HC Deb 15 June 1967 vol 748 cc795-835

In section 9 of the Finance Act 1962, as amended by section 10 of the Finance Act 1965 (Relief for blind persons), for the references to '£100' and '£200' respectively there shall be substituted references to '£125' and '£250' and these sections shall also apply to any other disabled person, which means a person who is deaf, dumb or otherwise substantially handicapped by loss of physical or mental faculty which is likely to be permanent.—[Miss Pike.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.9 p.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike (Melton)

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

The purpose of the Clause is quite simple. It seeks to increase the present allowance to restore its value to the original level, and to extend the allowance beyond the very narrow category of disability from blindness to other forms of disability which are deserving of our help.

As the Committee will recollect, the blind person's tax allowance was first introduced in the 1962 Finance Act. Since then the cost-of-living index has gone up considerably. It went up by 19½ points between January. 1962, and April, 1967, and it is still rising. The most dramatic price increases are in just those commodities which hit the blind and disabled hardest, like heating, food and everyday household goods, but also in personal services like laundry, dry cleaning, household cleaning, decorating and the sort of things which many of us can do for ourselves, by way of "make-do-and-mend", and save a considerable amount.

Do-it-yourself decorators and home handymen can insulate themselves from many of these rising costs, but that is not possible for these people. Thus, they are hit hardest by the rising cost of living which affects us all. Also, of course, the cost of the stamp has risen and many of these people have to employ extra help in the home to maintain themselves and their households.

We have had another "trailer" for a forthcoming attraction from the right hon. Lady the Minister of Social Security in the recent Press leak that pensions will go up. I wish that these statements could be made in the House rather than by Press leaks. From the Government's point of view it is probably better publicity, as they get several bites of the cherry, but if there is, as we are told, any truth in the statement, this will mean, possibly, that the cost of the stamp will go up again, which will also mean an added cost for these people.

It is, therefore, absolutely essential to address ourselves to the case for restoring the value of the present allowance. With this proposal, we also believe—this view is shared, I think, by most hon. Members—that the time has come to extend the allowance to substantially handicapped people other than the blind alone. I cannot believe that I should delay the Committee by spelling out again the case for giving special consideration to all disabled people. However, if the Chancellor and his colleagues do not feel inclined to listen to my argument, perhaps they will take some account of what the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Incomes said.

The Chief Secretary will remember that, in its second Report of April 1954, a considerable amount was said about this. Although my words might be called special pleading, he will surely have no objection to considering this argument from the Royal Commission. I make no apology for reading it out in full, because it should be considered again. On page 63, the 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 which may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of his income.… 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. We do not mean that it affects their earning capacity. It may or may not, but so far as it does, the graduated scale of tax will diminish the burden on diminished earning power. What we are thinking of is a range of additional expense attendant upon the condition of their normal life, not least upon the maintenance of their earning capacity, which yet goes unrelieved under the existing code. To take one instance. Many disabled persons must meet the expense of a constant attendant. Some forms of this expense are covered by tax-free grants (e.g., wounds and disability pensions of ex-service men): in other cases they are not. Yet, though we have been pressed to recommend a special allowance for a constant attendant, we feel bound to recognise that such an expense is only one form of a wider range of disadvantages, and that what is needed, if irrelevant distinctions are to be avoided, is an allowance dependent upon an extreme measure of disability as such, in whatever form of expense the consequences of that disability may be expressed. 4.15 p.m.

The Commission went on to say that the figure of the allowance which it envisaged, though not capable of precise definition, was no less than £100. The Committee will remember that, in 1954, that had a very different value from £100 today. Therefore, we can accept the case for increasing the allowance as unanswerable. The present tax allowance for the blind is £100 if either the husband or the wife is blind and £200 if both are blind.

Therefore, by extending Section 9 of the 1962 Act, which provides this relief for other substantial disablement, the new Clause would cover the wife who is disabled, which is a category with which many of us have great sympathy, particularly at the moment, when their case has been brought so dramatically and effectively to our attention. The Clause would assist those most deserving cases in which the wife's disability necessitates some paid help in the home, or in which—this is possibly the more difficult case—the husband has to accept a lower-paid job to be closer at hand to look after his wife.

This is the case in which day-to-day household expenses are undoubtedly higher and the pressures are greatest. This is the case in which marginal relief of this kind would enable the husband or wife to be kept at home rather than apart from his or her family in a home for the handicapped, and not to have to feel a constant burden to the household.

The Royal Commission proposed that the tax allowances should be available for 100 per cent. disablement, as in war disability pensions. The subject of the tax allowance for the disabled was debated on a new Clause to the 1962 Finance Bill and was strongly pressed by the present Chancellor and his colleagues on the Front Bench. I do not intend to read extracts from their speeches, as they are no doubt well known to hon. Gentlemen—

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond)

Or extracts from the answers which were given?

Miss Pike

No, I have no doubt that I will be getting those later.

During that debate, three main difficulties were stressed. The first was the rigidity of tying the allowance to 100 per cent. disablement and the question was asked: what about the person with 99 or 90 per cent. disablement? Second was the problem of a definition and the difficulty of administration and it was argued that disability should be dealt with by cash benefits rather than special allowances. But the present Chancellor, after agreeing that there were great administrative difficulties said that he would make the reforms asked for in the new Clause. … irrespective of administrative complications and tell the Inland Revenue to get on with them. I have seen this happen in the past in connection with P.A.Y.E."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1962; Vol. 660. c. 1448–9.] The right hon. Gentleman was categorical about that and can now carry out that promise and tell the Inland Revenue to get on with the job. He has told it to do some crazy things and now has the chance to redeem himself and tell it to get on with something which we all believe is sensible and just. We recognise, of course, that there will be borderline cases, but there is never really sufficient reason for penalising those most deserving of help and encouragement just because we find it difficult to overcome administrative difficulties.

The other objection relating to the difficulties surrounding the rigidity of tying the allowance to 100 per cent. disability would be overcome by the new Clause. It provides that the allowance should be payable where the disability is substantial and likely to be permanent. These are the requirements of any disablement benefit paid under the 1946 Industrial Injuries Act which further defined "substantial" as disability of not less than 20 per cent. This definition is already in use in the entitlement to disablement pension and it is therefore logical now to use a familiar one.

It is no good saying, "We can use this simply under the Industrial Injuries Act, but it is difficult and almost impossible to apply it to anyone outside that category." I know what the arguments will be, as they have been brought up before, and I know that it is a difficult judgment, but the time has surely come for us to make another attempt to go forward with this familiar definition, which we can usefully try.

Of course, there would be other administrative difficulties. There would have to be a requirement for a medical examination and decisions on a wide range of diseases. The present tests are confined to industrial disease and accidents and to war disabilities. Of course, there would be a problem in getting additional medical manpower to carry out these examinations. All these arguments were made in 1962, but there has been time since then to think of ways and means and machinery to overcome these difficulties and disadvantages.

At that time, the main reason why the blind were singled out for an allowance was that they were registered and that blindness was easily identifiable and thus few of the difficulties were apparent in this category. The allowance has been on the Statute Book now for five years and there is no great administrative problem which could not be solved. Surely the time has come to take yet another step forward.

If we cannot go the whole way, surely we should go half of the way. The Minister could prescribe diseases, as is done in the case of the Industrial Injuries Scheme. For example, those suffering from multiple sclerosis and the deaf and dumb are clearly recognisable categories which would not present the same administrative difficulties as some—

Mr. Diamond

The right hon. Lady is, of course, aware of the enormous number of different categories under the term "deaf".

Miss Pike

I agree, but I am saying that we could prescribe another range and move forward from there. I do not accept that, because these things are difficult, we cannot go forward at all. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot act over the whole range of disease and in- jury, we should be satisfied if lie would at least try to go one step further.

I would also draw his attention to new Clause No. 63, although I cannot, of course, argue its merits, because I promised not to get out of order. I would say only that this also would be another small way of trying to test this proposition. I will go no further, as I do not want to get out of order at this point in my speech—

The Chairman

Nor at any other point, I hope.

Miss Pike

I am trying my best, Sir Eric.

The third major point raised in the 1962 debate was that disability should be dealt with by cash benefits rather than by special tax reliefs and the argument has some force. However, I would draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the gap is widening here because those categories which have at present a cash benefit by way of pension are in the more fortunate position of having their benefits constantly increased to meet rising costs, while so many of the people of whom I am talking get no help at all. Thus, by giving them a taxation allowance, we should be doing something to close that gap.

The Royal Commission also suggested that people should not be entitled to both a tax allowance and a tax-free cash benefit for disablement. The Committee will recollect that the war disability pension and the various other allowances, as well as similar benefits payable under the Industrial Injuries Scheme, are free of tax and the pensions of war widows and industrial injuries widows are taxable. The Royal Commission suggested that there should be a choice between tax-free benefits and a tax allowance. The new Clause meets this point. As is already the case with the blind person's allowance, there would be a choice between the tax-free cash benefit and a tax allowance, whichever was the most favourable.

At present there is no cash allowance whatever for those who are crippled or handicapped and who are suffering from diseases like multiple sclerosis, or where the wife has become chronically disabled, for apart from the ordinary sickness benefit which is payable when earnings are interrupted due to illness, cash allowances are confined to industrial or war injuries.

I have often urged that these gaps in our social benefits arrangements should be met by a special invalidity benefit, although today we are concerned with taxation matters and I will not pursue any other course. We have this glaring anomaly of a man disabled through an industrial disease and a man disabled through some other illness, and we must give our close attention to this matter.

A man who is ill and is suffering from multiple sclerosis gets a flat-rate benefit of £6 10s. a week. A man suffering from an industrial injury in the 100 per cent. category gets a flat-rate benefit of £6 15s. a week, but in addition he can get certain allowances. For example, he can get a constant attendance allowance of £2 15s., an unemployability supplement, if he is unable to earn or if he can earn only £106 a year, of £4 a week. There are also the wife's allowances, and these can reach £13 15s. a week. There are still other allowances that can be earned in certain circumstances.

The anomaly to which I am pointing is that those who are disabled through an industrial disease can have allowances worth £13 15s. a week, or even more, whereas those who are disabled through illness are confined to the flat-rate benefit of £6 10s. a week. The Clause is designed to help the most deserving section of our people.

Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)

The hon. Lady is not strictly correct in making that statement about these people being the most deserving. Are not the most deserving those who are not paying any tax at all?

Miss Pike

The hon. Gentleman will agree that those who are not paying tax and who are on supplementary assistance are often finding that the resources of the State are helping them in possibly a far more comprehensive manner than those who are on the borderline. I do not want to draw a distinction between those who are more or less deserving, but the hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the people about whom I am speaking deserve our help.

Mr. Barnett

I was not intending to say that these people do not deserve our help. The hon. Lady stated that they were the most deserving. I was saying that there is another group of people, almost certainly very many more of them, who are even more deserving in the sense that they are living on much smaller net incomes.

Miss Pike

We need not quibble about words. Most hon. Members will accept that a person with a crippling disablement or handicap should be regarded by us as among the most deserving people in the community. Through no fault of their own, their earning capacity has diminished; and, on reflection, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, without quibbling about the use of words, that this category of people is, to say the least, a very deserving category within the community.

The new Clause would, in the main, help those who, despite their disabilities and handicaps, have the great courage to make the effort to go out to work. This very factor entitles them to the greatest consideration that we can give them. Their earning capacity may be greatly reduced—in the majority of cases that happens—and their day-to-day expenses are increased.

4.30 p.m.

We accept that it is a good thing to encourage these people to go out to work. It is good for the community as a whole and for them, not only as human beings in our society but because it encourages them to develop their mobility and participate in the community. This helps all the other people who are suffering from disabilities of one sort or another. Because of their sufferings, many of these people are particularly perceptive and sensitive. They have a significant contribution to make to society and to the quality of our lives. Because of this, they are deserving of every help and encouragement.

The Clause would also help the couple where the wife is disabled. This category of people should be given all possible encouragement and support. It is often the case that, in this type of home, extra help must be employed and must be paid for, often because relatives do not live nearby and there are no friends available to give the help that is needed. In these cases some tax relief could tilt the balance and make it possible for the wife to stay at home rather than be separate from her family by being admitted to the chronic sick ward of a hospital. Separation of this type increases personal misery as well as the cost to the State.

Often a marginal judgment must be made about whether or not a person can be kept at home the whole time or whether, because funds are not available, that person cannot be kept at home for all but part of the year. In such cases the person concerned is often admitted to a chronic sick ward. Relief of the kind my hon. Friends and I are advocating would bolster the self-respect of these people and give them a sense of independence. This particularly applies to wives in this position.

The Chancellor argued for a provision of this type when in opposition. Acceptance of it would not put inflationary pressure on the economy, but would do something which we regard to be a simple act of justice for those who deserve our help. If the Chancellor considers this in a humane and objective manner, he will agree that, even if he cannot go the whole way, he should at least concede that we should now take another step forward to give these people the help that they deserve.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

I am not sure whether it is a privilege or punishment to participate in this apparent annual charade in which hon. Members from the political party which happens to be in opposition urge the Government to introduce Income Tax reliefs for the disabled and in which the representatives of the Treasury Front Bench, with their hands on their hearts, tears in their eyes and throbs in their voices, assure the Committee of their tenderness towards the disabled and their utter kindliness towards the world in general—and then go on to say that nothing can be done. This has been going on for years.

In 1962, we had the concession to which my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) referred—when the eloquence and charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) wrung a concession for the blind from her own Front Bench. In 1965 this concession was slightly extended. Apart from that, we have had nothing at all. There has been nothing for years and years and the reasons given have always been the same, whichever party has been in power; and on reading the various speeches that have been made by Treasury Ministers, their arguments appear to be threefold.

Either the Minister says that it is not the right year, or that the timing is wrong—" The economic situation is bad this year and that we cannot do it. We would like to do it, but we cannot". Or the excuse is that the proposals are administratively impossible to implement. Or the Minister says that a tax relief is not the right way of doing it. He says that it should be done, but that it must be done by cash allowances.

The first two objections can be dealt with shortly. To say that it is not the right year is no excuse, because it is never the right year. To those who work in the Treasury, no year is the right year to give any concession. It takes a very strong Minister indeed—one who is in complete command of his Department—to force his will on his Ministry and insist that something be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton pointed out, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said, when in opposition, that he would do exactly that. He said that in 1962. Now he is in power and we will watch with interest to see whether he lives up to his word.

The second argument—that the proposal is administratively impossible—can be dealt with by reminding the Committee of what the Chancellor said when in opposition; that whether or not it was administratively difficult he would see that it was done. Now, as he has the power, he can do it. We will watch with interest to see if he does it.

The third argument—that this relief to the disabled should be met by cash payments—is a more respectable one and is a case which could be adduced from either side of the Committee. However, this argument was, to some extent, disregarded in 1962, when the tax concession for the blind was introduced. Under this concession a blind person has a choice between a tax-free cash benefit and a tax allowance, whichever is the more favourable. But there is no cash allowance for the handicapped and disabled.

It seems entirely hypocritical for Ministers to say that the problem should be dealt with through the social services when they are perfectly ready to accept that it is not being dealt with through these services. It is all very well for them to shuffle off their responsibilities on to another Minister and say, "It is not a matter for the Treasury, but for the Minister of Social Security". They can say that until they are blue in the face, but when they are in Cabinet they must accept that nothing is being done.

Could not the Chief Secretary put himself in the shoes—perhaps that is a bad metaphor, because many of these people do not need shoes—in the place of a cripple who hears, year after year, that everybody would like to do something for him, but who sees nothing whatever being done? I remind the Committee of the ridiculous amount of anomaly there is in the set-up of cash benefits for handicapped and disabled people under our social service system.

I will confine my indictment to a narrow point, the provision of Ministry of Health transport for the disabled. For this purpose there are three kinds of disabled person; the person who is not sufficiently disabled to be provided with transport, the person who has exactly the right degree of disablement to be provided with transport and the person who is too seriously disabled to be so provided. Out of this categorisation, an enormous amount of anomaly arises. I appreciate that a line must be drawn between the first two—between those who are not sufficiently disabled to be provided with transport and those who have exactly the right degree of disablement for this provision.

Although many hon. Members would not agree with the place at which the line is at present drawn, they would admit that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, for there to be no provision at all—no cash allowance or benefit—for the man who is so severely disabled that he cannot be provided with transport, is ridiculous, illogical, inconsistent and cannot be defended.

I cite the case of a man I know—

Mr. Diamond

I am endeavouring to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Will he tell me whether these categories are the categories which he suggests, under the new Clause, should be divided? I ask that because the Clause does not refer to any such division.

Mr. Fortescue

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will appreciate what I am saying.

I cite the case of a man I know personally. He is unfortunate enough to be what is known as a quadriped poliomyelitis case, which means that he is paralysed in all four of his limbs. This affliction started in his legs and, at first, his legs were paralysed. At that stage he was provided with a Ministry of Health vehicle and was able to drive himself to work every morning. He acted courageously, to the benefit of himself, his family and the community.

Then, tragically, the disease spread to one of his arms. Because of that he was no longer able to drive the vehicle. In that situation he not only lost the vehicle—because he was unable to drive it—but he lost the allowance of £110 a year to which he was entitled to help him to maintain the vehicle. He lost all mobility because he could not afford to buy a car for himself. The result was that he had to stay at home. He lost his job, he lost his income and was far worse off by becoming more disabled than he had been when he was only partially disabled. That is the kind of ridiculous anomaly that arises from the present administration of our welfare system, and it demonstrates the urgent and desperate need there is for the whole of our social service benefits for the handicapped and disabled to be overhauled.

I urge the Minister to accept the new Clause, and not once more to trot out the old arguments, which are dog-eared from many years' use by both political parties, that such an extension of benefit is some other Minister's responsibility. At the same time, I urge the other Ministers to come forward with a co-ordinated scheme for recasting the system of benefits for the disabled so that those benefits are seen to be both fair and comprehensive.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Sutton)

I oppose the new Clause, and I do so with a heavy heart. I am sure that we are all deeply concerned about the problems of the disabled. I ought to make one thing quite clear. Outside the House I am Vice-Chairman of the Disablement Income Group, and I am sure that what I say does not necessarily represent the view of that body, if it has a view, about these allowances. I should not like it to be thought that I am speaking for the group. Mine is a very personal view.

I have made it quite clear on other occasions, particularly in connection with family allowances, that I consider that we should not continue this separation of tax allowances from benefits which we pay out through the social security system. I should like to see the Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Social Security get together and have a unified policy.

In passing, I cannot help referring to new Clause 22 which I know will be discussed later, because the basic issue is similar. In new Clause 14 there is a much more complex argument, but when we turn to new Clause 22 we know there already exists a cash allowance, that there are already family allowances. On that Clause, I could put a much stronger case for just increasing family allowances. I believe that to increase the tax allowance for families in the present situation is indefensible. But the point has been fairly made that no cash allowance exists at the moment for the disabled. A powerful argument can, therefore, be made for saying that since no other machinery exists it is unfair to deprive disabled people of the one benefit we can give them through the taxation system.

A number of arguments can be deployed against that case, although I recognise its strength. The first is based on inequality. It can be said that when we are trying to relieve some people irrespective of income we must remember just to increase the tax allowance is to give that relief selectively to a rather smaller number of the population than would be the case in going towards the cash allowance system. That does not necessarily make it wrong—there are always occasions when we introduce a benefit for some people at different times. But I believe that we should have a cash allowance for disablement, and I am extremely concerned that if we extend the tax allowance system to include all forms of disablement the pressure for the disablement income will be taken off and we shall be going gack to a system of separation in the social security system and that the case for a disablement income will be weakened. We will, for instance, syphon off a great deal of the discontent of the most articulate section of the population.

If we really want a disablement income we must press for one thing, and one thing alone, and that is for a cash allowance to disabled people at all income levels. Hon. Members opposite should give attention to this view. The hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) argued, unfairly, that people who were not getting some benefit from tax allowance would gain from the supplementary benefit system, but she knows as well as I do that that system makes very little allowance for the disabled person. These people are living at a minimal standard, and a large section of the population pay no tax at all—

4.45 p.m.

Miss Pike

I did say—I was anxious not to transgress the rules of order—that in any event I preferred the cash allowances. We are not arguing about that at the moment, but I should like to see, and I said so this afternoon, a cash allowance.

Dr. Owen

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that she does wish to see a cash allowance, but this is central to the argument and I do not consider that the two matters can be divorced. If we allow them to be divorced, the case for a cash allowance will fall into disrepair. I have no doubt that, if we start extending the range, the Disablement Income Group's case for a specific disablement income will be greatly weakened.

We have been told by successive Governments how difficult it is to administer a tax allowance for all disabled people. One of the greatest problems is that we do not know who are disabled. We have a totally inadequate disablement register. We have no facilities for finding out who are disabled. The administrative argument, which is so often knocked down, happens to be, to my regret, very real.

What is so important about getting a disablement income, a cash allowance, is that there would be a necessity for the Ministry of Social Security to draw up a quite clear-cut category of disabled people, and search out those who are disabled. That is what we need. We all know in our constituencies that those in social work and the medical profession constantly find people living the life of disabled persons unknown to any one, even their neighbours. It is a very real problem.

I therefore feel that a system of tax allowances is the wrong approach. It is unfair. It perpetuates inequality. It gives the benefit to one section of people who are better off while ignoring those who are not paying any taxation at all. It is true that there are some people on the lower levels who pay tax and find things extremely hard. I have no doubt that the Clause, if it were accepted, would help some of them considerably, and one is loath to oppose anything that would help people who are in a bad plight because of a disability.

The important thing is to try to give some relief to the disabled wife. That is the central problem. The new Clause would take some account of this by providing that, where the wife is disabled and the husband is earning, the husband could claim the benefit. That is an ingenious way round the problem, but there are many people who would not gain at all from a tax allowance because they do not pay at the standard rate.

The Government, when looking at their social security system, must look at this central problem. It is a deeply Socialist problem. We have to analyse our social security system and not perpetuate this differential between tax allowance, on the one hand, and benefits, on the other. The Chancellor seems to believe that this is a fundamental difference, but I do not accept that it is a fundamental difference. The sooner we can integrate these two aspects and, one hopes, go to a unified tax coding system that covers everyone, the better.

In present circumstances, and particularly in view of our economic problems, I do not think that this Clause offers the best long-term advantage to the disabled population. Indeed, it might work against their long-term interests in obtaining a disablement income.

Mr. Philip Holland (Carlton)

I cannot quite agree with the description my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) applied to the debate as being a charade. To me, a charade is an empty, meaningless exercise. I regard what we are doing today as part of a continuing process of applying pressure to Treasury Ministers to obtain an improvement in the tax system as it affects the disabled. It is not entirely a waste of time or a meaningless exercise. We have had some success in the past. The blind now receive a tax allowance. I believe that, if the pressure is maintained, the whole system will be extended. On that ground, I disagree with my hon. Friend, though otherwise I agreed with much of what he said.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) expressed concern about the difficulty of definition. I accept his point of view, that he would rather have a cash benefit. Many of us would agree with him about that. If there cannot be a cash benefit, we want to obtain some recognition. This is the purpose of the Clause. An attempt has been made in the Clause to define who is disabled. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would be interested to know of any more precise way of putting it and would be willing to consider an Amendment to the terms of the definition, provided that we received a concession from the Treasury on a tax allowance for the disabled.

My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) reminded us that the Second Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, 1954, advocated a tax allowance for grave disability on the grounds that a serious physical handicap reduced the taxable capacity or potential of the individual either by impairing his earning capacity, or by involving him in a range of additional expenditure attendant upon the conduct of his normal life—in other words, because to live as others live the disabled person is involved in extra expenditure. Those were the reasons why the Royal Commission thought that there should be a tax allowance.

It is clear that it was on these grounds that in 1962 the Conservative Government introduced the £100 tax allowance for the blind. This was a beginning. Today, we ask the Government, after the tax allowance for the blind has been running for five years—so there is plenty of experience on the administrative side —to extend the practice, building on the foundations we have laid, to include other impairing and recognisable disabilities. The principle of the Clause is that the criteria should be an impairing and recognisable disability. If the wording of that part of it requires alteration, I am sure that we should be sympathetic to suggestions.

If blindness merits a tax allowance—we firmly believe that it does—so do those who suffer from being deaf and dumb—I make that distinction; not the deaf and the dumb, but those who are both deaf and dumb—or those with multiple sclerosis, or those suffering the after effects of poliomyelitis. These are clearly recognisable afflictions. They can be distinguished. They certainly impair the taxable capacity of the afflicted. They fulfil the criteria used originally in the establishment of the tax allowance for the blind.

The Government may have other reasons for continuing the allowance for the blind. Perhaps they reject the original reasons. In that case, it would be interesting to know from the Chief Secretary on what criteria the Government are continuing the allowance for the blind. It may be merely for the passive reason that the Government inherited it and that they are just letting it continue, but I doubt it. It could be for some more positive reason—for example, as compensation for misfortune, or as recognition of the additional financial burdens that the disabled have to bear, or as some small compensation for loss of faculty, or as a little help for those who suffer a loss of earning power by reason of disability.

Perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell us about the Government's motives for continuing this allowance more precisely than by merely allowing us to assume that it is because of what the Royal Commission said in 1954. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it would be wrong to increase this allowance to take account of the rise in the cost of living since the allowance for the blind was introduced in 1962, and why it would also be wrong to extend the allowance, for the came reasons, to cover other people substantially handicapped by a loss of physical or mental faculty which is likely to he permanent?

The Clause is eminently reasonable. It is logical. It is a socially just extension of the tax relief for blind persons to include others incapacitated by difficulties of personal communication, either physical or mental, or by one of the appalling paralysis infections, or by some other infirmity limiting their freedom of independent movement.

The rate of tax relief proposed in the Clause is modest. It cannot be rejected on grounds of cost, in view of the benefit which I believe would accrue from it. To put up such an argument on grounds of cost—we are always suspicious of Treasury Ministers doing this—would be callous in the extreme. To refuse such a reasonable, logical and modest Clause would indicate an almost unbelievable lack of sensitivity on the part of the Treasury. It would be inexcusable. If the Chief Secretary is unwilling to accept the Clause, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will prove him wrong by overruling him in the Division Lobbies. I certainly hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide on this isue, if the Clause is turned down flat.

I have met many blind people and a large number of the deaf and dumb. I have a relative of my own age who has been recently stricken down with multiple sclerosis. I speak having had some personal experience of these people and considerable personal contact with them. All these people share one great asset in common in the form of the smile that comes so readily to their lips. Collectively, they are among the most cheerful people I know. I once had the honour to conduct a party of 30 deaf and dumb young people round the Palace of Westminster. It was the most rewarding party I have ever conducted round and one of the most cheerful.

I know of three hostels for the blind near my London home. I have visited them all and the happiness of the residents is a byword in the district. All we ask for in the Clause is to provide just a little more justification for the smiles on the faces of these people.

I hope, without, I admit, a great deal of confidence, that the Chief Secretary will have a favourable reply for us—and not only a favourable reply for us, but a little concrete encouragement for some of the least fortunate members of the community.

Mr. Diamond

We are all grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), who moved the Clause in her usual persuasive and attractive manner. I will follow her line and deal with the argument on the merits rather than on previous debates. The hon. Lady was good enough to make only one reference. I shall not respond with more than one reference. I would rather deal with this issue in that way than in the manner adopted by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who we know has a great interest in these matters, who spends a great deal of time on them, and who is very knowledgeable indeed. I would rather deal with it on the basis of merit than on the basis of the Division Lobbies.

I say that because I have before me a list of those who divided on 30th May, 1962—I direct attention to HANSARD of that date, cc. 1453–54—on a precisely similar Clause. Among those who divided against the proposal we are now discussing was the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Holland

My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) explained what arguments were used and what the differences were between that debate and this one.

Mr. Diamond

We all recognise what the main difference was. The main difference was the particular bench and the particular side that we were sitting on at that time. Therefore, it is far better to deal with the argument than to deal with it on the basis of who said what when and who divided in which way when.

5.0 p.m.

Miss Pike

The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the arguments at the initial stage were very strong that it could not be done, but then, thank goodness, we tried a special category and went that far. What we are now saying, after five years of experience, is that we all recognise, with hindsight, that it was a good decision then to try that special category, and we ought now to go further.

Mr. Diamond

I am making the simple point that in that debate on a new Clause to give a 100 per cent. disability allowance, the hon. Member for Carlton took the view at that time that his duty was to support his Government in the Lobby and oppose the allowance which we are discussing today. Nevertheless, as I say, I am happy to discuss the matter on the basis of merit and the sympathy which we all share.

The hon. Gentleman has close connection with sufferers. It so happens through relations of mine, that the situation of the deaf and dumb is something with which I have been familiar ever since I was a small child. It would be preposterous to suggest that there is any hon. Member of the Committee, on either side, who has not both knowledge of and sympathy for people who are less well equipped than himself. It is good for all of us, when we get up every morning, to be glad that we have two arms and two legs, that we have two eyes and that we can hear. We should be grateful that we are so blessed.

But then comes the question: what is the best way by which those who are responsible for the public purse may direct benefit to the needy? This is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) brought out in his speech. Should we try to give help to those who need it most? My view is that we should. It is exactly the same as the view held by the occupant of my office at the time of the debate to which I have referred, then the hon. Member for Hampstead. I share with him the view that help should be given where it is most needed, and, undeniably, it is most needed by those who have least.

I was most interested in the account which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) gave of the pitiful case which came to his knowledge in which the person concerned, as the result of the loss of the use of his limbs, lost his job and, as the hon. Gentleman said, lost his income.

Mr. Fortescue

May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? After he had lost the use of his legs, he was not all right—it would be ridiculous to say that—but he was at least in a position to have some help. When he lost the use of another limb, he lost all the help to which he was previously entitled.

Mr. Diamond

I took down the hon. Gentleman's words, that the man had "lost his income". The hon. Gentleman is supporting a Clause which would give that man no benefit whatever. We must all agree about that. It would give him no benefit because he was without income.

The whole tone and purport of the hon. Gentleman's argument was to support the Clause by reference to an extraordinarily difficult and pitiful case in which help should be given. I do not dispute that, but I am pointing out that it is no argument to support a Clause which would have given not one farthing of help in that case. If the man has no income, he pays no Income Tax. The Clause is directed to relief for a man who has not the use of his limbs, who has no income and who, therefore, pays no Income Tax. What a sad commentary.

Mr. Fortescue

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again. I do not mean to be rude, but I do not think that I said that this man had lost his income. I think that I said that he had lost his job. He had some income other than the income which he had from his job, so that the Clause would have helped.

Mr. Diamond

I took down the hon. Gentleman's words, that the man had "lost his income". If the hon. Gentleman made a mistake, and meant to say that he had lost his job but had some private income, he will, am sure, agree that that man was not in such a sad situation as someone who had lost his job, and, as a consequence, all his income, he having no private income, either. Such a man is in a terrible state indeed. But the Clause would not give him any help. It would probably strike him as being a most curious and cruel irony that the Clause would, in fact, give no help to someone who was without the use of his limbs and without income.

Miss Pike

The man's wife could very well be earning and, in that case, she would have the allowance.

Mr. Diamond

It is charitable of the hon. Lady to come to the assistance of her hon. Friend, but we are considering a specific new Clause proposed for inclusion in this Bill. I am the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, not Minister of Social Security. This is a Clause to give tax relief. If the Clause gives no help, if it should not be supported—as we are beginning to realise it should not be— it ought not to be brought forward. If the Opposition now say that this is not the way to help, they ought not to bring the Clause forward.

The idea behind the Clause is, "Let us relieve these people through their Income Tax". All I am pointing out is that anyone who approaches the matter from the standpoint of human sympathy and understanding will recognise at once that, although we all desire to give help to those in the greatest need, the Clause will do nothing of the kind. It will give not a farthing. It is entirely a Clause to help those who have less need.

I ask the Committee to consider what is proposed. It is ludicrous to look at this matter purely from the point of view of emotion. We have a duty in the House to help people, and, on that basis, we have a duty to help people who need the help most. This has been said from this Box by all responsible Ministers who have had charge of Government finances. They have not said it for the sake of being "mean" about the use of the taxpayer's money. Taxpayers generally would not dissent from paying taxes for useful and eleemosynary purposes of this kind. But, if one has responsibility as trustee, as it were, for the use of other people's money, one's job is to use it where help can best be given.

I say, first, that this is not a Clause to help those people, examples of whom have been given today. But, if it were such, we could not work it because of the vagueness of the definition. It would not be administrable. That is not a very solid argument, and I do not put it forward as an important objection, but I ask the Committee to be good enough to note that it would not be administrable because of the vagueness of the definition. We have no machinery for tests of this kind. It is easy to draw up rules and say that, if a man has had an industrial injury and he has lost the use of one leg he shall have so much, or, if two legs, so much; but one cannot translate that into terms of the chronic sick or the disabled as the Clause would have us do. One cannot define deafness and all these various categories and provide suitable rules. However, those are minor arguments. The major argument is that the Clause does not help those whom we most want to help.

If it is said that time has moved on since we last discussed the matter, that it is the job of the back bencher to keep on pressing the Government to do something to show their understanding and to give help as far as they can through the tax machine, I reply that that is what we are doing this very year. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton reminded the Committee that the wife is the one who should be helped, the incapacitated wife. By Clause 16 of this very Bill we are raising from £40 to £75 the allowance for a man who has the single-handed charge of a child because his wife is wholly incapacitated, the very case of which my hon. Friend gave an example.

An additional burden falls upon the husband who has to look after the child, and now, whether he employs a resident or non-resident child-minder, he will have the allowance, which was £40 for many years, the allowance which the Royal Commission said should be redrawn, now increased to £75. This is closely analogous to the situation with which we are dealing under the present Clause. Therefore, it will be seen that I cannot recommend the major part of the proposal to the Committee.

The argument then is, "Well, what about helping the blind by increasing the allowance? Has there not been some falling off in the value of money since it was first given, and is not £100 worth less than it was then?" That is true, but the blind allowance is in a rather separate category. The hon. Member for Carlton asked me on what basis we support it. The short answer is that we do so on exactly the same basis as the then Chief Secretary who, when he introduced it, explained at considerable length the distinction to be drawn between that allowance and all others.

The hon. Member said that he introduced it only on the firm understanding that it could not be used as the basis for other claims for additional allowances because the blind allowance could be distinguished. He said that the case of the blind could be distinguished in terms of human sympathy, severity of disablement, administrability and registration. A case could be put up for an allowance for the blind, but one could not build on that in a logical sense for allowances for others.

Mr. Holland

I was asking for the motive behind continuing it, not the reason why it was possible. The right hon. Gentleman has given the reasons why it was possible to do it, but I was asking for the Government's motive. Is it the same as before, under the previous Government. or is it a new reason?

Mr. Diamond

I repeat that I accept the views of the then Chief Secretary, who explained them at great length. They were sound, and I accept them in all the senses he gave then. It is a special case meriting special consideration. It is to be distinguished from others and one cannot build a claim for others, as the Clause tries to do, on the basis of the help for the blind.

I have not dealt with the question of increasing the blind allowance somewhat, which is admittedly, a small point and not an expensive matter—nobody is complaining about that. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has worked out the figures, and I do not think that they matter. It is said that we must take some account of the fact that the allowance is not as valuable as when it was introduced. But one must remember that it is a second or additional allowance; it does not replace the personal allowance which a blind person gets. To the extent that all the personal allowances have been increased, so has the allowance for the blind or anybody else been increased. It is not a static allowance. Most people think that the blind allowance is the only one the blind get, but it is an exceptional additional allowance.

There will obviously come a time when it will be right to move allowances forward, but one cannot pick one allowance without paying due regard to others which tie up with it. We might have done it in any year—this year or any other—but this year we are asking everybody to exercise considerable restraint, and it is not the year one can pick out and say, "We shall be generous in the treatment of a particular category".

But that is a small part of the Clause. The main part is to introduce an allowance for the deaf, dumb and disabled generally as defined in the Clause. For the reasons I have given, I am sorry to say that nothing major has happened since this was debated and rejected by the Tory Administration, for the reasons which they gave. Our sympathies and views are united. We all want to help, but the Clause would not give help in the way that it should be given.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but I should like to make a brief comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and some of the Chief Secretary's observations on them. I agree with the hon. Member that there is a great need for integration of our taxation structure, social security benefits and so on. I also agree with him that there is a need for cash benefits for the disabled, and that it would be a great pity if we obscured this need by manoeuvring with taxation policy one way or another.

5.15 p.m.

It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I also support the aims of the Disablement Income Group, and I also view with suspicion attempts to remedy social injustices for minority groups by tax reliefs of one kind or another. Despite that—and I have risen for this point only—I think that there is a special case here which cannot be regarded as exclusive of the other matters but which should perhaps be looked at in itself.

I believe that those disabled who are fortunate enough to be able to work, and who I accept are more fortunate than many of their fellows, nevertheless work under difficulties which often cost them money in order to work at all. One can assess the difficulties they have over travelling, and sometimes about special meals, when they go to work. There is sometimes also a need for special clothing, whether it is the disabled person or the spouse who is working. There is the additional difficulty of added travelling time and problems of that kind which tend to make their working time longer in a sense than other people's.

We are all agreed in the Committee on the need to do everything possible to encourage the disabled to work, to make work attractive to them, and get them back into society in a constructive sense in a way in which they can make a genuine contribution. For the reasons I have given they are perhaps not deriving the full benefit of their work and not getting their full wages because they have to spend so much to be able to work at all. Because of these difficulties there is a case for some recognition of the sort of principle embodied in the Clause.

I do not quarrel with the Chief Secretary's argument that it is wrong to single out for relief those who are perhaps better off that others, that this cannot be regarded as an exclusive operation. It is nevertheless right to point to an injustice if one exists.

I should have liked to hear the Chief Secretary recognise that disabled people work under difficulties, that they do not get the full benefit of their work and that this should be recognised in the tax system or by some other method. Had he said that, I would have been more satisfied with his arguments. It is true that we have a difference on a matter closely related to this. But I accept that he and his colleagues are anxious to do what they can to assist the disabled and see them playing a full part in the life of the community. I wish that he could have been more forthcoming about the Clause, despite any difficulties there may be in it in terms of definition. Had he said something more forthcoming, it would have been received very gladly by many disabled people and many of those who assist in getting them employment.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I particularly dislike the way in which the Chief Secretary dealt with the new Clause. It is very odd. Sometimes the Chief Secretary can be extremely nice and logical when he is refusing—

Mr. Diamond

On a point of order. Is it in order ever to say that a Chief Secretary can be nice?

The Chairman

I gather that the hon. Lady was only saying it by way of a preliminary to something else she was going to say.

Dame Irene Ward

I know you thought, Sir Eric, that I was going on to say one or two unpleasant things about the Chief Secretary, so I thought I had better preface them by saying something pleasant.

I can hardly accuse the Chief Secretary of having two sides to his nature, but I think that he has. I know that he must have been in real difficulty to refuse the Clause, and so he made his refusal in the most unpleasant terms. He has been long enough in the House of Commons to know perfectly well that when one wants to put forward a case on behalf of a group of people, which is what we are doing here, one has to take every advantage one can.

For example, if one is advocating assisting the disabled through a reduction in taxation, one produces a Clause for the Finance Bill designed for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. If he will now tell us that he agrees with cash allowances and that he will implement this policy, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and all of us who support the Clause will be delighted to withdraw it in order to give him a chance to bring another system into operation.

My hon. Friend made it plain what her preferences were. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well also how we operate in Parliament. We put forward a case and build on it year after year. I always reckon that it takes ten years to win a battle, and it is very boring because a great many injustices could have been relieved in that time without having to fight on every front on all occasions.

The next most unpleasant feature of the way in which the Chief Secretary opposed the Clause was when he said that when we were in office we had refused a Clause exactly of this kind. Of course, he was entitled to point that out, but I did not always support the Conservative Government. I did quite a lot to try to move them along, and I was quite successful at times. No doubt they did refuse such a Clause. But I have been in political life for a very long time, and one thing I am proud about in the Tory Party, although sometimes I hit my colleagues pretty hard, is that it is careful when electioneering not to make the open promises about the remedying of social injustices such as are so often made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who lead people to believe that if they vote for the Labour Party it will be able to wave a magic wand and put right all social injustices. I do not think that I would have said this if the Chief Secretary had not been so unpleasant in the way he rejected the new Clause, but that is what happens, and no one knows it better than I do. Having electioneered eleven or twelve times, I know pretty well the form of the Labour Party during election campaigns, and I am glad to be able to put this on record.

I never expected that we would get very much consideration or support from the right hon. Gentleman. I waited to hear what he had to say before intervening, because I prefer to make my case after he has made his rather than before. Whatever the Conservative Government did or did not do, the really tremendous pledges were given by the Labour Party in their election campaigns, and those who heard them would have been surprised to hear his argument today.

Up to a point, I think that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) was very cogent. I also support the suggestion in relation to income for the disabled, and I would be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman would say unequivocally that these cash benefits for the disabled were to be given shortly.

As I have said, it is well known in the House of Commons that when one is campaigning for something one thinks to be right one must use every occasion to put it forward. The problem is to find, in our busy Parliamentary life, the occasions for advocating the kind of claims embodied in the Clause, and these come very rarely.

I can see that the problems of definition are very important, but the fact that we have the National Health Service, with many more records of disablement and all types of illness, which we did not have before, makes this kind of administrative difficulty very much easier to solve. I must refute the argument that because many people are not registered or because we do not know about many of them it is impossible to make a step forward. That is a ridiculous argument.

If we can get the right hon. Gentleman to support our case or the case for the cash benefits, which he also seemed to be rejecting—I am not certain because he was hopping about, as he always does, in the hope that he would not make his rejection of all these schemes too apparent to everyone—we now have all the modern techniques of radio and television to make the assistance known. We could surely have a series of programmes and could very easily get people to make their claims. There are also the citizens advice bureaux and all sorts of other organisations that could help. Simply to say that we dare not go forward because it is difficult to find out certain things is most impracticable, unrealistic and absolutely stupid. I am tired of that argument.

The concession for the blind which my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) was instrumental in persuading the Conservative Government to give was accompanied by an undertaking that it would next be used as a springboard. That might have been what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said to my hon. Friend, but that did not bind me or any people who have come into the House of Commons since that day.

5.30 p.m.

It is a ridiculous argument, because all these matters of social justice do not attract in either party the support that they merit, which I think is regrettable. No one would give a pledge of that kind, whatever any Chief Secretary said on the Treasury Bench. That argument was used when I argued about equal pay for one of the HANSARD reporters. I was told by one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors that they would agree to it because the evidence was written down that she had been promised it, providing I did not use it as a springboard. I did not use it as a springboard, but I won the battle. All I am saying is that no one would give an undertaking to anybody on the Treasury Bench that if a concession is granted one would not use it when one comes to argue the general case again. It is a whole lot of nonsense.

What is the Chief Secretary proposing'? Will he support the claims that are put forward by the disablement income group? He did toss in the fact that he was not the Minister of Social Security. We know that, but we have to take every Minister in turn. I know that one cannot have one Minister and twist him or her every time. One has to twist every Minister that one can get at, and I am delighted to be able to get at the Chief Secretary. I would like to do three twists on him, whereas I would probably only do one twist on the Minister of Social Security, because she understands the position much better than the Chief Secretary.

I do not want to get out of order on these matters of taxation, but I will use this particular instance because I used it yesterday in the Selective Employment Tax argument. If someone who is blind works for a voluntary body he gets the premium paid for him, but not if he works for a local authority. That is a monstrous injustice.

The Chief Secretary will no doubt get up and say that he would put that right straight away. But will he? Not on your life! He made a most deplorable and regrettable speech, and I hope that we have dozens of Clauses and dozens of opportunities and occasions when we can twist him and his party for giving such encouragement when electioneering and showing such a lack of understanding in implementing the pledges that were made. It is easy to make pledges. It is the redemption of the promises which is difficult. My complaint against my own party is that it did not make enough promises, but if it had it would have implemented them. My complaint about the Chief Secretary is that all these promises were made and we cannot get a tiny bit out of the Government.

I hope that when the Chief Secretary has finished his stint on the bench today he will feel thoroughly ashamed of himself, not necessarily for turning down the Clause—because I can understand he has arguments—but for the beastly, horrid way in which he did it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley)

I only rise because I support all that has been said. I will not withdraw much of my support from the last speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I have been very kind to the Chief Secretary this year, so I only say that I support my hon. Friend and will not repeat any of her remarks.

The Chief Secretary drew attention to the debate on 30th May, 1962, when about five Clauses were being debated together. I accept that there is a considerable relevance between those Clauses and this one. It does not quite match, but there is a relevance. Like all Chief Secretaries he does not vary much. He brought up the usual sort of argument—administrative difficulties, drawing the line somewhere and all the rest of it.

Chief Secretaries occasionally learn and Chancellors of the Exchequer occasionally learn, though not often enough, so I could not help turning up the debate, because I am always delighted to have my attention drawn to past occasions.

On 30th May, 1962, when this was being discussed, the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Gentleman who is Chancellor of the Exchequer today—dealt with this specific point. He said: As to the administrative difficulties, I hope that the Chief Secretary"— that was the Conservative one at the time— will not rely on my support too much. I accept that there are administrative complications, but I do not accept, even if those complications cannot be set on one side, that they are of such a character that they ought to stand in the way of making these reforms. If I were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman I would make the reforms irrespective of administrative complications and tell the Inland Revenue to get on with them. He concluded his speech: I do not accept the administrative difficulties as overriding the will of the Committee when it has clearly expressed a wish that this should be done. I know that there are in the Inland Revenue people who are ingenious enough to overcome the difficulties, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to come back to the Committee with a different answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1962; Vol. 660, c. 1448–9.] I support entirely the speech of the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and I trust that it has been learned.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I would remind the Chief Secretary that although technically this debate is about tax allowances, it is also about people who have a harder battle in life than most. That was why I was disappointed at the way in which the Chief Secretary addressed himself to the subject. I was disappointed and saddened for two reasons. The first stems from the merit of the new Clause. Admittedly, it does not represent a major concession to the blind. It would not cost the Chancellor a great deal. Though it would provide an increase of 25 per cent. in the relief given to the blind in the Finance Act. 1962, the cost of living, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) made plain, has risen by almost as much in the intervening period.

All we are seeking to do here is to restore the value of the concession which all parties thought it right to make five years ago to a particularly vulnerable group of our fellow citizens. The Chief Secretary said that one cannot pick out one allowance for special treatment. Why not? We are always doing it. What is the purpose of a Finance Bill? I would certainly give a conscious preference to groups such as the blind. If one accepts that there is a special obligation to help those afflicted by blindness, what we are proposing here is the least that we can do.

It is true that the Amendment goes further. It removes the distinction—

Mr. Diamond

I want to clarify one point. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the blind. As he knows, we are talking about the registered blind. He will also know that the Clause would benefit approximately 10 per cent. of the blind. The other 90 per cent. would not be affected at all.

Mr. Braine

If I had to spell out every term that I used and be precise to that degree, I would occupy a great deal more of the time of the Committee, and there is a great deal I intend to say. I hope that niggardly points of that kind will not affect the flow of my argument, but I will take them as they come.

I was about to say that the Clause goes further than that. It removes the distinction between people who are handicapped by blindness and those permanently disabled in other ways. I would that thought that that was in line with modern thinking, which is that help should be given where possible by the strong and the healthy to all who are severely disabled, irrespective of the nature or cause of their disability. I would have thought, that that would appeal particularly to the Socialist conscience of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

We all know that the distinction in the treatment the blind and those with other disabilities is historical. Blindness or even partial blindness is an obvious handicap. The blind Milton's anguished cry about darkness— amid the blaze of noon, total eclipse Without all hope of day. conjures up an affliction which for centuries normally-sighted persons have been able to comprehend. Thus it is not strange that blindness has always excited compassion. It is not surprising that it led to the provision of voluntary social effort long before the birth of the Welfare State.

I do not think that it is any disservice to those afflicted by blindness to say that the distinction between them and those seriously and permanently disabled in other ways is purely arbitrary and, in modern day conditions, unfair. Of course one cannot equate forms of disability. One cannot compare the loss of sight with the loss of hearing, the loss of limbs with the slow, painful and relentless advance of a crippling disease like multiple sclerosis, but who among us, with all the knowledge which we have of these things in our constituencies, can doubt the acute physical, psychological, social and financial difficulties experienced by all who suffer from varied forms of serious and permanent disablement?

What about the totally deaf, those who suffer from what Dr. Johnson described as one of the most desperate of human calamities? If the blind live in perpetual darkness, at least the air about them is filled with sound; they can communicate. The totally deaf are like persons cut off from contact with others. They look at the great world around them as through a glass panel but with endless difficulty in communicating, and because of that they receive scant sympathy from others who are simply unaware of their disability who are simply unaware that their disability exists.

What about those who suffer from one or other of the crippling diseases which restrict mobility, which involve much discomfort and intermittent pain and which so often end in complete dependence on others for satisfaction of the simplest needs? I am thinking of sufferers from epilepsy, paralysis, muscular dystrophy, sclerosis, multiple handicaps and various forms of mental illness. Inevitably in families where either the husband or wife is severely disabled, the fit partner has to shoulder not only added responsibilities in the home, which most of them accept gladly, but additional financial burdens for which, under our present arrangements, no relief is given. If there are children, outside help has to be employed, and if help is unobtainable, the breadwinner may have to take a job with lower earnings in order to be at home for longer periods.

All of us know this to be so. All of us have had such cases brought to our attention. Sometimes it is necessary for the severely disabled partner to go into hospital and to stay there, not because he or she wants to, but simply because the breadwinner cannot afford to pay for help in the house. In such cases it would help to have the solution to which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) referred—and I agreed with a great deal of what he said—and to have a constant attendance allowance payable, as in the case of the war disabled or the industrially disabled. Of course that would help, but at present no such allowance is made.

5.45 p.m.

The hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that the disabled wife was at the core of this problem. But over the last two years the Government have rejected every suggestion which my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have made to help her. The difficulties were clearly recognised in paragraph 201 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Incomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) read a lengthy but very pertinent extract from that Report and I will not repeat anything which she said except to fix upon the Royal Commission's conclusion which was: …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. We do not mean that it affects their earning capacity. It may or may not, but so far as it does, the graduated scale of tax will diminish the burden on diminished earning power. 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. We all know how true that is.

Let me give an example. One of my constituents, a middle-aged single woman, is badly crippled, having contracted poliomyelitis in childhood. She is unable to walk without crutches. She works in an office near her home at a salary lower than her abilities would command if she could travel further afield. She is taxed on her earnings at a relatively high level, because she is a single person and has no dependants. This should bring home to the Chief Secretary the facts of life where these people are concerned. Because this woman is badly crippled, she has extra difficulty in running her home, but, as she is working, she cannot get any kind of home help. Because she is badly crippled, she cannot use public transport and has to take taxis to travel anywhere other than the very shortest distances. Because she cannot provide a garage space at her own premises, she is precluded by the regulations from having an invalid tricycle. Because she moves with difficulty on her crutches, her clothes wear out several times faster than those of a normally fit person. In the words of the Royal Commission her disability imposes on her a constant levy of extra expense that may fairly be said to affect the taxable capacity of her income. Yet she gets no tax relief.

The proposal on this Amendment would help people in that category. I do not know how many of them there are, but I know there are a number in my own constituency, and it is not many. We are told that there are administrative difficulties. The Chief Secretary rubbed this in. There may be, but those administrative difficulties are not insuperable. A good many of the severely and permanently disabled can be readily identified. Registered disabled workers are listed and known to the Ministry of Labour. The local welfare authorities are required under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act to maintain a register of persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped by injury, illness, congenital deformity, or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister. I know how many such persons there are in my own County of Essex. I can go to the county welfare officer and he will tell me exactly how many there are and from what disabilities they are suffering

Admittedly, there is a great dearth of knowledge about the state of the disabled. Last year, some of my hon. Friends and I pressed the present Minister of Social Security to do something about that, but, so far as I am aware, not very much has been done. But, in any event, the Selective Employment Payments Act lays down a definition of disability—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten this. Section 6(2) provides a refund for certain private households and these, for example, include a person in need of such assistance … by reason of being infirm, sick, or otherwise incapacitated for any reason…". The Government must have satisfied themselves that that was a satisfactory definition of incapacity for the refund, for they laid it down in the law.

The point is—and it will not be lost on the Committee—that if the will to do something exists, then a way will be found. What is quite clear from the speech of the Chief Secretary is that the will does not exist.

Dr. Owen

I agree with the main portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech in relation to this difficulty of assessing. This is the problem. The administrative difficulty is not in the Inland Revenue, it is in the assessment of disablement. But he is being less than fair to the Government. They have instituted quite a number of research proposals, particularly the one at Bedford College, sponsored by the Ministry of Health. Other surveys are in process, not enough, but something has been done. The will is beginning to be there.

Mr. Braine

I accept that some surveys are under way. The Government have been in office for nearly three years, and it is about time that we saw the fruits of some of these surveys and investigations about which we have been told so much.

We were then told that to increase this relief would be to limit the help that we can give to the better-off persons among the disabled. That, as I understand it, is the gravamen of the objection from the other side of the Committee—that we are not really helping the worst of the disabled because, by definition, we are only helping those who come within the tax bracket. That is the most extraordinary argument that I have ever heard. When we are discussing Finance Bills and tax allowances, it is inevitable that any Amendment can benefit only those persons who pay tax. Either there is a case for relieving people who are disadvantaged by their disablement, so that they can enjoy a little more of what is their own money, or not. The Chancellor is not giving them anything. We are only saying that they should enjoy a little more of their own money.

The Royal Commission said that there was a case for this and one hon. Gentleman after another, speaking in this debate, has said that there is a case. To say that, because this new Clause cannot benefit all disabled persons it should not be accepted is, I suggest, to make nonsense of all tax allowances. One of my hon. Friends made it plain that some of the disabled were already helped. The war disabled and the industrial disabled are covered. But those who are incapacitated by accidents away from work or by disease, for example the disabled wife, are not covered. There is precious little fairness or equity in our present arrangements, and I challenge any hon. Gentleman opposite to deny this.

In any event, many of those who do not pay tax get help in other ways when they care for disabled relatives. They get free home help and Meals on Wheels. But the matter goes deeper than that. The right hon. Gentleman's argument presupposes that the Government are really anxious to help in other ways. They have been in office for nearly three years and all that we have heard in respect of these problems so far are words, vague promises, and a plethora of surveys.

Dr. Owen

This is absolute nonsense. The supplementary benefit has given considerable relief to those people who previously had been living on a very low level of income. The Government have given considerable reliefs.

Mr. Braine

The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point. The Government have helped that category of people who are excluded from this particular Amendment. We are talking here about a category of people who, we think, can be helped by a tax concession. They are not rich people. Those that I know are people who are struggling desperately against odds. The hon. Gentleman is a medical man, and knows this to be the case. What will happen in the autumn when the new social benefits come to be paid is that the gap between the people the Government have helped, admittedly generously and correctly, and the people whom we are seeking to help will grow even wider.

These were not arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor or the President of the Board of Trade, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who was, until recently, in charge of the social security arrangements of the Government, when they were in Opposition. That brings me to the other reason why I am disappointed and saddened by the Chief Secretary's reply. Some of us recall the passionate advocacy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially the Chancellor, during the debate on the Finance Bill of 1962. I remember the eloquent plea of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby One of the most significant remarks that he made in welcoming the then Conservative Chancellor's decision to grant relief in respect of the blind was that he thought we were at the turning point in this matter. He said that that concession, would: …pave the way to an extension of this sort of relief."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 236.] It has not done so. All these right hon. Gentlemen have held high office for nearly three years, and nothing has happened. What a gap between promise and performance! Even at this late hour, I ask the Chief Secretary whether it is possible that the Chancellor might have second thoughts on this. I do not ask him to stick to the actual words of the new Clause. Could the Chief Secretary rise and say whether the Chancellor, or he, would be able to say something further on Report about helping this deserving section of the community? I invite the Chief Secretary to rise and say whether anything will be said on Report.

Mr. Diamond

I have already made my speech and I do not want to deny the Opposition the right which it seems to seek on every Amendment of opening and closing. I, therefore, do not want to make another speech. I have drawn attention to the speeches that his right hon. and hon. Friends made during the time that he was in the Conservative Government; I have drawn attention to the fact that they gave nothing; I have drawn attention to the fact that what he is proposing will help those in this deserving category, who need help least of all in this deserving category. I have also drawn attention to the fact that he is proposing to help 10 per cent. of them. I do not think that that is the best way of using public money.

Mr. Braine

In the face of that stubborn and unhappy reply, I can think of no better description of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends than the words the wronged Catharine of Aragon used to describe Henry VIII:

"His promises were, as he then was, mighty; But his performance, as he now is, nothing." I have no option but to ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 134, Noes, 176.

Division No. 367.] AYES [5.58 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gurden, Harold Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall, John (Wycombe) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Astor, John Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Marton, Oscar
Awdry, Daniel Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bell, Ronald Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Nott, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bessell, Peter Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John Harvie Anderson, Miss Page, Graham (Crosby)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hawkins, Paul Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Blaker, Peter Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Higgins, Terence L. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Braine, Bernard Hiley, Joseph Prior, J. M. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.SirWalter Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Holland, Philip Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) Hooson, Emlyn Ridsdale, Julian
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Howell, David (Guildford) Russell, Sir Ronald
Bullus, Sir Eric Hutchison, Michael Clark Scott, Nicholas
Campbell, Gordon Iremonger, T. L. Sharples, Richard
Carlisle, Mark Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Clegg, Walter Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Tapsell, Peter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Costain, A. P. Jopling, Michael Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Kimball, Marcus Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Teeling, Sir William
Crouch, David Knight, Mrs. Jill Temple, John M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox Langford-Holt, Sir John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dalkeith, Earl of Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Dance, James Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Lubbock, Erie Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) McAdden, Sir Stephen Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Doughty, Charles MacArthur, Ian Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Drayson, G. B. Mackenzie Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Walters, Dennis
Eden, Sir John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Ward, Dame Irene
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) McMaster, Stanley Webster, David
Eyre, Reginald Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Farr, John Maddan, Martin Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marten, Neil Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. Mawby, Ray Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Clover, Sir Douglas Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Worsley, Marcus
Grant, Anthony Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Gresham Cooke, R. Monro, Hector TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grieve, Percy Montgomery, Fergus Mr. Timothy Kitson and
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. More, Jasper Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Albu, Austen Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Dell, Edmund
Anderson, Donald Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Dewar, Donald
Archer, Peter Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Armstrong, Ernest Cant, R. B. Dobson, Ray
Ashley, Jack Carmichael, Neil Doig, Peter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Carter-Jones, Lewis Driberg, Tom
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Chapman, Donald Dunnett, Jack
Barnes, Michael Coleman, Donald Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Barnett, Joel Concannon, J. D. Ellis, John
Beaney, Alan Corbet, Mrs. Freda English, Michael
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Cronin, John Ennals, David
Bidwell, Sydney Crosman, Rt. Hn. Richard Ensor, David
Bishop, E. S. Dalyell, Tam Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Booth, Albert Faulds, Andrew
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Fernyhough, E.
Boston, Terence Davidson, Arthur (Acorington) Fletcher. Ted (Darlington)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Forrester, John
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Davies, Harold (Leek) Fraser, John (Norwood)
Brooks, Edwin Davies, Ifor (Gower) Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Ginsburg, David McBride, Neil Price, William (Rugby)
Gourlay, Harry McCann, John Probert, Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) MacColl, James Rankin, John
Gregory, Arnold MacDermot, Niall Rees, Merlyn
Grey, Charles (Durham) Macdonald, A. H. Reynolds, G. W.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McKay, Mrs. Margaret Richard, Ivor
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mackintosh, John P. Roebuck, Roy
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Rose, Paul
Hamling, William McNamara, J. Kevin Ross, Rt. Hon. William
Hannan, William Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Harper, Joseph Marquand, David Ryan, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Maxwell, Robert Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Haseldine, Norman Mayhew, Christopher Sheldon, Robert
Hattersley, Roy Mellish, Robert Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hazell, Bert Mendelson, J. J. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Mikardo, Ian Slater, Joseph
Hilton, W. S. Millan, Bruce Snow, Julian
Hobden, Dermis (Brighton, K'town) Miller, Dr. M. S. Stonehouse, John
Homer, John Milne, Edward (Blyth) Swain, Thomas
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Swingler, Stephen
Hoy, James Molloy, William Taverne, Dick
Huckfield, L. Moonman, Eric Tinn, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Tomney, Frank
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Moyle, Roland Urwin, T. W.
Hynd, John Murray, Albert Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Jeger,Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&St.P'Cras,S.) Norwood, Christopher Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) O'Malley, Brian Weitzman, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oram, Albert E. Wellbeloved, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Orbach, Maurice Whitaker, Ben
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Orme, Stanley Whitlock, William
Judd, Frank Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kelley, Richard Paget, R. T. Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Park, Trevor Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Parker, John (Dagenham) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Lestor, Miss Joan Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Wyatt, Woodrow
Lipton, Marcus Pavitt, Laurence
Luard, Evan Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Pentland, Norman Mr. Howie, and
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Mr. Charles R. Morris.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)