HC Deb 19 June 1956 vol 554 cc1349-75

The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952: — 228A. If the claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment

  1. (a) he has been in receipt of a war disablement pension or an industrial injury pension granted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and determined by reference to one hundred per cent. disablement, or
  2. (b) though not in receipt of a one hundred per cent. disablement pension or industrial injury pension he nevertheless is disabled in manner and degree equivalent to one hundred per cent. disablement,
he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds ".—[Sir F. Messer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.Sir Frederick

Sir Temporary Messer (Tottenham)

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

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy)

I think it will be convenient also to consider the new Clause, "Blind persons", which is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson).

Sir F. Messer

This new Clause is, I think, in rather unusual form. However, it represents what I believe to be the repair of a very grave omission in the past. It should be easy, when asking for support for a Clause which would bring benefit to disabled people, to dilate on their very great hardship and to arouse feelings of a sentimental nature. I think, however, that it would be an error if we were to attempt to argue a case when the inspiration is merely emotional rather than to deal with it in a way that would commend itself as being one not of sentiment but of realism, a case which depended not on pity for the unfortunate but rather on justice.

It is a case in which I at least am not claiming from the Government any generosity but what I believe to be equity, because the new Clause seeks to give relief to people who are 100 per cent. disabled. It is important that the Committee should keep in mind that these people are 100 per cent. disabled, which means that they are on a standard where it is recognised that they are entirely dependent on outside resources. It is not a case, of course, of real poverty, because these people are in the Income Tax class. We are asking in the new Clause that these disabled people should be recognised as being entitled to be placed on an equality with others.

The principle of our Income Tax law is not that we just tax income. We take into account expenses. We take into account what may be said to be the available income, and I shall claim that people who are 100 per cent, physically disabled find that it costs more for them to live than it costs normal people. This does not mean that they are bedridden or that they are completely immobile, but it means that, where the normal person can walk, they must provide some means of transport. They must have a taxicab where other people would be able to use their own natural means of progression. They have to find a mechanical contrivance that they can drive. These are the people who, when they need service, must pay for service of a kind which they could quite easily render themselves if it were not for the fact that they are disabled.

My argument, therefore, is based upon the reality of the fact that they are already paying more for the privilege of living than does the normal person. One sees so many people who are dependent upon artificial aids, such as caliper splints, surgical boots and spinal jackets. These people are not within the range where they can obtain benefit from National Assistance, if they have an income which brings them within the Income Tax class. They are not persons, therefore, who would be content to have these appliances and wait until they were worn out before renewing them. They would have had to buy the original appliances and spare appliances in case of accidents. They need to use these appliances and, consequently, there is an expense to them individually which is not borne by the normal individual.

For those reasons, I think it is clear that we ought to recognise these things as being an allowance. It is not a case of our being sorry for these people because they suffer, and maybe are suffering. Today there are many types of this disablement. Only recently I was speaking to a highly intelligent man, a spastic. He was just able to walk, about an inch at a time. I met him in the premises of the British Medical Association, where he went to attend a meeting which I was attending.

This man told me how expensive it was when he had to replace the appliances he wore, and how expensive it was for him to have to pay for the services needed in his own home. I do not think it necessary to go into greater detail about the physically handicapped. It is sufficient for my purpose to assert that owing to increased costs these people deserve consideration.

I have no desire to keep the Committee at any length. but now I want to say a word or two about the second proposed new Clause dealing with blind people. Speaking from memory, it is about 20 years ago—a little more or a little less—that the late Sir Kingsley Wood, then Minister of Health in a Tory Government, brought in the Blind Persons Act. That Measure was a big improvement on the 1902 Act. It showed that the Government of the day realised that blind people deserved special attention. This was not because they were blind, not because they were bereft of their sight—robbed of the greatest gift that man and the animal kingdom have—but because it costs the blind person more to live than the sighted.

Blind persons need much done for them, especially if they become blind late in life. Children who are born blind, and have the opportunity of training, become adept in many things which the later blinded person is unable to tackle. Therefore, I depend upon the fact that it is recognised that a blind person needs more than the normal person, and that it has been so recognised in the memory of hon. Members of this House. It will be remembered, for instance, that from 1945 onwards we have given blind people under the National Assistance Act a sum of money in excess of that given to ordinary people. At present, the increase in respect of a blind person who needs to draw National Assistance is about 18s. per week.

9.30 p.m.

The Clause refers to the registered blind person. It is the responsibility of county councils or county borough councils to register blind people. In consequence of that registration, the individuals are entitled to be recognised as blind people for the purpose of any Act of Parliament. In this case, it would mean that registered blind persons would be entitled to the advantages of the Clause.

Middle-class blind people who may need to follow some sort of activity are compelled to pay for readers. They have to pay for guides if they want to go more than a short distance away from their homes and known haunts. They are compelled to pay for all the service that they require. Blind people are handicapped just as the physically disabled are.

I do not feel that there is any great need to stress the two Clauses. They have a specially powerful appeal to me. I do not know how the Chancellor can resist something which will not cost the Treasury very much but will bring a little ease to those who not only deserve it but should, in justice, be given it.

Mr. Edward Evans

I rise to support the very moving plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) on behalf of the disabled. I should have thought there was little need to detain the Committee by talking about the merits of the two Clauses.

I ought to declare a kind of vicarious interest, because my professional life has been spent among disabled people. For many years I have, as it were, incurred an occupational liability by leading deputations from both sides of the House of Commons to those occupying the exalted office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We have gone very little beyond obtaining a sympathetic hearing of our plea, an avowal of understanding and a promise later on to look into the merits of the case; but we have had no practical relief. Following the plea made by my hon. Friend, which I am sure is supported by every right hon. and hon. Member who knows the consequential disabilities of the major handicaps from which so many of our citizens suffer, I hope that this time there will be some response from the Treasury..

What we are really seeking by asking the Government for this relief is a recognition of the cost of disability, what I might call the cost of being blind, of being an epileptic, a cripple, a spastic or a polio victim. Those of us who have worked among people of that kind and know the disability intimately know that inevitably there is an additional cost added to the ordinary hazards of life and of maintaining a decent standard of life. My hon. Friend has mentioned that, in those cases which come within the ambit of National Assistance, there is a special recognition.

In the Blind Persons Act, the Government imposed upon local authorities the duty of looking after the blind, and that duty has been continued and is reimposed under the National Assistance Act. Although the welfare Clauses are not made mandatory, there is a provision that these disabled persons can go to the local authority for welfare services. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter, because probably his reply will be that it will be so difficult to administer and to decide who is a 100 per cent. disabled person. I want to suggest to him how that difficulty can be overcome.

In the Blind Persons Act, there is laid down a statutory definition of a blind person, and, as far as I know, that is the only disability that has a statutory definition. Under the Pensions Acts, the ex-Service man has his certificate of 100 per cent. disability. The blind person is already provided for in that respect. Under the welfare Clauses of the National Assistance Act, it is open to local, authorities to maintain a register of disabled persons, and if their names are on that list, I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that should be a sufficient guarantee that those are bona fide cases of 100 per cent. disability. I submit that that is a rather important administrative point, because it will help the right hon. Gentleman to get over the difficulty that he might meet in having applications for this relief from persons who really do not fall into the category of 100 per cent. disablement. They can now be identified.

I am going to quote in aid of this case the Second Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, paragraphs 201 and 202. The Commission's recommendation was that these persons suffering from 100 per cent. disability should be granted what are, in effect, the terms of these two new Clauses; that is to say, a rebate of £100 of their Income Tax liability. My hon. Friend mentioned the extra cost that follows on such a disability. To take the case of a blind lawyer, he has to have a reader and has to buy all the expensive books that are necessary. The polio victim has to take a taxi, and the epileptic, if he is in difficult circumstances, has to have special help. We could multiply the individual cases of hardship a hundredfold, but I do not propose to do so.

I should like to read what the Royal Commission said. Paragraph 202 states: Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance. That is categorical; there is no equivocation about it. The Report goes on: It presents itself to us as a personal circumstance that sets apart those who suffer from it and directly affects their relative capacity to pay. We do not mean that it affects their earning capacity. The category which we are putting forward to the Financial Secretary is that of those people who come into the Income Tax group. The Report goes on: What we are thinking of is a range of additional expense attendant upon the conduct of their normal life not least upon the maintenance of their earning capacity, which yet goes unrelieved under the existing code. What the Commission means by that, as I understand it, is that they shall have such relief as will be able to help them to maintain their earning capacity, because unless they get certain relief, the expense which they endure through their disability makes it very difficult for them to work to 100 per cent. capacity.

We have pressed this point for many years to successive Governments, and I can only hope that the Financial Secretary and his right hon. Friend will, at any rate, see their way this time to give some concession such as that for which we are asking.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words about these two Clauses, in particular the one referring to blind persons. It is about two years since I first wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about having some tax relief for blind persons who have to pay for the upkeep of a guide dog. I should like to tell the Committee of a particular case in my constituency. No doubt hon. Members can think of many similar circumstances in their own constituencies.

The case is that of a man who has done everything he possibly can to avoid being a burden on the community as a result of this tragic physical disability. He is completely blind, yet he is able to do the job of being a telephonist. He is also an excellent pianist and runs a small dance band of about three or four people. He probably has quite a modest income as a result, but that is not the point. In the days when so many people are a cost on the State, we should look kindly towards those who do all they can to overcome their own difficulties and not be a burden on the State.

However, we should not just leave it at that. We should see whether the State can do something to overcome the extra cost of the disability which such people suffer. This man was taken to work every day by his guide dog. It is impossible for him to get any relief from taxation on that account. He cannot have it allowed as a business expense, or anything of that nature, but it probably costs him at least £1 a week.

It would be quite reasonable for the Chancellor to accept the validity of the argument that something should be done towards helping these people to meet the extra cost which they incur by the very fact of their being blind. As the total cost would be very small, I hope that the Chancellor will not use the argument that because of the economic situation he cannot afford to give something of his huge surplus to meet what, for these people, is a reasonable and heartfelt need.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

It is a privilege to support a new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), whose life is a monument of service to disabled, aged and sick people, and which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who has devoted most of his life to doing what he can for the totally deaf.

Recently, I attended the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A., the organisation of limbless ex-Service men, and, later, the annual conference of the Inskip Fellowship, a similar gathering of totally or partially disabled civilian people. No one who attended either of those functions and met the limbless folk there could hesitate to back a new Clause of this character.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham emphasised that this is not a charitable appeal, that the totally disabled folk want no pity, but, rather that, if there is any pity, anyone who has been in contact with the 100 per cent. disabled men and women would feel some pity for the abled-bodied moaners who fail to live their lives with the cheerfulness and courage shown by those folk.

9.45 p.m.

To me, the case is the quite simple one that the money which a 100 per cent. disabled person gets has not the same value as the money which an able person can get. Whatever the disabled person has to help him to live, he has to pay for many things that we can do for ourselves or our friends are willing to do for us.

It may be argued that we have done very much indeed for our disabled folk. I would yield to no one in my tribute to what we do for the totally disabled ex-Service men in the way of additional allowances—all add up to very useful pieces of social work; but nobody who has ever known a totally disabled man or woman could say that the comforts allowance, the unemployability allowance or the constant attendance allowance adequately compensate for the 100 per cent. disability that they suffer.

When they feed, when they clothe, when they move from place to place, when they go in search of a job and when they read, they incur expenses that the totally able person does not have to incur. Any relief that the Chancellor can give them along the lines of the new Clause could be used for further instruments or gadgets, on the one hand, or for further devices or comforts, on the other hand, to make their lives a little nearer the fuller life of a normal human being.

I would only add to what has been said in this debate, that the new Clause is dead on the line of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to which so much tribute is being paid in the Finance Bill debates and most of whose recommendations we hope some time some Chancellor will put on the Statute Book. Having argued the case for the need to give tax relief to the disabled man in the passage quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, the Royal Commission then said, in paragraph 203: We thought it right to concentrate upon some extreme measure of disability, because, if there is to be an allowance at all, it should, at any rate initially, be related to personal circumstances which are reasonably capable of identification and which demonstrably set the person concerned apart from others. We made a number of enquiries in quarters that we thought might assist us: and we came to the conclusion that the standard that we ought to recommend to qualify for a disability allowance should be that of 100 per cent. or total disablement as applied by the Ministry of Pensions (as it then was) for the purposes of war pensions. Later in the same paragraph the Royal Commission recommended that the concession which is granted to the 100 percent. disabled should be the exemption of the £100 named in the new Clause. I hope that the Chancellor will see fit to accept this very moderate, practical and useful proposal.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

I want to give just one quite simple illustration of the type of case we have in mind in the new Clause relating to the 100 per cent. disabled, which is well known to me and, I think, to many of my hon. Friends. It is that of a man who, for many years, has been severely paralysed and who through the greater part of his life, and increasingly so today, has had to have paid attendants to help him very courageously to carry on with his job of teaching, which he still manages, amazingly, to pursue.

Every year that goes by the problem for him becomes greater because, among other things, he becomes heavier. All his movements today have to be assisted and that means that, in order that he may get to his school to teach, he needs the help of the St. John Ambulance men, which has to be paid for, and although those whom he lives with in his home manage to look after him, one wonders how long it will be possible for them to do so because his disability, I am afraid, inevitably increases.

In this case, which I suggest is typical of a number of cases of this kind, we all rightly pay tribute to men who manage to overcome their severe disabilities with so much courage and good will. There is no doubt about the added expense in which they are involved while contributing to our society and our community very greatly indeed, as undoubtedly they do. Therefore, although I fully appreciate some of the difficulties which are involved in providing an allowance of this kind, particularly as in this case the man is not entitled to a war disability pension or an industrial injuries disablement pension, there is no question about the rate of his disability, and the need is certainly there.

I feel that, although this matter has been raised on many occasions before, it would he a very gracious thing if the Financial Secretary could find it possible to examine this proposal and announce today that he was willing to make a grant of this nature.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

May I add two points which, I think, will emphasise the arguments already made by my hon. Friends? First, on medical grounds, I think it is most important that these men should be doing a job of work. It is of use to them and of use to the country that, whatever it is they are doing, they should be enabled to do it. If, by lack of resources, they are forced to give up their employment, I think that we shall be so much the poorer as a result, that they will be so much the worse physically with their handicap, and that their deterioration will be all the more rapid.

There are cases, as I know from my personal experience, where men, because of lack of finance, have had to give up the special means by which they get to their work or the special help which enables them to do their job, and, consequently, they have quickly "faded away."

Secondly, it is an argument on economic grounds that if the Treasury does not give an allowance like this, and these men fall out of employment, they become chargeable to the State under National Assistance or under pensions, and I am absolutely certain that it would cost the State far more to keep these people by that means than it would to give them what I think is a very justifiable concession. I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear these points in mind when he is considering the sympathetic appeal which has been made to him.

Mr. Victor Collins (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), in moving this new Clause, did so all the more effectively because he deliberately eschewed emotion. Nevertheless, I think that it is impossible not to bear in mind that these men are suffering a very severe handicap, and the Clauses are regarded as making some kind of compensation which is badly needed by those so handicapped.

Like some of my hon. Friends, the whole of my working life has been spent directly or indirectly with totally disabled people. particularly blind persons. It is impossible for anyone in constant contact with very badly disabled people to have anything but a tremendous admiration for the courage with which they face their difficulties. It is such that they completely ignore the difficulties with which they are confronted. But there is one thing which they cannot ignore, which is that, by reason of that severe disability, they are under a special handicap which eventually involves finance.

I should like the Financial Secretary to tell the Committee how much this concession would cost. I do not want him to emphasise the technical difficulties because I believe that with good will they could be overcome. There are, I believe, some 12,000 severely disabled persons at work. That category may be larger than the category of the 100 per cent. disabled people mentioned in the Clause, but, in any case, the ceiling is about 12,000. About 6,000 of these people are in Remploy and the other 6,000 in other institutions. The average wage of the 6,000 in Remploy is about £7 10s. a week. Many of them do not pay Income Tax, but to those who do—single men and others—this concession would probably mean that they also would be relieved of paying income tax altogether.

It would be an excellent thing indeed if people with low incomes, and who were severely disabled, were not required to pay Income Tax. Those with much higher incomes would, subject to this concession, still pay Income Tax. At present, blind persons receive special concessions, but if this suggestion were adopted there would be uniform treatment for all severely disabled people. I should not like to argue whether total blindness is a greater disability than some of the other kinds of disabilities I have mentioned, but I think that there should be uniformity of treatment.

There is the matter of expenses which severely handicapped people incur. In my division, spastics and people suffering from poliomyelitis come to the swimming baths every fortnight on a Sunday. It takes a long time to persuade them that they can safely enter a swimming bath and for them to get the necessary confidence. But there are devoted instructors who give their time without charge. There is an extremely happy atmosphere. We eventually have competitions and a gala, and this activity does a tremendous amount of good.

Most of those who now attend are young people, but there are some adults among them. The activity has done great things for them and has improved their physical condition. The point I am trying to make is that they have to get to the swimming baths. Some are taken there by friends, but some are not. For the latter class it involves extra cost and extra effort to get this tremendous pleasure. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us, first, what the concession would cost, and, secondly, that the country can afford the small amount involved in giving these brave people a relief that we can well afford to give them.

10.0 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

In supporting the new Clause, I should like to reinforce the arguments which have been advanced that these disabled people are often carrying on with their work and that if they were not doing so they would become an added burden to the State. It is of psychological value that, as far as possible, they should be able to continue with their jobs; it does them good.

My hon. Friends have mentioned mainly men, but there are innumerable cases of severely handicapped women, who have to pay for someone to do their housework so that they may continue with their jobs. In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) said, they have the difficulty of getting to their places of employment.

I know a teacher who is carrying on her work under extreme difficulties. For years she has hardly been able to walk, and yet she carries out her job in the classroom in such a way that Her Majesty's Inspectors have repeatedly, when visiting the school, commended her on her share of the work which she undertakes. She is a spinster, and she has to have a housekeeper to look after her, because after she has done a day's work at school she cannot do her normal housework.

She is unable to claim Income Tax allowance for her housekeeper, and, in addition, she has to pay someone to take her to school and bring her home again. We are crying out for teachers. Years ago, had she not had plenty of pluck, she could have given up her job, sat back and received National Assistance or some other benefit. Because of her training and her great interest in her work, she wishes to continue with her work.

When the Financial Secretary gives consideration to this new Clause, I hope he will also consider the case of the single woman who has to have a housekeeper and someone to help her get to her job.

Mr. H. Brooke

This is a very difficult matter, which has been debated on previous occasions. It fell to the Labour Government once to resist a plea for tax relief of a similar character to the disabled. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) was quite right when he said that the subject had been debated frequently in the House.

This time we have before us a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and it is that, I know, on which at least one of the new Clauses is based. I should like to say how much I appreciate the manner in which the Clause was moved by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) and the very reasonable and understanding way in which it has been debated.

It is a difficult and heart-searching subject, and the fundamental question is whether it is right to help disabled people by tax relief. The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) said that the first new Clause was "dead on the line" of the Royal Commission Report, but in fact that is not quite accurate. Briefly, the Royal Commission said that there should be a disability allowance for which the standard should be that of 100 per cent. disablement as applied by the Ministry for the purpose of war pensions, and it contemplated an allowance at not less than £100.

It added, however—and this is the point the hon. Member overlooked—that allowances should not be given in addition to tax-free disability benefits and that the person should have the right to choose between receiving benefits which are not subject to tax, such as a war disability pension, and receiving the proposed tax allowance in respect of disablement. It is only fair to point out that that proviso is not included in the new Clause, which suggests a straight tax allowance of £100.

It is easy to calculate that, in the case of the disabled person who is qualified here and who has an income sufficient to bring him on to the standard rate of Income Tax, the value would be £42 10s. a year. It would be less for those with smaller incomes, and for very large numbers of disabled people who are not subject to Income Tax the new Clause would have no value at all. While I am not suggesting that that is an absolute reason against accepting the new Clause, I think we must recognise that its effect would be to give the most advantage to the people with the larger incomes and would, in fact, give nothing at all to the less well off.

What I am asking the Committee to consider is whether the needs of the disabled are best met by tax reliefs rather than by the social services. Several hon. Members suggested that this disability allowance would be of special value because it would be intended in the mind of Parliament to take account of the extra expenses that disabled people have to incur but, of course, it is, by the words of the Clause—and indeed in the conception of the Royal Commission—tied to 100 per cent. disability rather than to loss of earning capacity or to the additional expenses which that disability involves.

Both the Royal Commission and the new Clause itself envisage that this should be based on a 100 per cent. disability, but we have to be practical people on both sides of the Committee and consider whether it would be possible and reasonable to stop there. After all, a person who has had both legs amputated below the knee will be a 100 per cent. disability case. The person who has had one leg amputated above the knee will be a 90 per cent. disability case. The Clause would give full tax relief to the first and nothing at all to the second person, and I must ask the Committee to consider in its own mind whether, in fact, such a position would be acceptable to public opinion. I have the greatest respect for the wonderful work which the Royal Commission did, but in this case I am not sure whether it worked out for itself all the consequences that would, in my practical view, inevitably flow from its general recommendation.

There is another point, which is not covered by the Clause at all. The hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) mentioned the unmarried woman. We have to keep in mind also the case of the man whose wife is disabled. There is nothing in this Clause which would assist there. There is no provision made for such a case.

Sir F. Messer

It could be put in.

Mr. Brooke

What I have to address myself to is the Clause as it is on the Order Paper. I am pointing out that this is not as simple a matter as it may seem to some who look at it for the first time.

Sir F. Messer

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he will be prepared to accept the new Clause as it stands, we will promise to move the necessary Amendment on Report.

Dr. Edith Summerskill (Warrington)

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I know, but I find it extremely difficult to follow his logic in this case. Has he not examined our social legislation before making this speech? He will find there that there are cases—pneumoconiosis cases, for example—where the man suffering from a complete disability was given a certain compensation but the partially-disabled man was not. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to inquire, he will find that there is case after case where the House of Commons, as it has done on many occasions, has not always felt it had to find an absolutely 100 per cent. cast-iron case for doing something which most people would say was human and was highly desirable. Surely, he is not going to argue that the man with two legs amputated should not be compensated because the man with one leg amputated is not?

Mr. Brooke

I am perfectly aware of those other types of case which the right hon. Lady has mentioned. What I am putting to the Committee is that this new Clause is confined to the case of 100 per cent. disability. I do not myself believe that a solution on those lines would be acceptable to the country. [Interruption.] What I have to argue about is the new Clause as it stands on the Paper, not some other Clause which hon. Members might have put down if they wished. I am trying to be perfectly fair to the Committee and to answer the points raised in the debate.

There is a further point which I do not think the Royal Commission examined at all. In this new Clause, paragraph (a) is relatively simple because it refers to the war disabled and industrial injury pensioner. Paragraph (b) is to extend the relief to those who are not in receipt of a pension of that kind but who nevertheless are disabled in manner and degree equivalent to one hundred per cent. disablement. The whole Committee will recognise that that raises very big questions of adjudication. We have no arrangements in this country by which we decide whether a person who is not an ex-Service man injured in the war or an industrial injury pensioner, but who is suffering disability, can get an assessment as to whether his disability is equal to 100 per cent. disablement or not.

Dr. King


Sir F. Messer

There are the arrangements in regard to the blind.

Mr. Brooke

May I be allowed to finish what I am saying? I am fully aware of the special case of the blind. What I am seeking to point out to the Committee is that, whereas the recommendation of the Royal Commission seems at first sight not only deserving of sympathy but also simple, the implementation of this new Clause would involve setting up a nation-wide medical service to determine whether people were entitled to relief or not.

Mr. Edward Evans

I thought I had explained, when supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) in his plea for the acceptance of this new Clause, that machinery already exists. There is the disablement resettlement service under the Ministry of Labour, and, under the welfare clauses of the National Assistance Act, which I mentioned earlier, there is a provision for the maintenance by local authorities of a register of disabled persons. In order to get on that register, people have to be examined, and it is the responsibility of the local medical officer of health whether a man's name is put on that register. I admit it is not entirely mandatory yet. but over 70 per cent. of local authorities have submitted schemes. There we have the register already in being. I submit to the Government that is a perfectly valid answer to the objections made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brooke

I am not arguing that the machinery for this purpose would be impossible to bring into existence.

Mr. Evans

It is in existence.

Mr. Brooke

What I am saying to the Committee is that we have not got arrangements at present, without taking on large numbers of additional medical staff and so forth, to arrive at an assessment of whether or not large numbers of people are in fact suffering from disable- ment equivalent to 100 per cent. and therefore entitled to tax relief of up to £42 10s. a year.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. King

One would concede that the estimating of 100 per cent, disability is difficult—the Royal Commission conceded that—but would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that what has been done in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in the assessing of 100 per cent. disability—an assessment which is rarely challenged and which has given satisfaction to the whole country—shows that we have the machine, the experience and the knowledge now to fix quite satisfactorily for the whole community what we mean by 100 per cent. disability?

Mr. Brooke

The matter is more complicated than even the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) realises. If we have a Clause like this on the Statute Book, we must be in a position to make an assessment of disability, not only in the normal cases of war disablement and industrial injury, but in other types of illness such as bronchitis, asthma, thrombosis, and so on. Many people suffering from such ailments might genuinely believe that they were equivalent to the 100 per cent. disabled, and in a tax matter it is essential to have an arrangement that will settle definitely and beyond dispute whether a person is entitled to a tax relief or not. I know how complicated the tax machine is, but one cannot do this by averages or by adjustments or anything like that. One has to get the decision "Yes" or "No."

I realise from what the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said when he was good enough to bring a deputation to see me on this subject as it affected blind people that in the case of the blind there is a register, so that these questions of demarcation and delimitation do not arise in the same way as for the rest of the disabled. At the same time, it would be difficult to argue that all registered blind people were, in fact, as fully entitled, perhaps more entitled, to benefit of tax relief than many types of people who are suffering from some other disability which it would be hard to assess if the tax relief of this kind were to exist. It would be wrong to single out one disability just because it can be easily defined and to do it for those people but not for anyone else.

Mr. Edward Evans

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the blind have always attracted special attention and special legislation? They have the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and a succession of special enactments. They attract not only special legislation, but special sympathy and voluntary effort also.

Mr. Brooke

I know that the blind attract special sympathy, and I hope the hon. Member will agree that I gave his deputation a sympathetic hearing.

In the case of the blind, however, it is possible to arrive at figures. The hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins) asked what the implementation of the new Clauses would cost. It is extremely difficult to say how many people would qualify under the first of the new Clauses. Under the second new Clause, we know that there are some 95,000 registered blind people, of whom 80,000 are in receipt of National Assistance; so it is most improbable that any of these would be liable to Income Tax. The maximum number of people, therefore, who could benefit by the second new Clause in any degree are the 15,000 registered blind who are not receiving National Assistance.

I grant at once that among those with the far-reaching disabilities to which people who suffer from some kind of serious incapacity are subject, some of the difficulties are financial. To a large extent their financial difficulties are mitigated by our system of social services. What these new Clauses urge is that in addition there should be an Income Tax relief. That is a type of action which has been rejected by Governments of different colours, and one of the reasons why it has been rejected is that the Income Tax relief method is a hit and miss method.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan (Ebbw Vale)

Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible more easily to assess the disability of a person who has been industrially injured than that of the person who has not been?

Mr. Brooke

I think I made clear that there are a number of serious illnesses which very rarely arise in industrial injury or in war disablement.

Mr. Bevan

The injury may affect the capacity of the person who is injured in exactly the same way as disease may affect the capacity of a person. They are both capable of assessment. There is no difference there at all, either qualitatively or quantitatively, except as the board decides.

Mr. Brooke

The right hon. Gentleman, if he listened to the earlier part of my speech, will, I am sure, recognise that I was not resting my case on the argument that it was impossible to do this. What I said was that it would need a very substantial enlargement of our existing medical boards and appeal tribunals if we were to have to reach decisions on very considerable numbers of people whose disability has not at present to be assessed.

Hitherto it has been the view of all Governments of all colours that the case of the disabled is better dealt with and assisted through social services than through tax reliefs, and the case which I am putting to the Committee is that this remains true despite the attractive recommendation of the Royal Commission. I have pointed out that the first of the Clauses under debate itself goes a great deal farther than the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

I trust I have made it clear, even though I can sense that a number of hon. Members have not been fully convinced by what I have said—I expected that at the outset—as everybody speaking from this Box for previous Governments has felt when he has been resisting such a Clause as this.

Mr. Holt

The right hon. Gentleman has said several times that some of the difficulties of the blind people are mitigated by social services. Will he explain what social services mitigate the difficulty of a blind person of getting about? Surely it is only reasonable that a blind person who earns an income should have some relief for such an aid as a guide dog?

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Member is now suggesting that we should have a tax relief that is related to the additional expenses in getting about which certain people have, but that is not the proposal here, because some of these people affected by the new Clause would suffer additional expense in that way and others would not. Moreover, it is at any rate open to argument whether one should seek by tax relief to benefit a person who is travelling about to earn his livelihood if one is withholding similar assistance from somebody who is tied to his home and not earning his livelihood. All these matters are, as I was seeking to put to the Committee, very complicated.

My right hon. Friend has considered with the utmost care the clear-cut recommendation of the Royal Commission which, I hope both sides of the Committee will accept, was rather wiser than this Clause, which has left out half of the Royal Commission's recommendations. For the reasons I have put to the Committee, my right hon. Friend feels that he cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Royal Commission's recommendation any more than previous Chancellors of the Exchequer of different Governments have felt able to advise Parliament that it would be right to deal with the problem of the disabled by means of tax relief. As the Clause omits an important part of the Royal Commission's recommendation, a fortiori my right hon. Friend feels that it would be unwise to write this into the Finance Bill.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I think that the Financial Secretary's speech was one of the most disappointing and unconvincing that we have ever heard. He gave the impression that he was not so much trying to meet this real human problem as attempting to find reasons for doing nothing. It is no use his saying that this is not the ideal Clause, because he knows quite well that if he were prepared to move a technically better Clause on Report to do the same thing we should all support him.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that because the Clause does not alleviate all the suffering we should not alleviate any suffering at all, for if we acted on that principle we should never improve anything. Nor is it any good his saying that we have debated this matter often before and have come to the same conclusion. In the last two years we have had the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, which came down for the first time in favour of this proposal.

It is rather extraordinary that in the whole matter of personal allowances the present Government, in four Budgets over the last two years, have hardly accepted a single one of the Commission's recommendations. The Commission's Report entirely accepts the arguments which were put forward so persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). It argues that total disability impairs the capacity of the individual to earn an income and makes the mere conduct of life more expensive, and that constitutes a valid reason not for a social service but for a tax relief of this form.

The Commission then considers the practical difficulties of which the Financial Secretary spoke. It recognises the fact that the Ministry of Pensions, as it then was, has solved this administrative difficulty by the system of 100 per cent. disablement and it recommends in substance precisely what we are now putting before the Committee. The Financial Secretary does not deny that this is possible and that it costs almost nothing at all, and he cannot deny, with this great authority of the Commission behind it, that it would go a long way to assist people who need and deserve help of this kind.

In those circumstances, I would ask the Financial Secretary, even though he may have been instructed to give this very bleak and negative answer, to see whether he cannot think again and tell us, even now, that he will at least consider what is obviously the feeling of almost the whole Committee on this matter—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)


Mr. Jay

—with the exception of a very few hon. Members below the Gangway who have not taken part in the debate.

I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he cannot make a better suggestion on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is unable to do that, I would advise my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 241.

Division No.225.] AYES [9.9 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Dye, S. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Albu, A. H. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lewis, Arthur
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Lindgren, G. S.
Allen, Soholefield (Crewe) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Logan, D. G.
Anderson, Frank Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Awbery, S. S. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) MacColl, J. E.
Bacon, Miss Alice Fernyhough, E. McGhee, H. G.
Balfour, A. Fienburgh, W. McGovern, J.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Fletcher, Eric McInnes, J.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Forman, J. C. McKay, John (Wallsend)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McLeavy, Frank
Benson, G. Gibson, C. W. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Beswick, F. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mahon, Simon
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Grey, C. F Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Blackburn, F. Griffiths, David (Bother Valley) Mann, Mrs. Jean
Blenkinsop, A. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Blyton, W. R. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Mason, Roy
Boardman, H. Grimond, J. Mayhew, C. P.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hale, Leslie Messer, Sir F.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mikardo, Ian
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Hamilton, W. W. Mitchison, G. R.
Bowles, F. G. Hannan, W. Monslow, W.
Boyd, T. C. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Moody, A. S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Hastings, S. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Brockway, A. F. Hayman, F. H. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hobson, C. R. Mort, D. L.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Holman, P. Moss, R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Burton, Miss F. E. Holmes, Horace Moyle, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Holt, A. F. Mulley, F. W.
Callaghan, L. J. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Champion, A. J. Hubbard, T. F. O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Chapman, W. D. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oliver, G. H.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Orbach, M.
Clunie, J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oswald, T.
Coldrick, W. Hunter, A. E. Owen, W. J.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Padley, W. E.
Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Janner, B. Paget, R. T.
Cove, W G. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jeger, George (Goole) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Cronin, J. D. Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pancs,S). Palmer, A. M. F.
Crossman, R. H. S. Johnson, James (Rugby) Pargiter, G. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Parker, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, 8.) Parkin, B. T.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Paton, John
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Peart, T. F.
Deer, G. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Delargy, H. J. Kenyon, C. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Dodds, N. N. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Probert, A. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) King, Dr. H. M. Proctor, W. T.
Lawson, G. M. Pryde, D. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Randall, H. E.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Joseph, Sir Keith
Aitken, W. T. Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Kaberry, D.
Alport, C. J. M. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Keegan, D.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Errington, Sir Eric Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Erroll, F. J. Kerr, H. W.
Arbuthnot, John Farey-Jones, F. W. Kershaw, J. A.
Armstrong, C. W. Fell, A. Kimball, M.
Ashton, H. Finlay, Graeme Kirk, P. M.
Atkins, H. E. Fisher, Nigel Lagden, G. W.
Baldock, Lt,-Cmdr. J. M. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lambert, Hon. G.
Baldwin, A. E. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lambton, Viscount
Balniel, Lord Foster, John Leavey, J. A.
Barber, Anthony Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmhe & Lonsdale) Leburn, W. G.
Barlow, Sir John Freeth, D. K. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Barter, John Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Gammans, Sir David Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Garner-Evans, E. H. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Glover, D. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Bennett F. M. (Torquay) Godber, J. B. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Longden, Gilbert
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Gough, C. F. H. Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Bidgood, J. C. Gower, H. R. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Graham, Sir Fergus Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Grant, W. (Woodside) McAdden, S. J.
Black, C. W. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R. (Nantwich) Macdonald, Sir Peter
Body, R. F. Green, A. McKihbin, A. J.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Boyle, Sir Edward Gurden, Harold Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Braine, B. R. Hall, John (Wycombe) Macmillan,Rt. Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Maddan, Martin
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Harvey,Air Cdre. A. V. (Macelesfd) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Harvie-Watt, Sir George Markham, Major Sir Frank
Burden, F. F. A. Hay, John Marlowe, A. A. H.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Marples, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Marshall, Douglas
Carr, Robert Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Mathew, R.
Channon, H. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Maude, Angus
Chichester-Clark, R. Holland-Martin, C. J. Mawby, R. L.
Cole, Norman Hope, Lord John Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hornby, R. P. Medlicott, Sir Frank
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Horobin, Sir Ian Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Howard, John (Test) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral, J. Nairn, D. L. S.
Cunningham, Knox Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Neave, Airey
Currie, G. B. H. Hulbert, Sir Norman Nicholls, Harmar
Dance, J. C. G. Hurd, A. R. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Davidson, Viscountess Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh,W.) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th,E. & Chr'oh)
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hyde, Montgomery Nield, Basil (Chester)
Deedes, W. F. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. lremonger, T. L. Nugent, G. R. H.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Doughty, C. J. A. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Oakshott, H. D.
Drayson, G. B. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.)
du Cann, E. D. L. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hen. Sir T. (Richmond) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Ainsley, J. W. Hale, Leslie Paget, R. T.
Albu, A. H. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamilton, W. W. Palmer, A. M. F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hannan, W. Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Parker, J.
Awbery, S. S. Hayman, F. H. Pearson, A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hobson, C. R. Peart, T. F.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Holt, A. F. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Howell, Denis (All Saints) Probert, A. R.
Benson, G. Hubbard, T. F. Proctor, W. T.
Beswick, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pryde, D. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale) Hughes, Hector, (Aberdeen, N.) Randall, H. E.
Blackburn, F. Hunter, A. E. Rankin, John
Blenkinsop, A. Irving, S. (Dartford) Redhead, E. C.
Blyton, W. R. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boardman, H. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Jeger, George (Goole) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Johnson, James (Rugby) Ross, William
Bowles, F. G. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield) Royle, C.
Boyd, T. C. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Short, E. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Brockway, A. F. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Skeffington, A. M.
Burton, Miss F. E. Kenyon, C. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J. King, Dr. H. M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lawson, C. M. Sorensen, R. W.
Champion, A. J. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sparks, J. A.
Chapman, W. D. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Steele, T.
Chetwynd, G. R. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Clunie, J. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Stones, W. (Consett)
Coldrick, W. Lewis, Arthur Stross,Dr.Barnett(stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Lindgren, G. S. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Logan, D. G. Sylvester, G. 0.
Cronin, J. D. MacColl, J. E. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Crossman, R. H. S. McGhee, H. G. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Cullen, Mrs. A. McInnes, J. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery) McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) McLeavy, Frank Thornton, E.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Mahon, Simon Timmons, J.
Deer, G. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Tomney, F.
Delargy, H. J. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N. Mann, Mrs. Jean Usborne, H. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wade, D. W.
Dye, S. Mason, Roy Warbey, W. N.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mayhew, C. P. Weitzman, D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Messer, Sir F. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mikardo, lan West, D. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mitchison, G. R. Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Monslow, W. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Moody, A. S. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Fernyhough, E. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Willey, Frederick
Fienburgh, W. Moss, R. Williams, David (Neath)
Fletcher, Eric Moyle, A. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Forman, J. C. Mulley, F. W. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Gibson, C. W. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gooch, E. G. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Winterbottom, Richard
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. O'Brien Sir Thomas Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Grey, C. F. Cram, A. E. Woof, R. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Orbach, M. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oswald, T. Zilliacus, K.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Owen, W. J.
Grimond, J. Padley, W. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wilkins.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Aitken, W. T. Baldwin, A. E. Bidgood, J. C.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, s.) Balniel, Lord Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Alport, C. J. M. Banks, Col. C. Bishop, F. P.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Barber, Anthony Black, C. W.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Barlow, Sir John Body, R. F.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Barter, John Bossom, Sir Alfred
Arbuthnot, John Baxter, Sir Beverley Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Armstrong, C. W. Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Boyle, Sir Edward
Ashton, H. Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Braine, B. R.
Atkins, H. E. Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Howard, John (Test) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Burden, F. F. A. Hulbert, Sir Norman Osborne, C.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hurd, A. R. Page, R. G.
Carr, Robert Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Channon, H. Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H. Partridge, E.
Chichester-Clark, R. lremonger, T. L. Peyton, J. W. W.
Cole, Norman Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pitman, I. J.
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pott, H. P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Powell, J. Enoch
Cunningham, Knox Joseph, Sir Keith Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L.
Dance, J. C. G. Kaberry, D. Raikes, Sir Victor
Davidson, Viscountess Keegan, D. Ramsden, J. E.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kerby, Capt. H. B. Rawlinson, Peter
Deedes, W. F. Kerr, H. W. Redmayne, M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Kershaw, J. A. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Kimball, M. Renton, D. L. M.
Doughty, C. J. A. Kirk, P. M. Ridsdale, J. E.
Drayson, G. B. Lagden, G. W. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
du Cann, E. D. L. Lambert, Hon. G. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Lambton, Viscount Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Leavey, J. A. Roper, Sir Harold
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Leburn, W. G. Russell, R. S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Errington, Sir Eric Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Sharples, R. C.
Erroll, F. J. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Shepherd, William
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Finlay, Graeme Linstead, Sir H. N. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Fisher, Nigel Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Longden, Gilbert Speir, R. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Spens, Ftt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Forrest, G. McAdden, S. J. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Macdonald, Sir Peter Stevens, Geoffrey
Freeth, D. K. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Gammans, Sir David Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Glover, D. Maddan, Martin Studholme, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Summers, Sir Spencer
Comme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Gough, C. F. H. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Cower, H. R. Markham, Major Sir Frank Teeling, W.
Graham, Sir Fergus Marlowe, A. A. H. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Grant, W. (Woodside) Marples, A. E. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Grant-Ferris, Wg-Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Marshall, Douglas Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Green, A. Mathew, R. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Abans) Maude, Angus Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Mawby, R. L. Touche, Sir Gordon
Gurden, Harold Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C. Turner, H. F. L.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Medlicott, Sir Frank Tweedsmuir, Lady
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Vane, W. M. F.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Nabarro, G. D. N. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nairn, D. L. S. Vesper, D. F.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Heave, Airey Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nicholls, Harmar Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Wall, Major Patrick
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th,E.& Chr'ch) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nield, Basil (Chester) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey Nugent, G. R. H. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Holland-Martin, C. J. Nutting, Rt. Hon. Anthony Wood, Hon. R.
Hope, Lord John Oakshott, H. D. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hornby, R. P. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Mr. R. Thompson and Mr. Wills.