HC Deb 10 July 1956 vol 556 cc250-69
Mr. H. Macmillan

I beg to move, in page 24, line 28, to leave out from "year" to the end of line 31, and insert: (but so that in the case of individuals holding a pensionable office or employment, and of individuals born in or before the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, this proviso shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Retirement annuities; adjustments of limit on qualifying premiums) to this Act)". I do not know what would be most convenient, but this Amendment is designed really only to lead up to, and to be part of the necessary method of leading up to, the proposed new Schedule. Perhaps it would be convenient at this stage to move it formally, since without it the Schedule cannot be moved or debated.

Mr. Gordon Walker

We are quite agreeable to that. I would only make it clear that we have objections to the Schedule, and we therefore reserve our rights in that matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Clause 21, as amended, is, of course, a Clause in a very different state from that in which it first reached us in the Bill. As the Chancellor will have seen from our treatment of his Amendments to Clause 20 with which we have just been dealing, we are really very favourable to this broad idea of his in carrying out this part of the Millard Tucker proposals. We are not hostile to that at all, and our attitude on these further adjustments and concessions he has made proves that.

We did originally agree to this Clause in the Finance Bill, but at that time it had an upper limit of £500 a year. Now it comes to us with an upper limit of £750 a year put into it. Therefore, although we broadly support the Millard Tucker proposals in so far as they appear in this Bill, and although we are perfectly agreeable to further adjustments which make the thing more just, we are deeply and irrevocably opposed to this raising of the limit from £500 to £750 a year, because it gives a benefit—and the Chancellor must realise it—solely and exclusively to people earning more than £5,000 a year.

This is really the only concession—at any rate, it is the most important—he has made in the whole of the Finance Bill. Although he dresses it up as a savings concession, it is in fact a concession to these extremely rich people. All sorts of other concessions, no more expensive or even less expensive, which could have been made he has turned down, but this one which benefits only people earning over £5,000 a year he has accepted. We are, therefore, very strongly opposed to it, and we shall fight it in all the ways open to us.

This is not just a bit of envy on our part. The limit of £500 a year which was in the Bill originally did help to reconcile us to certain defects in these Clauses in Part III, defects which were very powerfully pointed out in the Wocdcock-Cater dissent to the Millard Tucker Report and in the opinion of the minority of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. They pointed out defects in the original Millard Tucker proposals and we feel that those defects were real defects; but as long as there was limit of £500 a year, those defects did not really become very important in scale, and we swallowed our objection to them. One must not strain at gnats all the time, and the fixing of the £500 limit did substantially affect our view of the matter.

To lift the limit to £750 is to bring in people earning between £5,000 and £7,500 a year, and even more still. In such circumstances, of course, the defects which were pointed out by those dissenting to the Millard Tucker Report and by the minority of the Royal Commission become of really great importance.

6.0 p.m.

That is why we are so strongly opposed to this proposal. We are opposed to it for arguments set out very cogently in those two dissents to which I have referred. Our objections and the objections set out in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission—for instance, to including self-employed people and controlling directors—become worse when the limit is raised from £500 a year.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us in Committee that this concession would cost something like £1½ million a year. I have been trying to discover how many people will benefit from this £1½ million a year. On 21st June, I put down a Question to ask the right hon. Gentleman the number of people earning over £5,000 a year and he was good enough to tell me that there was some 22,000 of them. Of those 22,000, however, about half were self-employed and half were employed. Most of those who are employed will, of course, come under "top hat" schemes and similar arrangements, so that in the main we are dealing with half of the 22,000—that is, those who are self-employed.

I do not know whether the Chancellor, when coming to his estimate of £1½ million as the cost, worked out how many people he thought would come within this benefit. As far as I can see, if I take the number as 11,000 to 12,000, I am reasonably safe in my figures. Those employed at the level of over £5,000 a year tend to come into pension schemes which their employers organise, so that there will not be many more than half of the 22,000 who are self-employed.

That means that a present of about £125 a year is being made to a very small number of people, all of whom, to get this present, must be very rich indeed.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

It occurs to me that it might be more convenient if these matters were discussed when we discuss the new Schedule—"Retirement Annuities; Adjustments of Limit on Qualifying Premiums".

Mr. H. Macmillan

It is simply a matter of convenience, Sir Gordon. When we discussed the formal Amendment which led up to the Schedule, I realised that we would have a full debate on this issue. It is simply a matter of convenience to the Opposition whether they prefer to have the debate on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, in which case it might be necessary to repeat the argument when discussing the Schedule, or whether it would be better to discuss the matter fully when we take the new Schedule so that we may then have the one debate on the whole issue.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I certainly will not repeat my arguments when we move from Committee to Report, Sir Gordon, but I understood that our Amendments to the new Schedule were not being selected and that we would raise points when dealing with our Amendments to Clause 21 on Report. When we reach that stage, however, we will be making quite different points. I am arguing now that the limit should not have been reached. When we reach the later stage, I shall argue that the limit, having been raised, there are certain things we would like to do about it.

Mr. H. Macmillan

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to argue the whole point on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, we can have the argument on raising the limit now and when we come to the new Schedule we can deal with the points he has mentioned if the main principle has been accepted by the Committee. It would be better, however, not to argue both sets of points twice.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I assure you, Sir Gordon, that we will not do it twice. I am prepared to deal with the matter later, but that would necessitate repeating the first part of my speech, otherwise my remarks will be unconnected. However, I am near the end of what I have to say.

The Chancellor must face the fact that he is giving a present of something like £125 a year to people who already have to be earning £5,000 a year to get it. This is an extraordinary concession that he is making, and I am sorry that he has done it. We did not want to oppose this arrangement; broadly speaking, we are agreeable. We would far sooner that these important innovations, which, no doubt, will have to be amended from time to time, should enter into our financial system with the agreement of both sides of the Committee.

As these proposals first appeared before us in the Finance Bill, before it went into Committee, that would have been the case. We were all agreeable; the whole thing would have come about with the agreement of both sides of the Committee. Now, however, the Chancellor, by singling out this tiny class of very rich people for this benefit and by multiplying the defects in his scheme by so doing, has divided the Committee. We feel strongly about it.

It means that when we on this side come to command the finances of the country, these are things we must think about again. It will be a great pity if one has to go back and forth in these things in such matters as limits. We were agreed with the original Bill. It is only now, when the Chancellor has mucked around with it, that we are in such bitter and strong disagreement.

Party division on this sort of matter is unfortunate if it can be avoided. It leads to coming and going, making changes, and people being uncertain of the future. It is within the Chancellor's power to remove this uncertainty without eating his words. He has only to go back to the words he originally spoke, which is what he has been doing about the Americans who are over here. He ate his words and went back more or less gracefully to the position before the Bill was introduced. Here, we ask him merely to go back—we will not laugh at him; we will be only too pleased about it—to the position which he originally took up and very ably defended. He gave powerful arguments for his first position and I ask him to consider them.

If the Chancellor does not do that, there is an element of bitter controversy on this point between us and one which may not end tonight. The Chancellor should think of that, because that is wrong and we do not want it. If, however, he insists, he knows our position. All the people earning £5,000 and £7,500 a year and all the rest will be on notice that these things are not as secure as had the Chancellor left the Bill in its original form.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I am glad that we are discussing this matter on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, for it is better for the Committee to be clear on the main principle. When we reach the new Schedule, there will be other considerations to be taken into account.

Nothing which has been said in our debates on the Bill or in the comments in the Press has convinced me that the Chancellor was well advised in raising the limit as he did. I am fortified in this opinion by an article which appeared in the June issue of the Banker. That article, dealing with pensions for the self-employed, was written before the Chancellor's concession was made. Therefore, the remarks made then, when the top limit was still at £5,000 a year, or a premium of £500, apply even more strongly to the Chancellor's present proposals after he has so very considerably raised the limits.

Even of the original scheme the writer in the Banker said that it was clear that the concessions to the self-employed meant most to the Surtax payer, and that for the non-Surtax payer the value of the new facilities was less clear. Even on the lower limit, therefore, it is plain that this concession is already of great benefit primarily to those who are in the Surtax-paying class.

In this article in the Banker there was a most interesting table showing the net cost to the individual taxpayer after tax relief had been taken into account on each £100 of premium which he pays under this scheme. Of course, although the number of £100 worth has now been increased, the principle of the matter remains the same. It shows that a person whose income is £2,000 a year pays in effect £66 19s. for each £100 worth of premium; that the person earning £5,000 a year pays in effect only £35 for his £100 worth of premium; the person earning £7,500, instead of paying £66, will pay only £26 in effect. Higher up the income scale, a person earning £15,000 a year or more, although not allowed a higher proportion than that allowed on an income of £7,500, nevertheless, owing to the tax which people in that class pay, gets his £100 worth for an effective price of £7 10s.

Therefore, the Chancellor is dealing with a group of people, those with between £5,000 and £7,500, who are getting very substantial extra benefits because of the extra tax remission which they obtain at the same time. This really very large increase is a thoroughly retrograde social step.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) very properly said, we on this side were prepared to reckon £5,000 a year as being a not unreasonable level for the professional man. The only argument, I think, that can be fairly put forward in favour of the increased limit is that which was put forward rather peculiarly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) yesterday. The burden of his argument, as I understand it, was that this concession had an element of justice for the professional man compared with the business man in a "top hat" scheme. As we on this side of the Committee object in any case to a "top hat" scheme, that argument will not find very much favour with us.

There is, however, another element in this which was also made clear in that very revealing article in the Banker. Having said that the concession meant most to the Surtax payer and probably meant very little to the non-Surtax payer it went on to say: There are interesting possibilities, however, for controlling directors". It points out that controlling directors may now a fortiori benefit under the new higher concessions. A controlling director may now be able to make provision for Estate Duty by disposing of his shareholdings during his lifetime secure in the knowledge that he will have a pension for life at retirement and is thus enabled to afford a drop in income that will ensue through giving away this concession". This is a very interesting possibility, and it is a possibility which is very consider- ably extended by the concession which the Chancellor is making by the Clause as it now stands. Therefore, it seems to me there are the clearest possible reasons why we on this side of the Committee should oppose the Clause, nad I hope we shall do so in no mistakable manner.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

I do not want to detain the Committee, but I must observe that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) could have no difficulty in proving that those who pay the most tax get the most relief when tax is reduced. I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) dealt with this issue. It could have been an issue of considerable controversy. I think most hon. Members on this side of the Committee are grateful to the Opposition for the way they have tackled it.

6.15 p.m.

It may appear that giving this advantage to people with incomes up to £7,500 is unwise, but I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite to realise that it is most unlikely that any individuals who are in business on their own account or in a professional capacity will be able, even under the provisions as at present revised, to give themselves pensions equal to those of people employed in similar capacities by firms, or a rate of pension similar to that of those employed in administrative jobs and in the Civil Service.

There are two characteristics of being in business on one's own account or of being a professional man. Such professional people do not reach a high level of income until relatively late in their careers. The incomes of people in business on their own account are subject to considerable fluctuations. What this increase from £5,000 to £7,500 does is to give them some insurance against the fluctuations which are almost inevitable in the incomes of people engaged in business on their own account. If hon. and right hon. Members opposite will look at it from that point of view, they will see that this is really an insurance against the hazards of being engaged in business or in a profession on one's own account. Thus this proposal is not so anti-social as it may have appeared at first sight.

I very much indeed doubt whether there will be many individuals who in the next 30 years will be able from their earnings each year to put away £500 or £750 for insurance purposes. When we see this scheme working out we shall see that there will be very few individuals indeed who in a period of 30 years will be able year after year to set aside such sums for this purpose. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that owing to the hazardous nature of being in business on one's own account, and as professional people do not earn anything like such incomes until comparatively late in life, the adjustment which my right hon. Friend has made is not an unreasonable one.

Mr. J. T. Price

I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) about this departure and the erosion of the Chancellor's mind upon this question. The Chancellor will have only himself to blame if he runs into heavy weather on this Clause. There are many of us on this side of the Committee who, on first seeing the Millard Tucker proposals and their embodiment in the Bill, were prepared to agree that, on a general question of social equity as between different citizens in the community, we were justified in giving rather qualified support to those proposals. We were certainly not prepared for the tremendous increase in the upper limit which has been introduced into the Bill since the Second Reading.

I am not deliberately raising a class issue. The Chancellor the other day assured some of his supporters in the country that they could not expect even a Conservative Government always to pander to the middle classes. The upper limit of £500 which we on this side of the Committee were reluctantly prepared to support has now been raised to the offensive increase of £750.

Perhaps the Chancellor may not realise as clearly as he ought that many of us who represent industrial constituencies in the parts of the country where the real work of the country is done will have to face criticism if we allow this Clause to go by unheeded. Very many of our constituents constantly press us to get an increase in the miserable 50s. a week for old-age pensioners. Now the Chancellor proposes in this case that the upper limit shall be £750 regardless of the year in which the annuitant was born, and in a certain margin of cases, that is, those born before 1907 and in some instances up to 1914, the upper limit is increased to as high as £1,125.

What is the significance of these figures? I ought to declare that I have given some study to these matters and I am not unfamiliar with the aspects of annuity finance and their impact on the revenues of the country. It is clear that there are persons in receipt of very large incomes not only from self-employment but from investment and inheritance who are able to raise from their resources sufficient to pay £750 a year for 40 years. These cases are by no means imaginary. In this country, 1 per cent. of the population still owns 50 per cent. of the wealth. This fact has a great bearing on the whole matter.

A relatively young man who has sufficient access to means to pay £750 a year will have by the time he reaches the normal age of retirement at 65 a capital sum, with interest at 4 per cent., of something over £50,000. This will provide him, on present annuity tables, with a pension of one-tenth the capital value, that is £5,000 a year. It will not only provide him with that pension but will erode the capacity of the Treasury and the National Exchequer to collect Estate Duty at death which otherwise would be payable in a capital sum if the money had been saved by some other means.

I have no illusions about these provisions. I speak rather regretfully about this because, in discussing the problem privately with some of my colleagues, I have been inclined to advise that the Millard Tucker proposals are sound in principle. But when they are carried to these limits it is palpable that they are a device to provide a vehicle for avoiding the full impact of Surtax on annual incomes and to avoid the impact of death duties on estates.

This is not good enough. I know that the Chancellor has spent a good deal of time and has used a great deal of midnight oil and vinegar rags on this problem and he has listened to the pressure groups who—and I am not complaining—have been to see him, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman that when he introduces matters of this kind, which are clearly class measures, into an austerity Budget, we are entitled to protest from the Labour benches and to carry our protest into the Lobby.

Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)

I am very sorry to find that what started as a rather impetuous objection at an early stage has grown to something like steady and determined opposition to this change. It is easy to think of someone who, for 40 years, is so rich as to be able to pay £750 a year premium out of his income on an insurance policy, and thereby to build up a cumulus of criticism, as hon. Members opposite have done.

I look at the matter from the entirely different point of view of the self-employed professional man who, if he was lucky, 40 years ago might have been making £750 a year and possibly able to pay £10 a year premium—and with no assets and no inherited wealth, which have to be presupposed to build up the criticism offered by the Opposition. Such a man, by his own efforts, gradually increases his income over the 40 years so that at the end of that time he may be lucky enough to be making an earned income of £5,000 a year out of which perhaps—because at that stage he would probably have large family responsibilities—he would be able to pay, with great difficulty, a premium of £500 that particular year.

If he is a barrister he may with luck have a big case the next year and be able to pay £600 premium, but later he may be back to an income of £3,000 or £4,000 a year and be able to pay a far lesser premium. Then, again, perhaps for a year or two he might be able to pay £750 a year. This provision was suggested to try to enable two things to happen. It was to enable these people to try to safeguard their future when, if they are not fortunate enough to be given judicial employment, their practice might dwindle away in old age. It was to enable them to provide a pension for themselves or, if they were somewhat better off, to increase their savings for their own and the country's benefit.

I remain, for those reasons, profoundly grateful not only to Sir James Millard Tucker but still more so to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced these provisions. I am absolutely certain that they will not be used in the way the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) have suggested. I believe that they will be a great encouragement and a help to the professional classes, having regard particularly to those who are late entrants and who may have the opportunity for a year or two to put by the larger sums to which reference is made in the Schedule. These provisions will also be of great advantage to those people who were extremely hard hit during the war and were unable to start earning. The Committee should be grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has done.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I should like to direct myself to answering the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). We have had painted for us a delightful picture of the man who is not in a position to save much early on, but, later, is in a position to save more. We have also had the delightful picture of the somewhat elderly person who will no doubt benefit in certain circumstances. I merely point out to the right hon. and learned Member that there arc Amendments on the Notice Paper to Clause 21, page 24, lines 21 and 23, which provide for those two cases and upon which we shall confidently expect his support when we debate them later.

The right hon. and learned Member must remember that there are some cases which are not provided for by those two Amendments, and which are not of the character which he has so eloquently and I might almost say so pathetically described to us. There are some fortunate people who have incomes of between £5,000 and £7,500 a year for quite a long time, and we have to consider whether those persons should be entitled to a special tax concession at a time which, as we understand from the Chancellor at other moments, is one of national crisis, financial emergency, of trying to stand still on a plateau which we may or may not attain, and of a number of other remarkable difficulties.

If the change which is now appearing in the Bill, and for which he had some initial responsibility, is designed to cover the type of case for which he has so much regard why, instead of wringing our hearts at this late stage, did the right hon. and learned Member not draft the proposals to cover the type of cases which he has mentioned and limit the proposals to those cases? I would not accuse him either of laziness or of perversity, but we view with some suspicion a speech of this character from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who could, if he wanted, have limited these benefits to that class of person, and has extended them to a class of person, who—without saying anything unduly against them—are not entitled to any special benefit under these Clauses in the present state of the national finances brought about by the present Government and Chancellor.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I shall not venture to intervene in this dispute or to broaden the discussion into the wide fields suggested by the last sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). This debate has been an interesting one and moderately well conducted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said with great truth that his party had given a general support to the principles underlying these proposals, and I am grateful for that. I recognise that it is helpful, both for now and for the future. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I, having now decided considerably to raise the limit, would alter the entire character of their approach to these plans. I hope that is not a final verdict, because it is a great advantage that this scheme, which is one of the main features of the Budget of the year, should have broad support, anyway in principle.

I cannot quite see how there can be such a great distinction of principle between the sum originally suggested and the sum now to be suggested. I did not know there were so many more people with £5,000 a year than £7,000. I thought that all the rich were damned, but particularly the class with unearned incomes. But then we are not dealing with those, we are dealing with people who are ex hypothesi self-employed, professional men or others, earning their own living.

If it were true that there was an absolute rule in any walk of life, either among the higher civil servants or among judges or among business men, to have an income above £5,000 a year then I could understand an argument that the limit of £500 was sacrosanct. The truth is that we are trying to deal with a rather special class of people who have to look after themselves, as was so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).

Of their nature their occupations are often hazardous. They, and often their parents before them, made great sacrifices before they started these occupations. There are many entrants in these races and not very many of them make the grade. In these walks of life there are a tremendous number of young men who start, but some do not succeed. Those who succeed very often do so only for a short time and with somewhat fluctuating fortunes. I thought, therefore, having listened to the debate, and having received strong representations from many of the professional societies, that it would be fairer to increase the limit to the sum I now suggest.

I was particularly struck by some of the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). He made a very powerful case, both in his approaches to me on behalf of the Bar and in what he said. I am sorry that I have not been able to meet all the suggestions which came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think he feels that we have met some. He made a strong and powerful case, which was referred to by one hon. Member this afternoon. There has been that problem of uncertainty, there is the problem of fluctuation, and there is the fact that other people, in different walks of life, are to have either from business, or now even from the Civil Service, very high rates of pension provided for them.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick was fair in his first approach and I do not think that he can feel that this difference of degree is such an enormous difference in principle as to lead him to oppose the entire scheme which otherwise he would be prepared to support.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I based myself on the minority Report of the Royal Commission, which stated that it begins to work above £5,000.

Mr. Macmillan

Yes, but nobody can fix an absolute figure and say that it is absolutely right or that another figure is absolutely wrong. It is a matter of judgment. I say, therefore, that if his side of the Committee does not agree with the judgment which I am asking the Committee to form, I hope, nevertheless, it will not mean that the whole of this scheme will have from now on the insuperable opposition of Members of the party opposite.

If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice that there may be changes in future in the system of taxation, that may be so. Taking it broadly, and having regard to all the considerations brought to my notice—and I think brought to the notice of many hon. Members—and having regard to the fluctuating character, the hazardous character and to some extent the special conditions that apply to what is admittedly a small number of people, I think that on the whole the Committee would be wise to accept a scheme which, since these people play a great part in all the different professions, will, by giving them a greater sense of security and something more still to work for, be to the general benefit of the community.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in view of the reference by the Chancellor to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) I ought to intervene to make it clear, in case there is any doubt in any part of the Committee, that my right hon. and learned Friend was not speaking as a Member of the House of Commons, and certainly not in his capacity as a member of the Labour Party. He was speaking as Chairman of what must, within the context of this debate, be regarded as a pressure group.

Mr. H. Macmillan

I think that at one stage in the speech which is reported in this morning's newspaper he made that clear. I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as Chairman of the Bar Council.

Mr. Wilson

I did not want there to be any doubt about that. Certainly, in anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said he was speaking in a representational capacity and not in his capacity as representing either St. Helens or this side of the Committee.

Since I am now on my feet perhaps I might refer to one or two other points made by the Chancellor. I think the Chancellor has taken this first point, if he does not agree with it. We are not opposed to the principle of this Clause, but what has made it unacceptable to us is the concession accepted by the Chancellor, and now enshrined in the Amendments on the Notice Paper. It is only fair once again to remind the Chancellor that it was not very easy for this side of the Committee to accept his proposals at all so far as the Millard Tucker Report is concerned, when we heard them in the Budget speech.

I have told the Committee before that we divined in advance that this concession was to appear in the Budget, and we had several meetings on it, even before Budget day. Our view was that if any proposals made by the Chancellor on this subject were broadly on the lines of the minority Report, we should feel that they might be accepted, particularly if they appeared as part of a generally fair Budget. It was not, of course, a generally fair Budget.

In spite of that, we felt, after consideration, that we should support the Chancellor's proposals although they were not part of the kind of Budget to which I have referred and although they went considerably beyond the minority Report of the Millard Tucker Committee. This was not easy. We have been told that they are an incentive to savings. As some of us have previously had occasion to remark, it seems odd that every Budget concession

during the last four years has been an incentive to someone in relation either to production or savings, and all too often it has seemed to refer to people with higher incomes or to companies. I had to ask the Chancellor once why it was that there seemed never to be any incentives for poor taxpayers and all the incentives were for the richer ones. Although it was not easy for us to accept the proposition, nevertheless we did so.

Then the Chancellor, despite all his earlier arguments, which had been powerful, accepted this back bench Tory Amendment in the middle of the night. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has made clear, it has destroyed the basis on which we felt we could go along with the Chancellor. It is for that reason that when the debate is ended—I am not seeking to close it at this point—we shall want to divide against the Clause, making it clear that we agree with the principle of doing something for self-employed and professional persons, but feel that the Chancellor has gone much too far in a Budget where he has done so little for so many people and where he has steadfastly refused all kinds of concessions, including one we debated many weeks ago which affected the welfare of old-age pensioners.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 196.

Division No. 257.] AYES [6.42 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Boyle, Sir Edward Deedes, W. F.
Aitken, W. T. Braine, B. R. Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Alport, C. J. M. Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Doughty, C. J. A.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Drayson, G. B.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Bryan, P. du Cann, E. D. L.
Armstrong, C. W. Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hn. P. G. T. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Burden, F. F. A. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Butcher, Sir Herbert Duthie, W. S.
Baidwin, A. E. Campbell, Sir David Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick&L'm'tn)
Balniel, Lord Channon, H. Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Barlow, Sir John Chichester-Clark, R. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Barter, John Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Baxter, Sir Beverley Cole, Norman Errington, Sir Eric
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Cooper-Key, E. M. Fisher, Nigel
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Corfield, Capt. F. V. Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Fort, R.
Bidgood, J. C. Crouch, R. F. Foster, John
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Freeth, D. K.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Bishop, F. P. Cunningham, Knox George, J. C. (Poliok)
Black, C. W. Currie, G. B. H. Gibson-Watt, D.
Body, R. F. Dance, J. C. G. Glover, D.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Davidson, Viscountess Godber, J. B.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Gough, C. F. H. Leburn, W. G. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Remnant, Hon. P.
Grant, W. (Woodside) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Renton, D. L. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr, R. (Nantwich) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Ridsdale, J. E.
Green, A. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Rippon, A. G. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Linstead, Sir H. N. Robertson, Sir David
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H. Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Roper, Sir Harold
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Longden, Gilbert Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Harris, Reader (Heston) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Russell, R. S.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) McAdden, S. J. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Sharples, R. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Shepherd, William
Hay, John McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) McLean, Neil (Inverness) Speir, R. M.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Stevens, Geoffrey
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maddan, Martin Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Stoddart-Scot, Col. M.
Hornby, R. P. Markham, Major Sir Frank Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)
Horobin, Sir Ian Marlowe, A. A. H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Marshall, Douglas Summers, Sir Spencer
Howard, John (Test) Mathew, R. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Mawby, R. L. Teeling, W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Medlicott, Sir Frank Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hulbert, Sir Norman Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hurd, A. R. Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Moore, Sir Thomas Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun) Nabarro, G. D. N. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Hyde, Montgomery Nairn, D. L. S. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Iremonger, T. L. Neave, Airey Turner, H. F. L.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nicholls, Harmer Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th & Chr'oh) Vane, W. M. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Nield, Basil (Chester) Vickers, Miss J. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Vosper, D. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Nugent, G. R. H. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Joseph, Sir Keith Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wall, Major Patrick
Keegan, D. Page, R. G. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Partridge, E. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Kerr, H. W. Peyton, J. W. W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Kershaw, J. A. Pitman, I. J. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Kimball, M. Pitt, Miss E. M. Williams, Paul (Sunderand, S.)
Kirk, P. M. Pott, H. P. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lagden, G. W. Powell, J. Enoch Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Lambert, Hon. C. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Profumo, J. D. Woollam, John Victor
Langford-Holt, J. A. Raikes, Sir Victor Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Leather, E. H. C. Rawlinson, Peter
Leavey, J. A. Redmayne, M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Barber.
NOES
Ainsley, J. W. Burton, Miss F. E. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Albu, A. H. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Dye, S.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Callaghan, L. J. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Champion, A. J. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Anderson, Frank Chapman, W. D. Fernyhough, E.
Awbery, S. S. Chetwynd, G. R. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Clunie, J. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Baird, J. Coldrick, W. Gibson, G. W.
Balfour, A. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Gooch, E. G.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Greenwood, Anthony
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Cove, W. G. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Benson, G. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Grey, C. F.
Beswick, F. Cronin, J. D. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Blackburn, F. Crossman, R. H. S. Hale, Leslie
Blenkinsop, A. Cullen, Mrs. A. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Boardman, H. Daines, P. Hamilton, W. W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hannan, W.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Darling, George (Hillsborough) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Bowles, F. G. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hastings, S.
Boyd, T. C. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hayman, F. H.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Brockway, A. F. de Freitas, Geoffrey Herbison, Miss M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Delargy, H. J. Hewitson, Capt. M.
Burke, W. A. Dodds, N. N. Hobson, C. R.
Holman, P. Mitchison, G. R. Skeffington, A. M.
Holmes, Horace Moody, A, S. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Howell, Denis (All Saints) Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hoy, J. H. Mort, D. L. Sorensen, R. W.
Hubbard, T. F. Moss, R. Sparks, J. A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mulley, F. W. Steele, T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oliver, G. H. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hunter, A. E. Orbach, M. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Oswald, T. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Janner, B. Owen, W. J. Swingler, S. T.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Padley, W. E. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Jeger, George (Goole) Paget, R. T. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&St. Pncs, S.) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Palmer, A. M. F. Thornton, E.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Timmons, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Pargiter, G. A. Tomney, F.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Parker, J. Turner-Samuels, M.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Parkin, B. T. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Kenyon, C. Pearson, A. Warbey, W. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Plummer, Sir Leslie Weitzman, D.
King, Dr. H. M. Popplewell, E. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Lawson, G. M. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Probert, A. R. West, D. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Proctor, W. T. Wheeldon, W. E.
Lindgren, G. S. Pryde, D. J. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Randall, H. E. Wilkins, W. A.
Logan, D. G. Rankin, John Williams, David (Neath)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Redhead, E. C. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
MacColl, J. E. Reeves, J. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
McInnes, J. Reid, William Williams, W. R.(Openshaw)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
McLeavy, Frank Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Winterbottom, Richard
Mahon, Simon Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Mann, Mrs. Jean Shurmer, P. L. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Mellish, R. J. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Zilliacus, K.
Messer, Sir F. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Mikardo, Ian Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Deer.

Question put and agreed to.