The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952:—
228A. If a claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment he has been a blind person on the register of blind persons maintained by the appropriate local authority under sub-paragraph (g) of subsection (4) of section twenty-nine of the National Assistance Act, 1948, 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".—[Mr. Cronin.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.322
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot)
It would be convenient to discuss with this new Clause the proposed new Clauses in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton—One hundred per cent. disabled—that in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—Relief for disabled persons—that in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton—Relief for blind man with guide dog—that in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers)—Relief for blind persons—and that in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird)— 323 Relief in respect of cost of upkeep of guide dog for blind person.
§ Mr. Cronin
That would be convenient, Mr. Arbuthnot. It is rather unfortunate that one has the task of moving this Clause. It is a somewhat grievous task because it is something which has been done year after year without any success. The same circumstance applies to the group of Clauses which we are discussing with the one I am now moving. Year after year we have moved such Clauses, or, if they have not been called, they have been put on the Order Paper, but in every case the Government have invariably declined to take action and have made no concessions. It is generally accepted in all civilised communities that blind persons are an object of compassion, but they themselves are most independent and I do not think they would like that argument to be used in their favour. I shall not refer to it other than as I have done already. There are, however, certain very sound fiscal reasons for the Government accepting this new Clause.
It is a fundamental principle of our system of taxation that, in assessing a person's tax, due attention should be paid to his taxable capacity—in other words, what he has available after the necessities of life have been dealt with. Blind persons have to meet a constant and heavy levy of extra expenses in order to pass their normal daily lives. There are numerous necessary actions which they to pay to have done for them. For example, if shopping involves crossing a very heavily trafficked thoroughfare, a blind person must pay somebody to do it for him. If he has to clean his living quarters or his house, again he must pay someone else. Blind persons cannot do their own washing. Numerous services which most of us take for granted have to be paid for by blind persons.
They also have to have special equipment, which is expensive. If they want to read they must have braille books and magazines, which are very expensive productions. Thus, if one looks at the ordinary daily life of a blind person one sees that there is a very heavy levy of constant expenditure which seriously impairs his taxable capacity. A blind person has additional expenses when 324 travelling to work. Quite often it is impracticable for him to travel by public transport. He must, therefore, have special transport to take him to and from work.
For these reasons, it is particularly desirable that blind persons should receive some consideration in fiscal legislation additional to what is normally obtainable. This new Clause has certain considerable advantages. It makes concessions to an easily definable group of people, those on the blind persons register. It also has the blessing of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. One feels that there are very sound fiscal and economic reasons for accepting the Clause. I say this without prejudice against the other new Clause in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers), which affects post-war credits for blind persons, and is equally agreeable to our side of the Committee.
I turn now to the question of guide dogs for blind persons. Their purpose is to enable blind men to go to and from work and also to travel for the purpose of recreation. These dogs enable them to have a sense of independence. They can go out and about much more than would otherwise be the case, and they can also dispense with the services of people to guide and help them. It enables blind people to take exercise and to lead healthy lives. It makes them less liable to be a tax on the community, in having to take advantage of the services of the National Health Service. Having a guide dog also has a tremendous psychological effect on a blind man. He can get about, and his independence makes a tremendous difference to his welfare and morale.
The only difficulty is that these guide dogs are rather large; they are usually labradors, collies or alsatians, and they usually eat between one and two pounds of meat a day. I can understand that a man with a family can support such a dog if he spends 15s. a week on meat for it and if he is able to supplement its diet with scraps from the family table, but a spinster or bachelor has to spend about £1 a week on feeding it. These people get some help from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which means that that association has less funds available to pay for the training of further dogs. 325 At present, about 10,000 people in unsheltered employment are blind, and of that number about 1,000 have guide dogs. If the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association did not have to subsidise the feeding of these dogs it could train many more, which would be available for blind persons.
The Clause also has a distinct advantage in that it provides hon. Members with an opportunity—which occurs only on a few occasions when we are taking part in the rather dry proceedings on the Finance Bill—to do something for animals. It is a well-known tradition of the House that anything concerning the welfare of animals tends to engross its attention, and this seems to be a very suitable occasion for hon. Members to show their appreciation of the useful services rendered by domestic animals.
I understand that hon. Members opposite tend to think of animals chiefly in terms of objects to be hunted or destroyed rather than as objects of value and use.
§ The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)
It would be dangerous to proceed further along that tack.
§ Mr. Cronin
I bow to your Ruling, Sir William. I shall not refer again to the pursuit of the uneatable by the unspeakable. I must give Oscar Wilde his quotation.
Everything that I have said about blind people applies a fortiori to 100 per cent. disabled persons generally. They, too, have heavy additional expenses, which affect their taxable capacity, but which are necessary to enable them to live any kind of reasonable life. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are aware that paralysed, crippled and mutilated persons have to have special appliances to be able to eat and look after themselves. They often have to have special clothing.
A special apparatus is available in the shops which enables a crippled person to hoist himself in and out of his bath, which he would not otherwise be able to do. This apparatus costs £55, and it is one more indication of the heavy expense involved in being a disabled person. Hon. Members know that disabled persons very often have to spend 326 10s. or £1 a day in travelling to work in London. No allowance is available in respect of this heavy additional expense.
Our present fiscal legislation provides some relief, but in a curiously isolated circumstance. If a person is infirm, or disabled, he obtains some relief if he has a resident daughter to look after him, but not if he has only a resident son or a resident nurse. The relief applies only if there is a resident daughter. This is a most peculiar fiscal anomaly. Here is an opportunity for the Government to take action to correct it.
If disabled persons received some additional consideration in regard to income they would have a much bigger incentive to work, so the economic effect of the new Clause would be of great value to the economic apparatus of the country. This afternoon the Chancellor told us quite a lot about the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and spoke with great respect and reverence of the Reports issued by this body. I hope that the Financial Secretary will bear in mind what the Commission says in its summary of recommendations on page 70 of its Second Report. It says, quite succinctly and uncompromisingly:Grave incapacity (comparable to the 100 per cent disability recognised in the administration of war pensions) should give rise to a claim for a tax allowance, which should be at least £100.That is precisely what is embodied in one of the new Clauses proposed by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and also, to more limited extent, in the new Clause which I have moved.
I hope that on this occasion we shall have a more forthcoming answer from the Financial Secretary than we have received on other occasions. This is a matter which commands the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, first, on economic grounds and, secondly, on principles of justice and fiscal equity. Most important of all—in saying this I do not wish to add any emotional appeal—I think that those who would gain from the provisions of this new Clause are people whom we are particularly bound to assist, and if we do so we can be certain of the full approbation of our constituents.
§ Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)
I wish to support the Motion. I have a similar new Clause—Relief for blind persons—which is No. 42 on the Notice Paper. I understand that my new Clause No. 43—Post-war Credits for blind persons—has not been seleced.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will remember that last year I was one of a deputation which interviewed the previous Financial Secretary in conjunction with the Royal National Institution for the Blind and the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind and representatives of blind professional persons. The late Mr. Edward Evans, to whom I think this Committee owes a great deal, was also a member of the deputation. We were fortunate in persuading the then Financial Secretary to put forward the idea that blind persons should receive the post-war credits due to them and for that we should like to express thanks today. But I feel that this is something we should wish to press now and in the future.
The deputation to which I have referred was told that there was great difficulty in distinguishing between different types of disabled persons. At that time we were pressing the Government on behalf of those registered with local authorities. Reference has been made to the expenses incurred by blind people. These include expenses for guide dogs, equipment, laundry and for cooking, which are different from the expenses of other disabled people. I am a member of a committee in my constituency where flats are provided for blind people in which they are able to do their own cooking and laundry. That is something which in many cases it is not possible for blind people to do.
In Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Finland blind persons are given State pensions. There is no means test and the pensions are free from Income Tax reductions. My hon. Friend will agree that the need of blind persons is recognised in this country because there is a supplementary scale for the blind. They are the recipients of National Assistance under what is quaintly named the constant attendance allowance. A blind person with 100 per cent. disability resulting from either a war or an industrial injury can receive this constant attendance allowance, which means that the 328 Government have recognised the need for an individual blind person to be provided with some extra income to meet extra cost. We cannot say, therefore, that the actual principle has not been recognised by the Government; it is only a question of persuading them to carry the matter a little further.
It is difficult to understand why the Government allow those who cannot work to receive extra allowances but will not allow any tax concession to those blind persons who are self-supporting. Blind persons who are entirely self-supporting do not get any tax concessions and they are not receiving anything from public funds, whereas those who are receiving something from public funds get extra help. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this category of blind persons in the United Kingdom is the only substantial group of blind taxpayers in the whole world who have to meet extra costs from their taxable income.
As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) mentioned, the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income gave support to my case. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will see in paragraphs 201 to 203 of its Report that it recommended a special allowance of £100 for gravely disabled taxpayers and cited the blind as those who were particularly disabled. The definition of those who could qualify was those withpersonal circumstances which are reasonably capable of identification…I think that blindness is certainly capable of identificationand which demonstrably set the person concerned apart from others.In this case we can say that blind persons are demonstrably set apart from all others. Their disability is a more disabling one than any other type of disablement. They have to provide for themselves many extra services, including guide dogs and equipment, and they have to pay a number of extra gratuities. When a blind person is helped he has to put his hand in his pocket, probably more frequently than a sighted person because he has his pride and does not like to take something without giving something in return.
In the past Great Britain has given a great lead in blind welfare, but not in the question of taxation of the blind. I 329 shall give examples from other countries of how their blind are helped. In Canada, under tae Income Tax Act, 1945, blind persons are given extra income and the tax relief of 480 dollars per annum. If they have to have a full-time attendant they can deduct taxation if that attendant's salary exceeds 480 dollars. A single man is relieved of tax on an income of 1,140 dollars and a married man is relieved of tax if his income is 1,680 dollars. Blind married couples are separately assessed and entitled to individual deductions. Australia passed an Act in 1952 by which every blind person of 16 and over has a tax-free pension of £4 7s. 6d. a week and married couples have a tax-free pension of £8 15s. This is intended to meet extra cost of living.
New Zealand, through its Social Security Act, 1939, provides for registered blind persons a tax-free pension of £4 12s. 6d. a week with no means test at all. In Malaya and Ceylon the earnings of qualified blind persons—I admit there are not a great number in either country—are free from taxation. If an individual goes to a workshop in Malaya he gets 25 Malayan dollars, paid monthly, either for being taken to work or to meet extra expenses incurred in going to work. In the United States of America an extra tax-free allowance of over 600 dollars is given in addition to other personal allowances. If a person is over 65 he gets a further allowance of 600 dollars. In 1947 the German Federal Republic gave a 200 marks tax-free concession on earned income and a 120 marks tax-free concession on unearned income. In Switzerland taxation is free on 900 francs and in many of the African Colonies huts are given to blind persons, or they do not have to pay tax on their huts.
We in this country are lagging behind in concessions given to blind persons. As the hon. Member for Loughborough said, it is very important to recognise the part played in our economy by blind persons who work. They have no need to do so, for they could live on their pensions and National Assistance without doing any work. They undergo a very severe training. They equip themselves for a job and those who do so, do it extremely well. In view of the heavy expense to which they are put it should 330 be possible for the Financial Secretary to give a favourable reply to the new Clause.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)
This group of new Clauses which, Sir William, you have kindly permitted us to discuss with that which my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) has moved, all deal with human problems—the problems of the halt and the maimed and the blind.
At the beginning of my short speech I remind the Committee that these problems have been eloquently presented to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer by, among others, a very distinguished former back bencher, Sir Frederick Messer, and by another distinguished back bencher, the late Edward Evans, who gave his life in many ways to the disabled. I am very happy that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers), whose work for all kinds of people in distress commands the admiration of both sides of the Committee, has taken part in the debate.
Possibly no country has done as much as this country for the relief of disabled people, except fiscally. Possibly the only Department of Government which has not taken part in the tremendous advance in social reforms for the disabled is Her Majesty's Treasury, and we hope that as a result of this debate we shall break through this evening and that the Treasury will make some of the concessions for which we are asking.
None of the concessions for which we ask involves large sums of money. All of the new Clauses which we are discussing could be granted by the Chancellor without upsetting his great economic policy of checking inflation. Behind them all is a principle—the principle that disability is not only a physical hardship and a spiritual hardship, but also a financial hardship in view of the fact that the disabled person has to spend more to live.
I want to address myself not to the question of the blind—that has been admirably covered—but to the question of the 100 per cent. disabled, which is the subject of the Clause entitled "One hundred per cent. disabled". The term "One hundred per cent. disability" is an abstract term which in itself has very 331 little meaning when we are discussing it. I looked up the categories of people who are 100 per cent. disabled. Many of them I have had the honour to meet year after year at the annual conference of B.L.E.S.M.A., the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association.
To be 100 per cent. disabled from the point of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance one must have lost both hands, or a hand and a foot, or two legs, or a leg and the other foot. Or one must be almost blind—blind enough not to be able to do a job. Or one must have a very severe facial disfigurement, or be totally deaf, or paraplegic.
These are the categories of 100 per cent. disability recognised by the Ministry for war pensions and for industrial injuries, and the bulk of the men and women for whom we are seeking tax concessions for 100 per cent. disability would be in those two categories. They would be men gravely damaged because they risked their lives for their country or men and women who have been severely damaged while carrying out their work in industry.
When we have presented this case in previous years the Treasury has always argued, "We can identify those two classes, but it would be very difficult to say what we meant by 100 per cent. disability for a man who was not a war pensioner, or an industrial injuries pensioner." He would be someone whose disability was the result of an organic disease."
I refuse to believe that it is beyond the skill, not so much of the Treasury but of the great medical profession, to categorise 100 per cent. disability in so far as it is the result of organic disease. I see no difficulty at all, if the Treasury is of a mind to accept the principle of this new Clause, in doing what the Treasury must always do—be quite clear in its mind exactly what it is conceding and exactly what people are to get the benefit because they are regarded as being 100 per cent. disabled.
The bulk of them are already covered under war pensions, or industrial injuries provisions, and the rest are groups suffering from an organic defect on which I am quite certain the medical profession could satisfy the Treasury that it could give a clear and precise meaning to 100 per cent. disability.
§ Mr. Cronin
The apparatus is already available in the medical boards of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. There would be no difficulty.
§ Dr. King
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We gave the medical boards exactly that task when we asked them to assess 100 per cent. disability for war pensions and industrial injuries. The apparatus is there, and, given the job, I am quite certain that they could do it.
This is not merely an emotional case, although emotion is not a bad thing and an appeal for humaneness is not an unimportant appeal. Emotion is wrong only if it is wrongly applied. Then it becomes sentimentality, and there is no sentimentality in the emotion aroused by the kind of cases we are discussing. The case that Sir Frederick Messer always used to put was the simple, economic case, the simple case of equity for the disabled man, as compared with his fully able fellow taxpayer. The case was the simple one—and the hon. Lady has just made it for the blind—that the disabled man finds it more expensive to live than an able man. Very often, he has to pay for what the able-bodied man can do for himself.
I found it most moving at the B.L.E.S.M.A. conference this year when one of the delegates who spoke was an armless man who was entirely dependent on fellow human beings for practically everything that he will ever do in his life. Many of the simple services that we can provide quite naturally for ourselves the disabled person has to obtain from affectionate friends or in the last resort has to pay for. There is the special kind of clothing which he has to have. Sometimes, he cannot make use of ordinary forms of transport. Where some people can take a bus, the disabled person has to take a taxi. All these things add up in the life of a disabled person and add to his expenses, which are as legitimate as any expenses which any of us set down in our Income Tax returns and have offset when paying our Income Tax.
What we seek in this group of new Clauses is that the Treasury, for the first time, should recognise that there is an economic cost in disability. The Royal Commission accepts this point of view. I know that on major policy there is obviously reason for the Government 333 to make their own decisions about some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, but anyone who reads the Royal Commission's Report on detailed matters such as these must agree that sooner or later it is the duty of the Government to accept its recommendations. The Royal Commission made its recommendation in practically the same terms as the new Clause, and asked that the tax concession should be for f100 of the income received by a 100 per cent. disabled person.
I sincerely hope that we shall break through this year for the first time at the end of a debate which is one of a series of debates reaching back into the past almost ever since the Royal Commission was set up. I hope that in one of the various ways suggested in the new Clauses the Chancellor will concede some of what we ask for.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
I wish to add my support to the new Clauses. I fully support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) on the new Clause—Relief for blind persons.
I feel that now is the time to go even further than that. I therefore hope that we shall receive at any rate a reasonable and sympathetic answer from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. In the past, the arguments against doing anything in relation to Income Tax reliefs have been put from a variety of angles, but today we have the Financial Secretary in a position in which it will perhaps be a little more difficult for him to reject some of the new Clauses.
It is true, as has been argued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary, that this is a standstill Budget, but it has already been broken down in relation to small reliefs. Therefore, my hon. Friend cannot argue that case tonight.
Another argument put forward in the past has been the difficulty of establishing who are totally disabled. We have now reached the point of being able to deal with that. In any event, it would be very regrettable if the British House of Commons, which has been capable of doing many things over the decades, found itself in a position to turn down 334 new Clauses of this kind on the ground that they are almost impossible to implement.
As was rightly pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we are now reinforced by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. I have noticed with great interest that when it suits my right hon. Friend he accepts the Royal Commission and when it does not suit him he rejects the Royal Commission. I am a very practical and, I hope, logical person. I do not like that approach. One has certain responsibilities to the people of this country.
I am sorry to have to say that to some extent the Treasury is concerned with the amount of pressure. It does not apply just to my own Government. It applies to all Governments. Unfortunately, on these matters the pressure is not as great as it is on other matters. Therefore, in the past my right hon. Friend has been in a position to refuse.
I do not like that. The House of Commons is supposed to safeguard the interests of minorities. We very often forget that. We do not safeguard the interests of minorities, because I do not believe that the minority case gets through to my right hon. Friend at the right times. Therefore, on such an occasion as this, when it is perfectly obvious that the whole temper of all those hon. Members interested in these cases has been to make a very strong appeal to the Financial Secretary to make some concessions, I hope that those concessions will be made.
I know, Sir William, that I would not be in order if I referred to what has happened in regard to other parts of Finance Acts, but I believe that if, sometimes, some of us who, year after year, make our case on this sort of occasion, could be consulted a little beforehand as to what would be acceptable we might not find ourselves faced with the unfortunate position of people who can really quite well afford to look after themselves being benefited. Here, of course, I refer to rich widows, who have had a very nice Income Tax relief—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Lady is straying from her ways, and I cannot but feel that she knows that she is doing so.
§ Dame Irene Ward
Of course, you are quite right, Sir William. I know that you have a very penetrating mind and a very good psychological approach. If you and I could go out together you would know exactly what was in my mind. You have interpreted rightly. I have no intention, Sir William, of embarrassing either you or myself by straying now on the forbidden path.
I have been in the House of Commons for a very long time, and the longer I am here the more difficult I find it to make the pace for the kind of people to whom we are referring tonight in the discussion of their problems. Though I have the greatest possible faith in the memories of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, I think that it would be a great pity if, by some misfortune, they forgot the past and looked only at this case as it is now being presented.
As has been said, one of the anomalies is that if a blind person has a resident daughter there is a relief, but if there is a resident family there is not a relief. My complaint against the Chancellor and 'the Financial Secretary has all the time, been that they will not face anomalies. They make no attempt at all. Occasionally, they give a few small crumbs, or do some kind little action with the best inten,tion—I must not mention what they do, 'but they do it. When, however, it comes to looking at a problem like this in its, entirety we are left with no answer, because they are never able in any Finance Bill to say, "Here is the problem of the blind and the 100 per cent. disabled. We have given it full attention."
After all, with any luck, Finance Bills come only once a year, so the Treasury has twelve months in which to study the words of wisdom that have fallen from the lips of various hon. Members since, say, 1945. By now, the Treasury ought to have made up its mind what ought to be done that is just, what ought to be done that is fair and equitable, and what, ought to be done to wipe out the anomalies. It is just these small anomalies, that create so much dissatisfaction and heartburning. I want to emphasise to the Chancellor that the anomalies affect not only the individual concerned but, the whole family, the whole street in which the family live, the whole community, and local authority treatment.
336 If Parliament cannot give a lead in these matters, what is the use of our being here? I do not want to give the Chancellor a lead in the economic planning of his Budget; I am satisfied with that in general, but I am not satisfied with the way in which these matters are dealt with. I do not want to wait another year. We are to have inquiries and pledges of some sort. I want to know that when we come to the Report stage something will be done to meet this case.
Perhaps I would be in order in mentioning one matter, because I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport who mentioned it in connection with National Assistance and people who earn their own living. I should have thought it was to the benefit of the economy of this country to try to help those who help themselves. I see a great deal of what goes on in social life, and I know that there is a very strong feeling throughout the country that the one weakness is that we do not help people who are prepared to help themselves. If a person is really poor and down and out and does not feel that he wants to make the effort, there is an enormous friendly machine which will help that person. That is incredibly wrong. We should help those who help themselves, and that is what the country wants from this Government.
I hope that we shall not be put off by the difficulties. As to the point about not being able to distinguish between the 100 per cent. disabled and the blind, I heard all those arguments when we were discussing the repayment of post-war credits. No one could have been firmer than previous Chancellors of the Exchequer in maintaining that it was impossible to make the distinction. Now it has proved possible. I do not believe that we are up against an insoluble problem. I think we can easily do this.
At any rate, I trust that we shall get some satisfaction from the Financial Secretary. I am delighted to know that he now has support from others on the Front Bench, and I hope that he will be able to make us happy by being forthcoming in his reply.
§ Mr. J. B. Symonds (Whitehaven)
I wish to speak on a subject which is very dear to me and has been for the last twenty years. I refer to the handicapped 337 and blinded person, of whose difficulties I have to made some experience.
When blind people have work provided for them they are beset by great difficulties. Very often they have to be guided to work. If they want to go out for a walk they have to be guided. They have to be assisted in many ways. They have to be helped even to put on their collar and tie, and it is important particularly for a young blind person to have his hair parted correctly to enable him to feel part and parcel of the community in which he lives.
Nevertheless, such persons develop a very independent attitude. It is now possible for blind persons to get another form of help when they require to be guided to work. I refer to guide dogs. The society which provides guide dogs for blind persons has done a magnificent job. I believe—no doubt, I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it costs about £200 to provide and train a guide dog to assist a blind person. The voluntary organisations have appealed on innumerable occasions for tax relief for the blind man who has a guide dog to take him to work. I beg the Chancellor to take note of the appeals which have been made on account of the quite invaluable work which is done.
To illustrate what a guide dog can do, I will tell the Committee of a man who is a blind teacher in the North of England. The area he has to cover is a very large one, and he is one of six people employed to look after 826 blind persons. He is able to go about with his guide dog. He is taken to a street by friendly neighbours and, after going once to a particular house with his guide dog with him, he can always be brought back again to that house by his guide dog. Once he has been to any place, his guide dog can take him back there again. The dog will guide him through heavy traffic; it will not allow him to cross the street if it senses that there is any danger likely at all.
I think it would, perhaps, be good if the Chancellor himself were to be blindfolded and then tried to find his way to his own room in this building or to the Westminster Underground Station. I suspect that it would be almost impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do so unaided, and I am sure that he would very greatly appre 338 ciate whatever help and guidance other people gave him in finding his way about.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he cannot make any concession because he has not the money. He may say that if he makes a concession in this case other organisations will ask for similar concessions and he is not in a position to differentiate. I believe that that was one of the arguments he used last year. In this connection, I should like to remind the Committee of something said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in the debate on 5th April this year. The hon. Gentleman made this very significant statement:I have always been sceptical, and so have many of my hon. Friends, of the value of initial and investment allowances. They are of very dubious benefit…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 309.]If those allowances are of very dubious benefit, there is here an opportunity for industrialists to forgo them so that the Chancellor will be able to give tax relief to the blind man with a guide dog.
I come now to the position of the 100 per cent. disabled person. I have for long been a member of a war disabled pensions committee and of disabled persons advisory committees and I have visited many disabled people in their homes. They have to have home helps, and for this service they have to pay. They have to have additional clothing. For instance, if a disabled person has lost both legs, he has to have special clothing. If a wheel chair is provided by one of the organisations, the wear and tear upon the disabled person's clothing is something which is quite beyond the experience of any hon. Member here with his clothing. There are additional gadgets which a disabled person must have if he has lost both hands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) referred to the conference of a certain organisation which he attended. I have a local interest in these persons and know exactly their difficulties. They have to have special appliances. A single man or woman residing by himself faces great difficulty. If they are able to use their hands in a way which can be of benefit 339 to themselves and to the community, I feel that tax relief should be afforded to them.
I could quote many other cases. I have heard in our debates on the Bill appeals for concessions of various kinds. I feel—and here I address my remarks directly to the Chancellor—that here is a chance for this Committee, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to rise above itself and to do something for the blind man who has to have a guide dog and for people who are 100 per cent. disabled.
§ Mr. Arthur Probert (Aberdare)
I rise to fulfil a promise that I made some months ago to a very attractive, in many respects, constituent of mine. I feel somewhat embarrassed that the case cannot be put by one of the hon. Ladies present.
I was struck by a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) to the effect that many people have no idea of what is meant by a 100 per cent. disability. I realise that my hon. Friend knows what it means, and, coming as I do from a mining constituency, I can assure him that I know full well what a 100 per cent. disability is. In the mining areas, in particular, there are people with the serious disability of paraplegia. However, I do not want to deal with general cases, because they have already been well covered.
It is significant that not one voice has yet been raised against these proposals. I hope that the Financial Secretary will pay due regard to what has been said. I certainly hope that he has not made up his mind before hearing the arguments. I want to confine my remarks to the category of persons who come under Clause 10. People in this category, although they are not in receipt of a 100 per cent. disability pension or industrial injury benefit, are, nevertheless, disabled 100 per cent. I shall confine my remarks to this category, because we have heard so much in support of other categories.
I want to quote a letter which I received not yesterday, or last month, but on 14th December, 1959. It is from a polio victim. It is self-explanatory, and it reads:I wear, on an average, six undergarments out per year due to buckles, steel, crutches, etc. 340 due to the fact that I have to wear double calipers, back support and crutches which come up to my elbows as a result of having had polio as a child. I have worked since I left school at 18 and am now 48…This young lady—I still call her young even though she is 48—has worked since she was 18, and this is a tribute to her indomitable courage. She goes on: "…and have, over the years, paid my fair share of tax, which I know we all have to pay, but I do feel very, very strongly indeed that I have to pay as a normal person when I have to pay out as much for clothes as a dire necessity rather than for glamour. An amputee is allowed six woollen stump socks per year by the Ministry. We with calipers are allowed nothing.
I have discovered over the years that woollen pants are the best thing to stop chafing at the top of my legs. These garments alone cost me a small fortune out of my wages. Also there are the top clothes. Coats and macs wear at the sleeves, and as I go to work every day I am constantly having to replace these items. I also have to wear woollen stockings which this winter have been a nightmare to find as they are not fashionable. In the end, I had to order a box of half a dozen. These are the kind of problems one faces which the general public have no idea of at all"—
as my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen pointed out—but one I do expect the experts any Government might put in charge of these problems to more than understand. I do not know who decides on who should have what, but whoever they are they want to think again and have representatives from all disabled—war. industrial and act of God—to be fair to all.If this person could claim for those clothes as being in the category of a uniform or industrial clothes she could claim exemption. The position is absolutely farcical.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen pointed out, the question of assessing 100 per cent. disability creates some difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) pointed out a precedent for that. I could also give a precedent, quoted in this letter:The Board of Trade had a very good scheme during the war when they gave extra coupons to all disabled persons. They started off with forty as a maximum for people like myself and then went down in scale.If the Board of Trade could accept that principle, why in heaven's name cannot the Chancellor accept it now? There are hundreds of people like this who go to work every day and they should have some consideration when it comes to tax relief.
341 I ask the Financial Secretary to think very seriously about this matter. I am thinking not only of polio victims, but of many of my personal friends who have been the victims of industrial disease and who are, in consequence, paraplegics. I see them practically every month. In view of the fact that hon. Ladies opposite, who have given a lifetime of experience to this problem, as well as every hon. Member on this side of the Committee, have supported the Clause, the Government should give credence to what has been said.
§ Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)
The Chancellor, when he is considering the question of Government concessions, should have regard to the worst-placed people in the country who have to go to work to earn their living and who deserve a concession beyond all others. These three new Clauses dealing with the question of a £100 allowance are based upon the position that these people are handicapped far beyond the rest of the workers in the country. Has the Chancellor considered this from the point of view of these people? There is an Act on the Statute Book which applies particularly to blind people.
The blind man is handicapped to a far greater extent than any other class of person. Therefore, if any concessions have to be made, they should be made to the blind. When the present and past Chancellors of the Exchequer have considered to whom help by means of tax reliefs should be given, had they examined the matter thoroughly they would have been bound to come to the conclusion that the blind man should have a concession. He is fighting an exceptional battle.
The blind man who would derive any concession from the Clause must, of necessity, be working and earning an income. For many years, since the introduction of National Assistance, there has been special recognition of the position of the blind. When a man is blind but has every other faculty, the Government have recognised that he is handicapped in many ways beyond the rest of his fellow citizens and he is given a bigger National Assistance allowance because of his special position. He requires extra expense and attention. The Government admit this and give 342 him additional National Assistance, whether he is married or single.
If it is necessary to help the blind man to a greater extent than anyone else on National Assistance, it is logical to help him even further. When, despite his great disability, a blind man acquires skill and can earn an income, his special position should be recognised. That is the general opinion throughout the country. In refusing to do anything for the blind man who takes his place in the labour market, the Chancellor is going against the whole of public opinion.
The fact that those who are disabled by war or other causes are given additional help is a recognition of the principle that a man who is handicapped does not have the same opportunities to earn the same income as other people. This fact should be recognised by the Exchequer in granting him an allowance additional to the allowances enjoyed by normal people.
It is also suggested that people who have been out of work for twelve consecutive months, because of mental or physical infirmity, should also be given a taxation concession. It is proposed that the concession should be similar to that given to people who reach 65 years of age. Two or three years ago, a concession was granted whereby merely because a man reached 65 he was exempted from paying tax on £440 of his income.
§ Mr. Houghton
Age exemption is on income up to £275 for a single person and £440 for a married person.
§ Mr. McKay
That is quite right. However, that concession is given merely because the taxpayer reaches 65 and it is now suggested that someone who has been off work for twelve consecutive months, and who has therefore had that special handicap, should have an identical concession.
There is no question about the public's opinion of the need for a special concession for the blind. Indeed, it is up to the Chancellor to prove that public opinion is not behind us. He will find it very difficult to do so. The blind have a greater handicap than anyone else and if a blind person goes into the labour market and does something for himself and for his country he should be given 343 every encouragement, and that encouragement can be given if he is allowed a special concession.
§ Mr. Fernyhough
It is remarkable that each year we debate a new Clause of this character, that both sides of the Committee show complete unanimity about the proposal, that not a single voice is ever raised against it, and yet, somehow, year after year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to get away with defying the wishes of the Committee. It is time that we began to examine ourselves. We become cants and humbugs if we make speeches in our constituencies and in this Committee without any opposition and then, when the final result comes about, we find ourselves just where we were when we started.
I say frankly that whilst it may not be possible to obtain these concessions on this occasion—because I can well imagine that the Financial Secretary has not the authority to make a decision of this kind—I hope that full weight and consideration will be given to the remarks that have been made today. There can be no question but that this Committee is supposed to represent the ordinary mass of the people; there can be no question that if this were decided on a constituency basis, or on the basis of individual localities, every member of this Committee would be voting for these improvements, for this small measure of justice for those people who are so badly afflicted in one way or another.
Not one of our constituents would say that it was better to take 2d. off beer or cigarettes than to give a concession to persons who need a guide dog. None of our constituencies would say that it was better to take 2d. of beer and to forget the sick, the maimed and the crippled, as we do year after year. Why, then, in the name of fortune, if the Committee has expressed its view with unanimity year after year, without a dissident voice being raised, do we not make up our minds to see that the Executive do what we want them to do?
I want to tell the Financial Secretary of a case with which I am conversant because I have known the man concerned for many years. His parents died when he was a young boy. He is a complete cripple, paralysed from the waist down 344 wards, his hands and arms gnarled and twisted. One would have thought it impossible for him to do anything useful or make any contribution to society. He was taken into a wonderful home where all the love and affection was shown him that it was possible for any child in such circumstances to have showered upon him.
He learned shorthand, and became a teacher of it. He set up a school—and remember that this man has to be washed every morning just as though he were a baby. He must be carried out of the house and put in a car. The car takes him to school and there he sits in his chair from the time of his arrival until it is time to go back into the car which takes him home. When he gets home a male nurse, whom he pays, comes in to wash him and put him to bed. For all that expenditure he does not get a single penny relief.
Let us imagine that he could turn his teaching work into a company. He would employ a chauffeur, and the chauffeur's wages would be a charge against the firm. But the man I have described cannot charge for the cost of the car to take him to the only place where he can make an independent contribution to our society. He cannot charge for the cost of the male nurse who comes in to attend him each morning and evening.
What kind of Government or Treasury is it that says that, although a business man shall be able to charge all kinds of expenses against his income, the man to whom I have referred and others like him shall get no relief? There is an impregnable case for the acceptance of these new Clauses, and although in past years no relief has been given, I hope that when the Financial Secretary ends his speech in reply to this debate we shall have a higher opinion of him than we had before because he will have made it clear that he and the Treasury will have more regard for these suffering people in future than they have had for them up to now.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith
I do not intend to enter into the merits of the issue that we are considering, because I am not competent to do so in as fine a manner as that in which other hon. Members from both sides of the Committee have done so. I have great respect for those 345 hon. Members who can speak from firsthand experience of dealing with people who are afflicted and physically disabled.
I rise to plead with the Financial Secretary. I want to assure him that I do not intend any reflection upon him as an individual. My hon. Friends and I have too much respect for him, arising out of the record of service which he has already rendered, to make any personal reflections upon him. It was mainly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) which stimulated me to rise. He said that the time had arrived for hon. Members to assert themselves, as a Committee considering the Finance Bill. I happen to be in a strong position to do that.
It is easy to talk, but the test is the part we play when we support the Government of the day. Those of us who have supported the Government on this kind of occasion are in a strong position to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is asking us to do. Sooner or later we must assert ourselves in this national assembly in dealing with issues of this kind. These are everyday issues, vitally affecting our people, and unless we can deal with the daily grievances of the people in the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have suggested tonight, it is only a matter of time before more discredit is brought upon our procedures.
One of the Government Whips is sitting beside the Financial Secretary, and I appeal to him to ask the Chancellor to enter the Chamber so that he can be made aware of the complete unanimity of opinion that exists among hon. Members on both sides as to the desirability of concessions being made at this stage.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)
I have heard nine speeches on these Clauses—all admirable and very thoughful—and I am genuinely sorry that I cannot invite the Committee to approve them, for reasons which I will explain. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I thought it only fair that I should declare myself clearly at the start.
346 Having said that, I should like to say one thing which will be quite uncontroversial. I was glad that the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) paid personal tributes to former members of this House with which I should like to associate myself: first, Sir Frederick Messer, whose triumph over his own disability we all admired and respected; and, secondly, the late Mr. Edward Evans, who did fine work for the blind and also for the deaf, as I know personally from my association with the Ministry of Education. I do not know any hon. Member who gave himself more unsparingly, and at a much later age than many of us realised, to causes of that kind.
I do not quarrel with what has been suggested by a number of hon. Members that the consideration shown to the most unfortunate in our society is surely one good test of a civilised community. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), who spoke feelingly, as he always does in this type of debate, put his finger on the question when he made the interesting point that so many Government Departments have made great contributions in the social field and the only Department which has not is the Treasury. That takes us to the heart of the matter.
In one sense I think it fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his predecessors have contributed greatly by budgetary means to the social services of the country. Tonight, we are not debating them directly, but I believe that, on the whole, our social services compare well with the social services of most Western countries. It is perfectly true to say that successive Chancellors have taken the view that the right way to deal with the categories of disabled persons which we are discussing is by direct help through the social services rather than by what would be an entirely new kind of fiscal relief.
While I fully understand the strong feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has considered this matter carefully again this year. But I must say frankly that he still feels that he must adhere to the view he took last year.
§ Mr. Fernyhough
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the Treasury can give any estimate of what it would cost if these concessions were made?
§ Sir E. Boyle
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. Let me say straight to the Committee that the reason I invite hon. Members not to accept these Clauses is not because of their cost. The point is that my right hon. Friend does not believe that fiscal reliefs are the right way to deal with the question for reasons which I will try to explain, dealing, first, with the blind and then going on to the disabled.
I think that it is accepted that in the case of the blind this would be an entirely new kind of fiscal relief. The debate has shown that there are a number of classes of disabled whose problems are very much the same as those of the blind. I think that it would be extremely difficult to have any special tax relief for the blind and not immediately go on to consider the spastics, those suffering from poliomyelitis, people with multiple sclerosis and another category referred to by a number of hon. Members, the paraplegics. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) referred to them in an admirable speech.
I disagree with a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who said that those people who do not have a very strong lobby to speak for them do not do very well in these debates. I think it worth remembering that we do not exert much Parliamentary pressure regarding handicapped children, yet the standard of the special schools for them in this country is much higher today than it was a generation ago. I do not believe that it would be possible to have a new kind of fiscal relief for the blind and not soon extend it to certain other similar classes of persons. It is worth remembering that it would be very difficult indeed to have an allowance specially for guide dogs and not to have an allowance which would help blind people who have to have others to take them to their places of work, or who need transport.
§ Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)
It has always seemed odd to me that the shepherd's dog is excused, but that the blind man's dog is not excused. Is that because 348 the farmer's lobby is stronger than the blind man's lobby? There does not seem to be any logical reason.
§ Sir E. Boyle
I really do not think that it is for that reason. The hon. and learned Member is on a fair point, but if we once conceded the point about the blind man's dog, however much any of us in this Committee would like to do so, we would find that the consequential results on the whole system of taxation would be very much more difficult than many people think.
§ Sir E. Boyle
Let me finish this point.
We have to remember, first, that many blind people are not today liable to tax and, secondly—a point which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport mentioned—National Assistance scales are substantially higher today for blind people than for normally-sighted people. When one partner of a married couple is blind, the new scale, which is higher as the result of increases in National Assistance made last year, is over £1 more than that for a normal couple.
I come to the proposal for a 100 per cent. disability allowance, and I say again that the opinion of my right hon. Friend, which is the same as it was last year, is that this is not the best way of giving help where it is most needed. It would open a door which would be ever widened not just in terms of cost, on which I do not wish to lay primary emphasis, but in terms of the whole equity of our tax administration. I believe it impossible for our system of Income Tax to take account sufficiently closely of the personal circumstances and disabilities of very large numbers of individual disabled taxpayers. In the first place, a disability allowance would not help those who pay no Income Tax at all.
§ Sir E. Boyle
Yes, but it is also important to remember the part it plays when considering the most unfortunate of taxpayers. I say this to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), to 349 whose speech I listened carefully, that it is highly relevant to those unfortunate people to consider whether they pay tax. I believe that direct assistance is the better method.
§ Sir E. Boyle
May I be allowed to go on, as I have given way a number of times.
It is true that disabled persons incur expense, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Aberdare. He gave a good example in a letter which impressed us all, but we have to remember two things. The first is that this expenditure would vary very much between one person and another. Secondly, and this is the important point, this extra expense might as easily occur in the case of someone who was 75 per cent. disabled as in the case of someone 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. disabled. Very often it is those with disability below 100 per cent. who go to work and possibly have the greatest extra expense as a result of disability.
Secondly, the administrative difficulties of going beyond the 100 per cent. disability would be very considerable. Any further step beyond those with 100 per cent. disability would raise very awkward assumptions and equivalences, causing very complicated medical investigations. I put seriously to the Committee that to stop at 100 per cent. and take account of the expenses those people have to meet, and not those who are under 100 per cent. disabled but somewhere between 75 per cent. and 100 per cent., would cause more injustice than today.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the Report of the Royal Commission. There is one point on which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth; I can see nothing illogical about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor quoting the Royal Commission's Report when he agrees with it, in support of his argument, but not quoting it when he disagrees with it. It would be much more illogical if he quoted the Royal Commission's arguments when he disagreed with them.
350 It is important to remember that while the Royal Commission recommended a 100 per cent. disablement allowance, it did so with two very important provisos—first, that this allowance should not be in addition to or parallel with any tax-free disablement benefit; and, secondly, that if this 100 per cent. disablement allowance were given, other current allowances should be withdrawn. I think that the net result of implementing the Royal Commission's proposals would not be an advantage either to the war disabled or to those who receive industrial injuries benefit.
The Government's view is that fiscal proposals are not the best way to help the disabled. The best way is by direct help which takes account of each individual's disability and his particular circumstances and needs.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
The hon. Member says that the right way is to help by direct assistance. Can he give an assurance, before we vote, that the Government propose to give increased direct assistance to these people?
§ Sir E. Boyle
I will give some examples of the assistance which is being given. My right hon. Friend will certainly consult his colleagues in the social service Ministries and consider sympathetically whether there are detailed instances in which these examples ought to be increased. We have not closed our minds on these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is often a matter of administrative action and inter-Departmental consultation rather than of Clauses to be brought to the Committee.
§ Dame Irene Ward
Why does my hon. Friend think that the Royal Commission made those proposals if they were detrimental?
§ Sir E. Boyle
I do not believe that the Royal Commission intended those proposals to be detrimental, but if hon. Members look at the proposals they will see that it is quite arguable to maintain, as I maintain, that the effect of implementing the proposals as put forward by the Royal Commission would not be of very great assistance either to the war disabled or to those in receipt of industrial injury benefit.
I should like to give the Committee a few examples of the direct help which 351 is given. Last year my right hon. Friend rightly quoted examples of invalid tricycles or artificial limbs provided by the National Health Service. The Ministry of Labour provides rehabilitation and vocational training, and there are tax-free pensions with supplements for members of the Armed Forces and persons disabled in industry.
It is on those grounds that I invite the Committee not to accept the new Clauses. I fully realise that this is a matter on which the emotions of the Committee are rightly aroused on all sides. I will pass to my right hon. Friend the views which have been expressed this evening but, having listened to them carefully—and I listened to all the speeches made in the debate—I still feel that we are right to say that the correct way of helping these disabled people is by direct action through the social services rather than by introducing a completely new fiscal device which would lead administratively to an ever-widening door and which I do not believe would be of the greatest efficacy for our purpose.
§ Mr. Probert
I mentioned the case of a lady who has devoted thirty years of her working life to introducing Welsh to the community. As a poliomyelitis case, how can she have assistance towards meeting the cost of six sets of undergarments which she needs every year because of her disability?
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Sir E. Boyle
When I have read it in HANSARD, I will take up that point with my appropriate colleague to see whether anything can be done to meet that case. One thing the hon. Gentleman did not mention, which is of some importance. is that I rather find myself doubting whether this would be a case of 100 per cent. disability, but I agree that that is a detail point. I will look at the case which the hon. Member has put.
§ Mr. Houghton
First, I wish to thank the Financial Secretary for his kindly reference to the part which two of our former colleagues played in the debates in the Committee on this matter in the past. We have missed Sir Frederick Messer this evening, and especially have we regretted the death of Edward Evans. who contributed very much, not only in the House but outside, to the welfare of the disabled and handicapped people.
352 I should also like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) to our debates on these matters. His speech showed a full understanding and great experience of this problem. I wish to refer also to the very moving speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert).
Having said that, I must express two disappointments. The first is the lack of support that we have had from the benches opposite, and the second is the nature of the Financial Secretary's reply. It has been a striking contrast with the appearance of the benches opposite in the earlier part of this debate, and it is interesting to remember the Schedule A lobby a few hours ago. As soon as that debate was over, the Tory cohorts departed, the dragoons and the buffoons went, and even hon. Gentlemen who said that the abolition of Schedule A went right to the heart of Tory philosophy have not remained to tell us how near to the heart of Tory philosophy is some assistance to the blind and the 100 per cent. disabled in our fiscal system.
I must notice with regret that the only two speeches we have had from the benches opposite were from the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and we expect from both of them sympathetic and forceful speeches on these matters. The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth asked a very pertinent question. She said. "How is it that we in this House cannot impose the will of the House of Commons upon the Executive? "The answer is that it can be done if we try hard enough, and I am bound to say that it can be accomplished within the next half hour if hon. Members opposite would go into the Lobby with us on these new Clauses. Then the will of the House would prevail.
The truth of the matter is that the pressure upon the Government on these matters is nothing like as strong as the pressure on the Government for concessions in other and less worthy directions. We must acknowledge that. We on these benches cannot impose our will on the Government because we have not a majority in the Committee to do so, but we will ally ourselves with any movement on the benches opposite to achieve the 353 purpose which I am sure we have jointly in mind.
The real issue here is not cost. It usually is cost and on some of the new Clauses which will come later I have no doubt that we shall hear a great deal more about cost. The cost to the Exchequer of the concession sought in these new Clauses would be comparatively small, and in one or two cases would, in fact, be negligible, but I wish to point out that this group of new Clauses offers the Chancellor a selection. The main new Clause deals with the 100 per cent. disabled, and if the Chancellor were able to accept that, we would gladly withdraw other subsidiary and secondary new Clauses dealing with parts of the same main problem.
The Financial Secretary based his argument on whether this is the best way to give help to disabled persons. We must remember in this connection that we are dealing with taxation and not with social services. It is well to remember that in paragraph 201 of its second Report the Royal Commission said:The taxpayer's own disability is hardly recognised under the existing system. Yet there are many kinds of disability (putting aside age, which is provided for by a special relief) so severe that they modify the whole conditions of a person's life and impose upon him a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his income".That is what we are dealing with in the new Clauses—the 'taxable capacity of the income of a severely disabled person.
In the first sentence of paragraph 202 the Royal Commission said:Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance".That is what we are endeavouring to persuade the Government to accept. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) said, we have been trying for a number of years. We have moved these new Clauses in different forms for at least the last six years, but the response from the Government Front Bench has been much the same.
The Financial Secretary said that tax reliefs are not the best way of dealing with the problem. My reply to that is that tax reliefs are not the only way and may not be the best way, but they are a way of dealing with the problems of disabled people. We are dealing with 354 them in relation to the additional expense to which they are put and which, as the Royal Commission suggested, should be given some special concession.
I know it can be argued that the social services and not the tax code should take care of the casualties of life—the sick, the disabled, widows, and so on. But tax reliefs are already given for purposes not far removed from those covered by the new Clauses. Tax reliefs are given to the parents of young children, because the presence of young children in the home affects the taxable capacity of the taxpayer.
Tax reliefs, as well as tax-free educational grants, are given in respect of children undergoing extended education. The fact that educational grants may be made in respect of children undergoing extended education does not disqualify the parent from receiving not only the full child relief but the highest child relief in the code of personal allowances for that purpose.
Therefore, it is irrelevant for the Financial Secretary to refer to grants and allowances which are already made under the social services and paid tax-free to certain types of disabled persons. Comparable allowances are paid in the educational field without any damage to the tax reliefs of the parent. Tax reliefs are given, in addition to widows' benefits, to widows who employ a housekeeper for their young children. The Chancellor in this very Bill has introduced a new relief for widows and widowers with young children who did not qualify for the housekeeper's allowance because they did not have a housekeeper.
Tax reliefs as well as retirement pensions are given to old people. There is an age exemption and age relief, given on grounds of age alone and irrespective of any degree of disablement. Tax reliefs are given to those who maintain dependent relatives, and those reliefs are carefully safeguarded from erosion by the rise in social payments made under the National Insurance scheme or by the National Assistance Board.
I am trying to prove to the Committee that in our tax code we already give reliefs to taxpayers for those aspects of personal and domestic life that make a difference to the taxable capacity of the individual, and our contention is that 355 severe disablement, as the Royal Commission itself said, does affect the taxable capacity of the individual. Therefore, who is to say where the line should be drawn? We can only draw upon the wisdom of the Commission, the most recent monetary review of these matters, which was favourable to the principle of the proposal. That is where it comes from.
On this occasion, as on many others, I rely heavily upon the wisdom of the Commission. It was able to see the personal allowances as a whole. It examined carefully and critically the whole code of personal reliefs, and acknowledged that there were some administrative problems about its proposals that might have to be approached with caution.
The Financial Secretary said a moment or two ago, "Of course, if we give relief for 100 per cent. disablement, what about the 90 per cent., the 80 per cent., the 50 per cent. disabled?" I shall not rule out the possible extension of a relief of this kind, but the Royal Commission dealt with that aspect and suggested that we should try it out for the 100 per cent. cases and see how it worked.
I know that it is possible that a 100 per cent. disabled person may in some respects be less handicapped than one with a smaller assessment, but I think that the Committee will agree that those who are 100 per cent. disabled have grave disablement, probably, generally speaking, more severe than that of persons with a smaller disablement assessment.
An admitted problem of administration has been referred to a number of times. It is the problem of certification, which the Royal Commission examined carefully. The criterion for the payment of post-war credits, referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth, is a 100 per cent. disablement certified by the Ministry concerned. In the case of those who are covered by the assessment of a Ministry there would be no difficulty in administration, but there would be difficulty about those who were disabled to an equivalent extent to those who received a 100 per cent. disablement grant or allowances from a Government Department. The problem of certification would certainly arise there, but the 356 machinery for that could be discussed between the Treasury and the Ministries concerned, and the medical profession.
We are very sorry that the Financial Secretary has been unable to make some advance. We cannot accept the viewpoint of his right hon. Friend, although he was merely confirming today a point of view that we have had in years gone by. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would at least concede that some further review of personal allowances generally should be undertaken, and that this might form part of such a review. We have heard in earlier debates of some of the anomalies and difficulties with regard to the housekeeper and allied reliefs, and the Financial Secretary earlier agreed that some more comprehensive review of the personal allowances would probably be worth while. I am sorry that he has not gone even as far as that.
We are bound to carry our discontent into the Division Lobby. We have done it before; we shall do it again. We know of no substantial argument against an extension of personal allowances into this sphere of grave disablement. We have the Royal Commission behind us. We have the weight of argument behind us. We have heard nothing from the benches opposite against this, except the Minister with his Inland Revenue brief in his hand and the speeches of his right hon. Friend and his predecessors on previous occasions. Is there any hon. Gentleman who will rise to his feet when I sit down and state a case against the new Clause which is before the Committee?
It looks as if on the question of disabled persons hon. Members opposite are prepared to allow the case to go by default, but that on the abolition of Schedule A tax they will give the Chancellor no peace night or day until he has made some concession. That shows where the priorities of the Tory Party lie. We have nothing but contempt for them. We shall go into the Division Lobby, and I invite those who want to get nearer to the heart of Tory philosophy than the abolition of Schedule A tax to come with us.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 240.321
|Division No. 108.]||AYES||[8.13 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Ainsley, William||Hayman, F. H.||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Peart, Frederick|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Pentland, Norman|
|Awbery, Stan||Hilton, A. V.||Prentice, R. E.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Holman, Percy||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Holt, Arthur||Proctor, W. T.|
|Beaney, Alan||Houghton, Douglas||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Howell, Charles A.||Randall, Harry|
|Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brit'I. S. E.)||Hoy, James H.||Rankin, John|
|Benson, Sir George||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Reid, William|
|Blyton, William||Hunter, A. E.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bowles, Frank||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Ross, William|
|Boyden, James||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Royle, Charles (Salford, West)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Small, William|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Callaghan, James||Kenyon, Clifford||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Chapman, Donald||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Chetwynd, George||King, Dr. Horace||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Lawson, George||Steele, Thomas|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Stonehouse, John|
|Davies, Ifor (Cower)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Stones, William|
|Deer, George||Logan, David||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Delargy, Hugh||Loughlin, Charles||Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Dempsey, James||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Swain, Thomas|
|Diamond, John||MacColl, James||Swingler, Stephen|
|Dodds, Norman||McInnes, James||Sylvester, George|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter||Mackie, John||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mahon, Simon||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thornton, Ernest|
|Evans, Albert||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Timmons, John|
|Fernyhough, E.||Manuel, A. C.||Wade, Donald|
|Fitch, Alan||Mapp, Charles||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fletcher, Erie||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Warbey, William|
|Foot, Dingle||Marsh, Richard||Watkins, Tudor|
|Forman, J. C.||Mason, Roy||Weitzman, David|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mendelson, J. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Millan, Bruce||Whitlock, William|
|Ginsburg, David||Mitchison, G. R.||Willey, Frederick|
|Gooch, E. G.||Monslow, Waiter||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Moody, A. S.||Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Morris, John||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Grey, Charles||Mort, D. L.||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Moyle, Arthur||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Grimond, J.||Oliver, G. H.||Woof, Robert|
|Gunter, Ray||Oswald, Thomas||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Padley, W. E.|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Paget, R. T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Mr. Cronin and Mr. Probert.|
|Hannan, William||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Black, Sir Cyril||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bossom, Clive||Cole, Norman|
|Allason, James||Box, Donald||Collard, Richard|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat(Tiv'tn)||Boyle, Sir Edward||Cooke, Robert|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Braine, Bernard||Cooper, A. E.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Brewis, John||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Corfield, F. V.|
|Barber, Anthony||Brooman-White, R.||Costain, A. P.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony|
|Barter, John||Bryan, Paul||Craddock, Sir George Beresford|
|Batsford, Brian||Bullard, Denys||Critchley, Julian|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Bell, Ronald (S. Buoks.)||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Cunningham, Knox|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Curran, Charles|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)||Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Currie, G. B. H.|
|Bidgood, John C.||Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Dance, James|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Chichester-Clark, R.||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Bingham, R. M.||Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Deedes, W. F.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Clark. William (Nottingham, S.)||de Ferranti, Basil|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ramsden, James|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Jennings, J. C.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Doughty, Charles||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Drayson, G. B.||Johnson, Eric (Blackiey)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|du Cann, Edward||Joseph, Sir Keith||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Duthie, Sir William||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Eden, John||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Elliott, R. W.||Kershaw, Anthony||Roots, William|
|Emery, Peter||Kimball, Marcus||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Eveiyn||Kirk, Peter||Russell, Ronald|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Leather, E. H. C.||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Leavey, J. A.||Sharpies, Richard|
|Farr, John||Leburn, Gilmour||Shaw, M.|
|Finlay, Graeme||Legge-Bourke, Maj. Sir Harry||Simon, Sir Jocelyn|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lilley, F. J. P.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd& Chiswick)|
|Forrest, George||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Fraser, Kn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)||Litchfield, Capt. John||Speir, Rupert|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Longden, Gilbert||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|Freeth, Denzil||Loveys, Walter H.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Gammans, Lady||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Gardner, Edward||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||MacArthur, Ian||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||McLaren, Martin||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Godber, J. B.||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Sumner, Donald (Orpington)|
|Goodhart, Philip||MacLeod John (Ross & Cromarty)||Talbot, John E.|
|Gower, Raymond||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||Teeling, William|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Temple, John M.|
|Green, Alan||Maddan, Martin||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Maginnls, John E.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Maitland, Cdr. Sir John||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marshall, Douglas||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Harvle Anderson, Miss||Mawby, Ray||Turner, Colin|
|Hay, John||Morgan, William||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Nabarro, Gerald||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Henderson, John (Cathoart)||Neave, Airey||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hendry, Forbes||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John|
|Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Noble, Michael||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Hiley, Joseph||Nugent, Sir Richard||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Osborne, Cyril (Louth)||Wall, Patrick|
|Hocking, Philip N.||Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Holland, Philip||Page, Graham||Watts, James|
|Hollingworth, John||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Webster, David|
|Hopkins, Alan||Partridge, E.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hornby, R. P.||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Whitelaw, William|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Percival, Ian||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Howard Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)||Peyton, John||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Wise, A. R.|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hughes-Young, Michael||Pilkington, Capt, Richard||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Pitman, I. J.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hurd, Sir Anthony||Pott, Percivall||Woollam, John|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Powell, J. Enoch||Worsley, Marcus|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Jackson, John||Prior, J. M. L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|James, David||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Peel|
|Division No. 109.]||AYES||[10.15 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Pentland, Norman|
|Ainsley, William||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Albu, Austen||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hannan, William||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Probert, Arthur|
|Awbery, Stan||Hayman, F. H.||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Randall, Harry|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Rankin, John|
|Beaney, Alan||Hilton, A. V.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Holman, Percy||Reid, William|
|Benn, Hn. A. Wedgwood (Brist'l, S. E.)||Holt, Arthur||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Benson, Sir George||Houghton, Douglas||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hoy, James H.||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Blyton, William||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Ross, William|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Bowles, Frank||Hunter, A. E.||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Small, William|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Callaghan, James||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Jeger, George||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Chapman, Donald||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Chetwynd, George||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Stonehouse, John|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Stones, William|
|Cronin, John||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||King, Dr. Horace||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lawson, George||Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Darling, George||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Swain, Thomas|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Logan, David||Sylvester, George|
|Deer, George||Loughlin, Charles||Symonds, J. B.|
|Delargy, Hugh||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Dempsey, James||McCann, John||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Diamond, John||MacColl, James||Thornton, Ernest|
|Dodds, Norman||McInnes, James||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Timmons, John|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter||Mackie, John||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Wade, Donald|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Manuel, A. C.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Mapp, Charles||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Evans, Albert||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Watkins, Tudor|
|Fernyhough, E.||Marsh, Richard||Weitzman, David|
|Fitch, Alan||Mason, Roy||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mendelson, J. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Foot, Dingle||Millan, Bruce||Whitlock, William|
|Forman, J. C.||Mitchison, G. R.||Willey, Frederick|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Monslow, Walter||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Morris, John||Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)|
|Ginsburg, David||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Goooh, E. G.||Oram, A. E.||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Oswald, Thomas||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Padley, W. E.||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Paget, R. T.||Woof, Robert|
|Grey, Charles||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Grimond, J.||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Gunter, Ray||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Mahon and Mr. Howell.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Box, Donald||Cooper, A. E.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Boyle, Sir Edward||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.|
|Allason, James||Braine, Bernard||Cordle, John|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathooat (Tiv'tn)||Brewis, John||Corfield, F. V.|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Costain, A. P.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Brooman-White, R.||Coulson, J. M.|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown, Percy (Torrington)||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony|
|Barber, Anthony||Bryan, Paul||Craddock, Sir George Beresford|
|Barter, John||Bullard, Denys||Critchley, Julian|
|Batsford, Brian||Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Cunningham, Knox|
|Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks)||Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Curran, Charles|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Currie, G. B. H.|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)||Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Dance, James|
|Bidgood, John C.||Chichester-Clark, R.||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Biggs-Davison John||Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Deedes, W. F.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||de Ferranti, Basil|
|Bishop, F. P.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Collard, Richard||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.|
|Bossom, Clive||Cooke, Robert||Doughty, Charles|
|Drayson, G. B.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|du Cann, Edward||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Rees, Hugh|
|Duncan, Sir James||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Elliott, R. W.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Renton, David|
|Emery, Peter||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Errington, Sir Erie||Kimball, Marcus||Roberts, Sir peter (Heeley)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Kirk, Peter||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Farr, John||Leavey, J. A.||Roots, William|
|Fell, Anthony||Leburn, Gilmour||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lilley, F. J. P.||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Forrest, George||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Shaw, M.|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Litchfield, Capt. John||Shepherd, William|
|Freeth, Denzil||Longden, Gilbert||Simon, Sir Jocelyn|
|Gammans, Lady||Loveys, Walter H.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Gardner, Edward||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Speir, Rupert|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||MacArthur, Ian||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||McLaren, Martin||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Godber, J. B.||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Gower, Raymond||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)||McMaster, Stanley R.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Green, Alan||Maddan, Martin||Sumner, Donald (Orpington)|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Maginnis, John E.||Talbot, John E.|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Maitland, Cdr. Sir John||Teeling, William|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Temple, John M.|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Mawby, Ray||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Montgomery, Fergus||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Morgan, William||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Nabarro, Gerald||Turner, Colin|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Neave, Airey||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Hendry, Forbes||Noble, Michael||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Hicks Beach, Maj, W.||Nugent, Sir Richard||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hiley, Joseph||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John|
|Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Osborne, Cyril (Louth)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Page, A. J. (Harrow, West)||Wall, Patrick|
|Hocking, Philip N.||Page, Graham||Watts, James|
|Holland, Philip||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Wobster, David|
|Hollingworth, John||Partridge, E.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hopkins, Alan||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Whitelaw, William|
|Hornby, R. P.||Peel, John||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Percival, Ian||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)||Peyton, John||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wise, A. R.|
|Hughes-Young, Michael||Pilkington, Capt. Richard||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Pitman, I. J.||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Hurd, Sir Anthony||Pott, Percivall||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Powell, J. Enoch||Woollam, John|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Prior, J. M. L.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Jackson, John||Ramsden, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|James, David||Rawlinson, Peter||Mr. Finlay and Mr. Sharples|