or two observations I would like to make in support of this Clause, especially as another Clause which embodies the same principle will not now be called. This Clause is not only clear and concise, but it is free from complexities, and therefore requires little explanation. Its great advantage is that its acceptance will not put an undue strain upon the financial resources of the country, and, at the same time, it will give considerable financial relief to the persons affected. I imagine that the number of persons who will benefit will not be many. I have in mind the case of a man whose wife is totally blind. That necessitates the engagement of another women to perform the customary duties of the household. Were this person entitled to be described as a housekeeper, which implies responsibility for the care of children, the proposed Clause would be unnecessary, as the usual allowance would be made of £50 for a person who has to accept responsibility for looking after children. Many persons in such unfortunate circumstances are not in the higher income classes. The case I have in mind is not in that category. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is familiar with such cases, I am content to leave to him the decision whether this Clause should be accepted.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

The whole Committee, and especially the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) on having been here to move so good a Clause. This Clause is obviously a human one, and although I would not like to guarantee anything, I think it must appeal even to so hard a heart as that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is possible for any human thing to touch him. These people should be given some small advantage by the Exchequer on their tax returns. They are suffering from a disability, and those of us who have bad eyesight know what a tremendous disadvantage it is if one cannot see properly. So far as the blind are concerned there is an absolutely cast-iron case for the appeal for help. Then there are those who are crippled and aged and so are deprived of many of the things that we value most. I rejoice that, thanks to the assiduity of my hon. and gallant Friend, we have had the chance of debating this Clause today when it so easily might have gone unmoved and undiscussed owing to the absence of the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) in whose name it stood.

When we are dealing with these financial questions we are concerned to bring the hardest cases to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I am not wedded to the wording of the Clause, and it may not be possible to take in all the classes mentioned in the Clause, I would ask that this small remission might be given to the blind. Could we have some estimate what it would cost the State for the three classes, or even only for the blind? Would it be a large charge? I realise that the Chancellor is pressed on this occasion for many concessions, but of all the concessions which have been asked for, this is one which would appeal to both sides of the Committee. It is perhaps the hardest of all cases that could be put up, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot do something this year, not to leave it as some vague hope for the years to come, because for the aged that hope is not a very strong one.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

As I understand it, the proposition is in respect of a resident housekeeper, though it does not say so in the new Clause. It is that a resident housekeeper's allowance should be granted in respect of a person who is blind, crippled or otherwise incapacitated by reason of age or infirmity. In this short discussion hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have extended the suggestion to other forms of incapacity. That, quite frankly, is the answer which I have to give to the Committee. It would be relatively easy to give an allowance of this kind to a person who was blind or crippled, but once we are asked, as inevitably we would be asked, and as we have been asked this afternoon, to extend it to other categories, it is impossible to know where to stop. I admit that this allowance is in rather a muddled state. It began as a housekeeper's allowance to a widow or widower who had young children in the home who needed looking after. In 1924, the proviso that there must be young people in the home was dropped, and a widow or a widower who had to keep a resident housekeeper was given this allowance. It was then felt, and not without reason, by all other sections of the community that this was rather unfair and, in 1943, it was extended to other types of Income Tax payers if they had young children in the home. This afternoon we are being pressed to extend this allowance still further.

It is difficult on sentimental grounds to resist the suggested new Clause, but I must ask the Committee to reject it for the reasons I have given. I would remind hon. Members that there are other ways of helping people in the situation envisaged by the discussion. A fair number of these people will not come into the Income Tax paying class at all, so that even if you gave the allowance to people suffering these disabilities, very many would not have an income large enough to take advantage of it. Although I do not press that too far, we have to bear it in mind in discussing this matter. Then, too, we have to remember that with the introduction of the social security scheme, many of these people will be helped by various provisions—by the National Health Insurance scheme or by one or other of the sections of the scheme which has to come into full force next year. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) mentioned, that I called in aid last year in replying to a similar Debate, the Report of the Royal Commission which sat in 1920. I can only repeat what I said then and what the Royal Commission said. Hon. Members might not think a great deal of my point of view or that of any Member of this Committee, but I think I am entitled to remind hon. Members of the way that Commission reported, for it was drawn from various sections of the community, including experts on Income Tax. They came to the conclusion that you could not take the individual and personal circumstances of a taxpayer into account but must look at this matter in a broader way, on the broad basis of general principles. The principle here undoubtedly is that if we gave an allowance for anyone who happened to be crippled, we should have to extend it to all kinds of people who were suffering various other incapacities and we would not know where to stop.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

But is that not just what the Chancellor, very rightly, is proposing to do in the case of old age pensioners—taking individual circumstances into account?

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)

There is a good deal of force in what the Financial Secretary says about the danger of extension which the drafting of this new Clause holds within it, and obviously the Treasury might be led into a great deal of expenditure and much examination of particular cases. There is, however, one limited case which he might look at. The case I have in mind is almost exactly that put by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), of the wife of a man who becomes blind and therefore he needs a housekeeper to look after her. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would be possible if not this year then another year, to give a housekeeper's allowance to a husband whose wife becomes blind. There is already special legislation for blind people and this appears to be a reasonable extension of it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western)

I have listened very carefully to the reply made by the Financial Secretary, and I was much impressed by the case put by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). I was amazed because my right hon. Friend in his reply seemed to skip lightly over the fact that the whole of the reliefs of which he spoke were based on the principle of extra expenditure being necessary in the home. He said that we could not legislate for the individual case. We do not require to do so if we base ourselves on the principle that in some circumstances extra expenditure is necessary in the home, and lay down on that principle that some relief should be granted. For the life of me, I cannot see why this relief should not be extended in such cases. An allowance for a wife is based on the understanding that that woman, doing necessary domestic work without earning an income, means extra expenditure of the income of the house. If a housekeeper is taken into the house, an allowance is granted on the same principle. If a cripple needs some one to come in to help with the work, where is the difference? I want to know.

When a Royal Commission went into this question, the attitude at that time to the type of people for whom we are now pleading was entirely different from what it is today. What they were concerned about then was how to get most for the State and to give the least service. That is entirely changed. I would like the Chancellor to have another look at this matter, and to see that, if the principle is generally accepted that rebates should be allowed because of extra expenditure in the home, cases like these should receive a rebate. One new Clause on the Paper lays down that the person must be in constant attendance. I do not like that. I knew of a man who had three children and employed a housekeeper to look after them. Another man had a small room and a kitchen and two children, and could not bring a woman into the house. He employed a woman who lived in her own house, but came in in the morning, and went away in the evening. For that he could get no relief; but the expenditure was the same as that of the man who could provide accommodation. We want to meet cases like that.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

Despite the benevolent phrasing of the Financial Secretary's reply, I do not think there is any doubt that he has caused widespread disappointment on all sides of the Committee. He rested his main reasons for being unable to accept the new Clause, on two cm three arguments. One was that we should get very wide in our extensions if we were not careful, and that while certain categories in the new Clause, such as the blind, crippled, aged and infirm were mentioned, suggestions made by hon. Members in their speeches would go a good deal further. The remedy for that, of course, is in the hands of the Government. If they feel that hon. Members are advocating too wide an extension, let them at least go some part of the way. I gathered from what the Financial Secretary said that the blind, crippled and aged were excellent cases. If that is so, there is no difficulty at all in inserting words on the Report stage to cover those cases. He also said that it would leave certain people outside, as they did not come into the Income Tax purview. That is true, but this is a Finance Bill, and we are dealing with Income Tax and cannot at the moment do more than look after the interests of Income Tax payers. We are endeavouring to get a relief for people who do pay Income Tax.

A third argument on which the right hon. Gentleman did not lean very heavily —which I think was wise, because it is very weak—was that the National Insurance scheme would remedy some of these difficulties. He did not tell us how, or what, because I do not think he knows. I thought the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) made a very good point about constant attendance, and the difference between those who can provide accommodation in the house and those who cannot. I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought the interpretation of "constant attendance" implied one employed full time in that capacity, whether resident or not. I think that was what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) had in mind—

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison indicated assent.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

—and if I am right in that interpretation, I think it would meet the point. If someone is employed full time to look after a blind person, or a cripple, we want to provide for that case by this new Clause.

Another argument used by the Financial Secretary rather surprised me. He said that we must rest ourselves in this matter on the findings of a Royal Commission which sat in 1920. That was rather a long time ago. The Financial Secretary has told us many times during his period of office that he is a Member of a Government which has moved away from all those things which happened in 1920, that they have a new outlook, that the 25 years of Tory misrule are over, and that we are now in a brave new world where we are all better fed, and so on. It is rather surprising to find that because the right hon. Gentleman wants to deny the housekeepers' allowance to blind and crippled persons, he immediately goes back to a Royal Commission of 1920. That is not a very good argument, if only because previous Governments have already moved away from it. He told us that Governments, which no doubt he would describe as reactionary, in 1924 and 1926 moved away from the Royal Commission's findings a small way along the road. I do not think that is a very good argument for a Socialist Minister, and it shows the weakness of the Government's defences on this matter.

This has been a useful Debate. The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) was not here in time to move the new Clause. But we have heard him since, and the Opposition came to his rescue. He is in time to press the Motion to a Division, and I hope he will have the courage of his convictions, and will not give way to the blandishments of the Financial Secretary, however benevolent the right hon. Gentleman may be. The electors of Heywood and Radcliffe will want to see him stand firm. He came in by a very small majority, which might melt away. If the hon. Member decides to carry his convictions to the acid test of the Division Lobby, I, for one, will be there to march with him.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

I hope that the speech of the Financial Secretary was not the last word of the Government on this new Clause. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was altogether happy in opposing it, because I am quite sure that his natural inclination was to accept it. As a result of not really believing in the case he had to make, he was, if he will forgive me for saying so, singularly unconvincing, and the arguments which came from the Front Bench were really surprising. I have never been convinced of the merits of the argument that I must not do what I know to be right because I am afraid that if I do so, I shall be asked in the future to do something else which is right. The Financial Secretary said that it would be comparatively easy to do what is proposed in this new Clause, but that if he were to do this, he would be asked to do more. I could understand the argument if he were to say, "I can go as far as is proposed in this new Clause but this year, at any rate, cannot go any further." I hope that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, when their attention is drawn to things that are really wrong to anomalies that exist, to say, "We cannot put them all right at once, out we will, each year, put right as many as we possibly can."

I therefore, say to the Chancellor that if he will make the concession this year to the blind, I, personally, will be satisfied. He can say "That is as far as I can go this year. I will look and see what the financial position is in future years to see whether T can go further." The second argument used by the Financial Secretary was that a great many people would not benefit by this provision because they had not to pay any Income Tax. It is perfectly fair to reply that to that extent the concession would cost the Government very little. We are concerned with those who have to pay in a case of this kind. I wish to stress particularly the case for the blind. It must be obvious to everyone that if a person is blind a housekeeper is essential. I would ask the Government to be true to themselves in this matter, to make this concession, which would not cost them very much, and not to be afraid either now or at any time, of doing the right thing because they might be pushed further along a road along which I hope they intend to go.

Mr. Collins (Taunton)

This new Clause is far too wide in its application to make possible its immediate acceptance, but I would join with other speakers in asking the Chancellor not to take that undoubted fact as an excuse for not permitting a badly needed, if limited application in special cases, as an augury of what may be done in the future along lines which must have the sympathy of everyone in the Committee, and which has the obvious sympathy of the Financial Secretary. I would also urge that when this matter is considered the Chancellor does not fall into the obvious error of making a distinction between resident full-time housekeepers and full-time housekeepers who are not resident, because in many cases that is merely a difference arising out of lack of accommodation. It would be absolutely absurd to grant an allowance in one case because a person was living in, and not to grant an allowance in another case merely because it is a physical impossibility for the housekeeper to live in the home. Elderly people often have limited accommodation and have not provided in their houses for the circumstances which have arisen to call for the employment of a housekeeper.

4.15 p.m.

I would ask for consideration to be given to an important special case; that is where the daughter of the house has to stay at home and look after an invalid mother. It does not really matter whether the husband is elderly and is working or not. There are many instances of this kind, where the mother is an invalid, possibly blind or completely incapacitated. There is an allowance to the husband in respect of the wife, but in addition he has to keep a daughter at home to look after the home and the mother. In spite of the fact that the Financial Secretary thought that many people would not be affected, there are many cases of people with limited means to whom this allowance would make a great difference. In such cases daughters are living a life of sacrifice, and a denial of this allowance means an addition, which I regard as an unnecessary addition, to that sacrifice. I hope, therefore, that in spite of the fact that it is fairly obvious that the new Clause cannot be accepted as it stands, the Chancellor will tell us that he will look at it again with a view to giving limited application of allowances to important cases which must not be overlooked any longer.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

I was disappointed with the reply of the Financial Secretary. I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). It is entirely due to his presence of mind that we have been enabled to discuss this extremely important new Clause, which would otherwise, owing to the absence of the hon. Gentleman whose name appears on the Order Paper as its mover, have gone by default. This is an important new Clause, and one which raises considerable feelings of sympathy in all parts of the Committee. I must say that when the Financial Secretary began by saying that the law on this subject was in a muddled condition, I had feelings of hope. I thought, as did my hon. Friends behind me, that to a Member of the Government for whom, we understand, muddles exist only as a challenge—I must confess that during the last two years they have been a challenge to almost every Minister of the day—the fact that the law was in a muddled condition could only be a prelude to doing something to alter it. But not a bit of it. As the right hon. Gentleman went on, he made it perfectly clear that that muddled condition was to remain, because, according to him, the condition was muddled, but it was also hallowed. It was muddled because it did not work fairly, but hallowed because it had been blessed by a Royal Commission 27 years ago. To make that sanctity even greater, the right hon. Gentleman added, almost with bated breath, that that Royal Commission even included some people who were experts in Income Tax law.

I do not think that the Committee ought to be content with being fobbed off—I can only so describe it—on a matter of this importance, with a stock answer, which remains, and has remained for many years on the Treasury shelves, which is brought down yearly, and which usually, though not on this occasion, has the dust knocked off it before it is delivered in the Committee. We really should make an attempt now to get away from the precedents of past years and to see whether, in fact, it is not possible to do something to meet a case of admitted hardship. All of us quite see the danger of one concession being subsequently exploited to lead to another, and of the case which in the first instance seemed to be limited and circumscribed becoming finally something so large that it threatens the structure of the Act. That might happen, but is it inevitable that it should happen? Is it not possible that just as a bound has been set for many years to the one breach which has already been made in this principle, so, for many years, if another breach was made it might still remain unenlarged?

On this subject we must consider three things. First, is there a real hardship; second, can the sufferers from that hardship be clearly defined; and, third, is it financially practicable at present to do something to meet the hardship? I submit on the first question that there is no argument. Every one has had brought to their notice instances where real hardship exists. On the question of whether or not the field of relief can be closely circumscribed, I believe that it can. The new Clause which we are now discussing is quite clearly defined in its contents. It would apply to a limited and quite clear class of recipient. On the third point, is it financially practicable this year? If the right hon. Gentleman will say that we cannot do this because it would cost so much, I should be inclined to listen to him, because this is not a year in which we want to impose big new burdens on the Exchequer.

The Financial Secretary did not refer to the extra cost, but I cannot think that it is likely to be very substantial or that, other things being equal, it would be of such an amount that it would make this new Clause impracticable for this financial year. I submit, therefore, that the three questions which in this sort of topic we must ask ourselves have all been answered, or can be answered, satisfactorily, and that a case does exist for really serious consideration of this point. If the Chancellor cannot immediately announce his acceptance of this proposal, he should, at any rate, give to the Committee some greater hope of a new approach to the subject than the rather archaic reply which was given to the Committee by the Financial Secretary.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)

I have listened to the Debate with close attention. A number of very interesting contributions have been made from both sides. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) that this new Clause as it stands really is not suitable for acceptance in any case. It would need looking at again. It is true that, as my right hon. Friend said, this law is somewhat confused owing to a number of separate rearrangements, with Amendments first here and then there over a term of year? I am wholly in favour of reviewing the whole question of allowances of this kind to people who are suffering—the blind have been mentioned and there are the aged, the cripples and others. Whether or not this is the best way of dealing with this particular case of human need, with which we are all very sympathetic, I do not know.

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out that our new social legislation would have a bearing on the matter. Some doubt was cast upon the accuracy of that statement. For example, there is a new Clause on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) in reference to a "constant attendance allowance" in cases of physical disability. Although this is not what we are technically discussing at the moment, I give it to the Committee as an illustration of how our social legislation is affecting the matter under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Under Section 15 of that Act there is a provision that: The weekly rate of a disablement pension payable in respect of an assessment to 100 per cent. shall be increased by such amount as is hereinafter mentioned, if as the result of the relevant loss of faculty the beneficiary requires constant attendance. In other words, the claim that is put here in terms of an Income Tax concession is met in another form in the case of industrial injuries by a proposal for an increase of the pension.

Mr. Stanley

That refers only to industrial injuries.

Mr. Dalton

Certainly, that is so far as industrial injuries are concerned. That is one of the cases which is covered.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison

I quoted that in the course of my remarks, but I mentioned that there would be cases which did not come under that legislation. There would be accident cases and others.

Mr. Dalton

Certainly. I only mentioned that to illustrate the relevance of the general body of the legislation which the House is passing in relation to social insurance to show that the situation will be beneficially modified in regard to certain sections of the community for whom we have sympathy. That should be taken into account. Quite frankly, I would like to review the position as it results from two sets of changes which are taking place. First, there is the general body of our social legislation and, second, there are the Income Tax reliefs of what I may call the normal kind, which we have been bringing into effect and which have been carried even a little further this year, as the Committee will recall, partly by the earned income relief and partly by the dependent relative allowances which will pick up a certain number of these cases.

Next year we shall have our social legislation in full operation. I must not make commitments here, but it may or may not be possible for further advances to be made in terms of the Income Tax reliefs of the normal type. This will have the result, which my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Dagger) had in mind, of narrowing the range over which this particular benefit would be of any advantage. As he pointed out, there are persons in certain income groups who are already relieved and to whom this would mean nothing because no Income Tax would be chargeable anyhow. There are certain others who gradually would be brought within that field.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) will disagree with what I am now going to say. I understand and sympathise with the view which he put. We must draw and hold a defensible line of demarcation. We must be clear that if we draw a line at a certain point it is a line which can properly be held and that we shall not then be subjected to continual pressure, which different hon. Members in various parts of the Committee may join, to extend the line still further until we have really created a stage of affairs in which, for practically any extra expenditure in the home, Income Tax reliefs are being claimed, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan). We must be careful how far we travel on that road. Extra expenditure even though it arises in connection with disabilities of one sort or another, might be very great. There might be extra expenditure outside a home, in a nursing home or hospital or in any other place where people might be attended. I mention this to show that it is essential to look at the thing to see where we can draw a frontier that can be reasonably fixed, not for all time but for a period of years.

I will give this undertaking to the Committee. I will very gladly look into the whole question covering not only the blind or the aged and cripples, but the whole field of personal disability, to see how far we can link up the consequences of our social legislation, the consequences of our other Income Tax changes, and the possibility of doing something here. I undertake that this shall be studied and looked at between now and next year, so that we can see whether we can make a workable and equitable scheme. I do not think that this year we can do anything further. The speeches made this afternoon show that the views of hon. Members are by no means one. Some hon. Members have built up a case and other hon. Members have demolished it for them. In the circumstances, I hope that we shall be allowed to pass on and that this new Clause will not be pressed.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Beechman (St. Ives)

Would the right hon. Gentleman give us the cost of making the concession for whole-time housekeepers to the blind, of which this Committee is overwhelmingly in support?

Mr. Dalton

I should not base my attitude on the grounds of the cost of a particular limited concession. I would base it on the wider considerations which I have put to the Committee.

Mr. C. Williams

May we be told what is the cost, or be given some idea?

Mr. Dalton

The cost is so small that I do not want to use it as an argument against it.

Mr. Williams

Then there is no reason against it?

Question put, and negatived.