Clause 14

HC Deb 19 June 1968 vol 766 cc1182-213

ALTERATIONS IN PERSONAL RELIEFS

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 8, leave out '£415' and insert '£450'.

I understand, Sir Eric, that we may discuss at the same time Amendment No. 9, in line 8, leave out '£665' and insert '£750'.

The Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Turton

Here we deal with tax relief for those over 65 years old with small incomes. I believe that the burden of Income Tax on the elderly during a time of inflation is one of the greatest social evils. No party succeeded in tackling this until 1957, when the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Lord Thorneycroft, introduced a Clause which exempted from Income Tax persons over 65 years of age who had, in addition to their standard National Insurance pension, no more than one and a half times the amount of the pension as additional income. That additional income is usually the increments to the National Insurance pension and other pensions, such as Service pensions or occupational pensions, or the savings that the persons concerned have made during their lifetime.

Since 1957 no Government have adjusted the relief to the proportionate scale that Lord Thorneycroft did in that year. It has been adjusted six times— not seven, as the Minister of State said in Committee. Three times it was adjusted by Conservative Governments. An attempt was made on two occasions out of three to make the adjustment to take account of the additional income apart from National Insurance pensions. This was their decision in 1962 and in 1964, but in 1963 there was the unfortunate error of not making that allowance, and I took part in the debate at the time protesting that more should be given. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) making the same point.

7.30 p.m.

Since the present Government came to power, on the three occasions when they have adjusted the limit they have made no allowance for additional income and, therefore, there has been a rapidly deteriorating position for the elderly under this tax relief and, as the Minister of State admitted upstairs, this Clause is so drafted that the amount of relief is in- creased in two successive stages by £25 whereas the increase of pension is £26.

So we have got to the degree of meanness that, far from making any adjustment for additional income, not even the rise in pension is included in the increase. Under this provision, both for the single and the married, relief now is afforded up to the amount of the pension and, in addition, three-quarters of the amount of the pension instead of being 1½ times the pension in addition to the pension. This means that more old people are paying tax more heavily than in 1957, and we must bear in mind that the purchasing power of the £ has dropped since then from 20s. to 15s., which has increased the burden on the old.

If we were to put the scale back to what Lord Thorneycroft introduced in 1957, the maximum figure for a single person should be £495 and for a married couple £943, but in these Amendments I suggest the more modest figures of £450 and £750 because I believe that at the present time the situation should be corrected by stages, and this, I think, would be a reasonable stage, which was the line the Conservative Government took in 1962 and 1964.

I beg the Committee to realise that this is a grave and growing problem. I see it continually in my constituency. For example, an agricultural worker who was not in the tax scale on P.A.Y.E. when at work and who takes on an occasional odd job in his retirement which brings him in £5 or £6 a week, finds himself having to pay about 25 per cent. of his additional earnings in tax. I think that it is a wicked sin in the present state of the country that a man whose total income is no more than £10 a week should have that small amount whittled away by tax because no Government have approached this matter in the way it was approached in 1957 and tried to get the correct relationship of tax to pension and additional income.

This can be seen more clearly when one looks at what is happening to the elderly and at their sufferings. Under the system of taxing elderly people very heavily on their pensions, more and more are having to exhaust their savings and more and more are going on to supplementary benefit. I ask the Government to look very seriously at the reports of the National Assistance Board for 1965 and the current report of the Ministry, of Social Security. The Board's report—I cannot use a later one because the Min-istry for some odd reason has not given us these figures—showed that, of the old people in the age group 65 to 69, some 16 per cent. were drawing National Assistance benefits, as they were then called, whereas in the age group of those over 80 about 33 per cent. were drawing National Assistance benefits.

This shows what is happening to the old under the present tax system. They were independent when they were in the age group 65–69 but, as time has gone on and the burden of taxation has reduced their savings, more and more of them have been driven to National Assistance. This is highlighted even more by the report of the Ministry of Social Security. It comes out with the extraordinarily high figure of over ¼ million old people over 65 having to draw supplementary benefit for the first time in the current year. This means, therefore, that the process is rapidly increasing. The increase is 270,000 in a year, with 101,000 of them being people over 75 who had managed, until last year, to exist on their pensions and savings but who last year, owing to the rising cost of living and the burden of taxation, were driven on to supplementary benefit. This is a fairly high increase for the year of 4.5 per cent. of the age group, and we should bear in mind that already in the previous year 27 per cent. of those over 75 and 33 per cent. of those over 80 were already receiving supplementary benefit. The barbarity of the present system can be appreciated.

I put forward these Amendments as a solution to this barbarous system of taxation of the elderly. I am certain that no one on either side of the Committee can tolerate this very mean increase, which is actually less than the increase in the pension and therefore is going to condemn more and more of the elderly to be taxpayers. It will be said that this concession would cost £6 million, but we have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) say that this year the Government are going to get an extra £606 million fom Income Tax payers. Surely the Government will not claim that they must have this £6 million out of the old people, most of whom are living on £8 to £10 a week. We have the situation in which, while average earnings are £20 a week, elderly people, even if they are getting under £10 a week, are having to pay Income Tax. I do not believe that anybody could support that. I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment, but I ask the Government also to review the whole taxation of elderly people. The figures which I have given show that there is need for an inquiry. I say that not from any party point of view, but because we have to consider how direct taxation is whittling away the savings of old people.

There is a weakness in the present system of age reliefs. Age reliefs start at 65, but they do not become greater as the old people get older. There ought to be a scale of age relief so that it is given to those over 65 on one scale and on a much higher scale to those over 70, those who have passed the time when they could get additional work. The hardship is not so great between 65 and 69 as it is at 70 and over. All the figures from the National Assistance Board and the Ministry of Social Security demonstrate that. The incidence of people seeking supplementary benefit becomes greater as old people get older.

If the Government cannot adopt my suggestion now or on Report, I hope that in the next Budget the Chancellor will introduce a higher rate of relief for those over 70, so that the limits are £12 a week for a single person and £20 a week for a married couple. Nobody would begrudge that to those over 70. It would mean that they could retain their savings and their independence and live their lives at that modest income without paying tax.

I hope that the Minister of State will be more forthcoming than he was in Standing Committee on a similar Amendment. The proposals in the Bill are the meanest proposals for old people put forward by any Government, with a possible exception of the Conservative Government of 1963, which made a mistake which was rectified in 1964 after we had pointed it out. We should not allow the Bill to go forward with such a mean provision which contains no adjustment for other earnings and which does not allow old people even to recoup the extra taxation on the 10s. a week increase in pension.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale (Harwich)

I apologise for coming to the debate slightly late, but I am glad to be here to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I probably have more elderly and retired people on low incomes in my constituency than there are in any other constituency. In the last three years it has been tragic to see how the value of money has gradually deteriorated and how the Government have broken the promises which they made when they first came to power and said that they believed in a strong £, when they deluded many of these old people into supporting them at the General Election. The old people believed the promises of the Labour Government not to devalue the £.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. William Baxter)

Order. The hon. Member ought not to go into the realms of devaluation. He ought to devote his attention to the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Ridsdale

I welcome this proposal to help these old people. It is not only those who are 65 who are being hit. Those in their 70s and even in their 80s need the help which the Amendment would give them. I have asked for help for them several times. I had an Adjournment debate the other day when I was three times interrupted by Mr. Speaker who said that in an Adjournment debate I could not deal with legislation. I want to express the strong feelings of the elderly and to say how much they look to those like my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who has fought so valiantly for those on small fixed incomes.

I hope that the Government will show some sympathy for some of the elderly. They should be allowed a tax-free income of £12 a week for a single person and £20 a week for a couple. Without that kind of income they have to draw on savings. I have had many pathetic letters telling me how people have had to draw on their savings because they have had no help from the Government. I cannot speak too strongly of their tragedy, which has come about because of the iniquities and failure of the Government and because of the state into which the Government have got the economy. That is why I want help to go to those who genuinely need it.

In one town in my constituency, Clacton, 19 per cent. of householders are drawing rate relief, which means that they have an income of about £500 a year. I know how much they are hit by the rising cost of living. I may not use the strong words which I ought to use to express their feelings. They look to us in the House of Commons to do something for them, and I have no hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting the Amendment so ably moved by my right hon. Friend.

Dame Irene Ward

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) moved his Amendment so clearly and in such detail. It is very difficult to raise in the House of Commons the issue of people living on small fixed incomes, and the people covered by my right hon. Friend's Amendment can be truly so described. I am particularly pleased that he mentioned the Finance Bill of 1957, because I well remember the then Chancellor, now Lord Thorneycroft, specially including a Clause dealing with this section of the community. I was pleased because, looking back, this was the first and only time in my life that a Chancellor had done something in response to action which I had taken, together with a small committee of Conservative Members.

I am always delighted to take part in debates of this kind, particularly in view of the circumstances outlined by my right hon. Friend. I notice with great grief and regret that, having spent a while discussing general matters relating to Income Tax, most Members have left the Chamber, leaving only the hard core who are concerned with those on small fixed incomes to argue their case. I listened carefully to what the Financial Secretary said when he turned down the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). He was then dealing with very large incomes and, on the whole, very prosperous people who do a great deal to maintain the economy.

I notice that the Financial Secretary, in turning down the proposals of my hon. Friend, said that he was more interested in doing something to help the lower income groups. He did not even discuss people on small fixed incomes. This is an opportunity to test the sincerity of the Government. The Financial Secretary always makes very charming and understanding speeches which get nowhere.

I know that Treasury Ministers are briefed only on the subject about which they are to speak, and do not look at the overall need for co-ordination. They never understand that if one turns down an Amendment on the grounds that it is unfair to a section of the community, say, those on lower incomes, it is important that the implicit claim in the speech for those with lower incomes is taken up later by the Treasury bench.

The Financial Secretary, having made his speech, ups and away. Have the Treasury Ministers a co-ordinated plan, so that their reasons for turning down one Amendment will be put forward as reasons for accepting another? It is intolerable for those on small fixed incomes that they should suffer in this way. It is no good closing one's eyes to this. My right hon. Friend said that if the Amendments could not be accepted now perhaps they might be embodied in the Bill on Report. I would accept that with gratitude and appreciation. He also said that they could perhaps, be incorporated in the next Budget. The Treasury must realise that these people do not have unlimited time and that they have great anxiety about their future. This is almost as important as the actual money proposals.

Mr. Turton

What I was saying about the next Budget was to do with the review of the taxation of the elderly and a special provision for relief for those over 70.

Dame Irene Ward

I do not want the Treasury Ministers to ride off by saying that they will wait until the next Budget. I am sick of waiting. These people wait and wait. It is not just the money, but the frightful anxiety which is caused. They see their savings slowly melting away. I hope that we will get a little generosity, honesty, understanding and humanity from the Treasury bench. It is no good anyone drawing attention to supplementary benefits. They have been very helpful and welcome, but at the same time people who are paying taxation are doing so because of their savings, accumulated while they were working. What encouragement is there for people now working to save when they see the plight of these people? They have been treated most shabbily, unfairly and inhumanly.

I look forward to seeing to what extent the reason of the Financial Secretary for turning down the last Amendment has been appreciated and understood, and, if it has been appreciated and understood, that this very small amount of £6 million will be forthcoming. It would be the best expenditure of money one could imagine.

We have spent hours discussing other rates of taxation and we heard speeches from the benches on this side of the Committee, with which we all agree, but which could well have been made in a few minutes, on Amendments which we knew perfectly well were not acceptable to the Government. I cannot help saying that this Recommittal stage is an absolute twist and a monstrosity of fairness and justice.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. We must not debate the merits and demerits of the Recommittal stage. We must devote our attention to the Amendments.

8.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward

I understand that, Mr. Baxter. But we are discussing these Amendments on Recommittal.

The Temporary Chairman

The Committee is aware that this is the Recommittal stage. But an Amendment has been moved, and I must ask the hon. Lady to devote her attention to it.

Dame Irene Ward

Hon. Members opposite know that by taking so long over the last Amendments they have denied the people of this country the right to have their grievances discussed on recommittal. I am determined to say what I have to say so that it shall be on the record. Do you want to get up again, Mr. Baxter?

The Temporary Chairman

The hon. Lady must contain herself. The Chairman has a duty to act according to the rules laid down by the House of Commons. He must guide the Committee to the best of his ability. That is what I am attempting to do. I hope that the hon. Lady will pay heed to my Ruling.

Dame Irene Ward

I shall be delighted to do so, Mr. Baxter. I hoped that the Government would pay attention to the desire of the Committee and would not twist the Committee.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. My Ruling has nothing to do with what the Government might say or do. I am carrying out the rules, irrespective of party. The first duty of a Chairman is to conduct the affairs of the Committee as impartially as possible. I hope that the hon. Lady will not again make remarks such as those which she has made about the position of the Chair.

Dame Irene Ward

I will not do so, Mr. Baxter. I am glad that what I have said will be on the record.

I support the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I am glad that, having sat here for hours, he has been able to put them before the Committee. I look forward with great interest to listening to the speech of the Treasury spokesman and to his accepting the Amendments. I hope that the Committee will not be called upon to vote against the Government but that there will be agreement to what is embodied in the Amendment— some real hope for those who are finding the heat and burden of today more than they can bear.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on her moving speech. For many years she has fought for the cause of elderly people living on small fixed incomes.

I should also like to say how delighted I am that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has moved the Amendment, which gives us a short opportunity to discuss the plight of those living on fixed incomes at the present time.

I am sure that, like myself, many hon. Members have received over the last few weeks, since the Budget and since devaluation, a large amount of correspondence from elderly people setting out their great concern about the future. I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget, raised the elderly exemption limit from £390 to £415 for single people and from £625 to £665 for married couples. I have also read the speech which the Minister of State made in Committee. It seems to me from his words that his gesture was not so much a recognition of the difficulties of elderly people living on small fixed incomes but a routine matter to bring the exemption limit into line with the recent increase in National Insurance pensions.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

What was the allowance when the Labour Party came to power in 1964?

Mr. Nott

I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the exemption limit in the Budget.

Mr. Dempsey

What was it before?

Mr. Nott

I am not here to act as a Parliamentary reference book for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dempsey

The hon. Member is making a speech.

Mr. Nott

This is not relevant to my speech. I said that the Chancellor had raised the limit, and I am glad that he has done so. But he has done it—and this was a reason enunciated by the Minister of State in Committee—to bring it into line with the recent increase in National Insurance pensions.

For this reason there is a burden on the supporters of the Amendment to answer some of the points made by the Minister of State in Committee. It is for us to justify an increase in the allowance to the level suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton because—and this was one of the points made by the Minister of State— it would take the allowance for an elderly married couple considerably beyond the tax allowance for a married couple with a young child.

In Committee, the Minister of State made the point that a married couple with a young child begins paying tax at £585 whereas an elderly married couple begins paying tax at £625. He also pointed out that a young married couple who may be living in considerable poverty at these levels has to contribute to National Insurance and other funds to which elderly couples are not subject. There is, therefore, a burden on those who speak to the Amendment to show why an elderly married couple should be entitled to a greater tax allowance than a young married couple with a child.

The reason, I think, is this—and perhaps here I am anticipating the Minister's reply. The young have their life before them and they can make or mar it by the way in which they conduct themselves over later years. Although young married couples are subject to the frustrations and increasing pressures of modern life, they can, within reason, move their place of work and residence; they are relatively mobile. If they do not like the bungling interference of a Socialist state and the lack of incentive which always go with it, they are even free to emigrate, which is what they are doing in increasing numbers.

But that option is not equally open to the elderly. The elderly and retired are essentially, or frequently, the prisoners of their environment. They are not mobile to the same extent as young married couples. They are, to a greater degree than young married couples, the captive customers: of the nationalised industries— of increasing electricity prices, postal charges and bus fares. They do not have quite the equal opportunity of young married couples to make a choice of car or bus. The elderly cannot, very often, because some of them are disabled, work off their frustrations at a football match or in a pub in the way that most young married couples can. All that these elderly people ask—and it is not asking a lot—is that the last years of their life can be spent in contented retirement reasonably immune from the pressure to which they have been subjected throughout their working life.

I dwelt on that point at length because the Minister of State made it his principal objection in Committee to the granting of an additional relief to the elderly. Quoting, I think, his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), he said that it would unbalance the tax structure if elderly people were given a much bigger tax allowance than young married people. That was one of the principal reasons why he turned down the Amendment in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton has said, the present Amendment would cost only about £6 million to £10 million. Let us say that it would be £10 million. I do not deny that it is a substantial sum. I believe, however, that whereas in most cases of taxation, if one were to put the matter to the country, people would throw up their hands in horror and say, "We have had enough", if the case were put for the raising of a tax allowance on people over the age of 65 earning a very small income the country would be more than happy to find an extra £6 million to raise the tax exemption by the small amount proposed.

One is tempted to go into a long recital about the way in which the cost of living is likely to rise over the current year. I shall not do that, because it has been debated on many previous occasions and many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. Let us say, however, that the cost of living this year will rise by between 5 and 7 per cent. The relevant point is that if the cost of living rises 5 per cent. this year the essential requisites of the elderly over the age of 65—in particular, food, heat and light—will show a greater rise as a proportion of their budget during the current year, mainly as a result of the Chancellor's Budget proposals and devaluation, than would be the case with the budget of a younger person.

I know that hon. Members are fully aware of the plight of elderly people. They must be aware of it because I am sure that, like myself, they have seen it and have received a growing volume of correspondence on the subject. My plea is only that, for once, we should have some practical recognition of this problem from the Treasury Bench and that the Chancellor should not simply make a gesture, as he has done in the Bill, by bringing these allowances in line with the increase in National Insurance pensions, but should recognise the principle for which my right hon. Friend was fighting in moving his Amendment, namely, that the tax allowances for elderly people should be considerably greater than that for the younger sections of the population. I hope sincerely that he will recognise this and accept the Amendments.

Mr. Pardoe

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I do not entirely agree with the Utopian picture which he has sketched of freedom of environment enjoyed by young married couples. It is a splendid debating point but I am not quite sure that it exists.

I wholeheartedly support the two Amendments and I believe that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has made his case for them. Certainly, so far as he related them to pension increases, I believe his case to be unanswerable. He has, however,—and the same would be true of all of us who partake in this debate—said very little about the real needs of the elderly. The reason for that is that we simply do not know very much about a financial requirement of those who are growing older. Do we accept, for instance, that their financial needs steadily increase? The whole principle enshrined in this exemption, which was introduced some years ago, is that a person on a given income requires a greater amount after tax after the age of 65 than he or she required before.

8.15 p.m.

I am one of those who find it extremely difficult to work out my own tax, but, as far as I can calculate the difference, if we take the exemption limits in the various years, the difference between a middle-aged couple on the limit and an old couple over the age of 65 would have amounted in 1964, when the limit was £575, to about £36 10s. a year. The Minister of State will be able to correct me if my figures are wrong. In 1967, assuming that a middle-aged couple before the age of 65 had an income of £643, the difference on that limit would have been £50 18s. Under the proposal in this year's Finance Bill, it is £57 10s. That is an increase in the differential between those who have not yet retired and those who have retired at the given level of income.

Do we know, however, on what that differential has been based? Have we done the necessary research to ascertain exactly the financial requirements of growing older? I maintain that the necessary research has not been done. Do we assume, for example, that people of the age of 70 require a greater exemption than those of 65, and so on, so that the needs of people increase as they become older? I do not find this to have been proved. I suspect that it is true but I have no basic research, and nor have the Government, to prove it.

Therefore, even if the Government feel unable—but I hope they will not—to accept the Amendments, I hope that the Minister will say that at least they will undertake a thorough study into the financial requirements of the elderly, particularly as to their needs increasing as they become older.

There is also the point, which is relevant to the Amendments, that there is a growing body of opinion, to which I subscribe, in favour of the need for gradual retirement and that, therefore, we should arrange our taxation incentives for retirement as well as pensions to make retirement gradual instead of sudden. Nevertheless, I support the Amendments not basically on statistical grounds, because we have few statistics to guide us, but because I know the hardship of many people living on small fixed incomes in my constituency, which is very much an area where people come to retire. They need this help.

There are other forms of help which might be given. I have suggested on previous occasions that the Government should consider giving these people advice on investments. When, for example, they apply to the Supplementary Benefits Commission and it transpires that their capital is above the eligibility limit for supplementary benefits, it is sometimes found that their money is invested at extremely low rates of interest, often in the Post Office, I am sorry to say. Advice might be given to those people.

The Minister might consider, for instance, the possibility of setting up an annuity fund whereby the Government would acquire small houses under £5,000 and provide an annuity in exchange. In the Amendment, however, we are discussing a specific measure of help which could be given and which would not cost a great deal when measured beside other priorities in Government expenditure. I emphasise again my hope that the Government will undertake the general kind of review that I have indicated.

My final point is that we should think carefully about the effect which Amendments of this nature and the type of exemptions which we are discussing have on savings generally.

The Treasury is being bombarded with advice from all quarters on how to encourage savings, which, of course, we want to encourage. It may be—and this again calls for full investigation—that the exemption advocated in the Amendment would substantially increase the incentive to small savers. I am not talking about people who save £50,000; I am talking about people who save fairly small amounts. We might then consider whether all small savings should be exempted, certainly those at a small income level, from Income Tax. On those grounds I support the Amendments, which I believe will go some way to alleviating the hardship which I know exists in my own constituency.

Mr. Cronin

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has put forward an attractive suggestion that the Government should institute a social survey into the needs of old people. There is a tendency for the Treasury in its fiscal policy rôle to operate in terms of rule-of-thumb so far as human beings are concerned. They have economists who no doubt give them immense help on the broad movements of the economy, but the actual needs and hardships of individual groups of people from the point of view of social science do not get sufficient attention from the Treasury.

Most hon. Members on the Committee do not need a social survey to teach them what are the needs of old people. With a few exceptions, we know from our constituencies beyond all doubt that it is a bad thing to be old. Old people are usually poor, usually unwell, usually neglected, and anything that can be done by the Committee to help old people must receive careful consideration by the Treasury. For this reason I would like to compliment the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on having introduced the Amendment. I thought he and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) were a little harsh towards the Chancellor in referring to meanness on his part. After all, he has done something, he has raised the limits from £401 to £415 and from £643 to £665, which is something, but it is not enough. Perhaps the Minister of State when he winds up will tell us the cost of implementing the Amendment. It is an Amendment on which the Government might reasonably make a conces- sion, infrequent as it is for Governments to make concessions in the course of Finance Bills, whichever Government it is.

The reasons for the Amendment are two. There is an economic reason and a compassionate reason. The Amendment applies to two groups of people over the age of 65. It applies to the man who, on reaching the age of 65, is compulsorily retired from his firm and suffers an immense drop in his income. He may be a person who was earning £20 a week, and when his income drops to about one-third of that he is plunged into relative poverty and considerable distress. If that man is in good physical condition he can do some additional useful work of great economic value to the country. A woman can do babysitting, helping with the children; a man can do numerous part-time jobs.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is very desirable, but the incidence of S.E.T. makes it more and more difficult for such people to be employed.

Mr. Cronin

I will not go into the matter of S.E.T., although I should be happy to do so, because you, Mr. Baxter, would rapidly call me to order. No doubt on a later occasion the hon. Gentleman will put his own views about this.

The Amendment has an excellent economic effect by giving an incentive to healthy retired people to make a positive contribution to the economy and to their own wellbeing. On pure economic grounds the Amendment is to be recommended for its incentive effect of inducing retired people to do some useful work.

The second group of persons over the age of 65 are those unfortunate people whose health will not permit them to continue to work. One of the tragedies of this century is that, although there have been tremendous advances in surgery and antibiotics, with the result that the expectation of life has been increased, there has been little or no advance in those degenerative diseases which make the lives of many elderly people a burden by causing failing mental health, failing hearts, failing circulations. The inability to continue to earn an income and to keep themselves in reasonable comfort prevents them from making a contribution to the community, which is so important for their mental wellbeing. These people should have our particular sympathy. I agree with the hon. Lady that we should not think too much about supplementary benefits. Too many supplementary benefits are not claimed.

A change in the Clause relevant to Income Tax allowances would be well worth considering. It would be a gesture of compassion which would be greatly appreciated. We have all seen in our constituencies elderly people who are living in squalor and discomfort as the result of financial hardship. Here is an opportunity for the Government to alleviate this financial hardship, and this is an opportunity which should be taken.

Mr. Michael Shaw

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to bring forward the Amendment which I support. Although it was discussed in Committee, we had not at that stage the advantage of his great experience and that of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). This shows the value of the whole House sitting as a Committee.

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the plight of old people. I have many in my own constituency. Until one talks to them privately, one does not realise what a drop in living standards they have had to endure. They may appear to be comfortably off, wearing good clothes, and their attitude in life may seem to represent comfort. It is only when one goes behind the scenes and talks to them privately that one realises that they have had their clothes for many years. Their circumstances may have altered by the death of their husbands, and their incomes are fixed incomes. Usually, they are in Government stock bought at 100 and now worth considerably less. Prices are rising all the time, but their incomes are not. Therefore, all elderly people in this category whose incomes are small deserve the special treatment that has been given to them since 1957, and we should make sure that, wherever we can, we help in this matter and continue to give appropriate increases.

8.30 p.m.

That leads me on to the topic of the debate in Standing Committee. It is fair to point out that the Minister of State gave a rather different reason for granting these rises from those given by my right hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Gentleman said: It was raised on this occasion, as on almost every other occasion in the past, to prevent those who have a pension increase from having to come into the taxable category. That is the reason for our proposals, and it is totally at variance with separate proposals now being made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th May, 1968; c. 185.] I understand from my right hon. Friend that, except for one occasion, it has been the practice in the past to raise it rather more than that to take into account the other factors which he enumerated. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman owes an explanation to the Committee about the difference between his earlier answer and the explanation given today so eloquently by my right hon. Friend.

In an intervention in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, I claimed that, in reviewing this matter, it was fair to look at the expected rise in the cost of living. I still believe that. On that occasion, I asked him what was the Government expectation of the rise in the cost of living this year and if it was the same as was anticipated at the time of the Budget.

On 26th March, the Financial Secretary dealt with the forecast of the increase in the cost of living, and said: 'It is not customary to disclose detailed forecasts of prices. However, I see no reason to modify the Government's earlier estimate that devaluation will raise the retail prices index by about 3 per cent. I estimate that the tax measures in my right hon. Friend's Budget will add about 1½ per cent. to the index by the end of this year".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1968; Vol. 761, c. 238.] That means a rise of about 4½ per cent. by the end of this year.

In today's Daily Telegraph, there is an article by its City Editor headed, " Budget assumptions overturned ". Among other things, it says: The Budget was also based on the proposition that there would have to be a cut in consumer's real income. This has already happened. Do not the consumers know it! It goes on: Retail prices have now risen more (by over 4 per cent.) since the pre-devaluation month of October than basic hourly wage rates (up by about 3½ per cent.). Already we have an increase of about 4½ per cent., and, looking ahead, clearly the figure will be well over the expected 4½ per cent. by the end of the year.

In reviewing what should be done to help people on small fixed incomes, it is clear that account should be taken of the fact that the cost of living will go up much more than was thought when the Bill was published in March. Surely this is the moment to take account of that fact, before it is too late. Now is our chance to put the matter right, and I hope that hon. Members will support my right hon. Friend's Amendment and see if we cannot bring justice to bear on this matter.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne)

Hon. Members on both sides have made very persuasive speeches in favour of this Amendment. Many hon. Members, who have persistently championed this cause, have made deeply sincere speeches. One cannot listen to such speeches without sympathy for the viewpoint put forward. It may be that certain aspects require more information, though I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that the plight of the elderly is serious.

There is a tendency for hon. Members on both sides to say that there must be the most elaborate social studies of a kind which, while in general desirable, should not necessarily be conclusive of the way in which tax problems should be approached.

I should like to consider the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). For example, the question of advice on investment seems a good suggestion, though it is not for me in my Department to pursue it.

The main question was whether one should increase the present amount of tax relief for the benefit of the elderly as a special category of taxpayers. The issue to be faced on this point was faced only by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott). I do not think that one can look at this matter in isolation and argue that one category of taxpayers must have special exemption without considering the whole picture.

The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) complained that different Treasury Ministers looked only at different sections of the Finance Bill and never co-ordinated their efforts. One can make the criticism of those who move Amendments that one must look at the whole picture. One must look at different meritorious cases in trying to ascertain the priorities.

Looking at the picture in general, apart from the special taxation position which exists under this Bill, one cannot neglect the fact that there is already tax discrimination in favour of old people. This is defensible. There is something in the argument put forward by the hon. Member for St. Ives that young people still have their lives ahead of them. While they may not be as free as birds, as he seemed to suggest, I share the view of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North—

Mr. Nott rose—

Mr. Taverne

While many of them may have little choice, nevertheless there is clearly a difference to be drawn between young people with their lives ahead of them and old people who are settled and have come to the end of their lives. But how far should one take this difference? Already the discrimination between the two groups is considerable. I gave one example in Standing Committee to which I must go back, because the hon. Member for St. Ives referred to it. A young couple have much greater responsibilities than old people. A young couple with a child to support, National Insurance contributions to pay, meals at work and fares, start paying tax on an income of £585, whereas an old couple, with none of these burdens, start paying tax on an income, with the extra relief granted under the Bill, of £665. That is a considerable discrimination in favour of the older couple, and I do not think one can disregard the fact that it exists. We must, therefore, ask whether it is really desirable to increase this differential still further?

Mr. Nott

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that a young couple have to pay for travelling to work, they have to pay National Insurance contributions, and so on, but he did not mention that they receive family allowances and certain other items which the elderly do not. To get a proper balance the hon. and learned Gentleman should refer also to those items which a young married couple receive but which an elderly couple do not.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

My hon. and learned Friend could add that aged people have a number of commitments which young people do not have to meet. When people get old they need more coal, they are more prone to illness, and they need such things as extra milk and special foods. Elderly people have a number of commitments which do not apply to young people.

Mr. Taverne

To some extent the case has been overstated, because if a young couple have a child to support, the burdens are considerable. That young child needs milk and special food, and because there is only one child no allowance is paid. I am not denying that there is a case for giving older pensioners special treatment, but I am saying that many younger couples have to bear additional burdens, and one cannot carry the discrimination too far. We must look at the picture as a whole. We must take into account the number of pensioners who are not within the range of being taxed at all. If one looks at the position as a whole, one does not necessarily reach the conclusion that pensioners should be the top priority for relief from taxation.

My second and main point relates to the special position which arises under the Bill and in the present economic situation. It may not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that this Budget is not notable for the amount of additional tax relief that it gives.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North-West)

That is the understatement of the year.

Mr. Taverne

Indeed, it could not be. One cannot disregard the economic situation, and the cost of any concession. It is not possible to ignore the fact that the cost of this concession would be £6 million this year, and £10 million in a full year. One cannot merely say that that is a small sum which can be ignored. The cost is the major reason why, although this and many other Amendments have merit, I cannot ask the Committee to accept them.

As I explained in Committee, the object of raising the application of the tax range in respect of the elderly is not to deal specifically with their plight. What has been done is broadly in line with the previous rises in the exemption limits for the aged. I have the figures for the rises in previous years. I cannot give the exact amount of the pensions increases in each of those years, but I am assured that while there may have been a slight marginal excess of the rise in exemption over the increase in the pension, in all the previous rises, with the exception of that in 1964, the difference broadly reflected the increase in the pension. I understand that the exception was 1962, when the rise was delayed from a pension increase in the previous year.

Mr. Turton

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to mislead the Committee so grossly as that. What he really means is that in the one year which I mentioned, 1963, it was related to the rise in the pension. On every other occasion when a Conservative Government increased the limit it was more than the rise in the pension. Every time the Socialist Government have increased the limit it has been less than the rise in the pension.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

I cannot argue in detail with the right hon. Gentleman about 1963, but I am told that broadly—with perhaps a marginal difference—the increase in the exemption was related to the increase in the pension. The basic purpose was exactly the same as in the case of this increase. It is a reasonable purpose, namely, that if a certain category of old-age pensioner who is just below the tax exemption limit—and therefore who has another sort of income—receives an increase in the basic State pension which would bring him within taxable range, it would be unjust if part of his increase in pension were taken away through the incidence of taxation.

The difference between the increase and the exemption rate increase is very small—£25 in the case of a single man or woman compared with £26. We cannot say that a major part of the pension will be taken away through taxation. In the case of a married couple the increase is £40 compared with an increase of £41 12s.

Dame Irene Ward

The hon. and learned Gentleman is talking now about quite new arrangements and new ways of assessing this problem. Whatever he says, when he leaves the seat on which he is now sitting I suggest that he reads the report of the debate in 1957 and discovers the reason why the then Chancellor—now Lord Thorneycroft—inserted this provision in the Finance Bill. It was to help the elderly people and had nothing to do with all this mixture about the business of pensions. It was straight help to elderly people living on small fixed incomes. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would like me to do so I can look up the report of the speech and send it to him, with a charming note.

Mr. Taverne

The hon. Lady's notes, like her speeches, are always charming and courteous. I look forward enormously to the charming correspondence which will no doubt ensue.

When the original exemption was made it was not related to a pension increase. That was when the whole thing started. At that lime the difference between the non-pensioner and the pensioner in terms of the tax discrimination in favour of the pensioner was very much less than it is today. But the basic reason for the majority of pension increases since then —and certainly the reason for this one— is to prevent a rise in pension leading to new categories of taxpayers.

The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Michael Shaw) asked whether the reason for the increase in the pension was to compensate for the rise in the cost of living. Whether or not the cost of living is exactly in accordance with the Budget forecast is not immediately material to the reason for the rise in exemption. I cannot give the hon. Member the detailed cost of living estimates, and what he said rather suggested that no fixed forecasts of this kind are ever made. But that is not the reason for the Government's raising the exemption limit, and it would not be a reason for altering it, since, as it is related to the pension increase, it is the pension increase which is the determining factor.

Mr. Michael Shaw

At least the hon. and learned Gentleman will now admit that the forecasts will not be borne out by the events.

Mr. Taverne

I do not think that this is correct, but one cannot answer unless carefully prepared, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether it is within a half a per cent. of so of the original forecast. But nothing has happened which puts it out of line with what was envisaged when the Budget was decided on.

The right hon. Gentleman said that no account was taken, in the rise in exemption, of additional income. He is not correct, because the pensioner who has only his State pension pays no tax and the increase of the exemption rate is for the benefit of those with some additional income. It is also true that it is not only those immediately within the categories of the exemption rise who are benefitted: there is also some marginal relief benefiting some additional pensioners.

The basic issues here are simple. Should we treat this as something unrelated to the pension increase and generally designed to help old-age pensioners in a limited category, at the middle and not the bottom of the scale, and can we afford this at the moment, or is it related to the pension increase, which is how the Government have approached it and how the rise is justified? I understand the feelings behind the Amendment. Of course a great deal of sympathy has been aroused by the plight of those on whose behalf speeches have been made, but the two major reasons for not accepting the Amendments are the cost of £10 million in a full year and £6 million in this year, and the approach to this matter, which is to relate it to the pension increase.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) moved his Amendment in model fashion. He has much to teach the House about making a short speech, absolutely comprehensive and fair, with all the necessary information. It is not necessary to repeat his figures. Where there is a dispute between him and the Government on figures, his great expertise in this matter is to be preferred.

The value of this relief, as of all reliefs, is dwindling, but it is no argument to say that because the value of other reliefs is dwindling nothing shall be done to stabilise the value of this one. When we discussed this matter in Committee, the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) expressed himself most dissatisfied with the Government's attitude, and he and his inseparable companion, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), abstained in the Division. Tonight, we do not have the benefit of their presence. We cannot complain of that. Having been members of the repertory company upstairs, it is perhaps too much to expect them to join the No. 1 touring company now.

Instead, we have the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and his neighbour, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who both expressed themselves dissatisfied with the Government. We hope that they will imitate the brave example of the two inseparable twins in Committee and abstain—because vote we shall and must on this Amendment.

The Minister of State was perfectly clear and frank, saying that the purpose of this tiny raising of the exemption limits was not to take account of the inflation which is rampant or the fall in the value of money. It was simply to prevent a number of persons from being brought into the tax bracket who might otherwise be brought in because of the raising of the retirement pension, and for no other purpose. On that basis, his figures cannot be faulted, tiny though they are.

But since we are raising these reliefs, we should raise them more for the purpose which he eschews; namely, of doing something to restore the value of this relief in real terms. It would be monstrous at this time not to do that. I am amazed at the moderation of the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who has deliberately rejected the temptation of trying to restore its full value. Instead, he wishes to restore half its value, since to restore it to its full value would mean putting up the figure to £495 for a single person and a corresponding increase for a married couple. My right hon. Friend has shown that he accepts the need for sacrifices all round, and he is therefore seeking only a moderate increase in the relief, to somewhat restore the position which these people had 10 years ago.

The Minister of State objects to this. He says, first, that it would discriminate against the young couple. I will not go into that again, except to say that the feeling on both sides has been against him in this argument. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) demonstrated clearly that old people do not have the same options open to them. The old are captives and, if there is to be any preference, it should be shown to them. They are the first who should have any money that is going.

The Minister's second argument is that of cost—that this would cost £6 million this year and £10 million in a full year. When the Chancellor presented his Budget he increased taxation by over £900 million. All commentators were amazed at the degree of that increase and most of them had thought that it would be about £700 million. One assumed that the right hon. Gentleman had increased taxation by such a large amount so that he would have some leeway to provide himself with a cushion by which to make the sort of concessions that Chancellors make when Finance Bills are being discussed.

What concessions have we had? Virtually none. We have had none of the concessions one normally expects from a Chancellor. In the global figure of the increase of over £900 million one would have thought that a concession of £6 million to £10 million was not asking too much, yet even a pittance is reiected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) said, it is a shame that these people should wait and wait and get nothing. For these, among other, reasons I hope that my hon. Friends will take the matter to a Division.

Mr. Turton

I have listened to six debates on this issue in different Parliaments, but never in my experience have I heard such a mean speech as the one which came from the Minister of State. I give him full marks for his advocate's skill in presenting what I believe to be a false case. I give him no marks for his knowledge of the subject. He did not even know what the National Insurance benefits were for the relevant years. I will supply him with the information.

9.0 p.m.

In 1963, the Conservative Government increased the limit to £5 over the rise in the National Insurance benefit. In the next year—they made an error as I said earlier—they increased it only by the amount of the National Insurance benefit rise. In 1964, after long debates in Committee and on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and I persuaded the Government to raise the limit by £35 over what was then a pension not increased. That is the gravamen of our charge.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is all related to the National Insurance pension. In saying that, he destroys; his own argument, because if it were only the National Insurance Pension there would be no tax. But the tax is there, because these elderly people have their own other small pensions—pensions from serving their country, Service pensions, Civil Service pensions, the pittances in the form of railway workers' pensions. That is all taken into account. As there was a lowering in the value of money, so Conservative Governments sought to increase this margin.

The other argument used by the Minister of State was: "What about the young people?" That difference between these elderly people and the young is that the young have the opportunity to earn more. These elderly people cannot earn any more, so that every £ of tax which the Minister of State meanly takes from them means that they have a lower standard of living: they are thrown increasingly, under this Government, on the supplementary benefit provided by the Ministry of Social Security.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked from a sitting posture: "What is the difference for these old people between the time when the Socialist came into power and today?". The answer is that when the Socialists came into power this exemption relief amounted to twice the value of

the pension and a little over. Today, under the Minister of State's directive, after this Division, it will remain at only one and three-quarters the size of the pension—

Mr. Dempsey

The second biggest increase.

Mr. Turton

It is no good the hon. Member talking about the increase in the pension. As money drops in value it is these old people who suffer from the loss in their pension. Year by year under this Government the lot of these old people has got worse. If the Government refuse our request I hope that the Committee will vote for the Amendment. Until we get a change of Government, the lot of these old people living on fixed incomes will not be improved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The Minister of State told the Committee that this Amendment would cost £6 million in this year and £10 million in a subsequent year. This may seem a large amount, but is this his major reason—he mentioned others—for opposing the Amendment? I ask because I have been reading reports that the Government intend to find about £2 million per year to give to some other old-age pensioners in another place, plus a tax free allowance of 4½ guineas a day. If I vote against the Amendment, I want my hon. and learned Friend's definite assurance that he will not give those people £2 million per year while precluding these ordinary pensioners from getting £6 million in this year. If he can give me that assurance, I will go with him.

Mr. Taverne

My hon. Friend is, I know, very interested in the reform of another place, but he knows perfectly well that I can give him no assurance about what will or will not be done.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 179.

Division No. 221.]	AYES	[9.5 p.m.
Astor, John	Bossom, Sir Clive	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Crowder, F. P.
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Currie, C. B. H.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Oalkeith, Earl of
Bell, Ronald	Bullus, Sir Eric	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Biffen, John	Burden, F. A.	Eden, Sir John
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Black, Sir Cyril	Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Errington, sir Eric
Blaker, Peter	Clegg, Walter	Farr, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Cordle, John	Fisher, Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Royle, Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Russell, Sir Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain	Scott-Hopkins, James
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McMaster, Stanley	Sharples, Richard
Goodhart, Philip	Maddan, Martin	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Gower, Raymond	Maude, Angus	Sinclair, Sir George
Grant, Anthony	Mawby, Ray	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Stainton, Keith
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Miscampbell, Norman	Summers, Sir Spencer
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Monro, Hector	Tapsell, Peter
Heseltine, Michael	Montgomery, Fergus	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Higgins, Terence L.	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Temple, John M.
Hiley, Joseph	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Holland, Philip	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Tilney, John
Hornby, Richard	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hunt, John	Nott, John	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Onslow, Cranley	Vickers, Dame Joan
Iremonger, T. L.	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Walters, Dennis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Ward, Dame Irene
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Pardoe, John	Webster, David
Jopling, Michael	Peel, John	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Percival, Ian	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Kershaw, Anthony	Pink, R. Bonner	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Pounder, Rafton	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kirk, Peter	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Pym, Francis	Wylie, N. R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Quennell Miss J. M.	Younger, Hn. George
Lane, David	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Lubbock, Eric	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacArthur, Ian	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Mr. Jasper More and
		Mr. Reginald Eyre.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Ensor, David	Leadbitter, Ted
Albu, Austen	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Anderson, Donald	Faulds, Andrew	Lestor, Miss Joan
Archer, Peter	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Foley, Maurice	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Loughlin, Charles
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Ford, Ben	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Beaney, Alan	Forrester, John	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Bence, Cyril	Freeson, Reginald	McBride, Neil
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Galpern, Sir Myer	McCann, John
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Garrett, W. E.	MacDermot, Niall
Bishop, E. S.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Macdonald, A. H.
Blackburn, F.	Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	McGuire, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Mackintosh, John P
Booth, Albert	Gregory, Arnold	Maclennan, Robert
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Grey, Charles (Durham)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Brooks, Edwin	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	McNamara, J. Kevin
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Griffiths, Eddie	MacPherson, Malcolm
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Manuel, Archie
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mason Rt. Hn. Roy
Coe, Denis	Hamling, William	Mendelson, J. J.
Coleman, Donald	Harman, William	Millan, Bruce
Concannon, J. D.	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Conlan, Bernard	Haseldine, Norman	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hazell, Bert	Morgan,' Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Cronin, John	Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Moyle, Roland
Dalyell, Tarn	Homer, John	Neal, Harold
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Newens, Stan
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Norwood, Christopher
Delargy, Hugh	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Oakes, Gordon
Dell, Edmund	Howie, W.	O'Maley, Brian
Dempsey, James	Huckfield, Leslie	Orme, Stanley
Dewar, Donald	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Oswald, Thomas
Diamond, Rt Hn. John	Hunter, Adam	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Dickens, James	Hynd, John	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Dobson, Ray	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Doig, Peter	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Palmer, Arthur
Driberg, Tom	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Dunn, James A.	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Rov (Stechford)	Park, Trevor
Dunnett, Jack	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Eadie, Alex	Judd, Frank	Pavitt, Laurence
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Ellis, John	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
English, Michael	Lawson, George	Pentland, Norman

Price, William (Rugby)	Spriggs, Leslie	Whitlock, William
Probert, Arthur	Symonds, J. B.	Wilkins, W. A.
Randall, Harry	Taverne, Dick	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rankin, John	Tinn, James	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Rees, Merlyn	Tomney, Frank	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Urwin, T. W.	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Robertton, John (Paisley)	Varley, Eric G.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	Woodbum, Rt. Hn. A.
Sheldon, Robert	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Woof, Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Wallace, George	Yates, Victor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Silverman, Julius	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Small, William	Whitaker, Ben	Mr. Harry Gourlay and
Snow, Julian	White, Mrs. Eirene	Mr. Alan Fitch

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put forthwith pursuant to Order [11th June], and agreed to.