SEVERELY DISABLED PERSONS

HC Deb 16 July 1969 vol 787 cc623-47

The Minister of Transport may by regulations made by Statutory Instrument provide that, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, a mechanically-propelled vehicle shall not be chargeable with any duty under the Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1949, by reason of any use made of it for the purpose of conveying a severely disabled person, where the vehicle in question has been specifically and extensively adapted for conveying such a person and where the nature of that person's disability is such as to preclude him from making use of an invalid carriage to which otherwise he would be entitled.—[Mr. Maurice Macmillan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

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

I understand that we are considering, at the same time, new Clause 22—Vehicles belonging to disabled persons—standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight): A person who is so disabled that his vehicle must be fitted with hand controls shall qualify for exemption under section 11 of the Finance Act, 1964; and new Clause 32—Extension of tax relief for the blind to other seriously disabled persons—standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue): Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1962, as amended by section 10 of the Finance Act, 1965 (Relief for blind persons) shall also apply to any other substantially disabled person, which means a person who is deaf, dumb or otherwise substantially handicapped by loss of physical or mental faculty provided that person requires constant attendance by reason of the loss of physical or mental faculty. I hope that the House will acquit me of discourtesy if I leave after a short while to attend another committee meeting which our late start has caused to clash with discussion of new Clause 13. The objective of the Clause is to grant road tax exemption to certain rather limited classes of severely disabled persons and to lessen the burden on such persons, many of whom are now totally immobile because of the difficulties with which they are especially faced.

The people to whom this applies are those whose mobility is dependent on travelling as passengers in private transport. We are, therefore, concerned here with a relatively small number of people and the cost is likely to be very small. The wording of the new Clause would strictly limit the number of persons to whom it could be applied for two reasons. The first is for ease of administration and definition and the second is to make it clear that there can be no increase to potential costs through abuse, through creating precedents, or through any form of escalation.

The limitation is twofold. We ask this concession only for people who fulfil two conditions. The first is that they are so severely disabled as to be unable to use an invalid carriage to which they would otherwise be entitled. This means that, by definition, they cannot use public transport. The second condition is that the vehicle for which we are seeking road tax exemption, in which they are to travel as passengers, shall be so adapted for disabled persons as to be completely identifiable. This means that it has to have a hoist for a wheelchair or other form of extensive alteration which is already a criterion.

We seek this exemption because, among all those who have the misfortune to be physically or mentally disabled, these are people for whom nothing has as yet been done to help or encourage or enable them to leave their own homes. They are not a large group. It is estimated that between 1,000 and 1,250 would be directly affected by the Clause. The estimated cost is between £25,000 and £30,000 in a year. But the concession would give a great deal of benefit and remove a serious anomaly, because these people cannot use any form of public transport, such as a ship, train or aircraft, without first having to use private transport to get there from their homes, and they are by definition unable to use an invalid carriage. They are equally obviously unable to use a bus, tube or any other kind of local public transport. They are, therefore, dependent entirely on their own resources as passengers.

Secondly, they are the only people among the disabled who get no help for any form of outdoor mobility—the others getting help with the servicing of invalid cars, and so on. The new Clause would only partly reduce the anomaly—an anomaly whereby the State gives help to the disabled man to get himself out of doors if he can drive an invalid carriage himself, but not to those more severely disabled who cannot drive themselves.

This is a ludicrous anomaly in some ways and one which could be eliminated without very much increase in cost to the State. The costs to the individual are now very high. With purchase tax at over 36 per cent. on vehicles, 4s. 6d. tax on petrol and the road fund tax at £25 it is possible for a disabled person in this sort of category to be paying in tax now between £100 and £110 a year to remain mobile. We are asking that part of the costs—the vehicle licence duty—should be removed from them.

What about the cost of such concessions? The Joint Committee on the Mobility of the Disabled has made an elaborate calculation indicating that the persons who would be affected by the limited concessions sought in new Clause 13 would number between 1,000 and 1,250. I will not weary the Committee with all the details of these calculations, which seem to have been done with scrupulosity and conservatism as to the numbers. It is true that, if the provisions of the other Clauses we are debating with new Clause 13 were accepted and a more generous definition agreed to, the numbers might rise to between 1,750 people and 2,500. But even this will not be crippling.

The actual cost, on the same figures as those of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, is not more than in new Clause No. 13 alone, between £25,000 and £30,000 a year, which, if the pro- visions were extended in the more generous way presupposed in other new Clauses, might rise to between £60,000 and £65,000. The cost is somewhere between £25,000 for what we seek in new Clause No. 13, to a possible £65,000 if it were extended more widely, and this is not a very large concession.

The disabled passengers for whom we are seeking this exemption are not difficult to identify. The same procedure could be applied as is applied to invalid tricycles. The disabled passengers could satisfy the conditions which they now have to satisfy, and administratively it is not difficult to identify the individuals concerned.

If the concession is, as we suggest, limited to specially and conspicuously adapted vehicles, those, for example, fitted with car top hoists or van conversions enabling a disabled person to enter the vehicle while still in a wheelchair, there is no chance of abuse, as the vehicle is easily recognised. It is even easier than most such concessions to police, since only two or three firms in the country are capable of undertaking such conversions. So there are no difficulties either in identifying those who are entitled to the concession or in policing the vehicles.

Purchase tax exemption on van conversions is already granted if the vehicle has been adapted to such an extent that it can in effect be regarded as an ambulance. No abuse has arisen of this concession and I do not think that there would be any abuse of the concession which we are seeking.

The Chancellor, in. Government Amendment No. 25, is seeking to exempt from vehicle duty cars which are bought by non-residents and which can be used for up to 12 months before being exported. If the Chancellor is saying that those who are exporting cars and who are using them in the period between buying them and sending them overseas can be excused vehicle licence duty, how much stronger is the case of this small number of disabled people to whom a car is not a luxury but the only method by which they can ever see beyond the four walls of their room and the confines of their house and garden.

Those people, of all people, are in a difficult situation. They cannot go out alone. The mere fact that they require constant attendance could be another way of policing this. It could be a condition of road tax exemption that the vehicle is insured for one driver only and that driver a full-time attendant of the disabled person.

I see no reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment. I hope that the Financial Secretary will tell us that this is what he intends to do. He will be creating no precedent, and he will be helping a small number of people who are badly in need of help. He will be acting in a merciful, compassionate way at no cost to himself, the Government or the future. If he shows himself markedly reluctant, I shall ask the House to take this matter to a vote.

Mr. Speaker

I would remind the House that we have a massive amount of work ahead of us, many debates, and reasonably brief speeches will help.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I wish to support the new Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) that there is no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refuse to accept it. The cost is negligible and could easily be recouped if action were taken to see that those who should pay road tax do so.

It is high time that assistance was given to disabled persons. I am amazed at how the authorities work. A man earning thousands of pounds a year who ignores the law and never pays his tax or his insurance gets away with it. The wide boys and the wise boys have now been told. "Don't trouble to pay; no one will do anything about it." It may take more than 18 months to bring an offender to court, he has to pay a nominal fine of less than the amount he has saved by dodging, and after being fined two or three times he will refuse to pay and the authorities are hack where they started.

If the Financial Secretary cannot see his way to give this concession, my advice to the war disabled and other disabled persons is to refuse to pay. They should follow the hundreds of thousands of ordinary motorists who are not paying. Eventually, after 18 months, they may be summonsed and have to pay a nominal fine of £10. If they refuse to pay that, after two or three attempts the courts and the police will just give up.

I do not think that that is the best way of doing it. The best way is to do it honourably and straightforwardly. Disabled people have what is called a yellow disabled certificate which is attached to the vehicle. Many are war disabled ex-Service men and women and they can get from the Ministry of Social Security a disc showing that the vehicle belongs to a war disabled person. There would, therefore, be no difficulty in applying this concession.

The cost would be infinitesimal. The Treasury would lose nothing in revenue and I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will accept the new Clause. If he does not do so, I may consider voting with the Opposition.

Mr. Tim Fortescue (Liverpool, Garston)

I rise to support the new Clause so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and to speak to new Clause No. 32, which provides for the extension of tax relief for the blind to other seriously disabled persons.

There is a considerable history to this. The Radcliffe Commission, 15 years ago, in 1954, recommended that a tax concession for blind and disabled persons should be introduced. This was proposed in this House in 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1961. Finally, in 1962, although the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now Lork Brooke of Cumnor, adamantly refused in Committee to concede anything to those on both sides who were advocating this concession, unfortunately for him but fortunately for the blind, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) worked her feminine wiles on him during the brief period between Committee and Report and, on Report, he announced to the House, amid loud cheers, that, after all, he was willing to give this concession. He had given innumerable reasons during Report stage why it would be impossible to do it, but as a result of one visit from one determined hon. feminine Member he was able to change his mind.

The concession referred only to the blind. It was a figure of £100 a year which had been recommended in 1954 by the Radcliffe Commission and was not introduced until 1962, by which time the £100 undoubtedly was worth less. The figure is still £100 in 1969; it has not been changed. The recommendation of the Commission has obviously been devalued. That concession to the blind appears in Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1962, and it has been slightly amended, though not significantly, by Section 10 of the Finance Act 1965.

In the debate in 1962 in which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced this concession, he said: As I said in Committee and as my right hon and learned Friend"— that was the right hon. Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who was then Chancellor— would confirm, it is and continues to be his view that the right way to deal with this problem, this tragedy of disability, is not by tax relief but by direct social benefits. We have an extensive system of those benefits in this country now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1962, Vol. 662, c. 228.] But in the Third Reading Debate the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who was then, of course, in opposition, said: I do not share the view that has been so frequently expressed by Ministers on this matter, that the proper way to deal with grave affliction is through the social services and not through tax reliefs.… I hope that in due course the Government—any Government—wilt accept the broad principle put forward by the Royal Commission that grave affliction can so alter the pattern of a person's life that it is proper that tax relief should be given to meet exceptional conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1962, Vol. 662, c. 886.] Since that time the right hon. Member for Sowerby has had an opportunity to put into effect, or to persuade the Cabinet to put into effect, the principles he announced in the debate. But we are still without any tax relief for any category of disabled except the blind.

Every year since 1962, from the back benches on both sides of the House, the effort has been made to extend the principle of tax relief for the blind to other severely disabled people, but completely without success. I myself have tried on two occasions and many others better qualified than I.

Now at last, and all credit to the Government, we have a slight change in the situation. In the White Paper Command 3883, "National Superannuation and Social Insurance", issued by the Secre- tary of State for Social Services in January this year, the Government said that they recognised the needs of the chronic sick and disabled and intended in the new Social Security Bill, which they are to introduce with effect from April 1972, to introduce a constant attendance allowance for those in need of it. Both sides of the House will welcome this proposal, although possibly will not agree with many of the other proposals in the White Paper.

The last sentence in paragraph 91 says The Government Social Survey as at present conducting a nationwide survey of the chronic sick and disabled…This is designed, among other things, to establish the facts which are needed before decisions are taken on the precise details of the new allowance. Succeeding Chancellors, Chief Secretaries and Financial Secretaries of the Treasury have said that this tax allowance for the blind cannot be extended to other categories of disabled people because of the difficulty of assessing the disability and also the difficulty of identifying the people. Now that the survey is being undertaken this difficulty will to a large extent disappear.

In Committee upstairs on 3rd July, the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, was being pressed to introduce a constant attendance allowance earlier than April, 1972, since the April, 1972, date for the rest of the White Paper is conditional on the demands of P.A.Y.E. whereas their allowance need not be paid through P.A.Y.E. at all. He resisted that demand and the Amendments moved by the Opposition were voted down. But he then said of the new scheme: We shall have it before us in legislative form in the autumn…There will be a further statement before we come to the autumn which will give a little more information about our intentions not only for an attendance allowance, but for long-term sickness benefits."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 3rd July, 1969; c. 113.] We have not yet had that Statement. We have not long to go now before we go away for the Summer Recess and I wonder whether the Financial Secretary today could say when that statement will be made. The system of drawing up a register of severely disabled must be far advanced.

What I am proposing in the new Clause is that tax relief for severely disabled should be introduced on the lines of tax relief to the blind in this financial year. This would mean that the assessment of that tax relief would not be undertaken until after 5th April next year. The income on which the tax relief would be granted would be obtained in this financial year, but under our tax system it would not be assessed until after 5th April, 1970. By that time the survey will have been completed and a register of disabled will either have been completed, or will be well under way. There should be no reason at all why this Clause should not be approved by the Government since by that time the condition making possible such tax relief for the disabled will exist, as the register will exist. There should be no difficulty in the Financial Secretary's conceding this new Clause to us. It is backed, I am sure. by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will readily agree that it is a necessary and logical extension of what we already do for the blind. I very much hope that he will be able to agree to it. We all know the effect of constant dripping on a stone. I very much hope that it will have the same effect on a "Diamond".

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

I am sure that the whole House hopes that the Government will be able to accept this group of Clauses. There are two further Clauses which relate to the spastics.

The House will be aware that recently the Spastics Society suffered a grievous loss in taxation relief amounting to a large sum of money. Many right hon. and hon. Members of the House who are associated with this and other movements realise the growing need of these people, who cannot be looked after in the normal way by the State, who fall outside the National Health Service and who are in the greatest possible need of assistance both in the way of tax rebate and of assistance from their friends and various societies who look after them.

The concessions have been adumbrated by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench on the new Clause in regard to the blind, in which category people involved can easily be identified. The sums involved in this matter are trivial in a country as large and as rich as ours. Surely the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, whose return to the Front Bench we all welcome, will be able to make this concession.

The amount of pleasure and real joy these concessions would give to some needy people is quite incommensurate with the small sum of money involved. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the new Clauses.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I rise to move new Clause 22, and—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady cannot move the Clause, but she can discuss it.

Mrs. Knight

Then perhaps I might do that and, at the same time, associate myself with all that has been said in this debate.

The case which prompted me to table the Clause arises from an incident concerning a constituent of mine. He went off to war as a young, healthy able-bodied man. Fighting in the Western Desert, he lost both legs. He returned to Birmingham and learnt to walk on artificial legs. Today, he manages them very well. However, because he has artificial legs he is not allowed to drive a car unless it is fitted with hand controls. He does not ask for any help towards the provision of the vehicle. He is perfectly happy to provide his own, but he feels rather sore when the time comes to change his car, because the cost of conversion to hand controls must be borne by him, and the cost is about £25.

My Clause is the latest instalment in a long running fight over this case. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides recognise that my constituent has reason to feel aggrieved at getting no help of this kind because of his injury.

Recently, he applied for exemption from payment of the excise duty. He received a letter dated 17th February, 1969, from the Department of Health and Social Security, in which it was explained to him that For a disabled person to qualify for exemption under Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1964, two conditions have to be fulfilled; namely, that the applicant not only qualifies in one of the groups of disabled eligible for one of our vehicles, but also that his vehicle has had special controls fitted because he is unable to drive with standard controls. The letter went on to tell him: The report of your recent medical examination indicates that you are able to walk moderate distances and that you do not qualify in any of these categories. However many yards or even miles my constituent is able to walk, the Ministry of Transport says that it will not permit him to drive a car unless his vehicle is fitted with a hand accelerator and non-slip foot pedals. In other words, the Ministry of Transport will not accept that my constituent is safe to drive because of his two artificial legs unless he has proper controls. The Ministry of Health and Social Security, on the other hand, rules that because he is able to walk a little way, he does not qualify. He appears to fall between two stools.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), a moment or two ago, referred to the disabled being able to enjoy their motoring. My constituent's case is a matter of justice, not of enjoyment. He lost his legs in the war, and he asks for very little help. But, as a matter of principle, it seems to me that if the Ministry of Transport says that his car must be fitted with hand controls before he can drive it, that should be the criterion upon which to judge his case.

I hope that my Clause will receive sympathetic consideration from the Financial Secretary. I have tried to be brief in my remarks about the case, but it is a strong one and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)

The case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) points to what anyone who has familiarised himself with these matters knows full well. The degree of variation in the reliefs for the disabled bristles with anomalies. I do not suggest that it is the fault of any of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, since the situation has been with us for years. However, we are due for a massive overhaul of the whole system.

I want to touch briefly on the points which were moderately and at times movingly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). Within the context of transport, there is the peculiar fact that the less the degree of disablement, the less the benefit. If a disabled man merely has lost the use of his legs, the State pro- vides him with a motor vehicle and treats him generously. If a disabled person is unfortunate enough to lose the use of his legs and his arms, the State does nothing. That is an anomaly which demands urgent attention.

It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) who, some years ago, first exempted from taxation motor vehicles used by the disabled. In that connection, it might be relevant to relate the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham to the total. There are about 27,000 disabled persons who are assisted by the State in relation to their vehicles and at a cost of about £.2¾ million. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but that was the figure about a year ago. A person who is disabled to the point at which he can drive gets, on average, a cash benefit of £130 a year. That is a fairly substantial benefit. The unfortunate person who is so disabled that he cannot drive gets nothing. That is an anomaly which should be dealt with urgently.

I have a vivid memory of a constituent of mine who wrote to me a few months ago asking me to go to see him as he could not come to see me. He did not say what his trouble was. It is not always easy to comply with such a request in a rural constituency, but I managed to get to see hire one evening. He was a fit man aged about 50. He asked me in, and told me that he wanted me to meet his wife. He brought into the room in his arms a woman who was china-white, like a doll.

My constituent was unable to perform any normal human function. He put her gently into a chair. Then he asked me a simple question, "If a fit unemployed man of 25 is out of work for a few weeks, he receives as of right a fairly generous allowance from the State. Why is it that woman like this who is totally disabled receives nothing as of right?"

No doubt this Clause cannot deal adequately with that sort of case, but I think that it is reasonable to ask the Financial Secretary to consider the figures which I have given him. The Government spend £2¾ million on the less disabled. All that we ask is that about £65,000 should be added to it to help in some small measure those who have far greater disabilities. Anyone who has seen such cases cannot help feeling sympathetic. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to express that sympathy in practical terms.

Mr. John Astor (Newbury)

I should like briefly, but most sincerely, to support my hon. Friends on these three new Clauses. I realise that there are many wider reaching problems of disablement about which the Government are concerned and I hope that they will bring forward some solutions, but I hope that this will not stop them accepting the new Clauses, which are deliberately restricted in the scope of the number of people whom they will benefit. They are aimed to bring a little happiness and make life easier for the most severely disabled.

On new Clause 13, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) pointed out, the people who would benefit will never be able to drive cars. Nor will they ever be able to use public transport or an ordinary private car. They can only be hoisted into a specially adapted vehicle.

I had a recent case in my constituency about which I have corresponded with the Financial Secretary. It concerns a young man who was involved in a severe road accident as a result of which he was completely paralysed in both legs and he has no movement left in his hands. He had formerly belonged to a local motor car club and his colleagues rallied round to meet the cost of adapting a special vehicle for him. They were very dismayed when they found that they would be liable to pay the vehicle excise duty.

The Financial Secretary, with his usual courtesy, wrote to me expressing the Government's anxiety and sympathy to do all that they could to help disabled people to live as near normal lives as possible, but pointing out the difficulties, the main one being that they were frightened that any concession, however limited, might lead to greater pressure of demand for an extension of this type of concession. However, he ended his letter on a more hopeful note: Despite these difficulties, you may, however, assure your constituents that the type of case about which he writes is known to us and will continue to be kept under review. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take the opportunity afforded by the introduction of this Clause to review his earlier decision and that we shall get a sympathetic answer at the conclusion of the debate.

I turn now to new Clause 32, which concerns extension of tax relief for the blind to other categories of disablement. We all recognise the tragedy and consequences of blindness, but there are other forms of disablement which have at least as great an element of tragedy and often an even greater element of physical handicap and restriction which make it more difficult for some of these unfortunate people to find useful employment.

Certainly, some of these severely disabled people, if they are able to live at home, are involved in additional expenditure at least as great as that which could be involved in blindness. For instance, the expenses of people who depend on an artificial lung with mechanical breathing apparatus, and those who must have an attendant to look after their every need—special diets, extra warmth, and so on—all add up and it seems reasonable that we should do all that we can to help them, especially so that they can continue to live in their own homes.

Often one tragedy is that the family can struggle to keep a disabled person living in the home in family surroundings, but, due to the financial strain, they are not able to carry on. In that event the disabled person goes into a hospital and occupies a hospital bed which is not necessary from a medical point of view. That is a great cost to the nation and to the Health Service.

It may be argued that this Clause would only be of benefit to people who have a taxable income on which to receive relief. This may be true, but surely, in these cases, all that the Government would be doing would be allowing these people to retain a little more of their own money with which to meet the expenses forced upon them by no wish of their own. It seems perfectly reasonable that this Clause should be accepted.

I should like to see the benefit extended to other people who would not benefit by the Clause, but this would at least be a first step. I hope that the Government will take it.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I always think, after many years in this House, that one of the most moving periods is when we are dealing with the Finance Bill and back benchers bring forward new Clauses and Amendments dealing with disabled people. The House at that time is always at its best and the Front Bench, through no fault of its own, is always at its worst. In reverse, it is rather like the boy in Holland who had his finger in the dyke. The Government are terrified of taking their finger out because they think that, as a result, there will be an absolute flood. In a society like ours, the fears of Ministers about opening up the floodgates to deal with some of these tragic cases which are raised every year are excessive.

4.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) spoke movingly on new Clause 32. He said that when the presure on a disabled person's family becomes such that eventually that disabled person has to be hospitalised, the cost to the State is probably far greater than the cost of providing additional tax relief or additional facilities, such as a motor vehicle, which would take the burden off that disabled person's family and enable them to continue to give him the love and personal attention in their home that cannot be obtained to the same extent elsewhere. The net cost to the State would probably be less than it is now because the Government take this difficult and hard line. They are frightened of opening the floodgates by accepting new Clauses on the Finance Bill each year dealing with the severely disabled.

I think that the whole House must be moved and seized of the absurdity of the situation which is drawn to our attention in new Clause 13. It appears that the State is generous to a person who is half disabled but absolutely flint-hearted if someone is completely disabled. Yet, a completely disabled person puts a far greater burden and strain on the emotions of a family unit. Therefore, the severely disabled should receive the maximum help. I hope that the Financial Secretary will find it possible to accept new Clause 13, because the cost can only be comparatively small.

I now turn to new Clause 32, which seeks to give tax relief to seriously disabled people, apart from the blind. I should like to call the attention of the House to the difference in the attitude of the public to different kinds of disablement. The blind receive a good deal of help from the public because it is easy to see that a person is blind. However, people who are stone deaf or dumb may suffer just as great a disability in the carrying on of their normal lives. However because their disabilities are not apparent to the public as they walk through the streets, appeals for funds for people suffering from those disabilities never receive that same response as appeals for the blind or the physically disabled—people with no legs, and so on. The deaf and dumb are not likely to get the same amount of charitable help which is given to the spastics and other people whose disabilities can be seen by the public.

Therefore tax relief, allowances and help is even more important for those cases than for those whose disabilities can be seen at a glance by the general public, whose emotions and sympathies are automatically aroused because they can see the problems confronting such people. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will accept new Clause 32. If it applies to the blind, I suggest that it should apply to people whose disabilities can be very much worse.

I suppose that all of us from time to time have thought of what would happen if we were disabled. Our first reaction is to be terrified of going blind. But, having met a good number of blind and other disabled people, I am not at all certain whether I would not sooner be blind than deaf or dumb. At least, a blind person can communicate and can hear music. He is not nearly as deprived of contact with the rest of the world. Therefore, these people ought to be treated generously by the State as we now, as a result of the Government's concession, deal with the blind. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept both new Clauses.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

I support the new Clauses, and, in particular, new Clause 32, to which my name is added.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that the Front Bench was always at its worst on these occasions. I hope that today is an exception to that rule, because for the life of me I cannot understand the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary could oppose these Clauses. It would be impossible for him to oppose them on the ground of logic. Once one accepts the proposition that blindness reduces the ability of a taxpayer to pay tax, there is no logical reason for saying that that principle, which I believe to be sound, should not apply to disability as a whole.

Surely there is exactly the same degree of additional cost in ordinary living, and therefore a reduced ability to pay in the one case as in the other? The Financial Secretary is an intelligent and logical man, and I therefore suggest that he is not able to say that, in logic, he can defend the proposition that the blind should get these reliefs, but other disabled people should not.

I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will be driven to the proposition that this is administratively difficult. I have always found that a difficult argument to swallow, because just such a proposition exists in both the war pensions scheme, and in the industrial injuries scheme. I have never understood what the great difficulty is in bringing the sort of criteria used there into national insurance or taxation. The arguments about administrative inconvenience are becoming untenable, for the simple reason that some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have announced that in the autumn they intend to legislate to put an equivalent right into the National Insurance scheme.

I dare say that the wording of the new Clause is not exactly right. I am sure that if there is a better wording which the Government will accept my hon. Friend will withdraw his Clause in favour of something different. As we are at the end of the summer in Parliamentary terms, it must be true to say that the legislation for the autumn is in draft, and that the machinery for doing this is in existence. I therefore suggest that the Government have, or very shortly will have, within their power the administrative machinery necessary to bring about this relief. I have a feeling that my hon. Friend may be wrong in saying that the Front Bench is at its worst on these occasions. I hope that it is at its best.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever)

I do not accept that the Government, even though they are not the Government of which I am a member, are at their worst on these occasions. The truth is that this House is, rightly, always seeking to extend the boundaries of human compassion for those who have been smitten by the tyrant stroke of fate leading to personal disability, and it is right that there should be no fixed boundaries to that compassion. It is right, too, that the House and our society should strive continually to deepen the sense of communication between those who are fit and able, and those who have been afflicted by one or other of these tragic ailments.

While hon. Members are undoubtedly entitled to seize on individual and perfectly sound points of justice and compassion, there is an obligation on the Government, whoever they may be, to try to make a coherent approach where annually we try—and this is not a party political matter—to bring a greater degree of compassion and help to those who are disabled.

The truth of the matter—and this must be faced, and I know that it will be by those who have been good enough to assume that I am logical, whatever else I might not be—is that if I accepted every proposal put to the Government there would be as many anomalies and as many illogicalities at the end of the day as there are now. I cannot pretend that the present system of piecemeal compassion as we advance is perfect, or holds together the lines of strictly well-devised priorities. It has just been what, from time to time, different Governments have felt, trying to keep some coherence, and to respond to the feelings of society to move forward on these matters. It is a sort of extemporised system.

I think that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) is right in saying—if we take the first new Clause —that on the face of it it is anomalous that we help those who are able to help themselves by being able to drive, but we are not prepared to make a similar concession for those who are not able to drive at all, and who are really worse off. It is not really as illogical as that, oddly enough, if one comes to think about it. Life consists often in trying to help people who have a borderline capacity to help themselves. It is not always wrong to say that with a few £s we can provide a car—not merely the licence duty; we provide the transport itself—for those who are able to drive themselves, whereas it is beyond our means to cope with the vast number of people who are worse off who cannot hope to drive at all.

We could not possibly provide them with help in that way, namely, with some marginal help of a vehicle, or special type of vehicle, to allow them to drive themselves. But I agree with hon. Members when they say that if we move to help those who are able to help themselves, we are obliged to try to help those who cannot benefit from the concessions that we have made so far.

On new Clause 13, it is not a question of worrying about floodgates of expenditure, or anything of that kind. I am not in the least concerned with that here. I do not think that vast expenditure is involved. It is simply an attempt to keep some coherence which makes me unwilling to accept the Clause. The truth is that it is quite indefensible. What is done here is to give to those who are rather worse disabled a fraction of the help that we now give to people who are less disabled. This will not do as a remedy, or as a purported remedy. What is worse, the Clause helps those who need a special and extensive adaptation of a vehicle only to the extent of giving them relief from licence duty.

A. man may be dreadfully disabled. I do not know what is meant by "extensive and obvious alteration of the vehicle", but great stress was laid on this. I take it that what is required is a major change in the vehicle. A man is to get help only if his disability is of a kind which requires a major operation on the vehicle. This is no measure of his disability. He may be totally blind, deaf, and dumb, and no special adaptation of the vehicle is required. It simply means that he needs a vehicle. He is just as disabled as a man who needs a platform, or a special adaptation, but under these provisions he would not benefit at all. It is anomalous to pick that one section of disabled people who would qualify for help if they were able to drive, but are not able to drive, and say that if they cannot be given the facilities to drive they shall be given freedom from licence duty as is given to other disabled people.

If we are to make progress we have to find a more coherent and adequate way of doing so. This is not a means of economising, or of avoiding responsibility. The Department of Health and Social Security—the appropriate Department—is struggling to enlarge the help that can be given to disabled people in the form of transport. I agree that whatever we do there will be faulty logic and priorities, but what we do is done in good faith. We help as fast as we can. We have to go on with the emphasis on pushing at the borders more helpfully, rather than attempting partial solutions, such as that suggested in the new Clause. For the same reason, the Clause referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) must be resisted.

5 p.m.

On the question of general allowances, I do not want to rehearse what was said last year because anyone who wants a full statement has only to turn to last year's HANSARD report. On 3rd July last year, the Minister of State set out copiously all the reasons for rejecting proposals for all these allowances. I will sum up in a few words what he said, and I hope that the House will not think me discourteous for not repeating what he said in detail. He said that it would benefit these people if the cost of an attendant were met, but it would do nothing for those who might incur substantial expense in other ways.

I keep having this difficult problem when people write to me telling me of persons who would qualify for allowances for an attendant to look after them, but who, unhappily, have become too ill to be able to be looked after at home and have to go into a nursing home, thereby losing the allowance because they no longer have an attendant. This is part of the general problem of trying to bring compassion and coherence into the whole move to help people in these difficulties, without yielding—as one is tempted to do—too immediately to every kindly impulse.

This is a problem that faces every Minister. We are given particulars of an individual case, and we would very much like to say, "Let it go. Let this man have this concession." But we cannot do that. We have to try to establish a coherent principle upon which to operate the concession.

Mr. Fortescue

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what the Secretary of State for Social Security said in paragraph 91 of Cmnd. 3883, namely: A new attendance allowance will therefore be introduced for very severely disabled people.

Mr. Lever

An attendance allowance is a matter for social security; it is not a tax allowance. That is exactly my point. That is the way to proceed coherently and compassionately by making an allowance positively to those who need it, as generously as the community is willing to allow.

Mr. Hugh Fraser

The right hon. Gentleman talks about compassion being piecemeal. Compassion always is. Comprehensive compassion, unless one is Almighty God, is impossible. We must have piecemeal compassion.

Mr. Lever

I accept that. I have not said otherwise.

The present system came into being piecemeal by pressing certain concessions on the Government of the day. But some semblance of coherence and logic must be maintained. I have dealt with the point that the hon. Member made on the question of a piecemeal concession. I agree. We cannot have a perfect recreation of the whole system of benevolence. We must add to it piecemeal, but we must make the right kind of addition piecemeal, through the Ministry of Social Security. We are using the money to the best effect and in the most logical way. The Amendment would cause us to do so in a rather less logical way.

The Government are continuing to meet the need of people who are severely disabled through the social security system, on a scale probably more generous than anybody has conceived in the past. There is no point in a society's being constructive and creative if it is not to become more compassionate to its more deserving members.

Mrs. Knight

Will the right hon. Gentleman bring his influence to bear on the Minister of Transport to try to persuade

Division No. 331.]	AYES	[5.8 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Biggs-Davison, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Black, Sir Cyril
Aster, John	Bell, Ronald	Blaker, Peter
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Body, Richard
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Biffen, John	Bossom, Sir Clive

him, in the circumstances which I have outlined, to act in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in providing that it shall not be necessary to demand hand controls in vehicles driven by these people?

Mr. Lever

It is not for me to dictate to the Minister of Transport the terms on which he should allow people to drive cars. That is an area in which the Treasury writ does not run. I see the anomoly in the case of the hon. Member's constituent who is caught between two Departmental requirements. He does not qualify for the benefit, and has inconvenience forced upon him. I will see that the point is again raised with my right hon. Friend. I cannot say at this point whether he will be able to help the hon. Lady.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin (Wanstead and Woodford)

We welcome the Financial Secretary's return to our deliberations and hope that he is restored to health. I cannot give the same welcome to his speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) put his finger squarely on the point of Amendments of this nature when he said that progress in this and other related fields has always been achieved by slow and often unrelated stages. The Financial Secretary is chasing a chimera if he believes that he will be able to pull out of the hat—as a rabbit is pulled out of a hat—a wholly coherent system which would not require further piecemeal advances in helping the disabled.

The Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and supported by hon. Members on both sides, is a modest one. The Financial Secretary has not made what we regard as a wholly convincing case, and we therefore think that it would be right to divide in favour of the new Clause.

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

The House divided:

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hay, John	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Heseltine, Michael	Pardoe, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Higgins, Terence L.	Peel, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hiley, Joseph	Percival, Ian
Bryan, Paul	Hill, J. E. B.	Peyton, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Pink, R. Bonner
Bullus, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip	Pounder, Rafton
Burden, F. A.	Hordern, Peter	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Hornby, Richard	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Prior, J. M. L.
Carlisle, Mark	Hunt, John	Pym, Francis
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Channon, H. P. G.	Iremonger, T. L.	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Chataway, Christopher	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Chichester-Clark, R.	Jopling, Michael	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Clark, Henry	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Ridsdale, Julian
Clegg, Walter	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Cooke, Robert	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Royle, Anthony
Costain, A. P.	Kershaw, Anthony	Russell, Sir Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Sharples, Richard
Currie, G. B. H.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Dalkeith. Earl of	Lane, David	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Dance, James	Lawler, Wallace	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Speed, Keith
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Stainton, Keith
Digby, Simon Wing field	Longden, Gilbert	Stodart, Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Lubbock, Eric	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Doughty, Charles	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Drayson, G. B.	MacArthur, Ian	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
du Cann, Rt. Hn, Edward	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Eden, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Errington, Sir Eric	Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Eyre, Reginald	McMaster, Stanley	Tilney, John
Fisher, Nigel	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McNair-Wilson, Michael	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fortescue, Tim	Maddan, Martin	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Foster, Sir John	Maginnis, John E.	Vickers, Dame Joan
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Waddington, David
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Marten, Neil	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Maude, Angus	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mawby, Ray	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Glover, Sir Douglas	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Ward, Dame Irene
Glyn, Sir Richard	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Weatherill, Bernard
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Goodhart, Philip	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhew, Victor	Monro, Hector	Wiggin, A. W.
Grant, Anthony	Montgomery, Fergus	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Gresham Cooke, R.	More, Jasper	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gurden, Harold	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Woodnutt, Mark
Hall Davis, A. G. F.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Worsley, Marcus
Harris, Reader (Heston)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Wright, Esmond
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Younger, Hn. George
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Neave, Airey
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hastings, Stephen	Nott, John	Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Hawkins, Paul	Onslow, Cranley
	Osborn, John (Hallam)

NOES
Abse, Leo	Blackburn, F.	Carmichael, Neil
Albu, Austen	Blenkinsop, Arthur	Carter-Jones, Lewis
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Alldritt, Walter	Booth, Albert	Chapman, Donald
Anderson, Donald	Boston, Terence	Concannon, J. D.
Ashley, Jack	Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Conlan, Bernard
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Boyden, James	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Bradley, Tom	Crawshaw, Richard
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Cronin, John
Barnes, Michael	Brooks, Edwin	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Barnett, Joel	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Baxter, William	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Dalyell, Tam
Beaney, Alan	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Bence, Cyril	Buchan, Norman	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Bidwell, Sydney	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Binns, John	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Bishop, E. S.	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leeh)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pavitt, Laurence
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Delargy, Hugh	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dell, Edmund	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Pentland, Norman
Dempsey, James	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dickens, James	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Dobson, Ray	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Doig, Peter	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Price, William (Rugby)
Driberg, Tom	Judd, Frank	Probert, Arthur
Dunn, James A.	Kelley, Richard	Randall, Harry
Dunnett, Jack	Kenyon, Clifford	Rankin, John
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Rees, Merlyn
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Richard, Ivor
Eadie, Alex	Lawson, George	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Edelman, Maurice	Leadbitter, Ted	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Edwards, Robert (Bileton)	Lee, John (Reading)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Ellis, John	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
English, Michael	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Ensor, David	Lipton, Marcus	Roebuck, Roy
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lomas, Kenneth	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Loughlin, Charles	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rowlands, E.
Finch, Harold	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Ryan, John
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McBride, Neil	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	MacColl, James	Sheldon, Robert
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)	McGuire, Michael	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mackintosh, John P.	Silverman, Julius
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Maclennan, Robert	Skeffington, Arthur
Ford, Ben	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Slater, Joseph
Forrester, John	McNamara, J. Kevin	Small, William
Fowler, Gerry	Mabon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Snow, Julian
Freeson, Reginald	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gardner, Tony	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Garrett, W. E.	Manuel, Archie	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Ginsburg, David	Mapp, Charles	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Marks, Kenneth	Symonds, J. B.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Marquand, David	Taverne, Dick
Gregory, Arnold	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Tinn, James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Tuck, Raphael
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Mendelson, John	Urwin, T. W.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Mikardo, Ian	Varley, Eric G.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Miller, Dr. M, S.	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Walden, Brian (Alf Saints)
Hamling, William	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Harper, Joseph	Molloy, William	Wallace, George
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Moonman, Eric	Watkins, David (Consett)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Haseldine, Norman	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Weitzman, David
Hazell, Bert	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Whitaker, Ben
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Moyle, Roland	Whitlock, William
Heffer, Eric S.	Murray, Albert	Wilkins, W. A.
Henig, Stanley	Neal, Harold	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hilton, W. S.	Newens, Stan	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hobden, Dennis	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hooley, Frank	Oakes, Gordon	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	O'Malley, Brian	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Oram, Albert E.	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Howie, W.	Orbach, Maurice	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James	Orme, Stanley	Winnick, David
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Oswald, Thomas	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Woof, Robert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Hunter, Adam	Palmer, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. John McCann.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Park, Trevor
	Parker, John (Dagenham)
	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)