§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
492§ 4.0 a.m.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerThis Clause is obviously desirable, and we would support it, but I am not quite clear why the proviso starting at line 21 is inserted in it. I remember the passage of some of the Pensions (Increase) Acts. Some of them passed when we were in office. At the moment, I cannot see why concessions, or whatever the term may be—my mind will not work too well at this hour of the morning—which are rightly made are not, in fact, extended to this increase which, as far as I remember, merely increased the existing pensions. It did not alter their nature. I should have thought that we would get into an awful muddle if bits of pensions get the benefit of the Clause while other bits of the same pensions do not. There may be a special reason for the proviso that has escaped my powers of penetration.
§ Mr. H. BrookeI will endeavour to explain this point. The proviso relates only to the Indian, Pakistan and colonial pensions. It makes it clear that the exemption provided in the subsection is not to apply to payments made by the United Kingdom Government under the various Pensions (Increase) Acts. These payments have always been chargeable to United Kingdom tax, whether the recipient was resident or not, and they are not in any way affected by the Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Act.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.