HC Deb 10 July 1972 vol 840 cc1295-329

(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, if a claimant proves—

  1. (a) that he is a married man who for the year of assessment has his wife living with him. and that one or both of them was for the whole or part of the year a disabled person as defined in subsection (2) of this section; or
  2. (b) that, not being such a married man, he was for the whole or part of the year a disabled person as defined in subsection (2) of this section; or
  3. (c) that he is a person who throughout the year has to provide for the requirements of some other person, being ordinarily resident with him, who is a disabled person as defined in subsection (2) of this section,
he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate of £100: Provided that relief under this section shall be alternative to relief under either sections 214 or 215 or 216 or 217 or 218 of the Income Tax Acts 1952, as amended.

(2) In this section "disabled person" means a person who is aged 70 or over or requires constant attendance as a result of loss of mental or physical faculty.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Morris

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With new Clause 9 it would be convenient for the House to discuss new Clause 21.

Relief for mentally or physically infirm persons

(1) Subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4) below, any individual who is certified by a registered medical practitioner as being in need of care and attention, by reason of being incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity, and who for the year of assessment maintains or employs any person full time as an in the capacity of housekeeper, or maintains or employers any person full time as an attendant, shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to income tax at the standard rate on £100:

Provided that for the purpose of this subsection the condition of employing such an attendant full time shall be satisfied if the hours of actual attendance in that employment are not less than an aggregate of 25 hours in each week, or where more than one attendant is employed the aggregate total hours of such actual attendance is not less than an average of 25 hours in each week.

(2) A married man who is entitled for the year of assessment to the higher (married persons) relief under section 8(i) above shall not be entitled to relief under this section unless throughout that year of assessment, his wife was totally incapacitated by physical or mental infirmity.

(3) No relief shall be allowed under this section to a claimant who is entitled to relief under sections 12 or 17 above unless he relinquishes his claim thereto.

(4) Where the claim under subsection (1) above is made in respect of a person maintained by the claimant no relief shall be allowed under this secion unless the claimant proves that neither he nor any other individual is entitled to relief in respect of the same person under any other provision of Part 1 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, or if any other individual is so entitled that the other individual has relinquished his claims thereto.

(5) The enactments relating to income tax and in particular Part I of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, shall have effect as if this section was contained in the said Part 1 immediately after section 18, and section 28(1)(c) below (relating to the allowance of personal reliefs from total income for surtax) shall include a reference to this section and the relief under this section.

(6) This section shall not be deemed to have required any change in the amounts deducted or repaid under section 204 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (Pay-as-you- Earn), before the 31st day of March 1972

and new Clause 22,

Relief in respect of dependant relatives

(1) This section applies

  1. (a) to any individual who is not entitled for the year of assessment to the higher (married persons) relief under section 8(1) Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and
  2. (b) to any married man who is entitled for the year of assessment to the higher relief aforesaid but whose wife was throughout that year totally incapacitated by physical or mental infirmity.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, if the claimant, being a person to whom this section applies, proves in the case of a year of assessment that he is entitled to relief under section 16 below in respect of a dependent relative resident with him who is certified by a registered medical practitioner as being in need of care and attention, by reason of being incapacitated by mental or physical infirmity, he shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to income tax at the standard rate on £100.

(3) Where more than one individual is entitled to relief under this section in connection with the same dependent relative, the £100 mentioned in subsection (2) above shall be apportioned between them in such proportions as may be agreed between them or in default of agreement in accordance with such apportionment as may be adopted in relation to that dependent relative under section 16(2) below.

(4) No relief shall be given under this section in respect of any dependent relative who has been allowed relief under section (18A) below for the same year of assessment unless that dependent relative has relinquished his claim.

(5) The enactments relating to income tax and in particular Part I of the Income and Corporation Takes Act, 1970, shall have effect as if this section was contained in the said Part I immediately after section 14, and section 28(i)(c) below (relating to the allowance of personal reliefs from total income for surtax) shall include a reference to this section and the tax relief under this section.

(6) This section shall not be deemed to have required any change in the amounts deducted or repaid under section 204 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970 (Pay-as-you-Earn), before 31st of March, 1972'.

Mr. Morris

This is an extremely important amendment to the Bill. Its purpose is to give a small measure of financial relief to many hard-pressed individuals and families who are striken by disablement. We are not saying "Give them more" but "Take less from them".

The cost of accepting the new Clause would be trivial compared with other concessions already made by the Government. Most of the Government's concessions have been made to the fit and fortunate. Here we are seeking to help those who are disadvantaged by age or severe disablement. It is often not fully understood that disablement involves a higher cost of living. The extra costs apply even to those whose disabilities are not so severe as to qualify them for the constant attendance allowance first proposed by the Labour Government.

That disablement involves extra costs is fully accepted in Government advice to local authorities. There was a circular from four Departments about the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in 1970.That circular asked local authorities to take into account the extra costs of disablement for the disabled individual and his family. We are merely asking here that the Gov- ernment should practise what they preach to local authorities.

The extra costs argument is also fully accepted, outside the Government, by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The argument has been made very strongly by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Astor) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Other hon. Members will want to give examples of the extra costs incurred by the disabled. I shall give only one, and this concerns the footwear of heavily handicapped children. Spastic children, for example, often have to drag their feet along the ground because of their disabilities. It makes little difference how tough the footwear might be. The result is always the same. Not only do the soles of their shoes wear out at incredible speed but, even worse, the toe caps and uppers are also ruined. This makes it impossible for the shoes to be repaired. I know of some families with spastic children who have to spend £1 a week on shoes alone, often out of very modest incomes.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member's name is not among those sponsoring the new Clause. It will be necessary for one of his hon. Friends technically to move it, after which the hon. Member may resume his speech.

Dr. Gilbert

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

Mr. Morris

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that I know of some families with spastic children who have to spend £1 a week on shoes alone, often out of very modest incomes. With the soaring cost of living, these families often find life difficult enough. The extra 10 per cent, for value added tax on children's shoes will make their problems even more daunting. Acceptance by the Government of this Clause would make the problems of such families a little easier.

A recent survey conducted into the shoe problems of spastic children revealed that 27½ per cent. of the 1,514 children involved were what are called shoe wreckers. Other investigations show that handicapped children can wear out a pair of shoes completely in two to six weeks.

It may be that my hon. Friends will argue that there are imperfections in the drafting of the Clause. They may feel that subsection (2) could have been more felicitously worded. My hon. Friends may have those reservations, but I note that the Minister of State applauded the suggestion.

Mr. Nott

I did not say anything.

Mr. Morris

New Clause 9 was origin ally drafted by the late Iain Macleod and was supported—

Mr. Nott

I should like to make it absolutely clear that I did not utter a word.

Mr. Morris

My impression was that the hon. Gentleman was welcoming the suggestion that my hon. Friends may criticise the drafting of new Clause 9. I referred to my hon. Friends because the Clause was first drafted by the late Iain Macleod. As hon. Members will recall, he together with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) proposed a new Clause in these terms when the 1968 Finance Bill was before the House. Anyone who wishes to check the point can refer to the Supplement to Votes 1967–68, Vol. 9.

I think that Iain Macleod was right to put it to the House that there are extra costs for disabled families. I hope that the hon. Member for Wokingham in particular will support the Clause in the Lobby tonight. I hope that other hon. Members on the Government side will support it, if only as a tribute to the late Iain Macleod. I hope they will say in government what they were prepared to support in opposition.

Many of my hon. Friends will want to speak from close experience of the problems of disabled families, and I hope that the Minister of State will respond constructively to their arguments. There is no reason why new Clause 9 should not be accepted. We are asking for only a modest measure of relief for some of the most hard-pressed individuals and families in the land, and I ask the Minister of State to respond accordingly.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), but I think that technically, he goes beyond the scope of new Clause 9 when he talks about shoes for spastic children, because the Clause defines a disabled person as someone aged 70 or over. This is one of my minor quarrels with the Clause.

Mr. Alfred Morris

No. The words are: In this section 'disabled person' means a person who is aged 70 or over or requires constant attendance as a result of loss of mental or physical faculty".

Mr. Price

I accept that. I was about to say that I do not make a point of it because I see these new Clauses as an opportunity to talk about the whole range of tax allowances for the disabled, and it is to this that I wish now to turn the attention of the House. At the outset, perhaps I should declare my own modest vested interest in that I am a member of a disabled family. In these days when, it seems, we must declare all our interests,. I declare that one, painful though it is.

I am interested in the new Clauses, but I am interested above all in the spirit behind them, which I regard as more important than the actual wording. They are an attempt to ameliorate some of the sore spots of our society but they relate to some, and only some, of those who suffer from severe physical or mental disability. This is not a new problem though the scale of it is relatively new, certainly within the lifetime of most of us here present. In a curious way it is, perhaps, a measure of our progress in social and medical matters. But that is no reason why we should not address ourselves to the problem with both determination and compassion. I know that the whole House will agree that one measure of the strength and health of any society is the extent to which it makes provision for its handicapped brethren.

I need not go over the figures—I am sure that they are well known to all hon. Members present—but the fact that there are over 1 million people here involved out of a society of 56 million gives a measure of what we have to deal with. Again, I am sure that the House will agree that the long-term answer to all these problems is a combination of cash and care. The care side is beyond the scope of these new Clauses. Nevertheless, we must agree that the biggest handicap flowing from disability is one's inability to lead a normal life, so that we must look at any tax provision from the standpoint of how far it assists the disabled person to take his or her part in the normality of the community.

Obviously, it is to the cash side of that proposition that we must direct attention tonight—we should be out of order were we to do otherwise—and the cash side has two aspects. There is the social benefit side, which is beyond the scope of the new Clauses. Only the tax allowance side is our concern here. But I do not believe that we can look at what would be the right provision on the tax allowance side without directing attention to our objective on the cash provision side. Here I declare my interest. As hon. Members know, I believe that the right thing is a national disability income. This is the key to the whole problem. Until we get that right, what we do in income tax provision is minor.

Nevertheless it is important, if we accept the strategy of moving towards a national disability income, that what we do in income tax allowances should support that strategy. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has gone two stages down the road—the first, the attendance allowance, rather tightly defined; the next to come in the autumn, taking two years to bring in, I understand, and a little more generous in definition—these steps take us only a modest way towards providing that disability income which most hon. Members present regard as the right strategy for the nation to pursue. Therefore we must examine the priorities of income tax allowances. I believe that the priority as of now should be to deal with those disabled people who are beyond the scope of the constant attendance allowance, either mark I or mark II, and that means above all those who manage to get to work. That should be the key priority at the moment.

The correct way to approach tax allowances would be as of now to assist those disabled people going to work with the extra expense that is incurred for them because of their disability in getting there. I am sure that will commend itself to both sides of the House. With respect to the very respectable proposals tabled by the Opposition, I believe that to be the most important priority at the moment. Whether that requires a new Clause and Amendment to the Finance Bill or whether it could be done administratively by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer working with the Inland Revenue is something that I would like to have explained by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. A great deal could surely be done administratively.

On the wider issue I would hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to review the whole of the tax allowances offered to disabled people and also to those who look after disabled people, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Security, so that both a straight cash provision and tax allowance would be working in the same direction. There is a very simple precept by which my right hon. Friends could approach such a review, and that is that disability should be provided for in broadly the same way as old age and widowhood.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will give an undertaking that between now and next year's budget the Treasury will carry out a full-going review and that in the next Finance Bill there will be a whole range of improvements in taxation allowances to assist the disabled of all categories. If we could have that undertaking, I am sure that most hon. Members would be satisfied with what the debate would have achieved.

Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West)

I support what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) have said so far. I wish to refer to new Clauses 21 and 22.

One Clause gives relief to mentally or physically infirm persons who employ a female person resident with them in the capacity of housekeeper, or maintain or employ any persons full-time as an attendant. The second deals with giving relief in respect of dependent relatives of a claimant who can show that they are dependent relatives resident with the claimant who is certified by a registered medical practitioner as being in need of care and attention because of incapacity by mental or physical infirmity.

The group of taxpayers or citizens to whom I refer are mainly women. They are the women who care for physically or mentally infirm relatives. I have in mind particularly single women who look after their relatives, normally their parents but often a brother or a sister who is sick or incapacitated. That is a class of persons, who have been unknown for a long time. It is only in recent years that attention has been paid to their existence, let alone their social and financial needs. They are represented, as the House well knows, by the National Council for the Single Woman and her Dependent Relatives. That is a new charity but one which has been mentioned many times in the House in the last six or seven years. However, it is not the organisation which does the work but the women who compose the membership. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security knows its work and is appreciative of it.

To that extent this is a matter which is outside party politics and excites compassion and support from all hon. Members. It is a matter which we have raised on many occasions previously with this Government and the preceding Government. I hope that the arguments which have been brought to bear over the years can now persuade the Government that the time has come to put into practice a reform for which Ministers have expressed sympathy in previous debates.

One of the characteristics of our income tax structure has been that it has been biased in favour of men. One of the characteristics of the first Clause is that for the first time it restores some of the balance regarding one class of taxpayer. I do not know why it is that in the past we have always tended to assume that it is all right for a man to employ a housekeeper and to claim tax relief in respect of her, but that incapacitated persons who employ a housekeeper are not recognised in the same way. That is a recognition by society of the helplessness of men.

However, here is a case where more is involved. We are recognising in the Clauses the job of caring for somebody. We are recognising it in two ways. First, we are providing tax relief for someone who is employed for caring, and, secondly, we are recognising the caring done by the person who is herself a taxpayer.

9.45 p.m.

The economics of this are obvious. It will not cost the Treasury much. Single women in this position want their economic and financial independence. They do not want to be beholden to their parents or to have their income doled out to them. Many elderly parents think that a daughter of 45 is still juvenile, incapable of housekeeping and shopping with any degree of perspicacity. I have known a mother say to her daughter who has returned from a shopping expendition "That was not a very good bargain. I could have done better", the mother forgetting that prices have risen a great deal in the last 50 years.

One of the objects of these Clauses is to give these women a sense of independence and self-respect in the knowledege that the job they are doing is recognised by society.

An added economic advantage is that these women save the taxpayer millions of pounds over the years, because, if single women did not give up their independence, and in some cases their jobs, sacrificing their careers and their marital prospects, society would have to do the caring and pay far more than we ask for tonight.

These matters have been debated in Standing Committee. The late Iain Macleod felt passionately about these things and carried both sides of the Committee with him when he expressed sympathy. The matter has been debated on the Floor of the House. I hope that tonight the Government will, in a material way, recognise the importance and sense of social responsibility of thousands of women, a band of people whose praises are in the main unsung and who are, in their own opinion, insignificant.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

I support the comments my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) made in asking for a comprehensive review of the tax allowances and allowances for those who go to the trouble of keeping their elderly relatives at home with them. I greatly agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) in that I do not believe that the country as a whole has the faintest appreciation or the great burden borne by single women in looking after their elderly relatives.

I do not want a few fragmented amendments. I want the Minister to introduce a comprehensive review to give these women the rights to which they are entitled for taking this burden from us and performing their duty happily and uncomplainingly day in and day out, year in and year out.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

Although I appreciated the remarks made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), I am not prepared to wait for another year. Every time when we make this type of plea we are told that we are waiting for some report or for Go dot; it is always next year, over the hill, somewhere else, always tomorrow. Why not now?

We waited a long time for a report from the Department of Health and Social Security about the number of disabled people. Ministers at the Dispatch Box shook their heads when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and I asserted that there were 1 million disabled. That was denied but now the report has come out and we find that there are 3¼ million disabled waiting for help. We do ask not for jam tomorrow but for jam now. We can defer increases for men and women who are well off but we cannot afford to defer increases for these people any longer.

I am concerned about new Clause 9 because of subsection (2). If that subsection were accepted we could drive a coach and horses through all the other arguments, because the need of the disabled would be clearly recognised. They have four basic needs. They need mobility, they need to be able to communicate, they need access to places to which those who are not disabled have ready access and they need to be able to control their own environment. The satisfying of every one of those needs is possible. We are talking not about tomorrow in terms of technology but in terms of here and now, because these means exist now.

If there are any enemies of the disabled, they are in the Treasury; they are not in the Department of Health and Social Security. Any snags, restraints or difficulties are imposed by the Treasury. The all-Party Disablement Group has won the battle we had with the Department of Health and Social Security. I wish I could take some of the Treasury knights to see some of these cases and find whether they have the guts to say that these people do not need help.

I shall give some simple examples. There is the wear and tear in the home of the disabled person who when he goes upstairs spins on his heels. That wears out stair carpets three or four times faster than the walking upstairs by people who are not disabled. Do not these people deserve consideration and a tax allowance? Are they not worthy of consideration? Then there is the fact that because of disability and because a person has shaky hands, there are frequently more breakages in the households of these people than in other households. Cannot this be taken into account? Is it not worthy of consideration? There is the problem of appliances for disabled people.

If all the equipment needed by disabled people were provided by the Department of Health and Social Security or by the local authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and I might have no cause for complaint. But despite strong representations the Treasury, its knights or its representatives, still will not acknowledge that they will tax the sick on their appliances. I challenge the Minister of State to counter-attack me on this point. Incontinence pads, which have absolutely no other function, ought not to bear VAT. What possesses the Treasury to find a way of imposing VAT on them I shall never understand. So long as that kind of blank mind operates and that unfeeling attitude is adopted, Treasury Ministers ought not to be surprised if hon. Members become indignant, worked up and annoyed.

The Treasury has become so stupefied that it has provided that if we take a prescription to a chemist VAT does not apply, but that if we take precisely the same prescription to an appliance centre it carries VAT. The Treasury says "Well, there would be administrative difficulties in relieving these things of VAT," but it is prepared to claim back VAT on every prescription, no matter how humble, if it comes from an appliance centre. How administratively absurd can one get?

The Amelia Harris Report, for which we have all waited—I blame the last Government as much as the present one for the delay—tells us exactly how many people are in need. Action tomorrow will not do; certainly action next year will not do. It would be very pleasant if the Minister of State would accept the new Clause tonight.

If the Minister accepts the new Clause, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be happy. Subsection (2) will give great hope to disabled people, not only in respect of taxation but because the vital principle will have been established that disabled persons are regarded as special cases in terms of all kinds of taxation.

At this last moment, will the Minister of State please reconsider the position?

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)

Those hon. Members who tabled these new Clauses, especially new Clause 9, have done a service to the House in giving it yet another opportunity of showing its unanimity on the question of the need to do more for the disabled The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said that this was not a party matter. How right he was. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must convince the Departments concerned that we are not prepared to wait indefinitely for more to be done. The House knows that the new Clauses are drafted in a peculiar way because of the rules of order. That means that they are not in a form in which the House would wish to legislate For that reason, those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who tabled them will not expect them to be supported, except in the sense that we all want to make it absolutely clear that something more must be done.

I realise that the cost of our social services has been changed over the years by the rules of order which, in Budget after Budget, allow Members to recommend reductions in taxation but not increases in benefit. The hon. Member for Eccles, who said he wanted more jam, is wrong in thinking that that would be derived from the implementation of these Clauses, because they are negative. They would offer only the absence of stick, which is not the same thing, if only for the simple reason that the benefit of the Clauses would not extend them to the poorest of all. They are available only to people within the tax ranges.

Mr. Carter-Jones

That was precisely the point I was making when I said that it was subsection (2) of new Clause 9 that was important, because it would be of considerable benefit to everyone involved, as it redefines the constant attendance allowance and the people who need the help.

10.0 p.m.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

The hon. Gentleman is right in pointing to the use of the constant attendance allowance as the correct solution to the problem of the handicapped people whose need is for income rather than tax concessions. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor this year has announced that the Government are giving serious consideration to the introduction of a much broader system of positive tax credits, we can hope that something will soon be done. A start has been made in giving positive credits to the disabled. Opposition Members would not wish to be tardy in giving credit to the Department of Health and Social Security for the amount that has been done, but more must be done. We must work towards a disability income which will reach not just the most severely handicapped but everyone who is handicapped, including people who might, if they had a small subsidy, be encouraged to be completely independent and earn their own living.

Therefore, I should like to identify myself totally with the campaign for the provision of a disability income. I look forward to the publication of the Government's Green Paper on tax credits, which we expect from week to week. I hope that in it we shall have a clear statement of the Government's intentions with regard to the tax credits that will be made available to the disabled. It will be only a consultative document, but it will be improved if the Government make a clear commitment to the principle that disablement will be recognised as an entitlement to a special, higher tax credit, because nothing could be more encouraging to people in two minds as to whether they can bring themselves to the necessity to go out to work and overcome their handicaps than the knowledge that society was on their side and was prepared to give them help. I hope that the consultative document will have specific recommendations for the House. If it does not, the House will have specific recommendations for the Government.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Willesden, West)

The House is probably at its best when it tries to grapple with this kind of problem and when hon. Members on both sides seek to put the maximum pressure on the Treasury Bench. The speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), like the speeches of other hon. Members, was full of constructive and helpful suggestions as to what should be done. We are unanimous on a number of measures that we hope to see. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) who said that we do not have to wait for perfection before going part of the way.

Having sat through so many Finance Bill debates, I can never understand how Ministers on the Treasury Bench, when everyone around is besieging them, stand stolid and four-square against all our arguments, debating skill and facts, saying that there are technical difficulties or that they are waiting till next year, when they will have the benefit of a comprehensive survey. We finish with pie in the sky tomorrow but very rarely a tax concession for tonight.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh made the point that we were concerned with care and cash, but mainly tonight with cash. I want to draw attention to the fact that the two are allied. A breakthrough has taken place in industrial therapy and there has been another major change in the past 10 years with regard to all kinds of disability, mental or physical. We have ceased to put the handicapped away in institutions and we are seeking, to the maximum of society's ability, to get them into the community as ordinary persons to the best of their physical and mental capacity. For that they want the same as everyone else—a degree of independence. It is difficult to talk about a paraplegic standing on his own legs, but he likes to feel that he is doing so.

Therefore, the concession for which we ask in new Clause 9 must be viewed in the light not only of common humanity and compassion but of the constructive proposal it contains for the person seeking to cope with a disability and trying to do some work, although not as much as the person who is fully fit, and finding that the incidence of taxation means that the recompense he gets does not amount to what he would get if he were to resort to social security. At the same time, he slips back into accepting his disability when people with disabilities should be fighting them and not giving way to them.

The Treasury should consider the Clause not on those grounds alone but also in the light of the Tunbridge Report on rehabilitation, which came out only a fortnight ago. It is a question not only of a person's physical capacity but of his mental capacity to cope with his disability, apart from the care which is given him by means of modern medical skills and equipment.

I spent Friday with autistic children. In my Borough of Brent there are some excellent child guidance centres. I went to my neighbouring Borough of Ealing where the National Society has established an autistic centre. Parents of such children have a constant struggle in looking after them and therefore they should qualify for the constant attendance allowance. I find it almost impossible to to understand the reasoning of the comptometers of the Treasury or how it can be said that the small amount which would be required to implement new Clause 9 is not a justifiable public expense. In fact, it would not be an expense at all, because people have already earned the money.

It is difficult to understand why the Treasury will not accept a number of the proposals we make for the benefit of the disabled. A person can be maintained and work in sheltered or other workshops provided that he has the necessary appliances. If I may refer to my own disability, deafness, a person can continue to work in commerce or industry provided that his hearing is about 80 per cent. of the normal standard. That can be achieved by appliances. Yet although a carpenter has the tools of his trade allowed for tax expenses—

Mr. Hamling indicated dissent.

Mr. Pavitt

If a person incurs legitimate expense in carrying on his employment he can claim an allowance. The Treasury should be more than generous in giving tax allowances to disabled people who need appliances in order to continue their occupations rather than go on social security benefits. New Clause 9 and the two new Clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) seek to move in that direction.

In view of the priorities of the Bill and the amount it dispenses, it will ill become the Treasury if large tax concessions are made elsewhere and the people we are discussing are ignored. The chronically sick and disabled need constant attendance allowances, appliances and mechanical and other means of support. The hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) spoke eloquently of single people who look after aged parents. It is people like this who should be given the highest priority. I cannot see why they should not take priority over a number of other people for whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided in the Bill. In view of the relatively small sum which the Clause involves, I hope that the Treasury will accept it.

Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)

Since the arguments have been put so fully, my contribution will be comparatively brief. I want strongly to support the new Clause because of the move that it represents, albeit a very modest one, to redress the balance between residential and community care in favour of the latter. At present we spend disproportionately far too much on residential care and nothing like enough on community care for the disabled.

A number of reservations have been rightly made about the Clause. The first relates to its very modesty, though no doubt that is an advantage when one puts it to the Treasury. The value of the Clause is something like £30 a year per disabled person under the unified system. That works out at about 60p a week. However, the extra real cost of looking after a severely disabled person who needs constant attendance has been estimated at £20 a week. So this is an extremely modest proposal.

I accept that the drafting is loose, and this applies especially to the criterion for a disabled person in new Clause 9 as being a person who is aged 70 or over". That is taking it rather wide and in my view it would be far better if we added, as new Clause 21 does, certified by a registered medical practitioner as being in need of care and attention However it is only fair to add that 70 per cent. of the disabled are 65 and over; in other words the overlap between the elderly and the disabled is large, and if it be an objection at all it is a small one.

Tax relief on £100 is worth substantially less to the disabled person than a straight cash benefit of the same value. Many disabled people, either because their earnings are very low or because they are congenitally handicapped and have never earned, are below the tax threshold. However it is true that the advantage of this proposal is that the benefits under it would be spread very much wider than existing disablement benefits. Since these are drawn very narrowly under present regulations, this would be a considerable advantage.

A modest tax relief is substantially less important than a considerable extension of local authority personal social services, especially in terms of the home help service and the evening or night sitter-in service. It is broken nights which in the end so often lead to hospitalisation.

Despite these reservations or preferences, there are strong arguments in favour of the Clause. Relief would go to a great many more disabled people than at present get assistance under Government regulations. Only 70,000 disabled persons receive assistance under the attendance allowance Mark I. When we have the second phase and it is brought in fully by the end of 1974, it will still benefit only a further 250,000. The Amelia Harris survey indicates that there are 1¼ million persons over 15 who are disabled and living at home, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) said, there are 3 million people with some form of impairment. Of these, more than one-third of a million are severely handicapped. Even when we have the attendance allowance Mark II fully phased in, there will still be a substantial number in great need in this category who will get no assistance. The Clause would bring aid to those of them who are in severe need and who even under the present extension of the allowance will get no help in two or three years' time.

We ought to encourage families to look after their physically and mentally (handicapped members far more than we do at present. We ought not to penalise them financially. Yet that is what we do now. If a husband has a chronically sick or disabled wife and stays at home to look after her or hires some temporary help, he gets no assistance. In fact, because of the way the insurance system works, he can be penalised.

10.15 p.m.

This is a foolhardy attitude when the alternative is for hospital or some other form of residential care. Surely hospitals should be kept specifically for acute needs. I am sure everyone knows about the problem of bed blocking. Furthermore, hospital is not the most suitable medium for severely disabled people. It is much better that they or their families should have the option of the more preferential surroundings of their own homes.

Mr. Pavitt

If I may underline the point my hon. Friend is making, at St. Thomas' and Westminster Hospitals the cost is £105 per bed per week.

Mr. Meacher

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was coming to the question of cost.

The strongest argument from the Treasury's point of view—the Treasury is the stumbling block—is that for once economic and social pressures are moving in the same direction. When on 15th June I asked about the cheapest form of hospital and residential care, the answer was that it amounted to £30 a week, a cost which had doubled over the last five years. In our present inflationary world, no doubt it will double again over the next five years. It seems extremely foolish to incur these enormous costs for what is not the most suitable environment for disabled people and to deny a considerable or even a modest extension of domiciliary care. If we can afford £30 a week, including free clothes, drugs and board and lodging in hospitals for the disabled, surely the Treasury can afford at least 60p a week for these same persons at home where all these things have to be paid for.

The Clause has considerable advantage in that not only is it modest in scope from the Treasury's point of view, but it would make a substantial contribution to the family care of disabled people.

Mr. Charles Simeons (Luton)

I apologise to the House for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Perhaps a little ironically, I was in the presence of Group Captain Leonard Cheshire.

Whilst the Treasury is concerned about anomalies, disablement is an immense anomaly. There is no greater anomaly anywhere. The disabled are surrounded by anomalies. If they live in their own homes they receive far less than if they live in county council homes. If they live in a Cheshire Home the ratepayers pay the sum between the two. These are enormous anomalies which, whatever the Treasury may say, stare the disabled in the face.

When the disabled go out to work they can, and often do, receive less than if they live on the State. This is another anomaly which hurts their feelings enormously and requires our immediate attention.

The Treasury tells us that we should not introduce more anomalies; but we have to begin somewhere. I cannot help feeling that if the Treasury were threatened with dislocation of the tax laws because people ran amok and began supporting unreasonable new Clauses and Amendments, reason might be seen in connection with the disabled.

I hope that we shall hear more than we have before not just of good intentions but of action. I have been concerned with the disabled for a long time, although I do not claim to have had anywhere near the connection of so many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), but I am sure we are all absolutely adamant that something must be done. We are fed up with platitudes.

Mr. Nott

Any Treasury Minister must have considerable difficulty in advising the House on new Clauses concerned with disability. These Clauses are intended to give additional relief to a deserving section of the community, and I know that both sides of the House recognise that fact.

There is, rightly, widespread sympathy in the country and in the House for people in these circumstances, and I refer here both to the disabled and to those who care for them, because they, too, are brought within the scope of these Clauses. I think it is true to say that Treasury Ministers of both political parties have been, and are, placed in the unenviable position of having to answer these debates, and I hope that I may be able to help the House during my fairly brief remarks, but I am afraid that I am not going to be able to accept the new Clause on which the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) spoke so well.

We are assailed on all sides, and on many occasions during our debates, to simplify the tax system. At the same time, the House naturally has a genuine desire to assist the disabled and other deserving categories of persons and is often not slow, as indeed it has not been tonight, in suggesting new personal allowances which must greatly complicate the tax system. It is with this considerable and age-long problem in mind—it is one that has been with us for many decades, and I refer to the relationship between the tax system and the social security system—that the Government will shortly be publishing their proposals for a tax credit scheme, and this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams).

I listened with particular care to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and his request for a joint Treasury—Department of Health and Social Security review of disablement benefits. I think that he was thinking mainly not of tax allowances, but of certain cash benefits.

Mr. David Price


Mr. Nott

We have given significant help to that category of disabled person mentioned by my hon. Friend—namely, those who go to work. They were helped in last year's Finance Act, and they are in this year's Bill, in getting to work. Last year they received a concession on vehicle excise duty, and this year we have provided a maintenance allowance. This is not the point that my hon. Friend was making, but they are significant benefits for those who go to work.

My hon. Friend asked us to look at both the cash benefit side and the tax allowance side, and that is, in general terms, what the whole tax credit scheme will be concerned with. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that as soon as the Green Paper is published—and it will be published later in the year—the whole question is bound to be debated very fully, and I undertake to draw the points that my hon. Friend has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who will jointly be responsible for introducing the Green Paper later in the year.

Mr. Hamling

When the hon. Gentleman is considering the Green Paper, will he bear in mind single women with dependent relatives? I am not sure that some of them will necessarily fit into the picture in the way that others might.

Mr. Nott

When we are considering a massive and radical reform of the whole relationship of social security to the tax system that kind of factor will be raised, and the hon. Gentleman will be free to raise it. If he does, it will be considered.

The hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned in passing the question of VAT. As he is fully aware, my right hon. Friend intends to set up a committee to consider the effect of VAT on children's shoes, and I have no doubt that the committee will take into account many of the special points he made on the subject. Those who require special footwear because of disability can obtain these shoes through the NHS now on the basis that they are obtained on an NHS prescription.

While I am on the subject of VAT I must again deny, in answer to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), that VAT is in any way a tax on the sick. It is totally untrue to say so. There is no reason why any sick or disabled person need pay VAT on an incontinence pad, which was the particular item mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. We debated this matter at considerable length in Committee on the Floor of the House, and what was said is in Hansard for the hon. Member to read.

Mr. Carter-Jones

It may well be in Hansard, but the point remains that there are disabled people who will still pay VAT on incontinence pads. If the Minister can here and now give a firm assurance that they will not do so, I will withdraw what I said. Will he clearly state that incontinence pads for NHS patients will not bear VAT?

Mr. Nott

Incontinence pads for NHS patients, on the assumption that NHS patients are in NHS institutions or have obtained them on a doctor's prescription, will not bear VAT. That point was made perfectly clearly during the debates in Committee on the Floor of the House. I myself dealt with it at the time. I do not want to extend the debate to the subject of VAT, but I recommend the hon. Gentleman to look at the Official Report of those debates again.

Mr. Carter-Jones

I want to make sure that the Treasury gets the message.

Mr. Nott

The whole thing is in Hansard.

I must tell the House that the title of the new Clause is a little misleading. It is true that it would give an extra allowance of £100 to a taxpayer if either he or his wife required constant attendance because of physical or mental infirmity, but it would also go very much further. Anyone aged 70 years or over is also included in the definition of "disabled person", and consequently a major effect of the proposal would be to give an extra allowance to any taxpayer of 70 years or over as well as to taxpayers looking after someone 70 or over.

The relief to the over-70s would cost about another £45 million in a full year, but that is not in itself the principal reason why the proposal is unacceptable. The reason is that there are already provisions which give special tax allowances for the elderly, and successive Governments have taken the view that those allowances should go only to those with relatively modest incomes. The improvement of the tax position of the elderly should be by way of amendment of or addition to those provisions that we already have in the tax system rather than in the guise of a provision for giving tax relief for disability. The existing reliefs for the elderly have been reviewed this year, and the income limits for age exemption have been increased to £634 and £929 respectively.

The relief provided under the Clause would be fundamentally different from the existing reliefs—and I am still referring to people over 70 who would come within subsection (2) of the Clause—for it would take the form of an additional allowance for all taxpayers of 70 or over, however wealthy they might be. Elderly taxpayers with relatively modest incomes should perhaps be given a margin of advantage over younger taxpayers, but there is a point beyond which it would be unfair to younger people to widen that margin even further or, indeed, to widen the category of elderly people entitled to the marginal advantage.

I come now to the question of the dependant relative allowance, because it is obviously very relevant to the debate. As the House knows, this allowance is given to the taxpayer who helps to support a relative incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself or herself. The maximum amount of the allowance is normally £75, but where support of the relative falls on a spinster, a widow or a divorced or separated woman, the maximum amount of the allowance is £110. I shall come to the points made by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) shortly.

10.30 p.m.

This allowance is reduced by £1 for every £1 by which the relative's income exceeds £312. In deciding how much income the relative has, social security supplementary benefit is ignored. The Clause would go wider than the dependant relative allowance, in that the proposed allowance would be given irrespective of the size of the dependant's income. I do not believe that it is the genuine intention of the House that this new allowance should be given irrespective of the size of the dependant's income, unless the phrase in the Clause has to provide for the requirements of is intended to signify that in order to qualify for the proposed new allowance the dependant must have little income of his own.

As the Clause is drafted, I emphasise that it would go to dependent people who, in terms of income, do not require any additional help through the tax allowance system. That is the narrow point I am making. It is also an important point. I do not think that that is what the House is seeking.

The argument for allowing relief for a constant attendant has been that when a widow or widower in good health can claim an allowance for a resident housekeeper there is an even better case for an allowance for an incapacitated person who has to have constant attendance. This suggestion has been made for a great number of years, and it was considered by the Royal Commission on Taxation, which did not favour it. It has not been favoured by successive Governments. The Royal Commission thought that to give such an allowance would discriminate in favour of individuals employing such an attendant though others might incur such expense in other directions. That point is valid. But the real trouble in seeking to give a tax allowance in this kind of case arises from the need to have a clear, recognisable definition of the disabilities which would qualify. I want quickly to enumerate some of the practical problems which would arise.

First, except in the case of war disablement and industrial injuries, an elaborate system of medical assessment would be needed. Second, the degree of disability resulting from injury can be determined largely by a set of rules, but in the case of chronic illness or disabilities which may arise with increasing age an assessment is bound to be much more subjective and difficult to make consistently. There would probably be a very large number of claims, many of which would be on the wrong side of the line, causing considerable disappointment. Lastly, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a test of 100 per cent. disability, which is what is suggested here, and further down the scale there would be increasing difficulties and disputes.

Mr. Dalyell

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that claims would be on the wrong side of the line?

Mr. Nott

I was commenting that the Clause seeks a tax allowance for 100 per cent. disability. It would be difficult, and, regarding the practical side of it, the question of conformity to a set rule throughout the country, there is the problem that different doctors would give different judgments. But we are referring here to 100 percent. disability.

Mr. Hamling


Mr. Nott

Perhaps we define the Clause differently, but I am taking the Clause as I read it.

We also have to keep in mind the existing relationship of the different tax allowances to one another. For instance, those who qualify would receive allowances of up to £175 and in the case of a single woman £210 in respect of the relative. But these would be considerably more significant than the extra allowances given to a married man, because at present the difference between the single and married allowances is £140. It would also be somewhat more than the child allowance for children under the age of 11, which is at £155, and this may or may not be desirable. But in dealing with the question of tax allowances we have to keep in mind the relation between each tax allowance.

May I draw my remarks to a close and say that the main point at issue is that the problem of severe disability is already dealt with through the social security system, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) said that we should start somewhere he was really doing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State less than justice when one considers the very large number of measures which the Government have taken on behalf of the chronic sick and the very elderly. My right hon. Friend has not only started somewhere but he has actually gone a great way indeed to meet many of the problems which now exist.

Mr. Simeons

I am not in any way belittling the great steps which have been taken. But this is like beginning at the bottom of Everest and ignoring the top. Unless we realise the heights that we have got to scale, we are only just beginning the task.

Mr. Nott

I accept my hon. Friend's correction. We must, as he says, continually be pushing forward the frontiers in this area, and that is what my right hon. Friend is doing.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford (Norwich, South)

Surely the income of the patient is immaterial. Unless one is extraordinarily wealthy, one will not go to a private hospital. We should be encouraging people to stay at home, where they will be much better cared for. This is a very small degree of encouragement for the patient to be cared for at home. The income of the people concerned, unless they are extremly rich, is immaterial. This is a very small incentive, and nothing else.

Mr. Nott

I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "extremely rich". The fact is that a tax allowance is of no benefit whatsoever to those who are below the tax threshold. That is the point that I was seeking to make. It is for that reason that the Government have all along favoured, as, indeed, the previous Government did, providing these benefits by means of the social security system rather than from tax allowances.

Dr. Stuttaford

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Will he answer this question? Does he think that this is an incentive to patients to be kept at home rather than costing the nation many times as much in a hospital?

Mr. Nott

There might be some minor psychological encouragement—

Mr. Pavitt


Mr. Nott

We are talking about an additional £100 allowance, but I really do not believe that this additional £100 would tip the scale in a decision of this kind. I do not think it is a strong enough reason for bringing in an additional allowance which would distort the existing relativities between the different personal allowances. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the Chancellor, in his Budget this year, has increased the personal allowances by just over £1,000 million. My hon. Friend should recognise that fact when he implies by his interjections that the Government are not doing enough.

Mr. Hamlingrose

Mr. Nott

I must draw my remarks to a close now.

The National Insurance Act, 1970, introduced the attendance allowance as a new benefit for the most severely disabled, and the allowance was put into payment from December, 1971. By May, 1972, well over 80,000 awards had been made, and claims are still coming in. The 1970 Act provides, broadly speaking, for the allowance to be paid to those who are in need of a great deal of attention or supervision both by day and by night. The National Insurance Bill now before Parliament, in addition to increasing the present allowance from £4.80 to £5.40, will extend the scope of the allowance to bring in, broadly, those whose need for attention or supervision arises either by day or by night. This will help, we hope, as many as 250,000 people, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said.

The Government are pledged to simplify the tax system. This can be done only if the tax allowances and reliefs are confined to broad and readily recognisable categories. Clearly, simplification will never be achieved if the Government are constantly pressed to accept new allowances to cover taxpayers whose situation hon. Members regard as specially worthy of consideration. The Government, like their predecessors, take the view that it is more appropriate to give help to the disabled through the social security system. Indeed, my right hon. Friends have acted in this way since the Government took office. I hope that the House will agree that it is through the social security system that this can best be done.

Mr. Dalyell

After all that happened in the Standing Committee, how can the Treasury now use the words "disability is already dealt with through the tax system"? The fact that a Treasury Minister can say that reveals once again the sort of advice which he and his colleagues have been receiving. On the question of children's shoes, we had it all out: they had not consulted the Chief Medical Officer. Have they learned nothing? Have the medical advisers of the Department of Health and Social Security been consulted? I cannot believe it possible that the Chief Medical Officer and others have been consulted if the Minister of State comes here with that of brief.

Mr. Hamling

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that one of the new Clauses is about single women going to work and looking after an elderly relative? It has nothing to do with social security.

Mr. Dalyell

We know that we are waiting for the Finer Committee, but Finer is now long overdue, and the news that reaches us is that he may not report until next year. This is wholly unsatisfactory. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) said, we are kept waiting for this committee and that.

We know from our experience on the Standing Committee that the Minister of State is not an evil-minded man. When he uses such words as "a minor psychological encouragement", his brief only reveals that the professionals of the Department of Health and Social Security have once again been ignored. All this has been cooked up in Great George Street, without professional advice. We discussed this at length in Committee. Once again, we must ask Treasury Ministers not to produce that kind of brief but to consult the professionals in Alexander Fleming House and the Government's other professional medical advisers.

Mr. Alfred Morris

If I have the leave of the House to speak again, we are deeply disappointed with the Minister's reply. It was a poor response to many stimulating and powerful speeches from both sides of the House. The force of the speeches from the Government's back benchers has been a feature of the debate. The hon. Gentleman has been asked again and again to address himself to the real purpose of new Clause 9 and the related Clauses.

10.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr.David Price) argued that the true answer is a national disability income, and I agree. I am certain that all my hon. and right hon. Friends will endorse what he said about the urgency of the need for a national disability income. If the alternatives before us were a national disability income or the Clause, all of us would accept the former. But those are not the alternatives. If we fail to sustain our arguments in support of the Clause there will be no immediate benefit for the disabled individuals and families whom we are seeking to help.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) made the point very powerfully. He asked why we were waiting, why it is impossible now to take what is only a very modest step towards helping some of the most hard-pressed individuals and families? I accept what the Minister of State said about the drafting, but it is our tribute to the late Iain Macleod that we left the Clause as he worded it when he wanted to put it into the Finance Bill in 1968.

Mr. William Clark

Did the Labour Government accept it?

Mr. Morris

It was never discussed and it was never pressed. Perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark) was not here when I gave the actual reference from which I was quoting. If there are imperfections of drafting, we are prepared to await the Government Amendment which will fulfil the purpose we have in mind.

For the most part disabled people are very poor people. Disablement today is another word for poverty. The Clause would not help the poorest disabled but it would be an important step forward for the disabled if the Minister of State even now changed his mind and responded to the appeals made to him from both sides of the House. He said that it was not very pleasant for Treasury

Ministers to have to conclude debates of this kind. He said that he wanted to be listened to sympathetically. I agree that it is not very pleasant for Treasury Ministers to have to reply to such debates it their answers are based on briefs which reject what the House wants to do.

In rejecting our Clause the Minister has not addressed himself to the powerful cases put by my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles and Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), or Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). It is because he is unable to change his mind that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Clause. I hope we shall be supported by all those on both sides who have expressed their support for what we have said in the debate.

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

The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 197.

Division No. 283.] AYES [10.49 p.m.
Abse, Leo Duffy, A. E. P. Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Albu, Austen Dunnett, Jack Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Eadie, Alex Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Edelman, Maurice Judd, Frank
Ashton, Joe Ellis, Tom Kaufman, Gerald
Atkinson, Norman Evans, Fred Lambie, David
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Ewing, Harry Lamborn, Harry
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Faulds, Andrew Latham, Arthur
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Lawson, George
Baxter, William Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Leadbitter, Ted
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lestor, Miss Joan
Blenkinsop, Arthur Foley, Maurice Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Booth, Albert Foot, Michael Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Ford, Ben Lipton, Marcus
Broughton, Sir Alfred Fraser, John (Norwood) Lomas, Kenneth
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Freeson, Reginald Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Galpern, Sir Myer McElhone, Frank
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Garrett, W. E. McGuire, Michael
Buchan, Norman Gilbert, Dr. John Mackenzie, Gregor
Campbell. I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mackintosh, John P.
Cant, R. B. Golding, John
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Grant, George (Morpeth) Maclennan, Robert
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Marsden, F.
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Coleman, Donald Hamling, William Meacher, Michael
Concannon, J. D. Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Conlan, Bernard Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mendelson, John
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mikardo, Ian
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hattersley, Roy Millan, Bruce
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Miller, Dr. M. S.
Dalyell, Tam Molloy, William
Davidson, Arthur Horam, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hunter, Adam Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Moyle, Roland
Dempsey, James John, Brynmor Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Doig, Peter Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.) O'Halloran, Michael
Dormand, J. D. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) O'Malley, Brian
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Oram, Bert
Driberg, Tom Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Orme, Stanley
Paget, R. T. Silverman, Julius Wainwright, Edwin
Palmer, Arthur Simeons, Charles Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pardoe, John Skinner, Dennis Wallace, George
Parker, John (Dagenham) Small, William Watkins, David
Pavitt, Laurie Spearing, Nigel Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Pentland, Norman Spriggs, Leslie White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Stallard, A. W. Whitehead, Phillip
Prescott, John Steel, David Whitlock, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey Strang, Gavin Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Roper, John Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rose, Paul B. Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Woof, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Torney, Tom TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Tuck, Raphael Mr. Joseph Harper and
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Urwin, T. W. Mr. James Wellbeloved.
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Varley, Eric G.
Adley, Robert Gilmour. Sir John (Fife, E.) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Atkins, Humphrey Goodhew, Victor Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Awdry, Daniel Gower, Raymond Morrison, Charles
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mudd, David
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gray, Hamish Murton, Oscar
Batsford, Brian Green, Alan Neave, Alrey
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Grieve, Percy Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bell, Ronald Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Normanton, Tom
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Grylls, Michael Nott, John
Benyon, W. Gummer, Selwyn Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gurden, Harold Osborn, John
Biggs-Davison, John Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Blaker, Peter Hall, John (Wycombe) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Corby)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Body, Richard Hannam, John (Exeter) Parkinson, Cecil
Boscawen. Robert Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Percival, Ian
Bossom, Sir Clive Havers, Michael Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Bray, Ronald Hicks, Robert Pink, R. Bonner
Brinton, Sir Tatton Higgins, Terence L Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hiley, Joseph Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Bryan, Sir Paul Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Buck, Antony Holland, Philip Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hordern, Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hornby, Richard Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Chapman, Sydney Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Redmond, Robert
Churchill, W. S. Hunt, John Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Iremonger, T. L. Rees, Peter (Dover)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) James, David Rees-Davies, W. R.
Clegg, Walter Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Cooke, Robert Jessel, Toby Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cooper, A. E. Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Ridsdale, Julian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Jopling, Michael Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Cormack, Patrick Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Rost, Peter
Costain, A. P. Kershaw, Anthony Russell, Sir Ronald
Critchley, Julian King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Crouch, David Kinsey, J. R. Scott-Hopkins, James
Crowder, F. P. Sharples, Sir Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James Knox, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Dean, Paul Lamont, Norman Shelton, William (Clapham)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Lane, David Skeet, T. H. H.
Dykes, Hugh Langford-Holt, Sir John Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Le Merchant, Spencer Soref, Harold
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Longden, Sir Gilbert Speed, Keith
Emery, Peter Luce, R. N. Spence, John
Eyre, Reginald McAdden, Sir Stephen Stainton, Keith
Farr, John MacArthur, Ian
Fell, Anthony McCrindle, R. A. Stanbrook, Ivor
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy McLaren, Martin Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Fidler, Michael Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) McNair-Wilson, Michael Stokes, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Madel, David Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fookes, Miss Janet Mather, Carol Tebbit, Norman
Fortescue, Tim Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Temple, John M.
Foster, Sir John Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Fox, Marcus Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Fry, Peter Moate, Roger Tilney, John
Gardner, Edward Money, Ernle Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David Monks, Mrs. Connie Trew, Peter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monro, Hector Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Wells, John (Maidstone) Woodnutt, Mark
Vickers, Dame Joan Wiggin, Jerry Worsley, Marcus
Walder, David (Clitheroe) Wilkinson, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) Winterton, Nicholas TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick Mr. Paul Hawkins and
Weatherill, Bernard Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to