§ (1) Where, by virtue or in consequence of any settlement to which this section applies, any income is paid to or for the benefit of a child of the settlor in any year of assessment, the provisions of section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1936, shall cease to have effect as respects any such income.
§ (2) This section applies to any settlement if and so long as the income arising under the settlement is shown to the satisfaction of the General or Special Commissioners to have been used wholly and exclusively for the payment of fees and the cost of text-books for the full-time instruction of the child of the settlor at a university, college, school, or other educational establishment:
§ Provided that this section shall not apply if the full-time instruction as aforesaid is at an 1928 independent school, within the meaning of subsection (1) of section one hundred and fourteen of the Education Act, 1944, and that school has been struck off the register of independent schools kept under the provisions of section seventy of that Act.
§ (3) For all the purposes of the Income Tax Acts there shall be deducted from the income of a child arising under a settlement to which this section applies such sums as are wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.
§ (4) If any question arises whether the income arising under the settlement has been used as aforesaid, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may, on the request of the Income Tax Commissioners concerned, consult the Minister of Education.
§ In the application of this subsection to Scotland the Secretary of State shall be substituted for the Minister of Education.1929
§ (5) In this section the expressions "child" "income," settlement," and "settlor" shall have the same meaning as is given to them by subsection (9) of section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1936.—[Mr. Pitman.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), speaking on the previous new Clause, asked the Treasury to adopt economic planning through the fiscal machine in a positive way in regard to raw materials. This new Clause asks for the same positive treatment in planning in the development of material, human and spiritual values, because it deals with education.
First, I ought to disclose a threefold interest. In the first place, I am, at the request of the Minister of Education, a governor of a public school which might benefit under this Clause; secondly, being connected with the colleges associated with my grandfather, I might benefit; and thirdly, I still have three children of full-time attending age at school. Unfortunately, two of my brothers and a sister were in the unhappy position which the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) was describing the other day; their wills became effective rather sooner than they expected, and so there were settlements for nephews and nieces. So I think my interest does not arise in this case.
The purpose of this Clause is virtually to repeal the mischief of a Clause in the 1936 Finance Bill. Under the law which has existed since 1936, the Financial Secretary can properly provide for his dependent grandmother. He can maintain her and, if he likes, arrange for her instruction in sucking eggs or anything else she likes. Anyhow, he is not limited and he can provide for both her maintenance and her education.
But if he wishes to make a settlement in favour of his son to send him to Winchester, he is not in the same position as he is with regard to his grandmother. He will have to add back the income spent on the education and maintenance of his son and declare it and pay tax on it as part of his own income. It is true that one can do the same thing under the existing law if one does it for a nephew. If provision is made for the 1930 education and maintenance of a nephew through a settlement of this kind, then neither the father of the nephew nor oneself need regard that income as their own income. It is treated as the income of the child.
Therefore, it is only the parent who is penalised, and it seems to me that this House would always wish the sense of responsibility of parents for their children to be developed to the maximum extent. One of the unfortunate effects of the present law is that it tends to have parents seeking to detach from themselves and to attach to grandparents or uncles the financial responsibility for at any rate educating and possibly maintaining, their children, because it costs a grandparent or uncle or aunt so much less to do it for a nephew or grandchild than it costs a father to do it for his son or daughter. I am sure the House will feel that is essentially wrong.
The real trouble, however, is that in 1936 it was possible to do this in respect not only of education but also of food and clothes—the normal necessities of life. The purpose of this Clause is to put back only the education, not food and clothes. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Neville Chamberlain, introduced the 1936 Finance Bill, he made it quite clear that the educational side was thoroughly praiseworthy. These are his words:I rather went out of my way to say that, although quite recently they were developing into a new form in which tax avoidance was the principal object, there were many, many cases that I knew in which they had been entered into, not from that motive at all, but from different motives which in themselves were perfectly proper and even praiseworthy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1936; Vol. 312, c. 1257–1258.]May I say that, particularly because of the effect of subsection (2) of this new Clause which confines the purpose of the settlement entirely to education and does not cover in the slightest the loaf of bread or the piece of clothing, this Clause is wholly praiseworthy. It will mean, of course, that boarding schools will have to supply accounts to the parents separating fees and text books from maintenance, but I understand that presents no difficulty.
I have now established that the conditions for a change have been met. Now 1931 comes the point that it is now the right time to make such a change. In any case, it is always right in principle to put right something which is wrong.
In regard to the discouragement of the education of children by their parents, the present situation of the fiscal arrangements of this nation, as I pointed out during the Committee stage of this Bill, is such that, quite apart from settlements, the father of three children is demonstrably much worse off than a father of two and he, in turn, is much worse off than the father of one. At all stages, taking family allowances and taking the Income Tax allowances, as facts are there is already a very grave discouragement on parenthood. All of us know that the costs of education are going up all the time. If, therefore, the educational discouragement is added to the discouragement of the existing costs of maintaining children, we have a double discouragement, piling Pelion upon Ossa.
I should like to read to the House an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission on Population—Cmd. 7695—in paragraphs 383–4:At every stage of education, from the primary to the university, options which involve incurring extra costs have multiplied…To secure these advantages many parents have to make real sacrifices, to the point sometimes of cutting down expenditure on their food and other essentials of health. There is here a strong motive for restricting the number of children to be educated, since the fewer the children in the family the more can be spent on educating and preparing them for a career; and it is not surprising that among responsible and intelligent parents this is one of the most commonly stated reasons for keeping the family very small.This advantage which the small families enjoy offends against currently accepted ideas of social justice. It has other social implications, too. The discouragement to parenthood which education costs involve is felt most heavily by those who are most concerned for the welfare of their children, i.e., by the more thoughtful, intelligent and responsible parents, and it grows with the sense of responsibility.It must therefore be a good thing that we should use the fiscal machine to do what common sense clearly shows, in regard to discouragement, and what the Royal Commission on Population equally shows, to need ameliorating.
This will also inevitably help the independent schools which, I think we would claim, have been the great pioneers of 1932 education and of the very greatest service to the State and to the community. The great advantage which they enjoy is the supreme flexibility which enables them to try out and to develop new lines of educational thought. As I have said, I was asked by the Minister of Education to be a governor at just such a school. Having sat at its meetings, I know of the difficulties which those schools at present face and how greatly they would be relieved by such an arrangement as is made possible by the Clause.
Finally, I come to my constituency interest. We have in Bath the Admiralty, with its civil servants and its serving officers, who are very mobile. For a high-ranking, mobile civil servant or naval officer, a boarding school is an essential necessity if he is to carry out his duties and see that his children are properly care for. The local authorities in Bath and elsewhere in Somerset—the same applies, in Plymouth and Devonport, under the Devon County Council—are inundated by applications for assistance and-r the Butler Act but they just cannot carry it out, because they have to carry on local rates what is in effect a national problem. If only these men were allowed to obtain reduction of the total of the income on which they pay tax by the amount which they spend on the education of their children, this would go a very long way to solving what is a very peculiar and local difficulty.
§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)
I beg to second the Motion, which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman). If to have children requires one to declare an interest, then I, too, must declare an interest in the Clause. I had not thought of rising to such a high pitch of conscientiousness until I heard my hon. Friend do so, but I certainly do not wish to fall behind him in that respect. He has so clearly made the case for the Clause that I do not think it necessary for me to detain the House long in supporting it, but I should like, in summing up, as it were, to put before the House the three headings under which, I think, the Clause should be supported.
These three headings are what I might call the fiscal, the demographic, and the argument from precedent. First, there is the fiscal argument on the intrinsic justice of the Clause. For some strange 1933 reason the whole taxation of the nation almost always bears hardly upon those who have families. There is a curious and continuing bias in favour of maiden aunts—
§ Mr. Hollis
I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I hope she will have a chance of replying later.
To have a family is a very great hardship in general, and in this case there is a special hardship, as my hon. Friend has shown, on parents. If I were a rich and generous person and were to say to the Financial Secretary, "You will never come to much in life, therefore I will educate your children for you," there is no reason why I should not make a seven-year covenant, pay £110, and in fact get back the other £90, or whatever the exact figure is, from the Revenue. As my hon. Friend has shown, I can do that for anyone in the world except for my own children. This, surely, is a common sense matter of injustice which should be remedied.
Secondly, there is the demographic point. My hon. Friend referred to the Royal Commission on Population. As hon. Members know, the general conclusion of that Commission was that the total population of the country was not very far—not as far as some people thought—below the reproduction rate; but on the other hand there was a serious deficiency in the birth rate of children of the best educated people.
As also a considerable volume of biological evidence was put before the Commission to show that by and large ability was hereditary, there was at any rate the distinct possibility that, since the population in general was remaining roughly stable and the best educated and most intelligent people were having the fewest children, therefore the general level of intelligence of the population must be falling. I remember that I put that point when we debated a similar Clause last year and the Financial Secretary made what seemed to me a somewhat comic answer. He said: "We on this side of the House do not accept that argument for an instant."
It is not a question whether the Financial Secretary or hon. Members opposite admit it. It is a question of whether it 1934 is a biological truth or whether it is not, and not whether it is or is not voted for. I am reminded a little of Harriet Martineau. People came with great excitement one day to Thomas Carlyle and said, "Harriet Martineau has accepted the universe." Carlyle said, "By gad, she'd better." It is the laws of the universe with which we are at the moment concerned rather than the laws which the House sees fit to pass, and the Financial Secretary had better accept them—by gad, he'd better. There is a serious reason to think that unless some drastic policy is pursued in order to induce the best educated people to have a large number of children, there will be a decline in the average level of the intelligence of the population.
The third point is the argument from precedent. There are some hon. Members opposite, and I respect them—I see the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) present, but I do not want to wake him—who are great worshippers at the shrine of what I might call Inland Revenue precedent and often, to an extent which seems to me more conservative than I can tolerate, imagine that they can refute every argument by pointing to what are the precedents of the Inland Revenue. Sometimes I think he will seek to follow precedent when circumstances have changed so wholly that it is no longer wise to follow it. However that may be, I respect the general tenor of his attitude and pay attention to it.
In this respect the precedent is on our side. We are not seeking to do something new, but to go back to the practice which was allowed until recently and to go back to it in one respect in which it was shown that it was not really necessary to abolish the practice, even if it were necessary to abolish it in other respects. From the fiscal, the demographic and the point of view of precedent I appeal to the Government to give every favourable consideration to this new Clause.
After all, something has to be done about this problem whether we like it or not. We could have a larger debate on the merits of independent schools. I quite agree with what my hon. Friend said about the merits of independent schools, but, whether one likes independent schools or does not like them, the fact remains 1935 that this country is committed to an educational programme and there is not the slightest hope, even if it were desired, of having sufficient non-independent schools to accommodate all the children if the independent schools came to an end.
There is a financial situation which makes it extremely difficult to see how the independent schools can go on for long enough to enable other schools to take their place, if some financial arrangements are not made. I am not saying that this is the only way of dealing with independent schools. In fact, on another occasion, I put another suggestion before the House, which the House rejected. It may be that some hon. Members would have other suggestions to make, but the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has been carefully thought out and, as far as I can see, it is the best of the different suggestions which have yet been put forward.
I seriously appeal to the Government, either to accept this new Clause if they can, or, if they do not see their way to accepting it, at least not to give it a merely negative reply, but to indicate on what lines they think this problem can be solved.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)
Although I have no more prejudice against the fathers of children than the hon. Members who have just spoken I do not think it will surprise the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) if I tell him that we see overwhelming objections to this new Clause.
As the hon. Member said, the Clause would, in effect, repeal the provision of the 1936 Act which prevented the taxpayer from getting exemption from Income Tax and Surtax on sums settled for the purpose of educating and maintaining his own children. I think the hon. Member agreed that Mr. Neville Chamberlain said that, in many cases, the law on this matter, as it stood before 1936, was used for the purposes of tax avoidance, and, indeed, it offers a fairly easy and obvious loophole for avoiding tax. There are several very heavy objections to any sort of return to the status quo in this way.
In the first place, even if our objective was to assist Income Tax payers to finance the education of their children at independent schools, this would seem a 1936 rather peculiar way of doing it. The Clause would give such a relief in the case of those taxpayers who had resorted to a particular legal device, but not to other taxpayers who might have an equal number of children at the same schools. Surely, if we did wish to give help of that kind, it would at least be better to do it by giving an allowance for any expenditure on education rather than for expenditure through this particular device.
Secondly, even that, I think, would be open to the serious taxation objection that allowances under the Income Tax have always been granted in virtue of the existence of a dependant, or child as such, and not in virtue of some particular form of expenditure in which the taxpayer chooses or does not choose to indulge in connection with a dependant or child.
Thus, when we examine this proposal we are forced to the conclusion that it is better to give such a relief, if we wish to give it, by a larger children's allowance under the Income Tax than by an allowance confined to expenditure on education. But I think we are still bound to ask whether, supposing one had £10 million to spare—and this new Clause would cost about £10 million—it is really desirable, if it is to be spent on education, to spend that £10 million on tax relief for those who are educating their children, at private fee-paying schools, or whether it should not be spent on some section or other of the general education system of the country.
It could be argued that such a sum would be better spent on raising school teachers' salaries, or in building more schools, or in giving a larger subsidy for school meals, the price of which we have recently had to raise largely as a measure of economy. My view is that we could not give first priority to tax relief to the Surtax and Income Tax paying class, and if we put the arguments together there is an overwhelming objection to this proposed new Clause.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)
I confess to some interest in this Clause, having six children who are at present dependent upon me. I think the arguments adduced by the Financial Secretary are quite fantastic. He rejected the Clause on three grounds; on the ground of tax avoidance, on the ground that it was a particular legal device and on the ground of cost.
1937 What if it is a piece of tax avoidance? I cannot see why parents in these days of high taxation should not be entitled to take advantage of tax avoidance rules and legislation, provided Parliament has passed it, and that is what we are trying to get done by this new Clause. The fact that Mr. Neville Chamberlain turned this down in 1936 has no relevance to the situation at present. Taxation then was very much less than it is now, and the people for whom this Clause is designed to operate are now in a position of being right up against it in connection with all their sources of income.
University professors, professional classes with incomes ranging from £1,000 to £3,000 or £4,000 are finding their circumstances today such that they simply cannot afford to maintain any kind of standard for themselves or their families as they could in the olden days, and the cost of their children's education is prohibitive. Many families are finding it necessary to avoid sending their children to the school where they themselves received their education; or if they are able to send them to the same school, they are having to do it by the expenditure of their savings, a situation which has never been known before.
Tax avoidance is only a bad principle when it leads to one particular section of the community taking an undue advantage over the rest. But I cannot see that in passing this Clause we are opening up that possibility. It is true that it applies to a particular section of the community, but they are a very worthy section, and if we were to assess the measures passed in recent years for the education of the community as a whole we should have to conclude that those in the lower income groups have had proportionately more advantages placed at their disposal in the last few years than have the particular section to which this Clause refers. I do not think that this is a tax avoidance which ought to be prepared against.
In an analogous way the hon. Gentleman went on to talk about a particular legal device resorted to by some taxpayers. There again, I do not see why they should not take advantage of it. If this Clause is passed it would be widely known, and everybody in these sort of circumstances would be prepared to have resort to it. If they did not know about it by publication in the public Press of 1938 the details, their lawyers and friends would very soon tell them what it was possible to do within the law. I regard it as just as equitable to pass this Clause, resulting in a general widespread understanding of what Parliament has done, as for the hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation to have the thing done by allowances, as he suggested. In both cases Parliament has passed a particular piece of legislation, and it is known by those who are concerned and those who wish to take advantage of it.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the cost as £10 million and suggested it might be better spent on schools, school meals or training teachers, or some other aspect of affairs. That is the stock argument which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have used for the last two or three years on every Finance Bill. Whenever we come up against a new proposal or a new Clause, designed to remedy an injustice or to do something right and proper, they say that it would cost too much; that the money is much better laid out in some other aspect of our public expenditure. At that rate, the hon. Gentleman could adduce that re-armament, or the cost of any of the great Departments of State, is a standing argument for doing nothing whatever to give tax concessions.
I find it very disappointing that the hon. Gentleman, who has turned down practically every proposal for tax remission in this Finance Bill, should use the same argument over this particular Clause What a very disappointing Finance Bill this has been. In the old days the Minister of Local Government and Planning came to the House on Report and Committee stages of the Finance Bill with about £30 million to spend, and we all had a very good time He opened his shoulders to the bowling, and scored a great many centuries. The House was delighted at the way he used to give way—five, ten, or fifteen million pounds—which used to make the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill a most interesting and profitable enterprise. This particular Chancellor, and the Financial and Economic Secretaries sitting under him, are just blocking the bowling at every stage. They are scoring maiden after maiden, and the House and the country is thoroughly tired of the performance which they have put up.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)
No one is more averse from internecine strife than I am, but I really must begin by praying Heaven to preserve us from a revival of the cheap money and cheap dutch auction régime to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has just referred. I think that even what I now see before me, if I am doomed to spend my life gazing at this sad and calamatous spectacle, I should prefer it to having that retrospect again made lively and three dimentional. When a yellow dog's dead, as my old father used to say, it ought to lie still.
Really, I am terrified at the thought of what would happen to the Financial Secretary when he tells us that his alleged argument he finds overwhelming. If he is so easily overwhelmed, it is terrifying to think what would happen if someone hit him with a small feather. I can only suppose it would reduce him to a quivering pinkish jelly, because the arguments really would not overwhelm a dead fly. The first was that we could not do this for these parents because there might be some other parents for whom we would not be doing anything. That is a highly contemptible argument, especially when used with reference to other parents, the great mass of whom would be enabled to enter into the same arrangement. It might have been thought from his argument that by passing this Clause we thereby put it out of the power of the Universe ever again to do anything further for parents.
Then the argument is that this is a tax avoidance. Anything which reduces the burden of taxes increases the avoidance of taxes, and the use of that argument from the Treasury Bench has no effect, except to demonstrate the extent to which they have now got boiled into them what I do not wonder was boiled into the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), because he was for years paid to have it boiled into him. It is tolerable, even commendable, in the honourable service in which he performed with such distinction. It was boiled into him then that all that matters is that the State should get more and more and more out of the individual. The use of the words, "tax avoidance" by the Financial Secretary as if they damned the proposal 1940 demonstrates nothing whatever except that that assumption has been boiled into him, and it ought not to be boiled into anyone, except Inland Revenue officials—and only minor ones at that.
Mr. Glenvil Hall
I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware that this argument about tax avoidance was first used by Mr. Neville Chamberlain when this Clause was introduced in 1936.
§ Mr. Pickthorn
This argument about tax avoidance was very ancient when Joseph used it in Egypt. The suggestion that it was invented by Mr. Neville Chamberlain does that rather inventive and progressive statesman far more than justice.
The only other argument which was proposed was "if one had £10 million is it certain that this would be the best use of the money?" Supposing one had £10 million. The gentleman in Whitehall does take much upon himself. He does not always know best, and he is never likely to have £10 million. The Treasury Bench has directed no attention whatever to the question which has been raised by this clause, and which I will therefore proceed to put as nearly as possible in words of one syllable.
Do we think there ought to be more than one school system, or that we should have nothing except the State system? I see a strong argument for the view that every other school ought to be frozen up. But the Government, I think, had not nailed that flag to their mast. I hope they never will. That has done infinite harm in France and Germany, as anyone who knows those countries will admit. If not, how is the independent school to be preserved so that we shall not be reduced to what the French call l'école unique,one single kind of school? The way in which it must be done may be argued, the reason why, if you want two sorts of school, it must, is that parents who patronise those schools are, in the enormous majority, losing their disposable income, having a smaller proportion of their disposable income every year. I do not say it is not right, but everyone 1941 knows that has been happening for 30 years, is happening, and is likely to continue to happen.
The question then is: ought there not to be some means by which that difficulty should be eased for the parents who wish to use these schools? This may not be the best possible method, but it seems to me to be clearly a rather good method. I am quite certain of this, that when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for directing the line of development of this country—and that is what the Finance Bill has overwhelmingly and, to use another word again, calamitously become—when a question of this sort is raised with perfect fairness, as it is raised in this proposed new Clause, can produce nothing except the drivelling dialectics of the Financial Secretary, they cover themselves with shame and scorn, and I hope prepare for themselves defeat and damnation.
§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
I join with my hon. Friends in pressing the Government upon this point. I listened with attention, as I think the whole House did, to the Financial Secretary, and I was exceedingly disappointed in his arguments, which appeared to me to be positively sophomoric. I think they have been dealt with adequately already and I do not propose to go into them further, because they carry no weight whatsoever. The really distressing thing about his arguments was that the hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate at all the seriousness of the situation from the purely educational point of view in this country.
With regard to that, in passing I think that the House may well take note of the fact that there is no representative from the Ministry of Education on the Government Front Bench. It certainly would have been of assistance to the House to have had the views of some Minister in this Government responsible for education on the attitude of the Government on the major issues of education which are involved in this proposed new Clause, because the point we should consider is not only the purely personal financial element of the parent who is seeking to have independent education for his children, but also the point of view of the schools to which those children go.
1942 I, in concert with my hon. Friends, declare a triple interest in this. The first interest I declare is that of a taxpayer, which nobody else has declared, because I believe that it is to the taxpayer's interest that this new Clause should be passed, and I shall show the hon. Gentleman presently why that is so. Secondly, I am also interested as a parent. Thirdly, I am interested as a governor of schools. We know full well in those private schools the immense difficulties which parents are having at the present time to be able to afford to send, and to continue to send, their children to those schools.
In fact, I have started to try to work out what it would cost a parent with three children—and even in these days that does not seem to me to be an excessive number—for whom he is entirely responsible, for the payment of their maintenance and education out of his earned income. I reckon that in order to keep and maintain three children simultaneously at school at the present time he would, have to earn a sum of approximately £6,000 to £6,500 a year. That shows that it is clearly quite impossible, and that at the present time education in private or independent schools is being financed out of savings—a situation which cannot continue.
It will mean that one by one, and then ten by ten, score by score and hundred by hundred these private schools will drop out, and then the whole responsibility for the education which has hitherto been carried on by the private and independent schools will be thrown back on the Government. That is why I say that the Financial Secretary does not appear to have begun to visualise the seriousness of this problem—the problem which we are seeking to attempt to deal with in a very limited measure by this new Clause.
Again, if that is to be the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has pointed out, that is quite impossible of fulfilment at the present time; if there were no independent schools, the Government could not begin to tackle the problem of how to enforce the educational laws in regard to children who are at present going to independent schools.
Secondly, when the Financial Secretary says he estimates that this would cost the Treasury £10 million, I wonder what he estimates it would cost the Treasury if 1943 these children did all have to be educated at the expense of the taxpayer. It would certainly cost them an exceedingly substantial sum of money. The hon. Gentleman has indicated no basis whatsoever for his estimate of £10 million, and I cannot conceive how he arrives at that figure. I shall not be so bold as to attempt to estimate what would be the additional cost to the taxpayer if the independent schools do have to close down and, in consequence thereof, the education of these remaining children has to take place at the expense of the taxpayer.
Another aspect of the matter which the Financial Secretary seemed to me to avoid entirely was in the actual element of tax avoidance, where he skirted the issue—I think we can say he evaded the issue rather than avoided it. The very weight of taxation and the problem upon the taxpayer is, of itself, forcing him into the avoidance of tax liability: a perfectly proper and legitimate thing for him to do, in so arranging his affairs that they do not attract incidence to tax.
But it is that very fact, the weight of taxation and the expense in which he is involved, which is forcing him into the tax avoidance position, and what we are suggesting by this new Clause is that, by a very meagre simplification of the law he shall be given a legitimate way out of that—a way recognised and approved by Parliament—whereby he can gain the benefit, in effect, of educating his children out of gross income instead of having to do it out of net income.
I shall not detain the House with any further arguments upon this, because I believe that we have got and made, self-evidently, an overwhelming case. The final basis of the whole argument is the argument of logic. It really is ridiculous that a man can befriend and educate his nephew, or a cousin, or a stranger, or whomsoever he likes except his own child out of his gross income. He has not got the right and privilege of fulfilling his duty of educating his own child with the same advantages that he has the right and privilege, but not the duty, of educating somebody else's child.
It really is a most ridiculous position into which the Government have forced the parent at the present time. By this new Clause we are specifically limiting the 1944 concession—if so be it can be called a concession—which is being given to the taxpayer to the question of education alone, and not to the question of maintenance, which was the basis of the allegation of avoidance raised by Mr. Neville Chamberlain. For those reasons, I again urge and press the Government to deal with this matter fairly and sensibly and to accept, if not this actual Clause at least the spirit which it contains.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Miss Horsbrugh
I think we were all surprised by what we heard from the Financial Secretary when he replied to my hon. Friends. He began by telling us that the arguments were overwhelming. I am glad that he told us they were overwhelming, because when we heard them none of us thought they were. He went on to say that the objections were very heavy. We have been listening to hear the plan laid out in detail, but we have not got any details. It seems to me that the Minister wished to avoid argument, and would not get right up to the case and state his view.
We are all agreed about the subject of tax avoidance, and this Clause was drafted so that particular safeguards would be brought in. My hon. Friends have referred to them. Not only is there the safeguard of education and the maintenance of the machinery, but there are two other safeguards—first, the power given to the Commissioners, and secondly, the consultations with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman can say where he believes these safeguards will not work, and if he can tell us that with those safeguards tax can still be avoided, I shall be very much surprised. Anyhow, he did not tell us. He gave us no idea, and he must realise that by these safeguards he would prevent tax avoidance in this particular scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) referred to the anomaly—and we all agree it is an anomaly—that any man by a covenant can pay for the education of any except his own children. That we all think is wrong. It is wrong because we in this House in these difficult days are looking more and more to the improvement of our educational system. I do not believe that any Member would support the idea contained in that anomaly. The hon. Gentle- 1945 man did not deal with that subject. I think he skated round it very well, though he should have dealt with the question whether those who have to pay for the education of their children should receive some tax relief or not.
We are not dealing here with people having enormous incomes. We are dealing with a very large number of people in this country whose incomes are not large but who are determined to pay for the education of their children and who believe in our system of education, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said, is a dual system, made up of the independent school and the school which is maintained from the rates and taxes. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he defends that system or whether he wants to get rid of it. That is the point.
Do we wish to see the people who can make these payments helped in making them or do we not? That is what we have to face.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
Is the right hon. Lady not aware that many of these independent schools at the moment have longer waiting lists than ever they had before?
§ Miss Horsbrugh
Some have and some have not. I quite agree that many have waiting lists, but there are people who wish to send their children to the school at which they themselves have been or to a school which has been recommended to them, and they put down the children's names very early.
When the hon. Gentleman is considering the long waiting lists, he should also ask himself what is the number of cancellations. People are looking ahead in these days, as we all agree they should do, and with the value of money completely different, the question arises whether these people will be able to meet the school fees. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that what we are doing is trusting to these people to continue to pay the fees, because it will be very hard on the Treasury if they do not. It will not be £10 million, but a much greater sum which will fall on the national Exchequer.
The Financial Secretary based his argument on the belief that these people will continue to pay these fees, even if we do not help them. Is that right? Hon. Members 1946 should think very clearly about the matter. The anomaly to which reference has been made should be got rid of. I do not think that anyone wants to see it continued. The safeguards are in the new Clause, and no one has suggested that, with these extra safeguards of the Commissioners and of consultations with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland, tax avoidance could be carried through. We have kept our new Clause to the subject of education and not dealt with maintenance.
Before the House this afternoon there is a simple question. We know the difficulty of people continuing to pay for the education of their children. If they cannot go on, the independent schools in the end must cease. We know that there are people of small means who are anxious to make this payment, and I ask the representatives of the Government this question—do the Government prefer to see the people themselves paying for the education of their children, or do they wish to see these payments come to an end and one system of education be established?
We have not heard any details of how the £10 million is arrived at. All we have been told is that this concession will cost £10 million, and that such a sum can be better used for other things. The money that is spent by these people on the education of their children, is, I would suggest, of benefit to the country as a whole, and a much larger bill will be presented to the Government if these people are not able to continue these payments.
Something which appeals to hon. Members in all parts of the House is the fact that our educational system is so diversified, and if that is to continue something will have to be done to help these people. I hope that before the House divides we shall hear something about how it is proposed that this independent education should continue and how help is to be given to these people to help themselves and save the taxpayers' money.
§ Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)
I do not want to repeat the arguments already made but I want to impress one point upon the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who referred to the fact that there are large waiting lists 1947 at our public schools, The point to remember is that the fees at public schools have so far gone up only 25 to 30 per cent., while the price of everything else has gone up 100 per cent. Further, if a Socialist Government stays in office, the people who have put their children's names on these lists will be faced with bills which may well be half as much again as they are now. If these people are to be driven from the public schools because of the greatly increased fees, then the State will be faced with the prospect of paying those fees, and already there is a shortage of schools, teachers and text books.
Another thing which has not yet been mentioned is that we shall lose a very great incentive to work harder, because a man takes more pride in sending his children to the school of his own choice, or where he himself has been, than in anything else. That is an incentive which would make him work harder and produce a little more in the national interest. I hope the Financial Secretary will think again before we divide on this subject.
§ Mr. Nabarro (Kidderminster)
I am in full agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) that we should have a little more information as to where the figure of £10 million is derived from. It is assumed that the cost to the parents of educating a child at a preparatory school or a public school is on an average, £250 per annum. After making due allowance for Income Tax at the rate of 9s. 6d. in the £, it is to be inferred from the figure of £10 million that something of the order of 80,000 such children are involved.
§ Mr. Nabarro
The right hon. Gentleman refers to Surtax, but that only reinforces my argument.
The first point I want to make is that if the Treasury Bench insist that the cost of conceding this Clause is £10 million per annum it is quite clear to me that in any computation of this sort the complementary cost of educating the children, who are at present at public, private or preparatory schools, were they sent to State schools, must be deducted from the £10 million. I am not sure what is the average 1948 cost per annum of educating a child at a State school. I am told that if it is a primary school the cost is probably of the order of £15 per annum and that if it is a Borstal institution it is probably of the order of £120 per annum. If there are 80,000 children involved in this proposal, and if the average cost is £50 per child at the State school, it follows that £4 millions would be spent if all the children now educated at private schools were sent to State schools. Thus, the figure of £10 million automatically falls to £6 million.
There is a second financial aspect of the matter. The Chancellor gives Income Tax allowances at the rate of 3s. 6d. in the £ up to one-sixth of the total income to a parent who provides educational insurance policies. If all the children were transferred to State schools, presumably that would have a direct bearing on the amount of such Income Tax allowances, so that the £6 million would be substantially reduced. From a combination of those two factors I suggest that the cost to the Treasury of conceding what has been asked for in this Clause would be reduced to a negligible sum.
There is a moral consideration. I join with the noble Lord, who mentioned that he has six children and that the cost of educating them might prove prohibitive. I have three children, all very young, and I view with very grave concern the possibility of not being able to afford to educate them privately if the levels of Income Tax and Surtax remain as they are today. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who dislike State schools and want to educate their children privately. I see no reason why they should not be given the right of selectivity and be allowed, if they wish, so to do.
If a man owns a stud and trains racehorses, the whole cost of training and educating those racehorses for the track is admitted, for the purposes of calculating Income Tax, as a charge. What is applied to racehorses should surely be applied to young children, even if the young children are thoroughbreds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Why should the Treasury set up moral standards and apply one rule to—
§ Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)
Does the hon. Member mean to imply that only one section of the community consists of thoroughbreds?
§ Mr. Nabarro
The hon. Member completely misunderstands me. I am saying that it is evidently the intention of the Treasury to apply one set of Income Tax standards to bloodstock and thoroughbred racehorses and another set to human beings. I hope that the Chancellor will agree that children are more important than racehorses, and that he should give the concession that is asked for in the proposed new Clause.
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Strauss
If the proposed new Clause is rejected and all alternatives are rejected likewise—and that is the policy of the Government—this is what the
§ Government are deliberately saying to the professional classes of this country: "It will be impossible for you to have your children educated as well as you have been educated yourselves." That is an act of great cruelty. There are few things more cruel than to say to a man: "We will make it impossible for you to give to your children the education that you have been fortunate enough to enjoy yourself."
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 286.1953
|Division Mo. 159.]||AYES||[5.47 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hylton-Foster, H. B.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Donner, P. W.||Jennings, R.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Drayson, G. B.||Jones, A. (Hall Green)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Drewe, C.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)||Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Kaberry. D.|
|Astor, Hon. M. L||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Dunglass, Lord||Lambert, Hon. G|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M||Duthie, W. S||Lancaster, Col. C. G|
|Banks, Col. C||Eccles, D. M.||Langford-Holt, J.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Bell, R. M.||Erroll, F J.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Fisher, Nigel||Lindsay, Martin|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Fort, R||Linstead, H. N|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Foster, John||Liewellyn, D.|
|Birch, Nigel||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Black, C. W.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Gage, C. H.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Garbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Low, A. R. W.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Gammans, L. D.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.||Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)|
|Braine, B. R.||Gates, Maj. E. E.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Glyn, Sir Ralph||McAdden, S. J.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W||Gridley, Sir Arnold||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Maclay, Hon. John|
|Bollock, Capl. M||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maclean, Fitzroy|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E||Harris, Reader (Heston)||MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)|
|Burden, F. A.||Harvey, Air Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Hay, John||Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.|
|Carson, Hon. E.||Head, Brig. A. H||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Channon, H.||Heald, Lionel||Marlowe, A A. H|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W W||Marples, A. E.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Higgs, J. M. C.||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)|
|Colegate, A.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maude, John (Exeter)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Maudling, R.|
|Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Medlicott, Brig. F.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hope, Lord John||Mellor, Sir John|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hopkinson, Henry||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Monckton, Sir Walter|
|Crouch, R. F.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E|
|Cundiff, F. W.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Nabarro, G.|
|Cuthbert, W. N||Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Nicholson, G.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hurd, A. R.||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Nugent. G. R. H.|
|de Chair, Somerset||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Nutting, Anthony|
|De la Bère, R.||Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Odey, G. W.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Savory, Prof. D. L.||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N,)||Scott, Donald||Tilney, John|
|Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Shepherd, William||Touche, G. C.|
|Osborne, C.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Perkins, W R D||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Turton, R. H.|
|Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Pickthorn, K.||Snadden, W. McN.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Pitman, I. J.||Soames, Capt. C.||Wade, D. W.|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Spearman, A. C. M.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Profumo, J. D||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Raikes, H. V.||Stevens, G. P.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Rayner, Brig. R||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Redmayne, M.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Watkinson, H.|
|Remnant, Hon. P||Storey, S.||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Roberts, Maj. Peter (Healey)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)||Studholme, H. G.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Summers, G. S.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Robson-Brown, W.||Sutcliffe, H.||Wills, G.|
|Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Roper, Sir Hareld||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Ropner, Col. L.||Teeling, W.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Russell, R. S.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Salter, Rt. Han. Sir Arthur||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)||Major Conant and Mr. Digby.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Cullen, Mrs. A||Hamilton, W. W.|
|Adams, Richard||Dalnes, P.||Hannan, W.|
|Albu, A. H.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hardy, E. A.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hargreaves, A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Davies, A Edward (Stoke, N.)||Hastings, S.|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Davies, Rt. Hon. C. (Montgomery)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Davies. Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Awbery, S. S.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hobson, C. R.|
|Ayles, W. H||Deer, G.||Holman, P|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Delargy, H. J.||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)|
|Baird, J.||Diamond, J.||Houghton, D|
|Balfour, A||Dodds, N. N.||Hoy, J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Donnelly, D.||Hubbard, T.|
|Bartley, P.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Dye, S.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Benson, G.||Edelman, M.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Beswick, F.||Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Evans, Abert (Islington, S.W.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Blyton, W. R||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Janner, B.|
|Boardman, H||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Booth, A.||Ewart, R.||Jeger, George (Goole)|
|Bottomley, A. G||Fernyhough, E.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Bowden, H. W.||Field, Capt. W. J.||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Follick, M||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Foot, M. M||Jones, David (Hartlepool)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Forman, J. C.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D||Freeman, John (Watford)||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Keenan, W.|
|Burke, W. A.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Kenyan, C.|
|Burton, Miss E.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||George, Lady Megan Lloyd||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Gibson, C. W.||Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr E|
|Carmichael, J.||Gilzean, A.||Kinley, J.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Glanville, James (Consett)||Lang, Gordon|
|Champion, A. J.||Gooch, E. G.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P C||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Clunie, J.||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)|
|Coldrick, W.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N)|
|Collick, P.||Grey, C. F||Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)|
|Cook, T. F.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Lindgren, G. S|
|Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M|
|Cooper, John (Deptford)||Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)||Logan, D. G.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Gunter, R. J.||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)|
|Cove, W G.||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||McAllister. G.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||MacColl, J. E.|
|Crawley, A.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||McGovern, J.|
|Grossman, R. H. S.||Hall. John (Gateshead, W.)||McInnes, J.|
|Mack, J. D.||Peart, T. F.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Popplewell, E||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)||Porter, G.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|McLeavy, F.||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Proctor, W. T.||Timmons, J.|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Pryde, D. J.||Tomney, F.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Rankin, J.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lym|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Rees, Mrs. D.||Usborne, H.|
|Mann, Mrs. Jean||Reeves, J.||Vernon, W. F.|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Mayhem, C. P||Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Messer, F.||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Weitzman, D.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Mikardo, Ian.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||West, D. G|
|Moeran, E. W.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Monslow, W.||Shurmer, P. L. E.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Moody, A. S.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Morley, R.||Simmons, C. J.||Wigg, G.|
|Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Slater, J.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Mort, D. L.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Moyle, A.||Snow, J. W.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Mulley, F. W.||Sorensen, R. W||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Nally, W.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Sparks, J. A.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Steele, T.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Orbach, M.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Padley, W. E.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A|
|Paget, R. T.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. W (Dearne Valley)||Stross, Or. Barnett||Yates, V. F.|
|Pannell, T. C||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith||Younger, Rt. Hon K|
|Pargiter, G. A||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Parker, J.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Paton, J||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)||Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Royle.|
|Pearson, A.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|