HC Deb 08 July 1953 vol 517 cc1329-36

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Houghton

I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert: and to the reference to the age of sixty-five years or upwards in subsection (2) of section two hundred and eleven of the said Act shall be added the words 'or, in the case of a single woman or widow, the age of sixty years'.

This Amendment relates to age relief. At present, a special concession is made to persons who are 65 years of age or, in the case of a married couple, when the husband or wife has reached 65, whereby all their unearned income may be treated as earned income if their income from all sources does not exceed £500 a year. In this Bill the Chancellor proposes to lift the total income limitation to £600 a year, but he is not proposing to make any change with regard to the age condition. My Amendment proposes, in the case of a single woman or a widow, to reduce the age condition from 65 to 60.

The reason for this proposal is that the ages of retirement of men and women are today different from what they were when age relief was first introduced in 1925. At that time the age of retirement for both men and women under the contributory pension scheme was 65, but the age of retirement for women under the contributory scheme was reduced to 60 during the war and remains at that age today. This retirement age of 60 for a woman and 65 for a man has been taken as a guide to other concessions which relate to the age of retirement.

Post-war credits are repaid when a male taxpayer reaches the age of 65 and a female taxpayer reaches the age of 60, because they are the ages at which retirement pensions are paid. I propose bringing the age relief into line with the general pattern of the differential age of retirement of women and men respectively. There is no need to interfere with the age qualification for married couples, because age relief is given if the husband or wife has reached the age of 65. That seems quite appropriate.

A single woman or a widow, however, has to wait until she is 65, whereas a woman taxpayer can claim her post-war credits at the age of 60, and the retirement age for women in general industrial and commercial life is now put at 60 and not at 65. Since the age relief is really related to retirement, the case for bringing it into line with the contributory pension scheme is very strong. The whole purpose of age relief is to allow those who have had to save money for their old age, and who live on the dividends and interest on any money which they have invested, to regard that as their retirement pension, to take the place of the vocational superannuation which teachers, civil servants, police officers and local government officers have provided for them as part of their conditions of service.

I sincerely hope that we shall hear from the Economic Secretary that his right hon Friend is prepared to make this concession. It is simply expressed in the Amendment. No redrafting is needed between now and a later stage of the Bill. It will be in accordance not only with tradition but with the expectations of the House that some further concession should be made before we part with the Bill.

I see that in the "Daily Express" this morning there is a critical reference to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It says that he has given little away during the course of this Bill, and it puts the prefix "battling" before his name. I should not go so far as that—I might use "stonewalling," or a similar negative term—but it is true that we have not had any concessions worth speaking of so far. I always thought that it was part of the tradition of the discussions on the Finance Bill that the Government made concessions from time to time, as a kind of refresher to the Opposition, to save them from languishing and becoming disheartened.

There is an additional reason why the right hon. Gentleman should make this concession. In the "Daily Mirror" this morning, it is announced that a Gallup Poll is to be held on the question of who should succeed the Prime Minister, were he unfortunately obliged to give up his office tomorrow. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a candidate. He has probably not been nominated by the Conservative Party, but he is on the list for the Gallup Poll. I am sure it would increase his chances of coming near the top of the poll if he were to agree to make this small concession. I hope that this small matter can be adjusted and that we shall not have to spend very long on it.

Mr. Jack Jones

I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has moved this Amendment in engaging if somewhat unorthodox terms. There is obviously a considerable argument for carrying out this amendment in the tax laws. The position at the moment is that the taxpayer qualifies for age relief whether he is single or married. The single man or woman receives it at the age of 65 and, in the case of a married couple, it is received when either of them attain the age of 65.

The hon. Member's Amendment would mean that a single woman or a widow would be able to claim the relief at the age of 60. That is in line with the postwar credits position. It is undoubtedly a substantial argument, but there are certain arguments in the other direction. For instance, it is true to say that there is a quite considerable body of opinion which objects to the distinction between the single man and woman with regard to post-war credits. Many people think that that distinction is not easily justified and should not be extended. There is also the difficulty that, under this provision, a single woman would be able to qualify at the age of 60, but the married woman would not be able to do so until she became 65.

This is the sort of amendment to the Income Tax Acts which it might well be a good thing to make on another occasion, but the objection to it at the present moment is the financial one. I am rather surprised to see the figure; it would cost £2 million. To my right hon. Friend's mind, that is a substantial sum. As the hon. Member knows as well as anyone, there are many improvements that could be made in the Income Tax law, over a period of time, none of which should have priority over this one. While not wishing to controvert the facts put before us with regard to this proposal, however, my right hon. Friend does not feel that, this year, he can spare the revenue which would be needed to meet it.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sorry that the Economic Secretary was not able to announce that the Chancellor had succumbed to the blandishments of my hon. Friend and, in particular, taken advantage of the opportunity to improve his position in the "Daily Mirror" Gallup Poll. The case put forward by my hon. Friend was extremely strong. It does seem rather anomalous that the pension age for single men and widows should be 60; that repayment of postwar credits for similar persons should take place at 60, but that in this particular instance the age should be 65.

The Economic Secretary said nothing to dispel our feeling that it was anomalous. He pointed out that it cost £2 million—which is not a very large sum—and that there were some difficulties about the position of married women. May we take it that at least this is one of the questions which the Royal Commission will be particularly asked to examine in the course of their discussions? Will the hon. Gentleman draw their attention to it particularly, so that when their Report comes out, which we hope will not be long, this point will be covered? May we have that assurance?

Mr. Maudling

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I think it almost certain that the Royal Commission will consider this point because they are considering all these questions. I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says about the desirability of bringing it specially to their attention.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 7, line 42 at the end to insert: (2) In section two hundred and twelve (children) of the said Act for the reference in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), as amended, to twenty-six pounds (which refers to the limit on the emoluments of a child undergoing training) there shall be substituted a reference to fifty-two pounds. This is a concession by the Government although, as no doubt the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will point out, it is not a whole concession. It goes part of the way to meet a point made by hon. Members opposite in Committee—a point which has also been made by my hon. Friends on previous occasions. The argument was that the emoluments limit for apprentice children should be raised from £26 to the £85 granted in the case of the normal child allowance.

During the Committee stage I pointed out that there were two difficulties: first of all, that my right hon. Friend would like to deal comprehensively with questions of personal allowances on the basis of the advice of the Royal Commission; and, secondly, the practical difficulty that if we increased this limit to £85 there would be a large number whose emoluments were just over £85 and there would be unreasonable pressure for the introduction of some "tapering" which would involve, if it were introduced, a substantial increase in administrative costs and the employment of a large number of additional staff.

In Committee I said that if the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who had moved the Amendment, would withdraw it, my right hon. Friend would give very close consideration to the possibility of bringing forward an Amendment which would meet the hon. Member's point of view. I said that I could not give an undertaking by reason of the genuine practical difficulties and the desirability of avoiding doing something in advance of the Royal Commission's report which might prejudice the full value of that report when it was received.

My right hon. Friend considered the position in the light of those practical difficulties and the difficulty about the Royal Commission, and he thought that the best thing he could do to meet the point of view of hon. Members opposite was to move this Amendment, which would raise the sum not to £85 but from £26 to £52—doubling it from 10s. a week to £1 a week. My right hon. Friend considered very carefully whether he could go to the full extent asked by hon. Members opposite, but he regrets that at present he does not feel that he can do so. He has introduced this Amendment to go as far as he feels he can go in present circumstances in the direction suggested in Committee.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Judging by what I have heard in listening to the debate yesterday and today, we have now achieved a record. We have got something—not much, and not as much as we asked for, but at any rate something; and to that extent I am grateful to the Government for giving it to us and to the Economic Secretary for the way in which he announced it. But I am not convinced by what he said, that there would have been serious difficulty had he gone to the £85, and he can rest assured that this will not be the last to be heard of the subject.

During the Committee stage, he said that this might be a matter more easily dealt with when we had the report of the Commission which is considering Income Tax, and when that report is received we shall look to see what recommendations they have made in the hope that they may induce the Government to go the whole way. I still base my case for going to £85 on what I said about the need for establishing in this industrial and maritime country a proper respect and standing for those people who are qualifying themselves to become skilled craftsmen and creative designers.

It is quite wrong to think that their education is less important than that of those of us whose tools and stock in trade consist of words. After all, that is the real difference here, and I suggest that the man who is creating things in stone, wood, or any other material is as much entitled to recognition, if he is undertaking a thorough scheme of training, as is the man who will create things in words. I know that Carlyle regretted that his grandfather built a bridge at—

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Ecclefechan.

Mr. Ede

I am obliged to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who has saved me from the difficulty of trying to get a Sassenach tongue round a Scottish place name.

Carlyle regretted that whereas he dealt in words his grandfather had built a bridge that would last for centuries. I am afraid that in that case Carlyle's words will probably last rather longer than the bridge which, when I saw it last, did not seem to be carrying the main road traffic.

We are thankful for the small mercies we have received. There was a man who said he had two ways of expressing thanks: if he felt thanks merely as thanks, he said, "Thank you"; but if he felt that he had been generously treated, he said, "Thank you very much." I say, "Thank you."

Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)

I did not intervene on this subject in Committee this year but I raised the question last year, and I want to thank the Economic Secretary for going part of the way we asked and for doubling the allowance. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we want to establish the standard for the craftsman in this country just as much as we do for the man of letters.

I want to ask what is meant exactly by the word "emoluments." I know it is defined in Section 212 of the 1952 Act, but there are certain things which it does not include—for instance, books and tools. I do not think the word "emoluments" covers either of those things at the moment, and although it is probably too late to do anything this year I shall be grateful if the Economic Secretary will look into this point. If we raise the allowance to £52, that may be insufficient, but we could probably make it sufficient if it were a net sum instead of having to exclude such things as tools and books, which I do not think are covered at present.

Mr. Jack Jones

I do not want to delay the House, but I want, on behalf of the trade union element on this side, to express our disappointment about this concession. My disappointment is based on the fact that we are heading for the keenest competition the world has ever known, and it is British craftsmen who will keep this country solvent and make it possible for trade to be maintained at all. We have been very remiss in not granting all that was asked for, which should have been granted on the long-term basis. It may make the difference between encouraging parents to see that their children become highly skilled craftsmen or go into blind alley jobs which may pay bigger wages at first. The latter is a bad policy.

I suggest to the Treasury that the sooner they give this concession the better. It was a small concession which would have brought big results. I am the father of six children, and I can cite my own case. I have four boys and two girls. Three of the boys went to technical colleges and are giving good service in the steel industry. Had they taken notice of some people they would have gone into blind alley jobs, big wage jobs which would have led them nowhere.

The Treasury have been remiss in not giving what has been suggested, which was after careful thought by the trade union element on this side of the House, and, apparently, after careful thought by the employing class on the other side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) was right in suggesting that further encouragement should have been given. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, we are grateful for small mercies but we are not living in an age when small mercies will pull us through. The greatest amount of encouragement should be given to British craftsmen to enable them to make Britain what we want her to be.

Amendment agreed to.