HC Deb 30 May 1963 vol 678 cc1553-81

Considered in Committee [Progress, 29th May].



The following section shall be added to Part VIII of the Income Tax Act 1952:— If the claimant proves that during the whole of the year of assessment he has been in receipt of a war disablement pension or an industrial injury pension granted by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and determined by reference to one hundred per cent. disablement, he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to (a) tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds, less (b) the additional amount of income tax with which he would have been chargeable if instead of receiving his pension he had received as earned income an amount equivalent to the amount of his pension: Provided that no one shall be liable by virtue of this section to pay any more tax than he would have been liable to pay, if this section had not been enacted".—[Mr. Houghton.] Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

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

The Chairman

With this new Clause it will also be possible to discuss the new Clause No. 15, "One hundred per cent. disabled", the new Clause No. 16, "Relief for disabled persons", the new Clause No. 17, "Relief for grave disability", the new Clause No. 18, "Extension of relief under Finance Act 1960, s. 17", and the new Clause No. 67, "One hundred per cent. disability and constant attendance: extension of housekeeper allowance."

Mr. Houghton

These Clauses deal with different aspects of tax relief for disablement, and the Economic Secretary here has a wide choice of reform. The Clause I have just moved—No. 14—provides that a person who is 100 per cent. disabled within the meaning of the industrial injuries or war disablement schemes may be given tax relief at the standard rate on £100 less the additional amount of income tax with which he would be charged if, instead of receiving pension, he had received as earned income an amount equivalent to the amount of pension. The purpose is to bring into the reckoning the amount of his disability pension as income at the earned income rate.

The new Clause, "One hundred per cent. disabled," provides for tax relief at the standard rate on £100 to those persons who are 100 per cent. disabled under the industrial injuries and war disablement schemes, and it goes a little wider so as to include a person who is disabled in an equivalent manner, and which, had the disablement been within the industrial injuries and war disablement schemes, would have been assessable at 100 per cent.

The new Clause, "Relief for disabled persons", deals with a slightly different point. It provides that where a person is incapacitated from exercising his normal trade or profession for the whole of the tax year, any taxable income he has would be subject to the provisions of age exemption or age relief, notwithstanding that he is under 65 years of age.

The new Clause seeking relief for grave disability provides that relief shall be given where a person is disabled as to 75 per cent. or more, and that the allowance to be given shall be reduced in the case of a person disabled as to 75 per cent. by a proportion of the relief given to a 100 per cent. disability case.

The Clause, "Extension of relief under Finance Act 1960, s. 17", deals with a taxpayer's wife who has been totally incapacitated throughout the year. It proposes to give to that taxpayer tax relief on £40, which is equivalent to the allowance given to a widow or widower with a young child who does not qualify for the relief for a resident housekeeper. The purpose is to bring within the scope of the concession given in the Finance Act, 1960, a taxpayer whose wife is totally incapacitated for the whole of the tax year.

This is all well-trodden ground in our debates, and hon. Members may wonder why, year after year, we persist in tabling these new Clauses when we are always turned down. The answer is that perseverance and persistence pay off in this House if one sticks at it long enough. We are doing that, because the story of perseverance in matters of personal reliefs from taxation is certainly encouraging to those who are steadfast and physically strong enough to stand up to this year after year.

I will just refer briefly to some of the reforms that have come about as a result of pressing on the Government of the day the merits of particular cases. The housekeeper allowance is one example. The allowance for the widow or widower with a young child and no resident housekeeper is another. The counting of income of apprentices for child relief is another example. Small incomes relief —an entirely new relief given in 1955—is another instance of the result of persistence. In this case, one must give the credit to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).

The tapering of child relief in relation to the amount of a child's income was rejected time and again, but is now in this Bill for operation next year. Last year, we got a break-through on the question of disablement, albeit on the narrow issue of blind persons. The Committee will remember that it was only when the Government realised that the mood of the Committee was absolutely against their obduracy that they decided to submit to the will of the Committee, and introduced the new Clause on Report.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who said yesterday that the prospects of reform in this sphere, as in other spheres, depend largely on how tough hon. Members opposite are disposed to be with their own Government on questions about which they feel strongly. There are exactly three hon. Members opposite to get tough with the Government. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) present. He gets tough with the Government anyhow, whether he is supported by large numbers of his hon. Friends or not. I look forward to one of his characteristic denunciations of the inability of his own Government to realise that reform in this field is overdue.

I will pass, briefly, to the merits of the matter. We have a long way to go to finish the Committee stage of the Bill, and I wish to co-operate as much as possible. The argument against this type of reform in our Income Tax is, first, that taxation would become more complex and more difficult to administer if the code of personal allowances became too elaborate. The argument is that we cannot attempt to reflect a wide variety of different personal domestic circumstances in our code of tax relief. On the whole, we are told, we have to stick to the simple things of life, like marriage, children, housekeepers and dependent relatives.

If people will have adopted children or illegitimate children, rules have to be made to deal with them, but we cannot escape from these complexities if we are to make allowances for children at all. Occasionally, we have to bring in Solomon to decide on the apportionment of a child allowance between two separated and disputing parents—disputing who ought to have the child allowance. There are bound to be different kinds of housekeeper—residential housekeepers, non-residential housekeepers and imaginary housekeepers.

As to dependent relatives, more and more now appear to live in the West Indies, Poland and other distant parts. They, of course, provide special difficulties of administration, but we either cope with them or we abandon the idea of giving allowances of this kind altogether. Counterfoils of postal orders alleged to have been sent to some dependent relative abroad have been discovered on occasion to have been cashed by the football pools. That is the sort of problem of administration from which the Inland Revenue cannot escape when dealing with the complexities of these matters. Nevertheless, the ramifications of Income Tax and all its works go on relatively smoothly, giving rough justice to many and injustice to some.

These new Clauses are confined to the question of disability. Here we come to the second leg of the argument, which is that disablement is a matter for the social services rather than for treatment under our system of taxation. I suppose that one could argue similarly about children; in these days of family allowances one might say that they ought to be provided for, in so far as provision is necessary, in the social services rather than by taxation. But we run side by side family allowances under our social services and tax relief for children under our taxation system.

I can refer on the question of disablement to the second interim Report of the Royal Commission in 1954, Cmd. 9105. Hon. Members have undoubtedly gone over these paragraphs time and again in order to see what the Royal Commission said about the question of disablement. I quote from paragraph 201: 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. We read in paragraph 202: Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance. In paragraph 203 we read: We thought it right to concentrate upon some extreme measure of disability, because, if there is to be an allowance at all, it should, at any rate initially, be related to personal circumstances which are reasonably capable of identification and which demonstrably set the person concerned apart from others. That is why we have concentrated on grave disability. That is why the Government were able last year to accept relief of blind persons, who would in any case have come within the definition of grave disability. They were identifiable, they were certified under an acceptable scheme and the Inland Revenue were not put to any trouble or doubt as to who was a blind person within the meaning of the tax relief.

4.15 p.m.

As far as these Clauses relate to persons who are assessed as 100 per cent. disabled under the industrial injury and war disablement schemes, there would be no difficulty about identification. Such a condition of disablement is easily verifiable by reference to the Departments concerned. Where, however, there is an attempt to get a relief for equivalent disablement for a person not certified under one of the disability schemes as 100 per cent. disabled but who is nevertheless also totally incapacitated, there is greater difficulty of identification. But the Royal Commission foresaw that difficulty and took it in its stride, and it was of the opinion that it could be catered for under a proposal for allowances for grave disability.

I know that the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have rejected this proposal before. I hope that what they did last year is an indication that they are no longer opposing these proposals on doctrinaire grounds, because the principle to which they were adhering so persistently in years passed was breached last year to the extent of admitting blind persons to the code of tax allowances. I know that this is the sort of thing Governments always fear—the twin bogies of reactions and repercussions. "If we give it to these people, then we shall be pressed to do it for somebody else. If we start on this we shall never be able to stop. First, it will be the blind, then it will be the 100 per cent. disabled under war and industrial injury schemes, and then it will be somebody else." That is what they say.

I think that we have to face these consequences when we make a change in the principles of taxation. We have to decide that we shall do something. We have also to decide where we shall stop if we do it. I am not asking that these proposals should be accepted solely because we did something for the blind last year. The reason I am stressing the concession given to the blind last year is simply that it seems that we no longer have to argue this matter as one of principle in our taxation system.

I believe that in this Bill we have gone a long way from past traditional thought on taxation in this country, and that to me represents a most significant departure from much which has held the field in fiscal thinking for the last century. That, I think, is hopeful, because although it means that to some extent we are abandoning the abstract and doctrinaire principle of equality, we are making our system of taxation more malleable, more flexible, more capable of adjustment to particular circumstances which we believe on social, personal or economic grounds is justified in the national good.

I ask the Minister to look at these proposals not in terms of a departure from principle but on their merits as a matter of justice to certain groups of gravely disabled people who are living lives very different from those of us who have our normal faculties. These people, as the Royal Commission said, are so gravely disabled and have injuries or disablement 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. Tax concessions should be given for the person gravely disabled; permanently 100 per cent. disabled, or, at the very least, 75 per cent. disabled; the person totally incapacitated for the whole of the year of assessment, who may have investment income, or may have a breakdown pension which will be taxable, and who, because he is under the age of 65, will have a burden of taxation probably greater than it would have been if he had been over 65.

This should also apply to totally incapacitated wives. In such cases, many moving letters are written to hon. Members at different times. For them, there is no tax relief unless there are young children. We are asking that a very modest relief should be given in that case, the tax on £40, widening the provisions of the concession of the 1960 Act to cover them.

The condition of the Committee at the moment is not one for making an impassioned or emotional appeal to the Minister, and I therefore keep my feelings under control. But these are grievous cases. We all know of them. We all want to help them. If our taxation system can be adjusted to their needs, I am sure that the rest of us, able-bodied, fully-sighted taxpayers, will feel that our contribution towards relief for them should be freely given in a spirit of thanksgiving for our own health and strength and as a very small demand on our own personal resources.

Mr. Bruce Milian (Glasgow, Craigton)

I should like to add a few brief words of support to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). As he said, the arguments about these and similar new Clauses are all very familiar. I have the uneasy feeling that the answer from the Government will also be the familiar answer that nothing can be done.

There is a very strong case for making some sort of concession in the case of grave disability. It is undoubtedly true that the person who is gravely disabled is often put to considerable expense in ordinary living expenses, particularly when he follows an occupation. I remember that a case was recently drawn to my attention of a young woman who had been a poliomyelitis victim and who needed a small car in which to get about. She did not have a car under the National Health Service, but she had her own which she used to get to and from work. It was indispensable to her. Without it, she would not have been able to go to work. But she got no tax allowance, or any other kind of allowance, for the expense of running this small car. She was disqualified on the usual ground that travelling expenses to and from work are not allowed for tax relief purposes.

This is perhaps only a small example of the kind of thing which must be repeated by many thousands of gravely disabled people. They are put to extra expense, and if the principles of our taxation system will not be shattered by making this kind of concession, there seems to be a strong case for making some sort of special tax allowance.

My hon. Friend has already mentioned the argument about complexity. I should have thought that some of the new Clauses were a good deal less complex than, for example, the dependent relative's allowance, because in that allowance one has to deal with a relationship. Two people are involved and there is the opportunity for a certain amount of juggling and the pretence that money is being paid to a relative when it is not.

But in the case of people who are 100 per cent. disabled, tax relief is made through the taxation payment of the claimant himself, and the claimant is the person who is disabled. There is no question of any sort of relationship being involved and I should have thought that it would be very much easier administratively to make an allowance of this sort than it is to administer the dependent relative's allowance, say. I should have thought that on purely administrative grounds there was no serious difficulty about accepting any of the new Clauses, certainly not No. 14 or No. 15.

We have already made so many adjustments to our tax allowances and reliefs to take care of individual personal circumstances that it can no longer be a justification for refusing relief of this sort that we cannot go into individual circum-

stances in any detail. We already do that in many respects in personal taxation, and very little, if anything, in the way of principle would be involved if we were to make the allowances suggested. That must be particularly so since, as from 1962, there has been an allowance for blind persons.

There is another argument which could be brought against new Clauses of this sort, or any new Clauses introducing a new relief. It is the argument that the more we give these various reliefs, and the more we reduce the yield of taxation, the more we erode the taxation system at the base. That is a reasonable argument, but we have to contrast the kind of rigorous approach which the Government have to Clauses of this sort, and which successive Governments have had, with the extremely generous treatment which we give in some other aspects of our taxation system, for example, in the case of relief on life assurance and super-annuation contributions.

I am not concerned to argue the merits or demerits of any of those reliefs, but the fact is that we make very generous reliefs in respect of what for the taxpayer are often completely voluntary payments. For example, that applies to life assurance relief, for, outwith certain restrictive circumstances, the assurance premium is a completely voluntary payment. Yet we make a quite generous taxation concession when that kind of voluntary payment is made.

I am not arguing at the moment whether our taxation is right about this, or about superannuation, or a number of other matters, but we are extremely generous in many aspects of our taxation system and yet, when it comes to something like this, we adopt an extremely rigorous approach although the sums of money involved must be a good deal less than those involved in the other reliefs I have mentioned.

For all those reasons, there is no compelling ground for turning down the new Clauses. To some extent, I suppose, some of them are alternatives. They are not all completely independent and I would not expect that the Government would want to accept all of them. Last year we had what was really only a minor victory, but a welcome one, nevertheless, on the question of blind persons, and I hope that the Government might be persuaded to do something about one or other at least of these new Clauses.

The claims of the Royal Commission have to be taken into account because it made a strong recommendation on this, but there are also, I think, the claims of simple humanity which I believe are even more compelling, and I hope that the Government may be convinced of the arguments and will accept at least one or other of the new Clauses.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

We have a lot of work before us, and I shall, therefore, be brief. The reference which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made to me encourages me to say something, but I think that it can be said with greater moderation and calmness on this occasion.

This is the type of new Clause with which I have been associated for some time. In fact, there have been few Clauses in Finance Bills over the years with which I have not been associated. The hon. Member for Sowerby, with his great expertise, put forward a strong argument for the acceptance of this proposal. He also produced almost as good a case as the Minister can against the new Clause, but I honestly thought that the arguments for it were just a little bit better than the arguments against it, and the hon. Gentleman, therefore, has my support on that point.

I know the difficulty of accepting a new Clause of this kind, but I think that there is a tremendous factor to be considered here. To use a phrase, this 100 per cent. disablement is not easily earned. It is a grave degree of disability. Someone whom I know well served with me during the war. He rendered magnificent service, and towards the end of the war lost an arm and a leg. He is now 100 per cent. disabled. He could not follow his former trade, but with great pluck and guts he has managed to rehabilitate himself and is doing quite a good job now.

I pay tribute to the Government for the excellent way in which they have raised the pension rates, and not least the pension to which this type of person is entitled. This friend of mine appreciates, as do all those who have been disabled, what has been done to help, but when people like this manage to get over their difficulties and earn extra money I think that it would be a nice gesture if the Committee recognised their degree of disability by allowing them some relief such as has been suggested.

This cannot be a matter of £.s.d., because there are not many of these people. This is obviously a matter of principle, and I recognise the Government's difficulties, but there is also the willingness of the Committee to recognise that some things can be done and some cannot. I think that the Opposition have been a little ambitious in some of their Amendments, which if accepted would involve the spending of hundreds of millions of pounds, and which they could not really hope that the Chancellor would accept, but this is a small concession which the Government could accept.

I never allow a Finance Bill to go through without a rumpus unless we get a concession down the line, and it is about time that we got one. We have been sitting here for a long time with little return. This is an opportunity to link graciousness of heart to the willingness of the Committee and to make this concession for the 100 per cent. disabled. This degree of disablement is perhaps not quite as bad as total blindness, but it is, nevertheless, a grave disability. I think that a gesture of this kind can be worked into the principles by which we order our affairs, and I would be most grateful to the Government if they saw fit to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), with his great knowledge and considerable skill, said in presenting this new Clause on behalf of disabled people. Year after year we have presented this case to the Committee with, I regret to say, little success, because the Government have been unresponsive, until last year, when we received the first concession. I agree with the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst). It is time that we had some concession from the Government, and I can imagine no concession which is more warranted than those asked for in these new Clauses.

The new Clause in which I am especially interested is the one which suggests that in the case of 100 per cent. disabled persons the proposed relief should be granted. I know many people who would benefit considerably if this concession were granted. Men disabled during the war, and by industrial injuries of one kind and another, by sheer determination have somehow managed to get back to some form of occupational interest from which they derive some income.

I have always understood it to be a principle of our Income Tax law that we should have regard not only to a person's income, but to his expenses in earning that income. These 100 per cent. disabled people who have managed to overcome their disabilities sufficiently to earn a livelihood, either in industry or one of the professions, are put to considerable expense in earning their money. In my constituency, many of them have to pay as much as 10s. a day to go from their homes to their place of work, and in London, where they have to pay taxi fares and other transport charges, the figure is very much higher.

Why cannot the Government accept the new Clause which proposes to make a 100 per cent. Income Tax allowance to these people to meet difficulties of the kind to which I have just referred? It is no good the Economic Secretary repeating the kind of things that we have had from the Treasury Bench in the past. It is no good anybody pointing out how difficult this will be to administer. The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income went into this matter as thoroughly as anybody could. It had before it all the facts that it was possible to provide. It had the advice of all the experts, and also of professional people, and in paragraph 202 of its Report it said: Our general conclusion is that grave disability ought to be the subject of allowance. It presents itself to us as a personal circumstance that sets apart those who suffer from it and directly affects their relative capacity to pay … What we are thinking of is a range of additional expense attendant upon the conduct of their normal life, not least upon the maintenance of their earning capacity, which yet goes unrelieved under the existing code. I could quote further passages from the Report where these concessions were recommended.

Also in my constituency I have the other type of case for which relief is proposed. I am talking now of a wife who is totally disabled, perhaps through poliomyelitis, or through one of the other distressing conditions which cause a woman to become bedridden, and where the man has to get domestic help to carry on the work of the household. Why should not our Income Tax law make provision and give allowances for that type of case?

As the hon. Member for Shipley rightly said, there is no question of much money being involved in this. We have only to remember that the Government gave £83 million a year in relief to the Surtax payers. If they can do that, the question of giving a trifling relief, because the total sum is trifling by any standard in these matters, would be so little that finance is not the argument.

I hope that I shall not anticipate what the Economic Secretary will say, but if he tries to tell us that this cannot be done for this, that, or some other administrative reason, he will have to make out a far better case than any of his predecessors have yet done, because I cannot for the life of me accept this sort of argument. Why cannot a man who is 100 per cent. disabled, but who is able somehow to get a living and has to incur extra expense, make that expense deductible against any of his earnings?

I can see no difficulty whatever in the Government doing that. I am certain that many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, especially my legal hon. Friends, would gladly find words, if that is the problem, to overcome any question of drafting this Clause in such a way as would give the people who are wanting the benefit the real benefit which they deserve.

I do not want to prolong the argument, but I do say to the Economic Secretary, "Please do not trot out again today the things that have been said in the past from the Treasury Bench, because we are familiar with them". If there is a substantial argument against us, we are willing to listen, but I have gone into this with great care over the years and, frankly, I have heard of no argument which is acceptable to negate the moderate, reasonable proposals put forward in these new Clauses.

Last year, we did something for the blind people. As everyone will appreciate, it took us years to get the Government to accept it. For goodness' sake, let us, this year, do something. I say to the Government, "Please do not trot out these old arguments, which we have heard so many times before, that the Government take the view that these disabilities should be dealt with by the social services".

In advance of any possibility of that argument being used, I say this to the Economic Secretary. Tell me of any single social service which could meet the problems that I have put before the Committee, either in the case of meeting the transport costs of the 100 per cent. disabled person, or the cost to a man whose wife is 100 per cent. disabled and who has to get domestic help to carry on his household? There is no social service that I know of which handles those two particular problems.

Those are the two major problems in disability cases which we are considering. I hope that the Economic Secretary will give us a positive answer on these matters.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann)

Our financial and economic debates are normally concerned with the greatest issues —employment, balance of payments, investments, exports, the relationship between indirect and direct taxation and the like. But I have always felt that many of the best speeches we listen to in the House of Commons are when the issues are human and personal.

I am sure that it would be the wish of all those who have been present in the Committee that I should pay tribute to the speeches that we have listened to. made with great sincerity—by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), especially—but all the speeches were good and clear. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) half apologised, I thought, for persistence. If he did, he had no reason to do so. because there can be no better subject for persistence, and no more worthy cause. If I may use his phrase, "We all want to help", and we cannot attempt anything better than that hon. Members should seek to improve the lot of their fellow men and women. That is, after all, what we are here for.

Cost was referred to by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst)—in a most welcome intervention. We are always pleased to listen to my hon. Friend and whether, as we were teased by the hon. Member for Sowerby, my hon. Friend gives "stick" to members of the Government Front Bench or not, his contributions are always worth hearing.

4.45 p.m.

It is not a question of cost. There are six new Clauses on the Notice Paper, a wide choice, as the hon. Gentleman said. I have had the costs totalled up and four of them cost nothing, or virtually nothing. They are new Clauses Nos. 14, 16, 18 and 67. The costs are only in connection with two of the proposed new Clauses, Nos. 15 and 17, which would cost respectively in this year and a full year £¾ million and £1 million in the case of new Clause No. 15 and £1 million and £1½ million in the case of new Clause No. 17. The total cost of them all—and I recognise the alternatives suggested by several hon. Members—would be £2 million only in 1963–64 and £2½, million to £3 million in a full year. These are small figures, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead says.

But the cost is not the point. There are certain general objections to doing things in this way. They vary in importance. I do not want any hon. Member of the Committee to think that these new Clauses are not acceptable to the Government for simple doctrinaire reasons; that is not the case. The test must be practicability.

Nor, as the hon. Member for Craighton suggested, is the question of the erosion of the tax basis so important in this regard, in my opinion. Some of my colleagues may not agree with me, but I do not regard it as being an argument and I am not proposing to use it as such. I should like to go through some of these points.

Some are more important than others. I think that it is obviously well worth while to give help to the disabled—we are all agreed about this—but it surely must be done in the way that benefits those who need help most. I believe that the Committee would agree about this. Tax relief, obviously, is not the most satisfactory method from this standpoint, since it can give no help to those whose incomes are so low that they pay no tax. That is one of the perennial difficulties which we discuss from time to time in this Committee. In other words, tax allowance is, in effect, a highly selective method of giving help. It gives maximum help to those who perhaps need it least. But I would not attempt to suggest for one moment, whether a man has money or is earning money or whether he is not, that his need is not still extremely great.

There is, perhaps, an exception. It might be suggested—the hon. Member for Sowerby suggested it—that the door was a little opened because of the relief given to the blind last year. I shall come back to that in a moment.

I should like also to say a word about the expenses referred to by the hon. Member for Craighton, the hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The proposals which are being made are commended as a good way to take account of the extra expenses that disabled people have to incur. Certainly, they do have extra expenses; there is no doubt about that. The test proposed in the new Clauses Nos. 14, 15 and 67—I appreciate that it does not apply to new Clause No. 17 to the same extent—is the 100 per cent. disability, not the amount of the expense incurred. The plain fact must be that the amount of expenditure is not necessarily linked to the degree of disability. On the other hand, a man who may be 100 per cent. disabled from a pension point of view may have expenses which are less than those of a man who, for pension purposes, is 90 per cent. or 75 per cent. disabled.

The new Clause—"Relief for grave disability"—proposes to extend the tax relief to cases where disability is less than 100 per cent. That raises serious practical difficulties. The hon. Member for Sowerby suggested that we should be ready to face the consequences of looking after the 100 per cent. disabled, and I think that we are. But it is very difficult to deal with the kind of anxiety and argument that one would be faced with if we established degrees of disability. It is extraordinarily hard in human terms to draw the line exactly between one degree of disability and another. The hon. Member for Sowerby and the hon. Member for Craigton referred particularly to the question of complexity. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Sowerby said that marriage was a simple matter. I find myself in some disagreement with him about that.

Mr. Houghton

I did not say that marriage was a simple matter. I said that in questions of tax relief we stuck to the simple things of life, and that is quite different. In terms of Income Tax relief, marriage, housekeepers and dependants are simple things. Disability is more complicated.

Mr. du Cann

I see. It may be that marriage is a simple matter in terms of taxation. But I am sure that it is not a simple smatter in other terms—I half understood the hon. Gentleman.

Regarding complexity I would call attention particularly to subsection (1, b) in the new Clause—"One hundred per cent. disabled; Relief for grave disability";—and "One hundred per cent. disability and constant attendance: extension of housekeeping allowance". I do not doubt for a moment that these new Clauses have been drafted to recognise that there are many disabled who do not qualify for one reason or another for a pension. That, incidentally, is a point which is not taken into account in the new Clause—"One hundred per cent. disablement pensions: relief". Perhaps that is one of the objections to that new Clause. There would be formidable problems of medical assessment in relation to practicability, particularly if there were some relief for disability less than 100 per cent. A formidable administrative apparatus would have to be set up in order to deal with the matter. I will not go into that in further detail. But it is a matter of fact.

I do not believe that practical difficulties are necessarily insuperable; I never have. But in this case they are certainly extraordinarily formidable and they must be taken into consideration. They cannot be gainsaid or ignored, and certainly they cannot be overruled. The position is that if Parliament, in its wisdom, saw fit to pass these new Clauses—"One hundred per cent. disabled; Relief for grave disability"; and "One hundred per cent. disability and constant attendance: extension of housekeeper allowance"—the Clauses could not be implemented during this administrative year. That is a matter of fact which perhaps illustrates how great is the problem.

If that criticism were answered by deleting, let us say, subsection (1, b) of the new Clauses, and relief given only to those whoses cases are readily identifiable, as in new Clause—"One hundred per cent. disablement pension: relief"—I am bound to point out that this, in my opinion, would be unfair on all the other classes of disabled persons not in receipt of a 100 per cent. disability pension of one sort or another. I referred earlier to the difficulty of definition. This also applies to new Clause—"Relief for disabled persons". This is a Clause dealing with the question of men or women prevented by bodily infirmity or mental infirmity from exercising their normal trade, profession, employment or vocation. On the surface it seems an attractive suggestion. In practical terms, however, there are certain difficulties relating to it.

What about a miner or a steel worker who is injured at work but who could do a full-time sedentary job? Would he qualify? Should he qualify? He would be unable to carry on his normal occupation. But he could carry on another full-time occupation, perhaps. What about a person incapacitated from childhood? He would not qualify am not sure that that would necessarily be fair. That again is a practical problem which faces us in attempting to decide on some of these matters.

I should like to say a word about the views of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member for Birkenhead and the hon. Member for Sowerby both quoted from paragraph 202 of the Second Report. I repeat its conclusion that grave disability should be the subject of an allowance. We had some discussion last night about the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and whether they should be regarded as Holy Writ. We agreed in general, I think, that one must give due regard to the Report of any Royal Commission. But although the Commission was as clear as was suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it carefully laid down certain conditions under which allowances should be granted. One was that an allowance should not be given in addition to tax-free disability benefits. Another was that the £40 or the £75 allowance—the Committee will know to what I am referring—should be withdrawn. The new Clause—"One hundred per cent. disabled"—bears on this, although it reproduces selected parts of the main recommendation of the Radcliffe Commission.

I must point out that, besides the general objections to which I have already referred, it omits the other features of the Commission's comprehensive scheme. So in fact one cannot plead the Royal Commission Report in its favour, for it does not fully implement what the Royal Commission recommended.

On the other hand, there is the alternative in the new Clause—"one hundred per cent. disablement pensions relief."—which is a variant of the first Clause. This takes into account the proposal of the Royal Commission which recommended that 100 per cent. disability relief should be withheld while a taxpayer was receiving tax-free benefits related to the degree of his disability. That meets some of the objection in the other Clause. But I must point out that it does not meet objections which I have already raised.

The degree of disablement recognised for medical assessment is not necessarily a guide to the expenditure in particular cases. Nor does it meet the other point that persons subject to 90 per cent. disability would think themselves just as much entitled to some relief as persons placed in the medical category of 100 per cent. disability. Certainly these difficulties would apply with undiminished force if we implemented the new Clause—" One hundred per cent. disablement pensions: relief ". And that is not all. because the Clause would almost certainly be nugatory. With the limitation envisaged by the Radcliffe Commission, war disabled and those receiving industrial injury pensions would not qualify for any tax relief, since the existing tax-free benefits are much more valuable to them than the tax allowances. The Committee will know that these tax-free benefits are being increased with effect from the beginning of this week, 27th May, and that point is especially valid.

I was proposing, had the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) been in the Chamber, to say a good deal more about the new Clause in her name. But I will not do so now. The hon. Member for Sowerby referred particularly to that Clause, and to him I would suggest that the remarks of the Royal Commission in relation to these allowances are particularly relevant.

I said that I would say a word about the blind, which as the hon. Member for Sowerby properly suggested, is a narrow issue. The hon. Member for Craigton and the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred particularly to what was done last year, and, in my opinion, done quite rightly. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was then Chief Secretary, when introducing this matter said: The objections to the idea of a general tax relief for the disabled remain as valid as ever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 230.] I think that is true. But the recommendations of the Committee of this House translated now into law in the new Section to last year's Finance Act fitted the Royal Commission's recommendation exactly, in that the whole allowance is given only if, first, the blind person is not receiving tax-free disability payments or augmentation allowances and secondly, the £40 daughter allowance is not drawn on at the same time.

5.0 p.m.

There is the added point, as the hon. Member for Sowerby agreed, that these people are a clearly definable class, because they are already registered as blind persons. The Committee may think that there is perhaps a special precedent for this action, in that the National Assistance Board has a special scale for blind people. In any case, Parliament has already recognised blind people as being a special and peculiar category. I think that they are very different from the categories we are discussing today. There was and is, in the House of Commons and in the country, a special and unique sympathy for the blind. So there should be, in my opinion, and especially for those who, as my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary said last year, "continue to attempt to earn their own livings and to hold their heads up proudly in society in spite of their disability".

There can be none of the objections in this concession, if that is the right term to use, which would arise if we were to implement any of these new Clauses in respect of 100 per cent. disability or less. There are no lines to be drawn between who is a blind person and who is not. Again, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, these people are a clearly definable class.

Mr. Houghton

Will the Economic Secretary say how many claims have been made under the provision incorporated in last year's Finance Act? Has he any record of the extent of the new relief?

Mr. du Cann

No, Sir. I do not know that offhand, but I will try to discover it and let the hon. Gentleman know before I sit down, If I cannot, I will write to him and see that he has the information promptly.

I turn to the question raised about the Government's whole policy in relation to assisting those who are disabled to a greater or lesser extent. The hon. Member for Sowerby referred to this, as did the hon. Member for Birkenhead. It is correct to say that, in the Government's view the right way to help is not through the fiscal system, because we feel this could well create anomalies, unfairness and inequities, as I hope I have illustrated to the Committee. We feel that the right way to help is through the direct social service benefits and pensions. I do not say only through the Welfare State. I mean in every way. We believe that in this sense we can do most for those who stand in the greatest need.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead discussed a little some of the services which are already provided. He said that there were no facilities for domestic help, no facilities for motor cars, and so on. I think that in his kindly anxiety to be brief, in the interests of the Committee as a whole and the great volume of business that we have to get through today, he perhaps foreshortened his argument. I do not believe that he intended to mislead the House. What he said in fact does not quite represent the facts, as I think he knows better than I do, for he has so much experience in these matters. I will not retail the great list of social effort that the Government make, with the agreement of the whole House of Commons, to help these people—the work done through the local authorities, and so on. Certainly it is formidable. Certainly it includes domestic help. Certainly it includes cars, tricycles, and the rest of it.

Mr. Collick

I think the Economic Secretary should be clear about this because, whilst it is true that a local authority can organise domestic help in the case I quoted, where the housewife was struck down with polio, the expense falls on the man. It is not provided by the State or by the local authority. As to the case 1 instanced about transport, I know of no Government service or welfare service that makes provision of that kind.

Mr. du Cann

If the hon. Gentleman is talking on a rather narrow point of a disabled wife, I must agree with him. On the other hand, if he is saying, for example, that disabled people cannot get domestic help or assistance with transport, I would disagree with him. I appreciate that he is not saying that. I understand his first point. There is a peculiar difficulty over this question of wives. The argument is almost exactly parallel to the difficult case of the special allowance for a daughter's services.

Once one begins to take a view that it is appropriate to deal with an especial situation, one has a wide generality of situations to deal with. Therefore, it must be appropriate to endeavour to bring aid especially to those cases of greatest need. That is what the social services endeavour to do.

I will try to deal a little more fully with this point in a few moments. Before I do so, perhaps I can tell the hon. Member for Sowerby, who asked me the question as to the extent of the relief, that I am sorry that the information is not available, at any rate not at this moment. If it becomes available, I will get it for him.

I want to say a few words on the question of money—these tax-free benefits to which the Royal Commission referred and which play so large a part in any calculation. I have had certain calculations made to establish exactly what it is that people can draw at present. These are the new rates should they be severely disabled. I take first the case of an ex-Service man. Perhaps this has some bearing on what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said. I will take an ex-private at the bottom of the scale; under 65; married, with one child; receiving constant attendance allowance. With his 100 per cent. pension, the allowance for his wife and his child, the constant attendance allowance and the comforts allowance, he could be drawing a tax-free pension of £9 12s. 6d. a week. He could in some cases—not in all—be working as well.

I will take a worse case—again an ex-private; under 65; married with two children; on full supplementation. I will not list the details, unless the Committee wishes. The total of his tax-free allowance could be £19 7s. 3d. a week. In addition, he could draw the Family Allowance.

I will now take a disablement pensioner under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, assessed at 100 per cent.; incapable of work and needing constant attendance; a married man, with no children. His pension with all the other items gives him a total allowance of £13 14s. a week, tax-free. I will now take a man in similar circumstances, except that he has two children. His total tax-free allowance is £15 6s. a week. If the constant attendance allowance, which in the two last examples I have taken at £2 10s., was increased to £5 a week, as it could be in cases of exceptionally severe disablement, the figures respectively would rise to £16 4s. and £17 16s. a week.

One could perhaps make a great thing of these figures. I want to make particular reference to the point that the Committee would be misleading itself very badly if it supposed that nothing was being done. I do not wish to make a great thing of the figures, and it is not my intention to do so.

I conclude as I began. I certainly do not seek to convince the Committee in any way that more does not need to be done for those of our fellows who are disabled or otherwise incapacitated. I am perfectly clear, and so are the Government, that more should be done and will be done progressively. That is Government policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and the hon. Members for Sowerby and Birkenhead said this in effect. They said that they did not believe that there is one of us who does not in his daily journeys stop to reflect, whether it is in relation to the shop floor or in relation to the battlefield, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred, when one comes across a case of disability—"There but for the grace of God go I". That makes us all specially cognisant of our very great responsibilities and each and every one of us in the House of Commons has a particular responsibility, for people look to us to remember them particularly.

I repeat that things are being done and will continue to be done, as I hope I have illustrated, by any Government—by this Government or by their successors. What is essential is that the methods we choose to give help should be right. With the aims of all those who have spoken and argued for these new Clauses I most wholeheartedly agree, but I cannot agree that the methods poposed are the right methods, for the reasons that I have given, I hope clearly and I hope understandably, to the Committee.

Mr. Houghton

The Economic Secretary is a most difficult person to quarrel with. He agrees with everything one says, except one's proposal. What can one do with a man like that? He is with us the whole time. Of course, he agrees; his sympathy is even greater than ours, and we move along in a spirit of amity and accord, but in his final sentence he says, "I cannot agree with the method that you propose to adopt to deal with this problem."

First, I want to dismiss summarily the argument which the hon. Gentleman used that to give concessions through the instrument of taxation is highly selective and not necessarily the best way of doing a thing because it does not help those who do not pay tax. Well, well, well! Of course we cannot help people who do not pay Surtax by reducing Surtax. We cannot help people who do not pay Income Tax by increasing the personal allowances. The Chancellor would be turned into a pillar of salt if he could not make a move without helping those people who do not pay tax.

Our proposal is to give a relief of taxation. That is what we are talking about. We are not trying to embrace all the social services. We are not bringing in the National Assistance Board, the local welfare services and the war disability and industrial injuries schemes. We are dealing with the narrow impact of taxation on the people whose mode of life is severely affected by their disablement. So for goodness' sake let us dismiss that. Please do not let us hear it again.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is not a matter of money and not a matter of fiscal policy. It is really a question of administration. The arguments that the hon. Gentleman was using about the social services, about what people can draw, what is to be done and what more is promised, were just as relevant in connection with blind persons as they are in connection with people who are gravely disabled in other respects. So that the problem of administration is the crucial one, in my judgment, of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The blind, he said, were clearly identifiable. I conceded that in my speech.

The 100 per cent. disabled under the war and industrial injuries schemes are clearly identified. There is no doubt about that, and if their tax relief is to be quali5ed by payments which they are receiving tax free under the disablement schemes as in the case of the blind, so may it be. Some would qualify who are so identifiable, but the real problem is those who would be equally disabled and who are not identifiable under either of these schemes and to whom no payment under present circumstances is given. They are the people who would qualify most.

Paragraph 203 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income said: We do not underestimate the difficulty that would face the Inland Revenue department in creating the necessary administration to deal with a problem of medical assessment. The difficulty reinforces the need to begin cautiously and to confine qualification to 100 per cent. disablement. That is where the Royal Commission thought that we ought to start, and, for the moment, stop. But it went on to say: But we feel at the same time that the difficulty is not insuperable and ought to be faced. That is what the Royal Commission said. I agree that the Royal Commission's word is not Holy Writ, but it was as conscious as any outside body of the problems of administration in the Inland Revenue. It knew what it was talking about on that matter, and it said that it ought to be faced.

5.15 p.m.

The Economic Secretary knows full well that in the field of assessment of taxable profits, of dealing with claims for expenses under Schedule E, of deciding the difference between capital and revenue expenditure on many matters in the complex field of industrial taxation, the circumstances of individual cases have to be looked at very carefully and critically by the Inland Revenue and that it has a large measure of discretion in its hands. It is able to apply taxation by consent and to reach agreement with a taxpayer on how his case should be dealt with under the law.

Why should this not be so in the field of personal allowances? Why should every single case be clearly identifiable, easily verifiable and nothing left to discretion at all? I do not see why there should be a wide field of discrimination in the matter of large taxation and a meticulous application of rules and regulations in the matter of small personal taxation where it matters a great deal more to the individuals concerned. This can be done. I said before that the Inland Revenue can perform miracles, and it can do this.

One thing for which I envy the Economic Secretary and his hon. Friend at his side is their power of influence over the Inland Revenue. If I ever get into that position—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

My hon. Friend will.

Mr. Houghton

I am just expressing a personal envy and neither staking claims nor defining my ambitions.

What I am saying is that it is an enviable position to be in, to bring about these reforms and to subordinate administration difficulties to human good. I am conscious of the administration difficulties. I lived with them in the Inland Revenue for thirty years. When people made representations to me I listened with lesser or greater patience all that time. But here is a field in which administration could overcome the difficulties in granting concessions.

I believe that this is the only issue between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends and myself at present. The principle is no longer tenable. The case for it on merit cannot be disputed. We have had moving speeches by some of my hon. Friends and by some hon. Members opposite, but administration is the problem here. I am sorry that in the circumstances I must ask my hon. Friends to register some disapproval of the hon. Gentleman's reply. But we shall keep at it because we believe that in this field, as in others, insistence will eventually persuade the Government

that there is merit in our case. We shall go on until we triumph.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 118. Noes 170.

Division No. 132.] AYES [5.18 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hart, Mrs. Judith Oram, A. E.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hayman, F. H Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Barnett, Guy Healey, Denis Pargiter, G. A.
Benson, Sir George Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(Rwly Ragis) Pavitt, Laurence
Blackburn, F. Herblson, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S. W.) Hirst, Geoffrey Prentice, R. E.
Boyden, James Holman, Percy Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Houghton, Douglas Randall, Harry
Bradley, Tom Hoy, James H. Redhead, E. C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hunter, A. E. Reid, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Reynolds, G. W.
Callaghan, James Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carmichael, Neil Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Chapmen, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Ross, William
Collick, Percy Jeger, George Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Short, Edward
Cronin, John Jones,Rt.Hn.A. Creech (Wakefield) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kenyon, Clifford Small, William
Darling, George Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Steele, Thomas
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Diamond, John Lubbock, Eric Swingler, Stephen
Donnelly, Desmond Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Taverne, D.
Driberg, Tom McBride, N. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCann, John Tomney, Frank
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) MacColl, James Warbey, William
Fitch, Alan MacDermont, Niall Whitlock, William
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) McLeavy, Frank Willey, Frederick
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mallaileu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Ginsburg, David Marsh, Richard Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gourlay, Harry Mayhew, Christopher Woof, Robert
Greenwood, Anthony Mellish, R. J. Wyatt, Woodrow
Grey, Charles Mendelson, J. J. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Millan, Bruce
Gunter, Ray Mitchison, G. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Moyle, Arthur Mr. G. H. R Rogers and
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mulley, Frederick Mr. Lawson
Hannan, William Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Agnew, Sir Peter Camapbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Aitken, W. T. Carr. Compton (Barons Court) Freeth, Denzil
Allason, James Cary, Sir Robert Gammans, Lady
Arbuthnot, John Chataway, Christopher Gibson-Watt, David
Ashton, Sir Hubert Chichester-Clark, R. Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Glover, Sir Douglas
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Barber, Anthony Cole, Norman Goodhew, Victor
Barlow, Sir John Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Gresham Cooke, R.
Batsford, Brian Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gurden Harold
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Corfield, F. V. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bell, Ronald Costain, A. P. Hamilton, Michael (Welfingborough)
Berkeley, Humphry Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W)
Biffen, John Critchley, Julian Harris, Reader (Heston)
Biggs-Davison, John Cunningham, Knox Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bingham, R. M. Curran, Charles Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Bishop, F. P. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hastings, Stephen
Black, Sir Cyril Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bossom, Hon. Clive du Cann, Edward Hendry, Forbes
Bourne-Arton, A. Duncan, Sir James Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Brooman-White, R. Emery, Peter Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hocking, Philip N.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Errington, Sir Eric Holland, Philip
Buck, Antony Farr. John Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Fell, Anthony Hornby, R. P
Burden, F. A. Finlay, Graeme Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Sharples, Richard
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Mills, Stratton Shepherd, William
Hughes-Young, Michael Miscampbell, Norman Skeet, T. H. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark Montgomery, Fergus Smithers, Peter
Iremonger, T. L. More, Jasper (Ludlow) Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
James, David Morgan, William Stanley, Hon. Richard
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Neave, Airey Stevens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Stodart, J. A.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Osborn, John (Hallam) Summers, Sir Spencer
Kershaw, Anthony Page, Graham (Crosby) Tapsell, Peter.
Kimball, Marcus Pannell, Normanl (Kirkdale) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Temple, John M.
Leather, Sir Edwin Peel, John Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Pike, Miss Mervyn Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Lilley, F. J. P. Pitman, Sir James Turner, Colin
Linstead, Sir Hugh Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Litchfield, Capt. John Price, David (Eastleigh) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Longden, Gilbert prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho Walder, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Walker, Peter
MacArthur, Ian Quennell, Miss J. M. Webster, David
McLaren, Martin Rawlinson, Sir Peter Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Lain (Enfield, W.) Redmayne, Rt Hon. Martin Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries) Rees, Hugh Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maddan, Martin Renton, Rt. Hon. David Wise, A. R.
Maitland, Sir John Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Markham, Major Sir Frank Ridsdale, Julian Woollam, John
Marshall, Douglas Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Russell, Ronald TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maudling, Rt Hon. Reginald St. Clair, M. Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym
Mawby, Ray Scott-Hopkins, James
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. R. Williams)

I wonder if the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will assist me by indicating whether he and his hon. Friends wish to devide on any of the other new Clauses in this group and, if so, which?

Mr. Houghton:

Yes, Mr. Williams; on new Clause No. 18.

  1. New Clause.—(EXTENSION OF RELIEF UNDER FINANCE ACT 1960, S. 17.) 1,258 words, 1 division
  2. cc1585-612
  4. cc1612-26
  6. cc1627-52
  7. New Clause.—(RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SCHOOL FEES.) 9,916 words
  8. cc1652-66
  9. New Clause.—(CAPITAL GAINS TAX EXEMPTION LIMIT.) 5,551 words
  10. cc1666-83
  12. cc1683-5
  13. New Clause 70.—(CERTIFICATES OF DEDUCTION OF TAX.) 668 words
  14. cc1685-8
  16. cc1689-705
  17. New Clause.—(WHOLESALE LIQUOR LICENCES.) 6,267 words
  18. cc1705-12