How many members does the rnli have

But I do not think that Parliament should cause them to be treated in such an unworthy manner. It is significant that prior to , I understand, most of these allowances were not taxed. It was as a result of a most regrettable change in that year, which was before I had the honour to sit in the House, that they were taxed. I hope that the Financial Secretary will have the honour of reversing that unfortunate decision. It will be a well-deserved honour for which we will praise him. I hope that he will rise to this great occasion and do justice to the men who serve those in peril on the sea".

Member for Barry Mr. Gower referred to something which happened in I am not instructed and cannot assist the House about that. However, I believe that during the course of the Finance Bill in some Amendments or new Clauses were tabled proposing something similar to what is proposed in this new Clause.

Both in Committee and on Report, a proposal was put down that the retaining fees paid to lifeboat men and retained voluntary firemen should be exempt from tax. I not know whether it was discussed, but that was the last time that an Amendment of this kind was put down.

Let us get clear what we are discussing. As the hon. Member for St. Nott made clear, there are, I understand, certain full-time and fully-paid employees of the Royal National Life-boat Institution. The new Clause is not directed at them. The mechanic, for example, of a lifeboat is normally a full-time employee and paid a full wage. The coxswain is rarely full-time and the remainder are part-time volunteers.

I do not think that the new Clause is intended to apply to them, although as it is worded it might do so. Secondly, a fee of 25s. That, clearly, is intended to be covered by the new Clause. Thirdly, there is an award for a summons when the men are called out—.

The wording of new Clauses 2 and 9 is similar. In practice, although I think that there is a strong case for the fees paid for exercise to be covered, I did fix include them because I used the term: saving human life at sea". I was referring solely to the allowance of 30s. I was not including payment for exercises, but I agree that there is a good case for doing so.

I thought that it was intended to cover that item, and I still think that it is covered by the words in recognition of time spent at sea in the lifeboats with the express intention of saving human life at sea.

That is the intention of the exercises. The third form of payment is an award for a summons which amounts to 30s. I understand from the hon. Ives that that is intended to be covered. Fourthly, there are special awards, to which scme hon. They are normally paid, not by the institution, but by the Ministry of Transport or the owners of the ship concerned. What we are concerned with, therefore, are the awards for a summons. I have listened with sympathy to the speeches which we have heard from hon.

Members, on both sides—there is no party aspect to the matter—who have spoken with the emotion which we all feel when we think of the work of the lifeboat crews. This is not, of course, the only work for which we get pleas for tax concessions for particular forms of income, nor is it the only income which is related to dangerous work. The answer to all these arguments, however, always has been, and remains, that Income Tax is a tax on income and that in taxing it we do not distinguish between the nature of the occupations which people are carrying on when they earn the income or the dangerous or disagreeable nature of the work which is involved.

Let me give examples. There are many other occupations, like those of Service men, coal miners, people engaged in deep sea fishing and test pilots, in which people are paid a bonus for particular work which they do—it may be work for which they volunteer—for which danger money or dirty money is paid.

Those additional payments are, of course, all taxable. If we were to grant an exemption in this case on the ground of the hazardous nature of the work, we would surely have to extend it to danger money and payments which are made by way of danger money unless one singles out this occupation and says that there is something particular about the nature of the work which requires to be given different treatment.

All the arguments which we have heard this afternoon would apply to part-time firemen, who, indeed, were included in the Amendments that were put down in It would be very difficult to say that people who do part-time work on a voluntary basis to save life at sea should be entitled to remuneration for it which is tax free but that firemen, who equally imperil their lives to save people in burning houses, should not. It seems to me that the same considerations apply. Is my right hon. Is he saying that the money which they get for that job is comparable with that which is paid for those who go out to sea to rescue others?

If that is what my hon. I am not aware whether any such payments are made to miners in the circumstances of accident to which my hon. Friend has referred. In that case, it is not correct for my hon. It is not a proper analogy. There are plenty of occupations in which people are paid danger money, and they are taxed on money which they receive as danger money.

If the argument is that owing to the hazardous nature of the work exemption should be given, we had better not embark on it lightly without considering whether we would propose to extend the extension to all moneys which are paid as danger money. One can imagine the development which would result from that if substantial parts of remuneration in certain occupations were classed as danger money to get the benefit of the exemption. These are the sort of difficulties which, from the viewpoint of tax principle, one encounters in starting to make an exemption on that basis.

Surely, danger money and dirt money are paid mainly to people in the course of their employment. It is an extension of their remuneration for the work and they are, therefore, taxed upon it. In the new Clause, we are concerned with voluntary workers who do an entirely separate task. The Financial Secretary has confused the two issues. I must take the arguments one by one, and I am merely answering the first argument, the emotional one, which is put forward on the basis that the work is dangerous.

Member for Croydon, North-West Mr. Frederic Harris seeks to answer me by shifting on to another point: that the occupation is part-time and voluntary. There are other occupations which are part-time and voluntary but in which people are taxed on their remuneration from them. I come next to the second point raised by my hon. James Johnson , which was contended also at the outset by the hon. It is the analogy of the financial loss allowance which is paid to people like jurors, to certain people in local government and on hospital management committees, and so on.

The difference here is that, in those cases, we are concerned with an allowance which is paid to people undertaking voluntary work against proof of financial loss. The payments here, however, are not in respect of financial loss, and there is no need for there to be any financial loss. In other words, it is given on the basis of a remuneration and, for tax purposes, comes under the heading of income.

A number of hon. Members have stressed this point and have based their arguments on the very heavy financial loss which many of these people suffer.

Member for City of Chester Mr. Temple spoke from a great deal of experience about the financial sacrifice which this can cause to inshore fishermen. If the Life-boat Institution would like to consider whether it wants to alter the basis of the award and make it payable not as a fee which is payable in all circumstances but as a financial loss allowance against proof of financial loss—and I am sure that it is a matter on which it would want to reflect—certainly I shall be prepared to meet representatives of the institution and discuss it with them, after I have had suitable advice.

I have not had an opportunity to have advice on this point because it is a new one to me which has arisen during the course of the debate.

There may be difficulties inherent in the proposal; I do not know. However, if hon. Gentlemen would like it treated on that basis for tax purposes, certainly I will look into it.

In view of the stage which we have reached this year, it is a matter which would have to be dealt with and brought forward in another year. However, I could not accept the Clause as it stands at the moment for the reason that, although we are dealing with a small class of persons, small payments and ones which excite great sympathy, we should be getting ourselves in difficulties if, for reasons of sympathy, we were to adopt an approach which offends against the most basic principle of Income Tax, which is that it is a tax generally upon incomes of all classes, without distinction as to the nature of the work or the source of the remuneration.

I thank the hon. He quoted the example of part-time firemen and said that they appeared to be very similar. Surely the people voluntarily doing dangerous work of this kind for very small amounts must be relatively few in number, and I should have thought that his argument was not fatal to the acceptance of the Clause.

I will look into what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I should much prefer to approach it on the basis which I have indicated and see if any kind of solution can be found on that basis. If one starts trying to carve out a category of earnings and say that, if the work is voluntary, part-time and dangerous, the income should be tax free, for the time being one might get a self-contained and closely defined class. However, it would not have a great deal of logic or principle behind it.

The other approach might be more rewarding. To answer the technical point about whether these people are taxed under Schedule D or Schedule E, I agree that they fall within Schedule E and are taxed under that Schedule. It has been argued that, if they were treated as being persons in employment and taxed under Schedule D, they might be entitled to exemption on the basis of the payment being expenses for getting to and from the lifeboat station.

But none of us gets expenses for getting to and from work, nor for keeping ourselves warm while carrying out the work, so that would not provide a solution.

Fortunately, they are taxed under Schedule E, and therefore one can approach the matter by comparing them with jurors or people on a hospital management committee. However, this would require payments to be made on a different basis from that on which they are made at present.

I say straight away that I know that it is the view of my hon. Nott that we should not divide the House on this matter, and that enables us to discuss it in as calm and as helpful a way as we can. First of all, we should be as clear as possible what we are discussing. It is common ground that, by these Clauses, we are not considering the question of the annual retainer. There is some dispute between the Financial Secretary's interpretation and my hon. Friend's as to whether exercises are or are not included.

As a matter of legal drafting, I think that the Financial Secretary is right and that exercises probably are included. However, I think that it is also right to say that they are not meant to be included. The Clause has received support on the Order Paper from all three parties. What we really care about on both sides of the House is the allowances which are paid for rescue work.

One is almost ashamed to mention them, it seems. They are 30s. I do not feel that either side of the House can feel very happy about what has happened over the years. Curiously enough, in the very first month in which I was a member of the House, I remember this principle being discussed in March, , and I think that it is true that the case of part-time firemen was then argued.

Since then, successive Chancellors have not altered the position as laid down by Sir Stafford Cripps, and successive Shadow Chancellors have not pressed the case. So I do not think that we can look back over the years with any great happiness. However, I think that the Financial Secretary was very conscious of the feeling of the House that we want something to be done. I do not underestimate the difficulties. I accept the position in relation to Income Tax and the simple argument that one taxes income, and there it is, although I think that there is great validity in the point made by my hon.

Frederic Harris that it is not a valid comparison to say that it is possible to draw a parallel between these people, who are voluntary workers, in respect of the rescue work which we seek to free from tax, and those whose work is, as it were, an extension of their ordinary occupations.

What everyone in the House wants to say to the Financial Secretary is, "Please find a way round this. It may be that in some way this could be considered as expenses. Heaven knows, the sums are trivial enough to come under that heading. I am sure that the R. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player.

He added: "To see the threat of the criminal gangs trying to launch from France to the UK as early as possible, that is partly intelligence, it is partly technology, and secondly have the strongest criminal action including prosecution sentences against those criminal elements that feed like parasites off the human misery of those people making that journey. Watch Live. Fill 2 Copy 11 Created with Sketch. Thursday 29 July , UK. Why you can trust Sky News. More on Migrant Crisis.

Related Topics: Migrant Crisis. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Related Topics Migrant Crisis. This year — not a single incident.

That is fantastic, and is testament to the great organisation of the event and — the RNLI would like to think — people heeding safety warnings by ourselves and other agencies. In addition, the RNLI utilised 18 lifeguards garnered from beaches around the south east, and 8 inshore rescue watercrafts, which are usually used by said lifeguards to rescue people in distress in the water.