§ In relation to a claimant who proves that for the year of assessment he is the occupier of a house or of part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, section two hundred and ten of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (Personal relief), shall have effect with the substitution of references to one hundred and ninety pounds for references to one hundred and forty pounds (which indicate the amount of relief for a claimant not living with or maintaining his wife).—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I invite the Committee now to turn its attention once more to personal reliefs from Income Tax. The new Clause proposes an additional personal relief for unmarried householders.
§ Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
On a point of order. I understand that this Clause is tied to the Clause—"Additional personal relief for widowed householders"—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and myself which reads:In relation to a claimant who proves that for the year of assessment she is a widow and is the occupier of a house or part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, section two hundred and ten of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (Personal relief), shall have effect with the substitution of references to one hundred and ninety pounds for references to one hundred and forty pounds (which indicate the amount of relief for a claimant not living with or maintaining his wife).I understood that both would be taken together. Is not that right?
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon)
I understood that it was agreed that at any rate we should discuss that Clause with this one and I think that it would be convenient.
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)
That would be in order. The other Clause has not been selected, but it may be discussed.
§ Mr. Houghton
Thank you, Sir Robert. If my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) 1262 had given me one more moment I intended to refer to that.
The new Clause in my name and the names of my hon. Friend now proposes an additional personal relief for unmarried householders, and that applies to both men and women. The new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) would restrict this proposed additional allowance to widows who are householders. My Clause is not restricted in that way.
When the Clause first appeared on the Notice Paper some newspapers picked it up and I have had a number of letters from people about it, especially from those who are separated spouses. They wanted to make sure that if any concession was given to unmarried householders they would not be excluded. I think that I could say that if the new Clause were adopted, it would apply to them as well. I had in mind that all those to whom at present the single person's relief for Income Tax purposes applies would receive the benefit of the additional personal relief now proposed. I am proposing that the £140 single person's relief should be raised to £190. I am sure that the Chancellor has already noticed that he would be a beneficiary under this proposal as he is an unmarried householder. I hope that fact will not deter him from accepting it.
A Clause of this nature has been on the Notice Paper before. I first put it down in 1952. It was debated in Committee on 11th June, 1953, and I put it down again last year but it was not then called. On 11th June, 1953, the reply of the Economic Secretary at the time, now the Paymaster-General, was so conciliatory that I was prevailed upon by my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition, to withdraw my proposal. That is always a risky thing to do, because it implies that one is convinced by the arguments against it and one has given up the ghost. That was not the position at all.
The reason why I withdrew it in 1953 was that the then Economic Secretary referred to the fact that this was one of 1263 the matters which was no doubt under consideration by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, which it was. That brings me to an admission that not only have I the past record of this Clause against me but I now have the Royal Commission against me, and I am sure that I have the Inland Revenue against me. Under that treble handicap I must now try to move the Second Reading of this new Clause.
I know all the answers about this, but I am going to plod on notwithstanding. This matter arose because there is a widespread feeling today that the personal reliefs no longer represent the differences in capacity to pay between one taxpayer and another within the same taxation classification. The single persons-middle—aged women, widows and bachelors—who are maintaining a home of their own get no more tax relief than the adolescent leaving school, who may be living at home and contributing very little to the maintenance of the household. It can be argued that the adolescent leaving school may be contributing quite a lot to the maintenance of the household and that many single persons who are not householders are lodgers or are occupying furnished accommodation and would be excluded from the provisions of this proposal.
I admit all that, but I am trying to find some way to bring the reliefs more into line with the economic circumstances of the taxpayers concerned. In 1953, I referred to the fact that I had been approached by a number of constituents about these single women employed mainly in the textile industry. It was not an accident that the spinsters' pensions movement, recently wound up, began and prospered in the textile areas where so many women began work as young girls and have continued at work ever since. They were the daughters of weavers and spinners who tried to maintain their homes after their parents died. There is no doubt that many of them, getting less pay perhaps than the men, are in difficulties in maintaining their little homes which they cherish so much.
The additional allowance which I ask should be given would be tax on £50, so that the unmarried householder would get a personal relief of £190 instead of £140. On the grounds of equity, I think 1264 that this proposal represents a broad division between one set of unmarried taxpayers and another. I cannot pretend that the line of demarcation is absolutely clear and unmistakable.
Then there are questions of administration. I am never allowed to forget them. It can be argued, of course, that these personal reliefs should be based on some simple ascertainable facts, on such questions as, "Are you married or are you not?" "Have you children or have you not?" "Have you a dependent relative or have you not?" and "Have you a life assurance policy or have you not?"
I grant that it may be a little more complicated to ask a taxpayer, "Are you a householder or not?", because there are some difficult legal cases on what constitutes a household, but I have tried to bring into the new Clause the conventional definition of a householder as… the occupier of a house or of parts of a house occupied as a separate dwelling …I believe that this has been taken as the basis for rent restriction purposes for many years. I am sure that the Financial Secretary, with his legal training, will tell me how many pitfalls there can be in a definition, however simple or complicated, of what constitutes a householder.
I think that there is no more difficulty about asking this question of the taxpayer than many other questions that have to be asked of taxpayers, and I believe that there is more chance of getting the truth in answer to this one than to a great many questions asked by the Inland Revenue Department. This is a fairly simple ascertainable fact if there were any real cause for doubt about the bona fides of the claim. The Inland Revenue proceeds mainly on the basis that the taxpayer is a truthful person and his or her word is usually taken unless there are grounds to suspect the contrary.
The administration difficulties are not insuperable and I do not think they are formidable. I say in conclusion that while this may not be the ideal solution, I think that the personal relief will need to be reviewed before very long. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, in paragraphs 152 and 208, had something to say about 1265 the need to make these allowances simple. It discounted any theory that they really represented an assumption of ability to pay by reference to mode of life; that these reliefs were based on the marital status or on family responsibilities, and that we could not carry them too far. I agree that if we carry the reliefs too far we discriminate between the people who live in unfurnished accommodation and those who live in furnished accommodation, in private hotels, those who are lodgers and so on. So, obviously, there is a limit to this kind of refinement in the personal reliefs, and this is just a tentative move forward which I think is justified.
Of course, a great many single persons feel that they are unfavourably treated by reference to the rather special treatment of married women who are earning. One simple example is that of a single person earning £400 who pays this year £28 17s. 2d. in tax. A married man earning £400, with a wife going out to work and earning £350 a year, would pay only £28 4s. 1d. in tax. That is the difference in the tax burden upon a married couple without children, and wife earning, and a single person; yet both the married men and the single person may be householders.
That, I hope, is a fairly convincing case in favour of this proposed Clause. It is a matter of opinion as to whether this kind of concession should be embarked upon, but we on this side of the Committee feel that something of the kind is justified and we recommend the Chancellor to give the proposal favourable attention.
§ Mrs. Mann
I beg to second the Motion.
I shall also speak in support of the proposed Clause 69—"Additional Personal Relief for Widowed Householders"—in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King) and myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has talked of the difficulties of the single man or woman who has a house over his head and is faced with all the commitments pertaining to that position. There is a far stronger case for the widow whose late husband, if she was working before 1266 she was widowed, could claim £380 per annum of Income Tax relief. When her husband dies, however, she is treated in the same way as the Chancellor would treat a young girl who is working, and she can claim only £140. So she finds herself not only surrounded by her grief and that of her children, but she probably has to take on her own shoulders the burden of a mortgage, repairs to her house, replacements and so on. Yet she is treated as though she were a single girl with no responsibilities.
A married couple gets relief of £240. I often wonder why the extra £100 is given when a man takes unto himself a wife. It is difficult to understand, because if one concludes that it is because he has an additional burden in his wife, that argument is dispelled by the fact that if she goes out to work as a married woman he receives a further £140 in respect of her. So it cannot be because of the upkeep of the wife. One can only assume that it is because of the domestic upkeep that enters into every household and which has to be found by the householder himself or herself, such as increased local rates, the increased cost of repairs of electrical equipment, and so on.
The widow, therefore, is treated very badly when her Income Tax relief drops from £380 to £140, and that is not the only blow she receives from our Governments. I say "Governments" in the plural because there is no party aspect as regards the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions says to her, "If you go out to work you lose your entire pension". I have spoken previously in the House about the case of one of my constituents. She is a young widow with three children who has had to go out to work as a typist, earning £7 10s. a week, since the death of her husband. When her husband was alive he shouldered all the burdens she now carries and he received the entire allowance. He paid insurance for years. When I hear debates in the House about private versus public enterprise, I often think of the National Insurance Scheme and its treatment of widows. It should be remembered that this young women's husband paid insurance for years and years and yet on his death there was nothing for his widow because she goes out to work. If it were the Prudential or the Pearl——
§ Mrs. Mann
I apologise, Sir Robert. I should say that the Committee would be wildly indignant at that kind of treatment from a private insurance company.
The Minister of Pensions penalises the widow for going out to work, and then the Chancellor does the same thing by reducing the allowance to that of a single girl. In other words, the widow is between the devil and the deep sea. I would not for a moment compare the right hon. Gentleman with the raging, roaring, angry sea. I should imagine that "Smooth runs the water where the brook is deep" is much more suitable in this case. The right hon. Gentleman's smile always encourages me to believe that I shall get somewhere and have some concession from him, and then I am reminded that he who can smile and smile can be a villain.
The right hon. Gentleman has the chance to distinguish between the two new Clauses which we are discussing. We are not asking that the widow should get the £240 allowance which is given to husband and wife. We are asking only that she should get that little extra, that £50 extra, to show that the Government are not entirely regardless and heartless in their attitude to her struggles.
§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)
I support the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). I take the opportunity as a back bencher to express thanks to the Chair for the arrangements which have been made so that we know which Clauses have been selected. I also thank you for your kindness, Sir Robert, in permitting us with the Clause which my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) moved to discuss the other Clause seeking to give at least some benefit to widows.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby is a great authority on tax law and Chancellors of both parties have appreciated the tremendous contributions which he has made to our debates year after year. I was interested to find him expressing the view that we could tailor taxes, adapt taxes, to the kind of people who paid them. In one or two other matters the Treasury has already 1268 moved on those lines, and we now ask the Chancellor sympathetically to consider the new Clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie which would distinguish the widow from other taxpayers in one special way.
I believe that the Welfare State still does not do enough for widows, especially elderly and childless widows, although I for one admire what the present Minister of Pensions has done for the widowed mother. Unless a widow has private means or has an independent profesional status, she is still the most unfortunate of women. With the loss of her husband, she passes from security to hardship and poverty. Many widows have no skill except wifehood and motherhood, the greatest skills of all, and they find it very difficult after bereavement to go out and earn a living yet, quite unwittingly, almost at the moment of bereavement, the Chancellor strikes them a blow.
If they are householders, he treats them quite differently from how he treated them when they were married women. The Clause would help the widow who tried to keep her old home going. It would maintain for her the sort of tax concession which she had when her husband was alive. It must be very difficult for her to keep her home. I know that she could move into rooms, but the widow will want to keep the home which means so much to her. She has either to live on a widow's pension or try to earn a living under very great difficulties, and in modern society, unless she has a professional skill, that must mean that this burden becomes very great.
We are not asking that the Chancellor should give the widow anything more than she had before she lost her husband. I admit that this little new Clause is merely tinkering with the great problem. I think that we need a nonparty study group to study the very difficult problem of how adequately to treat widows at various ages and at various stages of their lives. At any rate, this proposal would give one group of them a little favourable treatment as compared with other single persons—if one can call a widow single—and I hope that the Chancellor will sympathetically consider it.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
I support the new Clause of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). This problem of widows, especially those who have homes to maintain, and their struggles deserves a first-class examination. I was in the House of Commons during the war and I well remember why additional allowances were given to married women. It was to encourage them to go out to work and to make their war effort, which they did readily and gladly. What had been agreed during the war remained as a privilege.
I do not for a moment suppose that my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause today, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has put his finger on the point. What worries me about all this is that year after year we discuss this sort of matter and we never seem to get anywhere. If the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income can be used by my right hop. Friend to defeat that proposal, we hear about it. When it goes the other way, we do not hear about it.
My right hon. Friend has produced a balanced Budget under which widows paying tax of any kind will benefit. I do not suppose that the hon. Lady will get the concession she seeks. But what I want to do is to stake a claim. When the next Finance Bill comes along, whatever party is in power, it is unlikely that a similar Clause will be called by the Chair. That is just the way things go. It might be another couple of years before this matter can be raised again.
I want an assurance from my right hon. Friend that this matter will be studied and that we shall be able to get down to trying to balance the relationships between tax reliefs. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give that assurance, for we shall then at least know that the matter is being considered.
§ Mr. Simon
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) very disarmingly referred to the past record of the Clause, the attitude generally of the Inland Revenue to the further refinements in the allowances, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission. That makes it all the more difficult to reject his arguments. He referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a beneficiary 1270 under the Clause and he may take it that under those circumstances I have been put up to reply, and indeed he would be right in doing so, because I am sorry that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.
As the hon. Gentleman reminded the Committee when widows' pensions were last discussed my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said that he was glad that the matter had been put to the Royal Commission, because this was precisely the kind of point on which the Chancellor would benefit from its advice. The advice of the Royal Commission, put very cogently and by a body of men who made a close study of the fiscal system when they were sitting, was adverse to this particular conception. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), it is not true that we accept the Royal Commission's proposals only when they are not in favour of the taxpayer. On a considerable number of occasions its recommendations have been accepted in favour of the taxpayer.
The outstanding example of that, and one that would appeal particularly to my hon. Friend, is the raising in 1955 of the starting point of liability to tax. There was also the raising in 1957 of the earned income relief, quite apart from a whole host of more technical aspects of the law where major reforms have been carried through in the last few years.
Having considered the matter carefully, the Report of the Royal Commission said:We have been pressed to admit not merely the forms of family circumstances that we shall categorise later but also such matters …and then it enumerates several, ending with… household maintenance. All these claims have their persuasive elements …and we who have heard hon. Gentlemen this afternoon know how persuasive they can be, but the Royal Commission went on to say:But they must be judged in the light of a rule to which we have had again and again to refer our own tentative proposals: income tax is an annual tax that has got to be administered.The Report states later on:It cannot therefore proceed on the basis of minute inquiries into a multiplicity of personal circumstances of individuals.1271 Again, in the other paragraph that was referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Report of the Commission states its conclusion:We were forced to the conclusion that better equity will be achieved by holding to a few clearly identifiable, generally acceptable, grounds of allowance covering a substantial number of cases than by trying to obtain more delicate adjustments that depend on circumstances less precisely definable and capable of more individual variation.When the Royal Commission said:… minute inquiries into a multiplicity of personal circumstances of individuals …I do not think it was referring to the sort of inquiries that the Inland Revenue has to make. Hon. Gentlemen opposite quite rightly referred to those, but I think there would be administrative difficulties. The definition of a householder might provide difficulties and the passage from the Rent Acts which was quoted is not a very propitious guide to us, because it has led to a mass of litigation which we would wish to avoid.
I do not, however, put the administrative difficulties in the forefront here. I do not think they are insuperable. The real difficulty is that there is no proper ground for this distinction. It was said that this represents a broad division between one set of unmarried taxpayers and another. No doubt it does objectively, but when one considers the circumstances it does not. All unmarried people want a roof of some sort or another over their heads, and it is very difficult to say that if they are lodgers or paying guests they should be worse off so far as the Income Tax allowance is concerned. They very often have to pay as much as a lodger or as a paying guest as they would as a householder and be very much less comfortable for their pains.
I think that if this distinction were drawn a great many unmarried people who were in lodgings or living as paying guests in somebody else's household would feel deeply aggrieved that they did not have the same allowance. It, therefore, seems that not only on the broad grounds that have been given by the Royal Commission, but also when one applies the principle to the particular circumstances of this case, it is not one which the Committee would wish to accept.
1272 The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of the married woman, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemonuth, and the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). The higher allowance is given to a married man because it is an allowance for two people, and indeed for two incomes, because the income of the wife is aggregated in our fiscal law with that of the husband. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby said, that there is particularly favourable treatment for the married woman who goes out to work, for the reason that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. It was a measure that was deliberately adopted to encourage as many married women as possible to enter or remain in employment. It was also a recognition of the extra expense of keeping a home going under such circumstances. But the Royal Commission suggested that we were over-generous in that respect. I do not, however, believe that many Governments will be keen on withdrawing that allowance once it has been given, and I think we might get into serious trouble with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) if we attempted to do so.
It, therefore, seems to me that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman is not acceptable, and with very great respect I would say that each of these arguments applies to the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie. I met the hon. Lady a number of times when I was at the Home Office when she was assiduous in the interests of home safety. Very often, as she knows, she won me over completely on that matter. I hope she will forgive me if I say that I find her rather less convincing today and that she has not won me over on her fiscal proposals.
Exactly the same considerations apply. Why should a widow who is forced to go into lodgings, where she may have to pay as much, be treated worse than the widow who is a householder? Quite clearly, the position of any widow deprived of her support in life must excite the sympathy of the Committee, and I think both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) put that matter in a way 1273 which appealed to the Committee. Nevertheless, it comes to this. Is a manipulation of the fiscal system the best way of helping widows, or should it be done through the social services? The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to say, as he did, that the Welfare State does not do enough for widows—very fairly adding the qualification that he did. That is a quite tenable point of view, but it seems to me to be wrong to infer from it that more should be done through the fiscal system.
On the contrary, the argument is that more should be done through the social services; because if we operate through the fiscal system we do not give the help where it is most needed; indeed, the hon. Lady's proposal would most benefit those who least need help and least benefit those paying the lowest level of tax. It would give the greatest help to those why pay the standard rate on the appropriate part of their incomes. Although these proposals have been put forward persuasively, and in a way which appeals to the Committee, they are not ones which I could recommend the Committee to accept.
§ 8.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Houghton
I am very disappointed with the Financial Secretary's reply. I had hoped that even if he had found my Clause unacceptable he would have been able to look more favourably upon that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), for she has an advantage over me. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), who put his name on the Notice Paper in support of my hon. Friend's new Clause, not only turned up but spoke effectively and movingly upon it. My Clause has some very influential support on paper, but owing to other pressing Parliamentary commitments I have been unable to assemble the bodyguard in support of it.
None the less, I still have a little argument left on this matter. Despite what the Royal Commission said about the principles underlying these personal reliefs and the avoidance of further refinements in connection with matters
§ which had to be inquired into, it made recommendations in favour of further reliefs. One was in respect of the child between the ages of 16 and 21 who was totally incapacitated; another was for additional relief in respect of the person who was 100 per cent. disabled. The Royal Commission also proposed that a widower or widow with young children need not necessarily prove that his or her housekeeper was resident as a condition of qualifying for housekeeper relief. Other proposals were made which the Government have not yet felt able to accept.
§ The Royal Commission must still be a guide in these matters, but it is no longer a conclusive authority. Its Report is at least five years old, and in these days anything which is five years old is in danger of becoming out of date—although I must be careful not to say anything which may prejudice the arguments of my hon. Friend who may be dealing with a subsequent new Clause concerned with total incapacity, which was the subject of a recommendation by the Royal Commission.
§ My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie will live to fight another day. If she cannot put forward any further argument, she will at least have the opportunity of pressing her new Clause to a decision at a later stage. For the present, it is the new Clause which I have moved, and that alone, upon which the Committee has to come to a decision. I still feel that the balance of argument is in my favour and although it is an inconvenient hour at which to press the matter to a Division, I am assured by my right hon. and hon. Friends that I should not allow their personal convenience to stand in the way of supporting my new Clause in the Division Lobby. Being kindly disposed to them all, I propose to give them the opportunity of doing so.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 138. Noes 183.1277
|Division No. 129.]||AYES||[8.4 p.m.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Burton, Miss F. E.|
|Balfour, A.||Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)|
|Beswick, Frank||Brockway, A. F.||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)|
|Blackburn, F.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Champion, A. J.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Burke, W. A.||Clunie, J.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Popplewell, E.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Deer, G.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Rhodes, H.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Diamond, John||Kenyon, C.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Ross, William|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||King, Dr. H. M.||Royle, C.|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lawson, G. M.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Ledger, R. J.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Fletcher, Eric||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Forman, J. C.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Lindgren, G. S.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Gibson, C. W.||McCann, J.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||MacColl, J. E.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Greenwood, Anthony||MacDermot, Niall||Steele, T.|
|Grey, C. F.||McInnes, J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stonehouse, John|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||McLeavy, Frank||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Stross,Dr.Barnet(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Hale, Leslie||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thornton, E.|
|Hannan, W.||Mellish, R. J.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Hastings, S.||Mitchison, G. R.||Viant, S. P.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Moody, A. S.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Healey, Denis||Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Moyle, A.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Mulley, F. W.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Hilton, A. V.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Houghton, Douglas||Oliver, G. H.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Oram, A. E.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Owen, W. J.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Padley, W. E.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Parker, J.|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Pearson, A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Aitken, W. T.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Cunningham, Knox||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Currie, G. B. H.||Holt, A. F.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Dance, J. C. G.||Hornby, R. P.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Davidson, Viscountess||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Atkins, H. E.||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Deedes, W. F.||Howard, John (Test)|
|Balniel, Lord||de Ferranti, Basil||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.|
|Barber, Anthony||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hulbert, Sir Norman|
|Barter, John||Dugdale,Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.)|
|Batsford, Brian||Duncan, Sir James||Hyde, Montgomery|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Erroll, F. J.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Finlay, Graeme||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Fisher, Nigel||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Gammans, Lady||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Bishop, F. P.||Glover, D.||Lagden, G. W.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Godber, J. B.||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Body, R. F.||Goodhart, Philip||Leburn, W. G.|
|Bonham Carter, Mark||Graham, Sir Fergus||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Green, A.||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Brewis, John||Gresham Cooke, R.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Grimond, J.||Longden, Gilbert|
|Bryan, P.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Butler, Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Gurden, Harold||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Carr, Robert||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||McAdden, S. J.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||McMaster, Stanley|
|Cooper, A. E.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hesketh, R. F.||Maddan, Martin|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Powell, J. Enoch||Teeling, W.|
|Marshall, Douglas||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Mathew, R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Redmayne, M.||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Mawby, R. L.||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Remnant, Hon. P.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Medlicott, Sir Frank||Ridsdale, J. E.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Roper, Sir Harold||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Nairn, D. L. S.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Wade, D. W.|
|Neave, Airey||Russell, R. S.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Sharples, R. C.||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek|
|Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Shepherd, William||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Simon, J. E. S.(Middlesbrough, W.)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Osborne, C.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Page, R. G.||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Webster, David|
|Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Partridge, E.||Stevens, Geoffrey||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Peel, W. J.||Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Pitman, I. J.||Summers, Sir Spencer||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Pott, H. P.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.|
§ The Temporary Chairman
The next new Clause selected is headed "One hundred per cent. disabled." Although they are not selected, the following new Clauses may be discussed with it: "Blind persons," "Incapacitated child over the age of sixteen years," "Relief for disabled persons", and "One hundred per cent. disabled wife."
Mr. H. Wilson
I understand, Sir Robert, that although the new Clause entitled, "Blind persons" is not selected, it can be discussed with the new Clause headed, "One hundred per cent. disabled" and there was an understanding with the Chairman of Ways and Means that there could be a Division on the new Clause headed "Incapacitated child over the age of sixteen years", put formally without debate.