HC Deb 06 July 1971 vol 820 cc1238-67
Mr. Barnett

I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 9, line 40, leave out "330" and insert "380".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

I understand that it is convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. Ill, in page 10, line 2, leave out "345" and insert "395" also standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the names of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Barnett

With the Government's majority crumbling, as we have just seen, and since the justice of this Amendment is so obvious, I assume that the Government will accept it. It is my understanding of the Amendments as selected that No. 112 and No. Ill are consequential on the proceeding two, which have not been selected. The principle is clear—that we seek to increase the small age relief by £50. Amendment No. 112 is related to marginal relief because of the way the Amendments have been selected. If the Government wish to accept and deal with the general question of granting an additional £50 on age relief——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we have to be careful about these two Amendments and Mr. Speaker's selection. It is Mr. Speaker's view that this is a separate point and concerns the band between the two rather than the actual amount which is considered in the preceeding Amendments, which were thoroughly discussed in Committee. That is why he has not selected them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of these things, will help me in my ignorance.

Mr. Barnett

I am happy, then, to increase the band which would give some relief to elderly people, those over the age of 65, to the extent of £50, although I would have preferred selection of the previous Amendments. But naturally I accept Mr. Speaker's selection.

This relief would be for those over the age of 65 who have small incomes and it would not only apply to those seeking to work but equally—and I am sure hon. Members opposite will be keen to accept this—to those with small amounts of investment income. The argument frequently used for refusing this type of Amendment is that some people would be even worse off than those one is seeking to help. The late Iain Macleod used to say—and on reflection I think he was right—that we cannot help everyone in one Amendment, that we can only look at that Amendment and what it seeks to do.

We would certainly argue that there are some who are worse off than those we are seeking to help through these Amendments, because there are people who do not have sufficient income to pay tax. But we cannot help them in this Bill. Had we been in Government, we would have helped them through a different Finance Bill and through a different fiscal policy from that of the present Government. We seek only in this Amendment to help those over 65 with an increased age allowance on the band of £50.

As the Clause stands, after allowing for the normal retirement pension, a single person in a full year, 1972–73, can earn an additional £218 a year, just over £4 a week, and a married couple can earn in a full year £321, just over £6 a week. We seek to increase that by another £50. It would primarily affect those who would wish to work. The argument in Committee on this type of Amendment was that the margin is already enough over and above the pension as it will be from September onwards. I am not arguing about the size of that margin, but that there is a need to give additional relief because for a single person over 65 only to be able to earn just over £4 a week is inadequate.

Elderly people tell me that they are not prepared to earn more than the amount allowed because it would mean them paying it all by way of tax. No matter how we try to convince them that this is not true and that they will pay a comparatively small amount in tax, in practice there are elderly people who work longer hours than they should for a wage lower than that to which they would otherwise be entitled. There is a sufficiently large number of bad employers only too happy to exploit that situation.

9.30 p.m.

What we are seeking to do here is to increase the allowance and to enable elderly people who wish to work to earn a little more. This is the major purpose, although I know that it will affect others as well. There is a philosophical case against giving any kind of additional relief at all to those over the age of 65 to encourage them to go on working. It could be argued that a man or woman of 65 who has done a hard life's work should not be encouraged by the State to work longer. They should have an adequate pension and be able to live reasonably well on that pension without having to work. In practice that does not apply. The pension is not high enough to give an adequate standard of life. There are therefore many elderly people, over the age of 65, who work to supplement their income.

In any case, it should not be our function to decide for elderly people that they should or should not carry on working after 65. Many wish to do so and they are perfectly entitled to the right to carry on working and certainly, at the present time, with inflation running as it is, it is understandable that many wish to supplement their income. I have looked back to the debates on this subject in 1968 when the Opposition moved a similar Amendment and voted on it. One of the arguments used at that time as to why the elderly people ought to have this additional relief was that price inflation was running at 5½ per cent. and that it merited the increase.

With present inflation running at the rate of more than 10 per cent., how much more is this Amendment worthy of support. In a different society, in different times, with a different government we could have had a philosophical debate about leisure and the need for those over 65 to enjoy a well-earned retirement. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to enjoy a well-earned retirement. Given a General Election he would have that opportunity, but we may not, unfortunately, have that opportunity for a little while yet. For the moment we must face the situation that elderly people have to deal with a 10 per cent. rate of price inflation, unlike 5 per cent. at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were pressing and voting for a similar Amendment.

We now have an affluent society for some while excluding many millions of old-age pensioners. This Amendment would not do a great deal, but it would do a little by giving an additional £50 relief.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

I am in something of a dilemma. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that the Amendment increased the age relief on small incomes. It does nothing of the sort. The Amendment selected concerns Clause 12(2)(b) which prescribes the income limits beyond which marginal relief shall not run when the revised income limits for age exemption come into effect.

If the other Amendments on the Order Paper had been selected, the higher exemption limits would require a different taper arrangement. These two Amendments are concerned with those taper arrangements. They would not achieve the result they set out to achieve because the matching increase of £50 proposed by the Amendment is not sufficient in itself smoothly to taper a higher marginal relief starting from a higher point. Two other changes would be necessary in order to prevent marginal age exemp- tion relief from extending over an excessively long incomes band.

However, if I am in order in addressing myself to the Amendments which the hon. Gentleman thought he was moving but in fact was not, I would say that of course it is perfectly true——

Mr. Speaker

Order. As those Amendments have not been selected that would not be in order.

Mr. Macmillan

I must ask the House to resist these two Amendments. The point of the relief itself is to prevent pensioners with small incomes from having to pay tax on the proposed pension increases which are designed to restore the real value of the pensions, and the amounts of age relief are geared to this narrow purpose, and the amounts of the marginal relief which these Amendments seek to increase are themselves geared to the amount of the age relief proposed in the Bill. It is for that reason that I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Barnett

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House may I just say that for the hon. Gentleman to dismiss an Amendment simply on the technical ground that two other changes would be needed is not good enough. If he genuinely wanted to accept this proposal which we envisage—he knows very well what it is—it would be perfectly open to him to take the necessary action. He could have answered the arguments which I put before the House, but he turned two pages over in his brief and came to the last line which said, "I recommend rejection of the Amendments" to which he was not speaking.

It is very difficult for the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's advice when he has not given any argument in its favour. Therefore I can only recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment by going into the Lobby to show that we support the principle we have in mind, and I hope that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will be able to support it, too.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) has stated such an unanswerable case for increasing the age exemption relief. The Chief Secretary did not even attempt to deny it. We had from him this extraordinary admission that the pension increases are only for the purpose of restoring the original value of the pension—so that there is no increase in them whatever.

I would draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that there is nothing more difficult than for a Member for Parliament to convince a retirement pensioner that he should pay income tax. The Chief Secretary should know this himself. No matter what pensioner I have spoken to or what organisation I have addressed, they are all absolutely resentful that retirement pensioners should pay income tax.

What my hon. Friend is asking for is a very modest extension of relief. I would like to see it at a much more realistic amount. He proposes only £50, which is far from being unreasonable when we have regard to the fact that the pensions will not realistically be increased after all. They are so small that pensioners are bound to supplement them with incomes from some other source. Pensioners whom I know personally have to have part-time jobs for income in addition to their retirement pension, and, because they were badly wounded in either the last war or the First World War and have war pensions, they are paying a substantial amount of income tax weekly.

I know of one case where a retirement pension of £5 a week is paid. In addition, the pensioner has part-time earnings and a war pension. I can think of nothing more cruel than the practice whereby the war pension of a man who has lost possibly a limb in the service of his country is taken into account in assessing him for income tax.

The Chief Secretary should have taken account of such cases when he was listening to my hon. Friend's argument in favour of this modest increase, and it seems reasonable to appeal to him to reconsider his attitude. As a matter of fact, he adopted an indifferent attitude to my hon. Friend's argument. He seemed quite unconcerned about the plight of retirement pensioners.

The day is fast approaching when we in this House should decide that the age exemption relief should be increased so substantially that the pensioner who has part-time earnings and who may be in receipt of a war pension and disability pension for the service that he has given his country ultimately will be exempt from income tax payments.

I find nothing more upsetting and discouraging than to see these old boys, the boys of the Old Brigade, many of whom made great sacrifices serving their country at a time of need, finding at the end of their lives that the pensions that they earned through their sacrifices make them liable to income tax. The quicker that we end this injustice to our pensioners, the better.

I should have liked my hon Friend to have asked for an increase of £150. Such a figure would have been reasonable, logical and convincing. Unhappily, most of the pensioners whom we are discussing are passing away in our lifetime. Many are living on borrowed time. I wish that the Government would give them each £50 a year to help them in that borrowed time. The right hon. Gentleman should reconsider his attitude toward the Amendment and decide, in the light of the discussion, to accept it. He should have the courage to say right away that he agrees that wiser counsels now prevail and that he accepts the Amendment.

Mr. Maurice Macmillian

With the leave of the House, I ought to make one correction of fact. The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) referred to disabled people. I should put on record that war disability pensions are not taxable, just in case there is any apprehension about them.

On their own, Amendments Nos. Ill and 112 are ineffective. You, Mr. Speaker, said that I should be out of order in going more deeply into the matter beyond saying that this is a narrow point with a view to preventing people paying income tax on the up-rating of the pension.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided

The Tellers having come to the Table

Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)

Mr. Speaker, I beg to report that there has been a miscount in the Aye Lobby.

Mr. Speaker

In that case I direct that the Division take place again.

Question again put. That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 212.

Division No. 410. AYES [9.57 p.m.
Abse, Leo Griffiths, Will (Exchange) O'Malley, Brian
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Oram, Bert
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orme, Stanley
Ashton, Joe Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Atkinson, Norman Hardy, Peter Palmer, Arthur
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Barnes, Michael Heffer, Eric S. Pavitt, Laurie
Barnett, Joel Hooson, Emlyn Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Beaney, Alan Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pendry, Tom
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pentland, Norman
Bennett. James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Perry, Ernest G.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Price, William (Rugby)
Booth, Albert Hunter, Adam Probert, Arthur
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rankin, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stetchford) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) John, Brynmor Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Buchan, Norman Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Johnson Walter (Derby, S.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cant, R. B. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Roderick, Caerwyn E (Br'c'n & R' dnor)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Jones, Dan (Burnley) Roper, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Rose, Paul B,
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Kaufman, Gerald Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cohen, Stanley Kelley, Richard Sandelson, Neville
Coleman, Donald Kerr, Russell Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Concannon, J. D. Lambie, David Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Lawson, George Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard Leadbitter, Ted Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silverman, Julius
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.) Lestor, Miss Joan Skinner, Dennis
Dalyell, Tarn Leonard, Dick Spearing, Nigel
Davidson, Arthur Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Small, William
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lomas, Kenneth Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Stallard, A. W.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Steel, David
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) McBride, Neil Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Deakins, Eric McCann, John Strang, Gavin
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey McCartney, Hugh Taverne, Dick
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Mackenzie, Gregor Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertiliery)
Dempsey, James McGuire, Michael Thomson, Rt. Hn. G (Dundee, E.)
Doig, Peter McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Tinn, James
Dormand, J. D. Maclennan, Robert Torney, Tom
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) McNamara, J. Kevin Tuck, Raphael
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Urwin, T. W.
Duffy, A. E. P. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Varley, Eric G.
Dunn, James A. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Dunnett, Jack Marks, Kenneth Wallace, George
Eadie, Alex Marquand, David Weiztman, David
Edelman, Maurice Marsden, F. Wellbeloved, James
Ellis, Tom Meacher, Michael White, James, (Glasgow, Pollok)
Evans, Fred Mendelson, John whitlock, wmiam
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Millan, Bruce Willams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood) Miller, Dr. M. S. Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Forrester, John Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Galpern, Sir Myer Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woof, Robert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Moyle, Roland TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Murray, Ronald King Mr. William Hamling and
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) O'Halloran, Michael Mr. John Golding.
Adley, Robert Blaker, Peter Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Bullus, Sir Eric
Atkins, Humphrey Bosoawen, Robert Burden, F. A.
Awdry, Daniel Bossom, Sir Clive Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bowden, Andrew Campbell, nt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Boyd-Carptnter, Rt. Hn. John Carlisle, Mark
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Braine, Bernard Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bray, Ronald Channon, Paul
Benyon, W. Brewis, John Chapman, Sydney
Biffen, John Brinton, Sir Tatton Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Biggs-Davison. John Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Pounder, Rafton
Clegg, Walter Hunt, John Powell. Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cockeram, Eric Iremonger, T. L, Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cooke, Robert James, David Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Coombs, Derek Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Cooper, A. E. Jessel, Toby Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cormack, Patrick Jopling, Michael Raison, Timothy
Costain, A. P. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Crouch, David Kershaw, Anthony Redmond, Robert
Curran, Charles King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kinsey, J. R. Rees, Peter (Dover)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James Kitson, Timothy Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dean, Paul Knox, David Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Lane, David Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward; Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Ridsdale, Julian
Dykes, Hugh Le Marchant, Spencer Rost, Peter
Eden, Sir John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Longden, Gilbert Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Loveridge, John Scott, Nicholas
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.) Luce, R. N. Scott-Hopkins, James
Eyre, Reginald MacArthur, Ian Sharples, Richard
Farr, John McCrindle, R. A. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Shelton, William (Clapham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) McMaster, Stanley Simeons, Charles
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Skeet, T. H. H.
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Michael Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fortescue, Tim McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Soref, Harold
Foster, Sir John Maginnis, John E. Speed, Keith
Fowler, Norman Marten, Neil Spence, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Mather, Carol Sproat, lain
Gardner, Edward Maude, Angus Stainton, Keith
Gibson-Watt, David Meyer, Sir Anthony Stanbrook, Ivor
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Stokes, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan Mitchell, Lt.- Co). C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Sutcliffe, John
Goodhew, Victor Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tapsell, Peter
Gower, Raymond Moate, Roger Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Molyneaux, James Tebbit, Norman
Gray, Hamish Monks, Mrs. Connie Temple, John M.
Green, Alan Monro, Hector Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Montgomery, Fergus Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gummer, Selwyn More, Jasper Trew, Peter
Gurden, Harold Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Tugendhat, Christopher
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Hall, John (Wycombe) Mudd, David van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Murton, Oscar Waddington, David
Hannam, John (Exeter) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hastings. Stephen Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wall, Patrick
Havers, Michael Neave, Airey Walters, Dennis
Hawkins, Paul Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Ward, Dame Irene
Hay, John Normanton, Tom Warren, Kenneth
Heseltine, Michael Nott, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hicks, Robert Onslow, Cranley Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Higgins, Terence L. Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wilkinson, John
Hiley, Joseph Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Worsley, Marcus
Holland, Philip Page, Graham (Crosby)
Holt, Miss Mary Page, John (Harrow, W.) TFIXERS FOR THE NOES:
Hordern, Peter Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Hornby, Richard Percival, Ian Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Pike, Miss Mervyn
Howell, David (Guildford) Pink, R. Bonner
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Gloucester)

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 11, line 15, at end insert: (d) for the reference in subsection (2) to £110 there shall be substituted a reference to £140. I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting this Amendment. It is supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward). It deals with the tax allowance for single women with elderly or infirm female dependants. If it seems a little familiar to some hon. Members it is because it has a very illustrious precedent, in that a very similar Amendment was moved to the 1967 Finance Act by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, supported by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. I feel that I am in good company, therefore, but I also feel that it is rather sad that this Amendment has not been made during the intervening years.

Our purpose is to do away with what would seem to be a very unfair anomaly whereby a married man gets £140 tax relief in respect of his wife, but when he dies and his single daughter takes over the care of the same woman—her mother—the relief to her is reduced by £30 to £110. In 1967, the allowance for a single woman had risen from £75 to £110, but the allowance for a man in respect of his wife was only £120, and that has since risen to £140. The anomaly is therefore even greater today than in 1967, when my hon. Friends the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State, Treasury, all voted to do away with it. I hope that I am not being too naive if I look upon this as some ground for optimism.

As my hon. Friends will be aware, these women who care for their elderly mothers have usually given up the opportunity of a career, of marriage and even of pleasant or remunerative work in order to do so, and are suffering severe financial hardship. In the context of the Amendment, I am not concerned with those single women who will receive the new £4 tax free constant attendance allowance, but rather with those who are still managing to do some work, because not only is their earning capacity much less than that of a man but they also have little opportunity to save during their working lives.

Quite the reverse is the case. Those who are still managing to work at all are often having to struggle with the additional financial burden of either impending early retirement or of having to take protracted periods of time from work in order to care for their elderly or infirm relatives during periods of acute or chronic sickness. So they should be given every opportunity to save in what has become a very insecure working life for them, especially as many of them perhaps take on this responsibility at a time when they have reached an age when they are past their best earning capacity.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that in continuing to accept responsibility for their elderly parents and relatives at home they are saving the local authority the considerable expense of having to provide accommodation in an old people's home. They should therefore get every encouragement, not so much for their devotion, which is without prices and for which they would be the last to claim any financial recompense, but for the service they are providing in the community in accepting this responsibility, often at great personal sacrifice. That being so, an increase of £30 in their allowance would seem to be the very least we could possibly pay.

When in 1967 my right hon. Friend moved her Amendment, the rather bizarre argument was advanced, which I am confident my hon. Friends will not follow, that the allowance which a married man receives in respect of his wife is not just an allowance for her but also for him. in other words, an allowance for two people. The fact remains that he gets the allowance because he has a wife. If he did not have a wife, he would not get the allowance and it must therefore be in respect of her. It is difficult to see why the single daughter, when she takes on the same responsibility, should be allowed less for doing so. Any allowance that the mother would have upon the death of her husband would depend on whether she had any taxable income, and most often she would not.

In asking my hon. Friend to accept the Amendment I feel rather like Oliver Twist. The Chancellor has given some very good things in his Budget——

Mr. James Wellbeloved (Erith and Crayford)

To whom?

Mrs. Oppenheim

Many more than have been given for many years. But I ask my hon. Friend to look upon the Amendment with sympathy. It is very modest, far more modest than the excellent Amendment moved in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).

If my hon. Friend feels that, in view of all the largesse given, the allowance cannot be increased this year, I hope that he will ask his right hon. Friend to keep it in the forefront of his mind in the preparation of his next Budget.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

The whole House was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). Far from being Oliver Twist, she was more like Portia bringing a sense of justice to the Front Bench.

There are here two clear principles which must appeal to every hon. Member, especially those in the Conservative Party. The first is to see that the family bonds and connections which are so quickly being dissolved in the present society are maintained and that there is some help, when a daughter, or niece, or women with some other family connection, gives up her whole life to help and protect a mother, or some other relative, or someone with whom she feels a deep bond of affection, often making a great sacrifice, as my hon. Friend said, which cannot be recompensed in mere money terms. On this alone there is an overwhelming moral case for the Amendment.

Secondly, there is a consideration which my hon. Friend merely mentioned but which must appeal to the Gradgrinds in the Treasury, which is that this investment will save the State immense expenditure of public funds on old people's homes. Today the geriatric is becoming a major problem with which we are failing to cope and any effort on the part of an individual should be aided and that burning spirituality of the family bond——

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

Oh God!

Mr. Fraser

—is something which this Government above all Governments should encourage to flourish.

My hon. Friend moved the Amendment with great force and I ask the Government to accept it. The sum involved is small, but the good which could be done is enormous. I hope that the Amendment will be carried with the support of the whole House.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I naturally support with great pleasure and, I hope, force the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). However, I should like to relate the history a little, because I am not certain how many of my hon. Friends now on the Treasury Bench know it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)


Dame Irene Ward

Never mind about one; do not spoil what I am going to say.

Long ago a dedicated women, the Rev. Mary Webster, who came from Woolwich, had the idea of establishing an organisation which was called the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. To all of us who followed the wonderful effort of the Rev. Mary Webster, it was a great grief that she died very young without achieving her objective. But I am very glad to say that the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants has flourished ever since. Among its ranks of supporters have been members of all Parties. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) has given wonderful service in support of the organisation. We all admire that. The Amendment should be regarded as an Amendment of the House and not just an Amendment of one party.

10.15 p.m.

Sometimes I enjoy being indiscreet. Sometimes it is much better not to be indiscreet. If I delved into history, I should find that some very distinguished members of my party have found, through various means, the finance to support this very important organisation. I never mind when I hear an argument against an Amendment if it is a straight argument, but when we have an organisation which has been supported by all parties over very many years on a basis of what we think is right and just, then I am less interested in political arguments than in winning the battle. I believe that we shall win the battle today, because both parties have supported this organisation and have agreed that it is a very important and human organisation. Whichever party has been in power, the organisation has been supported. Therefore, there ought to be no question of not accepting an Amendment of this kind, which was put forward by my hon. Friend with some very important logical points.

I am sorry to have to make a complaint about my party because it has done a great deal more than the Opposition for many sections of the community, and that gives me all the more reason to believe that the Government will accept the Amendment. But on the kind of case which would be covered, I give an example of one of my constituents. She was a woman earning a very good salary. Her mother should have gone into a mental hospital. That woman gave up her very remunerative post because she would not allow her mother to go into a mental hospital. She gave up her appointment and she was not then able, on the income available to the household, to keep up her contribution for her retirement pension.

It is very well known, though not often mentioned by either side of the House, that with the ever-increasing rate of contributions to the social security schemes, one can opt out because one has a low income. This constituent of mine had to opt out of continuing her contributions She made a major sacrifice.

It takes many years to win a battle in Parliament. Treasury Ministers, whether in a Labour Government or in a Conservative Government, are occupied with many important economic issues. The brainy people in the Treasury—I mean apart from Ministers—live in an ivory tower: they have not time to go out among the ordinary people. They deal with thousands of millions of pounds and do not always consider the small issues. The small issues go to the bottom of the Cabinet agenda.

We are not discussing an issue such as the Common Market, local government reform, river pollution, or water supplies. On human issues, Treasury Ministers and all hon. Members advocate a human approach. At present, Members of Parliament are not too popular. Those who vote for us like us to be genuine and honest. They do not care whether on the human issues a Member votes with his party or goes into the other Lobby. I do not like people supporting a case when they are in Opposition and running away from it when they are in power. This is a realistic and honourable way to state the case. When one knows, likes and admires those on the Treasury Bench. one does not like to see them stepping on a slippery stone. One likes them to do what is in their hearts to do. I know that it is in the hearts of those on the Treasury Bench and of Shadow Ministers to support the Amendment.

There is a very good saying—"Know your enemy". The enemy is the answer. I cannot think of an answer which could remotely reflect a reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. These women do so much for their relatives. In the allocation of houses on a points system, local authorities expect a mother and a daughter to occupy only one bedroom. A woman who is working hard to maintain an elderly parent should have every consideration in this respect, but I have never been able to persuade any Minister of Housing to lay this down as an administrative act.

I am sure that all my male colleagues here will not mind my saying that women probably understand better the difficulties of the kind of life led by the women whom we are trying to help. Men have a very sympathetic and human approach to these matters, however, and I should hate to deprive them of the opportunity to exercise their humanity tonight, whether they be on the Treasury Bench, the Shadow Treasury Bench, or the back benches on either side. Of one thing I am certain. Our proposal will be accepted with alacrity in the country.

If I do not receive a satisfactory reply, I think that I may be able, with the permission of the House, to speak again, and I am sure that the same will apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester. Women are very good at speaking. I am rather sorry for whoever is to answer the debate, unless he is ready to say at once—as I certainly hope he is—that he accepts our case.

The National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants has been helped by Members of all parties. I am not giving anything away when I say that some Cabinet Ministers have been very faithful to the organisation. So let my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury disregard the ivory tower officials—I imagine that they will be relieved if they are not required to poke their heads out of their ivory towers for once—and let them accept something which we all know will be most acceptable to the country as a whole. I can think of no answer against it, so I shall sit down now and give the Minister his opportunity.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

I thank the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) for her kind words about the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, and I am particularly glad that she has put on record our indebtedness to the late Mary Webster. I am an officer of the National Council. We have no chairman since Mary died. I am the vice-chairman, and we have deliberately never elected a chairman in her stead. We have the rather curious situation that the senior elected official in an organisation whose concern is the welfare of the single woman is a man. But, no doubt, that is the way these organisation sometimes work, and it is the way the world works.

The argument so notably presented tonight by the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) and her hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has been raised on many occasions. We have had similar debates in Standing Committee. I believe that I have taken part in every one of them ever since we first introduced this topic on a Private Member's Motion about five years ago. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it is a cause which has been notably supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. When we were in Government, it was supported by some of my party, and on that occasion it was strongly supported also by Conservative Members, some of whom now find themselves Ministers.

The hon. Lady talked about voting. When I last raised this matter in Standing Committee, I said that I would not embarrass members of the Government by seeking to divide the Committee. As the House knows, I do not like embarrassing people. I do not like forcing people to swallow some of the things which they may have said in previous years and, perhaps, to vote in 1971 against a proposal for which they voted in 1969 or 1968. One does not like to be too cruel.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would make the same point about his own side, all of whom voted against it in 1967.

Mr. Hamling

Not all of them.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I cannot remember the number of times I have voted against my own Government.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamling

As a Whip, I can speak about that with a certain amount of feeling. There were several occasions when I voted against my own Government, even on a three-line Whip. I am now in the Whips' Office.

Mr. Heffer

That is why.

Mr. Hamling

The present Chief Whip has been known to vote against his own party on the odd occasion.

I followed the hon. Member for Tynemouth in an earlier debate in attacking some of the attitudes adopted by the Treasury Bench in previous Governments, and I very much support what she has said tonight. I do not go much for what I call the Treasury mind.

Party politics aside, the feeling of the House tonight is in favour of the Amendment. We have had five years of debate on these matters. The time has come when the House is prepared to come down on the side of the single woman. There are no party politics in this, as the hon. Lady rightly said. It is a matter of supreme human justice and equality, not sentiment and not just humanity.

Many of those in the section of the community with which we are here concerned are members of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, but many are not. Many of them have never even heard of the Council. All of them work hard and make sacrifices on behalf of their dependants. They do so uncomplainingly, without any thought of reward.

The House is the one institution in the world that can say, "We are sensible of the just demands of a poor section of the British people, who are not very articulate." It is the one political institution in the world that can take that sort of attitude with a sense of its proper place in the history of constitutional assemblies.

Miss Mary Holt (Preston, North)

As a single woman who is fortunate enough not to have to maintain a dependant, I want to say a word on behalf of those single women who are more unfortunate than I.

Reference has been made to the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants. I commend to my hon. Friend the Minister its Report for 1970. There he will read a series of heartrending cases of women who have devoted their whole lives to supporting their aged parents, women who have given up their jobs and reduced themselves to poverty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), who so ably moved the Amendment, has made out a splendid case on the ground not only that these women reduce the burden on other taxpayers but also of the strengthening of family bonds. I remind my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the amount being claimed is only £30 more. How much in his life does £30 mean? It means so much more in the lives of most of these unfortunate women. I support the Amendment very strongly.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

There was one moment in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) when I warmed to her more than customarily. This was when she expressed sympathy with a Treasury Minister who has the task of replying to a debate of the sort we have had on this Amendment.

I endorse entirely everything said about the way the Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), who spoke movingly and sincerely about the problems that confront the single woman who has to look after an ageing or incapacitated relative. I was one of those who attended one of the first meetings of the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, which was held in Committee Room 14 back in 1966, or perhaps 1965, because it seemed to me, on the basis of evidence in my constituency, that there was here a problem which had been insufficiently recognised by the parties.

I think one of the glories of our society is the richness of campassion which flows to those facing problems of poverty or dependence. As the Welfare State advances and as old problems become dealt with new ones are brought for- ward by various organisations. The National Council for the Single Woman is an example; the Disablement Income Group is another. One can think of others.

Without doubt, as my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Handing), who has played a most notable part in the Council, have rightly stressed, grave personal problems confront these women, who often give up their careers in order to care for an aged or incapacitated relative, often at great financial and personal sacrifice.

This was why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) introduced a new allowance of £110 in 1967 specifically for single women, whether they be spinsters or widows or divorced, who have to look after relatives, differentiating that case from the normal dependent relative allowance which was then and is still £75. The margin of £35 was then established.

I want to deal with the point of the Amendment which was then moved by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science and to which Iain Macleod and others of us put our names. That Amendment would have provided that the sum of £110 should be increased by £10 to £120 for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester has mentioned tonight—that it was thought that there should be the same figure as the differential between the married allowance and the single allowance on the footing that this represented an additional allowance paid to the husband in respect of his wife. The argument advanced by one of my predecessors, Mr. Niall MacDermot, was that this was a false analogy, that there was no proper parallel to be drawn between a differentiation between a married and single allowance and an allowance for dependent relatives such as is under discussion to-night.

I hope that in paraphrasing what he said I will not be accused of indulging in absurd argument, because it is a perfectly genuine argument. The marriage allowance, which under our system goes to the husband in respect of himself and his wife, is an allowance in respect of two people and may well be in respect of two incomes. Furthermore, it is in respect of two people whose incomes are aggregated and in these circumstances it is sui generis and a false analogy to deduce from the relativities of those two allowances an argument that some other allowance should be directly and arithmetically related to it.

The argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was that because the difference, as a result of the Budget last year of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), between single and married allowances was increased from £120 to £140, it is thereby necessarily right that this particular allowance for the single woman with a dependent relative should be increased to the same figure. What has to be borne in mind is that as a result of the proposal made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in 1967 an exception was made, supported by all sides of the House, with respect to the normal dependent relative allowances.

The ordinary taxpayer gets an allowance of £75, including the male taxpayer who is perhaps supporting his aged mother. It is purely coincidental that I called on two such families in my constituency last Saturday. The fact is that the man supporting his dependent relative gets only £75. The woman who supports a dependent relative gets £110. It has been asked by male taxpayers why there should be this additional advantage for the woman. The answer is fairly and properly given that because on the whole women are not as highly-paid as men. In an increasing number of occupations they now have equal pay. In general, the occupations women follow do not command the same incomes as those followed by men.

Therefore it would be appropriate that they should get compensatory help in the form of increased allowances. The point is how far should the margin be widened? It is already £35. The question is: should it be widened as the Amendment suggests by another £30, so that the margin is £65, which is very nearly double the allowance given to the generality of taxpayers who already support dependent relatives? I would have thought that there would be a strong argument against this.

We have to bear in mind the general relativity of these personal allowances among themselves. It is in the last resort a matter of judgment and broad social policy as to what the level of the allowances and the relativity of the allowances should be at any particular time or in any particular case. It may be said that when dealing with comparable circumstances, namely the taxpayer supporting a dependent relative, we would need very powerful arguments to justify one allowance being double the level of another in not dissimilar circumstances. It may be thought that, in these circumstances, the margin of £35 such as already exists in the tax system is perhaps not an unreasonable one.

10.45 p.m.

I take the broad social point made so powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). The family must always be the first line of defence in the social services: the family first, the community second, and the voluntary and statutory authorities third. Naturally, we shall want to do all that we can to encourage and help the family to bear the responsibilities that that priority inevitably involves. As a Treasury Minister, equally I take the point that the cost of supporting incapacitated elderly people in institutions is vastly greater than if these people can be supported in the comfort and community of their own homes. These are matters of broad social policy. They are matters which obviously must be considered continuously by Governments—not only by the Treasury, but by the Department of Health and Social Security.

There is one other point on the allowances which I should make. A dependent relative with no aggregation, as with a wife, is entitled to his or her own personal allowances. Furthermore, a dependent relative allowance, either £110 or £75, is not abated until the dependent relative's own income goes up beyond a certain figure. Because of the difference of £75 or £110, this figure is very different in the case of a dependent relative being supported by a single woman. In the current year, 1971–72, the limit of a dependent relative's income before abatement takes place is £364 a year. Where the person claiming the allowance is a single woman, it is £399. That is quite a considerable margin.

Bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend's first priority this year in terms of personal allowances was to deal with the problem of the low threshold for families with children, I suggest that it would be wrong at this stage to accept the Amendment and to widen the gap between £75 and £110 by another £30. The cost of accepting the Amendment is not astronomic. At the same time, it is not insubstantial. In a full year, it would be about £4 million. But the prime weight of the argument is the need to bear in mind the general relativities of the personal allowances.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that, even if we could not feel able to accept the Amendment this year, we should undertake to consider it sympathetically for next year. I go further than that. In the course of our review of the tax system, we are keeping all the personal allowances under review. We have already embarked on discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security with a view to co-ordinating so far as we can the policies for dealing with the disadvantaged groups in our society, including the disabled and others, so that if possible we can devise a more coherent and rational co-ordination of the policies of the Department of Health and Social Security and of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this vitally important sphere. Clearly the support of dependent relatives falls within this category. I assure the House that this is an aspect of policy which will receive the most urgent and intensive study by Ministers both in the Treasury and in the Department of Health and Social Security during the year.

I believe that it would be wrong, in advance of that total review of personal allowances and bearing in mind that we have given priority to the children's allowances this year, to take the single step to widen the margin between the £75 dependent relative allowance for the generality of taxpayers so that it is nearly double for the single woman taxpayer who is supporting a dependent relative.

I have listened with intense interest and sympathy to the case which has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester the undertaking that the matter will be firmly reviewed before next year. I therefore hope that, in the circumstances, she will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Taverne

I should be the last to castigate the Financial Secretary for doing his best with a difficult defending brief, which occasionally is the lot of Treasury Ministers. The hon. Gentleman approached this matter with sympathy and made a brave attempt to justify the present position. He pointed to the anomalies in the present system of allowances. He said that the question of personal allowances will be reviewed. This is a matter on which I think he would command the support of most of the House, because it needs to be reviewed.

In the meantime, what do we do about this special case which was created a few years ago? If it is a special case—it was then recognised to be a special case and was generally accepted by the House—then, for the reasons so eloquently advanced by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), there is a case for maintaining the value of this concession.

We often argued in Committee that in doling out the relief which they have given the Government should have given a much higher priority to maintaining the value of allowances and the thresh-hold for tax in certain cases. The Minister said that the whole question of allowances is being reviewed. I am glad to hear this, because to some extent I got the impression, from the new tax allowances written into the Bill, that they were already fixed. I hope that they will all be reviewed.

In the meantime, what is the attitude to this allowance? This concession, which would cost £4 million—considerably less than other concessions in the Budget—would go to a category which is rather more deserving—putting it in terms of "deserving" is not the right way of putting it; a more needy category—than many others which have had benefits in the Budget. As a holding operation, surely the Government could concede this concession. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester will press the Amendment and not feel obliged to wait another year.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim

I cannot altogether accept two of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend. The first was that increasing this allowance for single women would widen the discrepancy between them and the generality of taxpayers. He conceded that a single male who was supporting a dependent relative would be earning more, but did not point out that that male would probably have a much higher pension expectancy than the single woman. Therefore, this must also be taken into consideration. As for the false analogy, my hon. Friend's argument seemed almost as bizarre as the one that I referred to, but it would only apply to an aggregate income. If only the husband's income were involved, the analogy would not be as false as all that. However, in view of my hon. Friend's assurances, which I shall hold him to, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Does the hon. Lady have the leave of the House?

Hon. Members


Dame Irene Ward

The Financial Secretary did not explain why, if there is all this argument against the case, the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependants, which has been advocating this for years, has been supported by so many of my own Cabinet Ministers and other hon. Members.

Having lived a long time and done a lot of things during the war, I remember that when we wanted to attract married women into the war, we increased their marriage allowances. When the war ended, no Government dared to go back on that. The widow, whatever her income, is entitled to a housekeeper allowance, whereas spinsters and bachelors are not: we have never been able to persuade any Government to do away with this unfair discrimination. Neither party has had the courage to deal with this inequality.

It is for my hon. Friend to say whether she accepts the assurances which she has

been given. I have faith in the promises which have been made, but my hon. Friend did not say that this case would be met. All he said was that they would all be reviewed. I should like my hon. Friend, with his great charm, to tell me why he has not answered these points.

Hon. Members


11.0 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot resist by hon. Friend's blandishments. I cannot give her the categorical pledge she asked for, because it would make nonsense of my right hon. Friend's review of allowances. As I stressed, it is the relativity of those allowances to each other which must be a primary factor in fixing their level, but I can give her the assurance that this allowance will be particularly examined in this review, and I hope she will accept that as sincerely intended.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim

May I say finally in answer to my hon. Friend——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No. The hon. Lady cannot make three speeches. If she wishes to withdraw her Amendment, she can say so, but no more.

The Question is——

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

On a point of order, I understand my hon. Friend was begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members


Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mrs. Oppenheim


Hon. Members


Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 190.

Division No. 411.] AYES [11.1 p.m.
Albu, Austen Barnett, Joel Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Beaney, Alan Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ashton, Joe Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Campbell), 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Atkinson, Norman Blsnkinsop, Arthur Cant, R. B.
Bagier, Cordon A. T. Boardman, H. (Leigh) Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Barnes, Michael Booth, Albert Clark, David (Coins Valley)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) John, Brynmor Pentland, Norman
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Concannon, J. D, Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Crawshaw, Richard Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Price, William (Rugby)
Cronin, John Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Probert, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Flies, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Kaufman, Gerald Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Kelley, Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Kerr, Russell Robertson, John (Paisley)
Deakins, Eric Lawson, George Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Roper, John
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Leonard, Dick Rose, Paul B.
Dempsey, James Lestor, Miss Joan Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Doig, Peter Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Sandelson, Neville
Dormand, J. D. Lomas, Kenneth Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under Lyne)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'e'Bie-u-Tyne)
Duffy, A. E. P. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptfortd)
Dunn, James A. McCann, John Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dunnett, Jack McCartney, Hugh Silverman, Julius
Ellis, Tom McGuire, Michael Skinner, Dennis
Evans, Fred Mackenzie, Gregor Spearing, Nigel
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Maclennan, Robert Spriggs, Leslie
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Stallard, A. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin Steel, David
Foot, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Forrester, John Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Strang, Gavin
Galpern, Sir Myer Marks, Kenneth Taverne, Dick
Gilbert, Dr. John Marquand, David Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Golding, John Marsden, F. Tinn, James
Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Meacher, Michael Torney, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Tuck, Raphael
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mendelson, John Urwin, T. W.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Miller, Dr. M. S. Varley, Eric G.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Wallace, George
Hamling, William Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Weitzman, David
Harman, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Wellbeloved, James
Hardy, Peter Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Hattersley, Roy Moyle, Roland Whitlock, William
Heffer, Eric S. Murray, Ronald King Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hooson, Emlyn O'Halloran, Michael Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas O'Mallcy, Brian Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Oram, Bert Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hucfield, Leslie Orme, Stanley Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Palmer, Arthur Woof, Robert
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Hunter, Adam Pavitt, Laurie TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Mr. Donald Coleman and
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Pendry, Tom Mr. lames Hamilton.
Adley, Robert Chapman, Sydney Fowler, Norman
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Chichester-Clark, H. Glyn, Dr. Alan
Atkins, Humphrey Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Gower, Raymond
Awdry, Daniel Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Cockeram, Eric Green, Alan
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Cooke, Robert Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Coombs, Derek Gummer, Selwyn
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Cormack, Patrick Gurden, Harold
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Costain, A. P. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Benyon, W Crouch, David Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Biffon. John Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Biggs-Davison, John d' Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj.-Gen. James Hannam, John (Exeter)
Blaker, Peter Dean, Paul Hastings, Stephen
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Havers, Michael
Boscawen, Robert Dixon, Piers Hawkins, Paul
Bossom, Sir Clive du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Heseltine, Michael
Bowden, Andrew Dykes Hugh Hicks, Robert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Eden, Sir John Higgins, Terence L.
Braine, Bernard Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hiley, Joseph
Bray, Ronald Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Brewis, John Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hordern, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton Eyre, Reginald Hornby, Richard
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Farr, John Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Fermer, Mrs. Peggy Howell, David (Guildford)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Burden, F. A. Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Hunt, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Fookes, Miss Janet Hutchison, Michael Cark
Carlisle, Mark Fortescue, Tim Iremonger, T. L.
Channon, Paul Foster, Sir John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
James, David More, Jasper Shelton, William (Clapham)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Simeons, Charles
Jessel, Toby Mudd, David Skeet, T. H. H.
Jopling, Michael Murton, Oscar Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Nabarro, Sir Gerald Soref, Harold
Kershaw, Anthony Neave, Airey Speed, Keith
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Spence, John
Kitson, Timothy Normanton, Tom Stanbrook, Ivor
Knox, David Nott, John Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Lane, David Onslow, Cranley Stokes, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Sutcliffe, John
Le Marchant, Spencer Page, Graham (Crosby) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Longden, Gilbert Page, John (Harrow, W.) Tebbit, Norman
Loveridge, John Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Temple, John M.
Luce, R. N. Percival, Ian Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
MacArthur, Ian Pink, R. Bonner Trafford, Dr. Anthony
McCrindle, R. A. Pounder, Rafton Trew, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Tugendhat, Christopher
McMaster, Stanley Price, David (Eastleigh) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis van Straubenzee, W. R.
McNair-Wilson, Michael Raison, Timothy Waddington, David
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Maginnis, John E. Redmond, Robert Wall, Patrick
Marten, Neil Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Walters, Dennis
Mather, Carol Rees, Peter (DŌver) Warren, Kenneth
Maude, Angus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Weatherill, Bernard
Meyer, Sir Anthony Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Ridsdale, Julian Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wilkinson, John
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) St. John-Stevas, Norman Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Sandys, Rt. Hn, D. Worsley, Marcus
Moate, Roger Scott, Nicholas
Molyneaux, James Scott-Hopkins, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES'
Monks, Mrs. Connie Sharples, Richard Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Monro, Hector Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Mr. Walter Clegg.
Forward to