Rule 2 of the General Rules in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall have effect as if for sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of that Rule there were substituted the following:
(a) any sums of money paid or expenses incurred by him wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the efficient performance of his duty as a clergyman or minister."—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Henry Brooke (Hampstead)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think it would be helpful if I explained what is the existing wording so that I can endeavour to show how it needs revision. At present it states that a clergyman may claim as a deduction:any sums of money paid or expenses incurred by him wholly, exclusively. and necessarily in the performance of his duty as a clergyman or minister.In my experience, inspectors of taxes endeavour to interpret those words generously towards the clergy. I make no criticism whatever of the administration of the law, but a situation has been reached where the clergy are advised in their own interests not to press any doubtful case to appeal, because the words are so rigid, restrictive and unfavourable to the special position of a clergyman that on appeal any case is almost certain to be determined against him.
He has to prove that expenditure is necessary in the performance of his duties. There are varying standards of performance of a clergyman's duties, just as I would submit to the Committee that there 145 are varying standards of performance of the duties of a Member of Parliament. Some of us might find it a little awkward if we submitted a tax claim for expenditure which we considered necessary in the performance of our duties, and it was pointed out to us that some predecessor representing the same constituency had not thought it necessary to incur a similar expenditure, and therefore we could not prove a claim. In point of fact, I do not think that Members of Parliament are treated like that by the Revenue authorities, but clergymen are liable to be treated in that way.
If the law is not working appropriately to the special position of a clergyman, then I submit that we should look at the wording again. I noticed a case in "The Times" the other day of a clergyman who had had his car destroyed by a bomb. He was not able to get a new car. When he came to press his claim for car expenses, it was argued that the fact that he was now getting on without a car proved that the use of a car was unnecessary to him. Therefore, the claim was disallowed. Other examples like that can be quoted. I have a letter here from an inspector of taxes. I do not criticise the inspector, because I think he was interpreting the law correctly. He says:The use of a car in connection with activities such as youth meetings, conveyance of parishioners to hospital or other journeys which are carried out by a clergyman as a moral obligation and in the way in which, from the highest motives, he chooses to give his services to his parishioners, does not give rise to a necessary expense within the close wording of Rule 2.In other words, if it is possible to prove that any clergyman or minister could avoid incurring an expenditure on which a claim is being made, then that expenditure is liable to be disallowed. I cannot think that this Committee wishes the clergy to be treated in that extremely rigid manner. It is to draw attention to that that I move this Motion.
Further, I ask the Committee to note the words in the present Rule 2:in the performance of his duty.Again, that rule is rigidly applied. Suppose that a clergyman buys a devotional book which he proposes to read with his Bible classes. If he chose to claim for that, it would be allowed as an expense necessarily incurred in the performance of his duty. If, on the other 146 hand, he bought a book because he knew that he ought to possess and read it in order to keep up to date, freshen up his sermons and give additional assistance to his parishioners, that would have to be disallowed, because though he might have bought that book for the purpose of the better performance of his duties, he was not actually using it in church or employing it in the performance of his duties. Again, it strikes me that the present wording is too restrictive.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Houghton
Surely, the hon. Gentleman will realise that the words of which he is now complaining are also in Rule 9 of Schedule E, applying to all other taxpayers assessed under the same Schedule?
§ Mr. Brooke
Yes, I am well aware that these words occur elsewhere in the Income Tax Acts. What I am submitting is that we cannot treat a clergyman as exactly on a par with an ordinary man who is employed under a contract of service and is taxed under Schedule E, because Schedule E is primarily intended for the man who is not his own master, but is given a job to do and has to carry out orders as a subordinate, in which case it is reasonable to say whether a particular item of expense is necessary or not. A clergyman, however, is to a very large extent his own master, and he has to decide how his duties are to be carried out.
It really is not for him to be at the mercy of a representative of the Revenue, who shall say whether a particular expenditure has been necessary in the performance of his duties or not. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, because that brings me to the main point which I wish to make. I hope that I have carried the Committee with me in endeavouring to prove that the present wording is not wholly satisfactory, and that there should be some revision.
The next question is how we are to provide that revision, and in my Clause I have suggested words which, I frankly admit, are based on the wording that at present exists for the purpose of Schedule D, covering the case of the professional man. A professional man is allowed to claim in respect ofmoney wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the … profession or vocation.147 It is customary to say that a clergyman has a vocation, but for Income Tax purposes his occupation is not treated as a vocation, and he is placed under the much stricter Schedule E words.
In moving this Clause, I am not basing it on the grounds of sympathy with the low pay of the clergy, or anything like that. Still less am I urging that the clergy should in any sense be placed in a privileged position. My case is that the present wording of Rule 2 is not appropriately applicable to the special position in which clergymen have to do their work, and I trust that the Committee will sympathise with me and will support me in the suggestion I make that we should re-word the terms of the Rule, not in order to widen the field to cover all sorts of otiose expenditure, but to provide for the kind of expenditure in which the clergyman who is doing his job is reasonably involved; that is to say, expenses wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the efficient performance of his duties.
§ Air Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)
I am sure that the Committee and most people in the country are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke) for bringing forward his new Clause. I quite agree that the clergy should not be placed in a privileged position over the matter of taxation, but I would go just a little farther than my hon. Friend and ask the Committee to consider the situation in which the clergymen of this country are placed.
I suppose that the majority of them have been affected more than anybody else in the country by the increased cost of living. They have to maintain a certain social position, and very few of them have had increments in their annual stipends. Year after year this House has debated the Easter offerings for clergymen, but no concession has been made. Very few clergymen have motor cars, but I believe that those who have are better clergymen for having them inasmuch as the cars enable them in many cases to cover very large areas.
Without wishing to place them in a privileged position, I ask the Chancellor to view sympathetically what has been said on their behalf, and to see whether the law cannot be re-worded so as to enable the clergy to get this benefit. It would 148 not cost the Chancellor a great deal of money. I am sure that the Inland Revenue inspectors do their duty fairly, but they have to interpret the law as worded. As I have said, I hope some concession will be made in their case.
§ Mr. J. Edwards
I am sorry that I must resist this new Clause. It has been proposed from time to time that we should bring the Schedule E expenses rule in line with that of Schedule D for all tax purposes; but as has been pointed out in previous debates on the general topic, it is important to distinguish, on the one hand, between the person who is directing his own income-earning activities and who is subject to the specific provisions of Schedule D and is entitled to claim an allowance for the expenses which he lays out for the purpose of earning his profit, and, on the other hand, the holder of an office or appointment who performs particular duties within a definite area for a fixed remuneration.
I submit to the Committee that it would be absolutely impossible to widen the expenses rule for ministers of religion without, at the same time, giving rise to a whole crop of claims of varying degrees of merit on behalf of other Schedule E taxpayers. If a breach were made in favour of one class of Schedule E taxpayers in the main principle governing the rule of expenses, then there would be no ground on which a similar relaxation could be resisted for other groups of people, and I could foresee a whole host of claims arising. For example, in one of my previous occupations, that of a university tutor, I certainly could have made out a case on the same sort of ground as that made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke).
May I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), that I was sorry he introduced the point about the economic circumstances of the clergy. His hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead was very careful to say that he was not going to base his claim on those grounds, for, agreeing as I do with him that many clergy are in most unfortunate circumstances at the present time, I should have thought the moral of that was to be drawn in a different field from that of Income Tax law. I would interpret it as a reproach to all those of us who belong to the Churches and who ought to bear 149 this responsibility. That is no argument to bring forward for an Amendment of Income Tax law.
§ Air Commodore Harvey
I think the hon. Gentleman really misinterprets what I said. I said that I did not think the clergy should be placed in a privileged position, and I merely pointed out that they were in a very difficult position financially. Anyhow, if I withdraw what I said, will the hon. Gentleman accept the Clause?
§ Mr. Edwards
A very convenient form of disputation, but there are, of course, still a few other arguments left. However, it should be appreciated that without any considerable departure from ordinary Income Tax principles, ministers of religion have been given a great number of concessions which are worth something in taxes. Let us take some of them. There are travelling expenses, including, I think, in almost every case the cost of maintaining and running a car, all or part of the pay of a servant whose employment is made necessary by the clergyman's parochial work, travelling expenses, the cost of replacing robes, Communion expenses where borne by the incumbent, a proportion of rent and rates, lighting, cleaning and heating and so on.
These are normal allowable deductions, which I am advised are in fact allowed in practice, and therefore it seems to me that the hon. Member for Hampstead is asking for rather special treatment. It may be true that the Board of Inland Revenue interpret the law strictly, but if they do they do not interpret the law in respect of clergymen in any different way from that in which they interpret it in respect of other taxpayers in precisely the same position under the law. Both the hon. Member for Hampstead and the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield have been at pains to say that they do not want to put the clergyman in a privileged position. I accept what they say, but I cannot accept that to do what they ask would be to do any other than put the clergyman in a privileged position; that is to say, the clergyman would be treated differently from other taxpayers in respect of a law of common application.
I cannot accept this Clause for those reasons, and I ask the Committee to reject it on the grounds that to accept it would be to create a privilege and a precedent 150 which would make it very difficult for those of us who have to try to collect the revenue under this particular Schedule.
§ Mr. Summers (Aylesbury)
I am very sorry that the Economic Secretary was unable to deal more sympathetically with this Clause. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. H. Brooke), who moved the Clause, and the Economic Secretary, who opposed it, at any rate shared the view that it would not be desirable, they thought, to place ministers in any privileged position in this matter.
I want to record my dissent from that view for this reason. We are very prone, both in the House of Commons and elsewhere, to attribute many of the troubles from which our country and the world suffer to insufficient attention to spiritual matters. It would not be in order for me to develop that thought at this stage, but I claim that if there is substance in it it behoves us first of all to make quite certain that those who minister to the spiritual needs of the community are at any rate in no worse position than an objective study of their position might suggest they are.
I would go even further and say that we should give the benefit of the doubt at all times to such people, simply because this spiritual sphere in which they work is unique and others are not able to share it in the same way. That view may not commend itself to the Government at the present time, but, having regard to the broad principles to which I alluded earlier, we ought to make special provision for making certain they are not handicapped in fulfilling those vital duties. If they were relieved of some of the difficulties from which they now suffer, it might be that their work would benefit accordingly and our nation benefit at the same time.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I am very sorry that the Economic Secretary not only refuses to consider this new Clause but does it in so perfunctory a manner. I do not think it is an answer to this kind of new Clause merely to say, "If you accept it, you open the door to a whole crop of new claims." That is what the Economic Secretary argued, as I understood it: but it is not a very satisfactory argument.
It is in the nature of things that, when we are dealing with any tax in a highly 151 complex society such as ours, if we make a concession of this sort we thereby in some degree strengthen other claims for similar concessions. That, of course, is true, but it does not make an effective argument with which to reject a claim which is sound in itself, and I do not hold so low the efficiency of the Inland Revenue as to believe that if the Economic Secretary were to accept this proposition he would not be able to resist the others.
The real distinction between this class of taxpayer and taxpayers as a whole is to be found, I think, in the Economic Secretary's own words. He used the expression, "expenditure for the purpose of earning his own living." I suppose that in all occupations other than this occupation of a clergyman, the factor of earning one's living is a perfectly proper and major factor in the considerations which impel one in the practice of one's profession, but surely it can be accepted that in the case of a clergyman it ought not to be a factor in his choice of a vocation that he thereby earns his living. He ought to enter, and I am sure in the vast majority of cases he does enter, upon that occupation from a sense of vocation only; and, indeed, the present standard of remuneration is so low that a man who entered upon the occupation for any other reason than that of a sense of vocation would be a proper subject for treatment by a psychiatrist.
§ Mr. J. Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument upon a misquotation of what I said. Perhaps I may make it plain to him that I did not use the phrase, "earning one's living." I said, "For the purpose of earning his profit." That is a distinction which is important when we consider the difference between Schedule E and Schedule D.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I accept that the hon. Gentleman said, "for the purpose of earning his profit," and I think he will accept it from me that that does not alter my argument in the slightest. What is applicable to a person entering upon his occupation for the purpose of earning his living is, of course, equally applicable to one doing so for the purpose of earning a profit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, and I think it is regret- 152 table that a Minister from the Government Front Bench should, even in these days, introduce that consideration into a discussion of the affairs of this type of person, because I think one must accept that the overwhelming majority of clergymen of all denominations enter upon their occupation from the highest of motives. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the financial remuneration they receive is a serious factor in their motives.
If one accepts that, then there is the distinction which the Economic Secretary was seeking between this class of case and the others which he desires, no doubt rightly, to be able to resist. We are here dealing with the case of a man who ought not to be concerned, and in general is not concerned, with the earning of profits or the earning of his living. We are here concerned with a man whose whole occupation is on a different basis, and if it is on a different basis surely that is a good reason for treating him for tax purposes on a different basis. Surely it is a good reason for saying that any such expenditure thereby incurred for the purpose of carrying out his duty as a clergyman, for the purpose of properly carrying out the immense responsibilities which he carries, should rank for tax purposes.
That, as I understand it, is the purpose, and indeed the effect of this Clause; and the Economic Secretary has not dealt with that argument at all. He has dealt with the case on that traditional and weakest of administrative arguments—the danger of opening a way for other concessions.
I hope the Committee will not part with this issue without insisting that the Government try to do something to assist this immensely important, as most of us think, and heavily tried, as most of us know, section of the community. I do not base a case purely on the economic position of the clergy, but one cannot altogether dismiss it from one's mind in discussing this issue. When all these factors are taken into account—the compassionate factor in regard to their present economic position, plus the real distinction of principle between their position and that of other sections of the cornmunity—I think that there is a case to answer and that the Economic Secretary has not even begun to answer it.
§ Mr. Maudling
I think that the Economic Secretary's argument was that it was impossible to apply the wider rule 153 of Schedule D to anyone receiving emoluments under Schedule E because that would open the door wide to further exceptions, and that the word "necessary" must therefore be applied to the expenses of clergymen as to the expenses of any other form of employment. It is quite a different thing to determine what is necessary expenditure in the case of clergymen as compared with other professions or employment.
Therefore, it is not so reasonable to ask the Inland Revenue or a court to determine the necessity of clergymen's expenses as it is to ask them to determine the necessity of expenses of people employed in the normal way. Moreover, is it riot a fact that on this question of introducing exceptions, Rule 10 of Schedule E is an exception to the general rule which is already applied by the Inland Revenue?
§ Mr. Brooke
I am grateful for the support which hon. Members have given to the Clause, and I think that the Committee are disappointed that the Government.
§ have not been more forthcoming. The argument that has been made has been based entirely on the new problems that may arise elsewhere if any alteration were made in the existing rule that applies to clergymen, and we have not, I suggest, had any effective reply to the case I originally made, and which hon. Members have embellished, that the rule does operate unfairly towards the clergy.
§ I trust that the Committee will continue to take notice of this matter. If I asked leave to withdraw the Clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I gather that my hon. Friends do not wish me to withdraw it, and I am very pleased indeed to hear that. I can, therefore, say once again that I am very sorry that what I am convinced is an injustice has not been recognised tonight.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 290.157
|Division No. 140.]||AYES||[9.24 p.m|
|Aitken, W. T.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Cranborne, Viscount||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Arbuthnot, John||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.||Hay, John|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Crouch, R. F.||Head, Brig. A. H.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Head'lam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir Cuthbert|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Heald, Lionel|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Cundiff, F. W.||Heath, Edward|
|Bafdack, U.-Cmdr. J M||Cuthbert, W. N.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)||Higgs, J. M. C.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Davidson, Viscountess||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||de Chair, Somerset||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Bell, R. M.||De la Bere, R.||Hollis, M. C.|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Deedes, W. F.||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Digby, S. Wingfield||Hope, Lord John|
|Bennett, William (Woodsids)||Dormer, P. W.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Drayson, G B,||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence|
|Birch, Nigel||Drewe, C.||Howard Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Howard, Greville (St. Ives)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Dunglass, Lord||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)|
|Boothby, R.||Duthie, W. S.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Soulhport)|
|Bossom, A. C||Eccles, D. M.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J, A.||Fisher, Nigel||Hulbert. Wing Cmdr. N J.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fletcher, Walter (Bury)||Hurd, A. R,|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon B.||Fort, R||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)|
|Braine, B. R.||Foster, John||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cr. G. (Bristol, N W)||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.||Gage, C. H.||Hylton-Foster, H. B.|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)||Jeffreys, General Sir George|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E E||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Jennings, R.|
|Burden, F. A.||Gammans, L- D.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Butcher, H, W.||Garner-Evans, E, H. (Doneigh)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Gates, Maj. E. E.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Kaberry, D.|
|Carson, Hon. E.||Granville, Edgar (Eye)||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)|
|Channon, H.||Gridley, Sir Arnold||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Grimond, J.||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Colegate, A.||Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Langford-Holt, J.|
|Conant, Maj R. J. E.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Word, S.)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Leather, E. H C|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H||Nugent, G. R. H.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Nutting, Anthony||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Lindsay, Martin||Oakshott, H. D.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Linstead, H, N.||Odey, G. W.||Storey, S.|
|Llewelyn, D.||O Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Studholme, H. G.|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Tooling, W.|
|Low, A. R W.||Osborne, G.||Teevan, T. L.|
|Lucas, P. S. (Brentford)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|McAdden, S. J.||Pickthorn, K.||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W)|
|McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Pitman, I. J.||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)||Powell, J. Enoch||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N|
|Macdonald, Sir Pater (l. of Wight)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O||Tilney, John|
|McKibbin, A.||Profumo, J. D.||Touche, G. C.|
|McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Raikes, H. V.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Maclay, Hon. John||Rayner, Brig. R.||Turton, R. H.|
|Maclean, Fitzroy||Redmayne, M.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|MacLeod, lam (Enfield, W.)||Remnant, Hon. P||Vane, W. M. F.|
|MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Renton, D. L. M.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K|
|Maemillan, At. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Manningham-Buller, R, E.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Robson-Brown, W.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)||Roper, Sir Harold||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Maude, John (Exeter)||Ropner, Col L.||Watkinson, H.|
|Maudling, R.||Russell, R. S.||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Medlicott, Brig. F.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Mellor, Sir John||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Molson, A. H. E.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Monckton, Sir Walter||Savory, Prof. D. L.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Scott, Donald||Wills, G.|
|Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Shepherd, William||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl|
|(Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Smilhers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||York, C|
|Nabarro, G.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Nicholls, Harmar||Spearman, A. C. M.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Nicholson, G.||Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)||Mr. Henry Brooke and|
|Nield, Basil (Chester)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)||Mr. Summers.|
|Noble, Cmdr. A H. P.||Stevens, G. P.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)|
|Adams. Richard||Callaghan, L. J.||Dye, S.|
|Albu, A. H.||Carmichael, J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Castle, Mrs. B. A||Edwards, John (Brighouse)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Champion, A. J.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Chelwynd, G. R||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Clunie, J.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Cocks, F. S.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Coldrick, W||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Collick, P.||Ewart, R.|
|Baird, J.||Collindridge, F||Ferayhough, E|
|Balfour, A.||Cook, T. F.||Field, Capt. W J|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W)||Finch, H. J.|
|Bartley, P.||Cooper, John (Deptford)||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Follick, M.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Cove, W. G.||Foot, M. M.|
|Benson, G.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Forman, J. C.|
|Beswick, F,||Crawley, A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Crosland, C. A. R||Freeman, John (Watford)|
|Bing, G. H, C||Grossman, R. H S||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Cullen, Mrs. A||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T N|
|Blyton, W. R.||Daines, P.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Boardman, H||Dalton, Rt. Hon H.||George, Lady Megan Lloyd|
|Booth, A.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Gibson, C. W.|
|Bottomley, A. G||Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Gilzean, A.|
|Bowden, H. W||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Gooch, E. G.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||do Freitas, Geoffrey||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Deer, G.||Greenwood, Rt Hit. Arthur (Wakefield)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Delargy, H. J||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R.|
|Broughton, Or. A. D. D.||Diamond, J.||Grey, C. F.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Dodds, N. N.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Donnelly, D.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)|
|Burton, Miss E.||Driberg, T. E. N||Griffiths, William (Exchange)|
|Gunter, R. J.||McLeavy, F.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Islet)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Slater, J.|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)|
|Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Snow, J. W.|
|Hamilton, W W||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Sorensen, R. W|
|Hannan, W.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank|
|Hardy, E. A.||Manuel, A. C.||Steele, T.|
|Hargreaves, A||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Hastings, S.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mayhew, C P.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Tipton)||Mellish, R. J.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Messer, F.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Hewitson, Capl. M||Middleton, Mrs. L||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Hobson, C. Ft||Mikardo, Ian.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Holman, P.||Mitchison, G. R.||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Moeran, E. W.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Houghton, D||Monslow, W.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Hoy, J.||Moody, A. S.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Morley, R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)||Mort, D. L||Timmons, J.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Moyle, A.||Tomney, F.|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Mulley, F. W.||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Murray, J. D.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Nally, W.||Usborne, H|
|Janner, B.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Vernon, W. F|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J||Viant, S. P.|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||O'Brien, T.||Wade, D. W.|
|Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Oldfield, W. H||Wallace, H. W.|
|Jenkins, R. H.||Oliver, G. H.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Orbach, M.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Padley, W. E.||Weitzman, D.|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Paget R. T.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||West, D. G.|
|Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)||Pannell, T. C.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)|
|Keenan, W.||Pargiter, G. A.||White, Mrs Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Kenyon, C.||Parker, J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Peart, T F||Whiteley, Rt. Hon W|
|King, Dr. H. M||Popplewell, E||Wigg, G.|
|Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.||Porter, G.||Wilcock, Group Capt CAB|
|Kinley, J.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire. W)||Wilkes, L.|
|Lang, Gordon||Proctor, W. T||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lee, Frederick '(Newton)||Pryde, D, J.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Rankin, J.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Rees, Mrs. D.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)||Reeves, J.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Rhodes, H.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Logan, D. G.||Richards, R.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|McAllister, C.||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|MacColl, J. E.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Wise, F. J.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon A|
|McGovern, J.||Royle, C.||Woods, Rev. G S|
|McInnes, J.||Shackleton, E. A. A||Wyatt, W. C.|
|Mack, J. D.||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley||Yates, V. F.|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K|
|Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.|