§ Any money given or bequeathed wholly for the repair or reconstruction of places of worship of any denomination shall be exempt from death duties.—[Captain Crookshank.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Captain Crookshank
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
One of the most noticeable features about debates on new Clauses is their 297 infinite variety. This afternoon we have already discussed horse racing, officers' uniform and electricity way-leaves. I now invite the attention of the Committee to an entirely different subject which to the best of my recollection has not previously been ventilated in these debates, the problem of whether anything can be done in these very expensive days to assist in the repair and reconstruction of places of worship.
We have for some years past had on the Statute Book provisions by which property can be exempted from Estate Duty when it is given to the National Trust or other similar bodies. Clause 29 of the Bill extends the area to properties which are bequeathed to the Government, local authorities or universities, and, still further, it extends the exemption not only to the property itself but to the objects ordinarily kept at the time in the building. That is what we have done for ancient secular buildings, and today I want at least to launch the idea that something similar should be done for places of worship of all kinds.
Naturally, one thinks first of the parish churches of our country. Not only is the parochial system a very ancient one of great historical value but it is one of the things which most strikes visitors to this country. Visitors from overseas are always impressed as they drive about or travel by train or in the air by the enormous mass of churches in the towns and villages up and down the land. Indeed the converse is true; anyone going for the first time to some of the newer countries in the New World will sooner or later realise how few churches they have seen and how those they have seen are very often much more modest than the great buildings in this country.
I really start with the thought of the parish church and its difficulties about repairs. The cost of repairs of all kinds has gone up enormously and it is very often quite outside the power of the parishioners to keep a parish church in repair. Hence we have innumerable appeals on behalf of historic buildings. I am not so foolish as to imagine that all churches in this country are either of great beauty or of great architectural value, but they are all holy places where two or three people gather together.
298 I do not wish to limit myself to the parish church. Indeed, I should like to see any arrangements which can be made extended to the churches and chapels of all denominations, to the cathedral churches of the Established Church and also to Nonconformist churches and chapels, whose repair problem is exactly the same, mutatis mutandis, as that of the parish church. Other denominations also have their problems. The first point I would make is that any possible arrangement should be of a universal character.
I do not seek to define anything in the Clause. I do not even insist on the words of the Clause. I recognise that the Clause would have to be redrafted by those who are more expert at doing it than we are; but I believe that the intention behind the Clause is perfectly obvious from the few simple words in which it is drafted.
I am concerned not only with repair but also with reconstruction. "Reconstruction" may not be the right word. What I have in mind is that a large number of places of worship of all kinds suffered damage during the war, and while it is true that arrangements were arrived at between all the denominations under a committee which was presided over by the present Archbishop of Canterbury and upon which all Churches were represented, and an arrangement was made as a result of that committee's deliberations with the Treasury over payments for war damage, the fact still remains that the various war damage payments for places of worship would not permit of their being reconstructed in their original form.
Those concerned may very well not desire to reconstruct churches on the same large scale but it follows naturally that—for want of a better word—"furnishings," apart from the structure, are something which have to be paid for out of money other than war damage compensation. In regard to current and future repair and reconstruction I am at the moment naturally thinking of war damage. That is a phase which will pass, but if the idea became enshrined in the Statute Book, it would cover reconstruction in future should other calamities such as fire overtake places of worship.
So far as the Church of England is concerned, I know that some ideas are being mooted of setting up a kind of National Trust. That is not the correct term, and I do not know that it has yet 299 reached any particularity, but there is an idea that a fund should exist to which donations could be made and from which money could be drawn to help in the repair and upkeep of ancient churches. If there were such a fund, I suppose it would be possible for gifts to it to be exempted altogether from Death Duties on the analogy of the National Trust and secular buildings.
I do not think that would quite meet the case I have in mind. What I have in mind is that there are people who, if they were able to take advantage of some such provision as is contained in the Clause, would wish to leave their money to a certain place of worship. If they left it to a fund and it could then be earmarked for a certain place, well and good, but the general result of having a large fund is that it is used for purposes which are most urgent and not necessarily for the church or chapel in which the individual concerned is interested.
The truth of the matter is that, owing to our high incidence of taxation today, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for anybody to make large benefactions out of current income for the purpose of repair or reconstruction. It seems to me that the only hope of keeping this ancient heritage of ours in good repair in future is to find some way by which encouragement can be given to those who would leave money at death.
I fancy that there are many who would like to do that if they had the opportunity and if as a result it did not cause, I will not say hardship, but inconvenience to the other beneficiaries under their will. If gifts are left out of moneys on which high Death Duties are levied, of course they do cut into what is left for other people. On the other hand, if they could be exempted altogether before starting to talk about the scale of Death Duties on the estate, it might be that certain benefactions could come along for a whole host of places of worship.
I do not know that the Chancellor or the Treasury could safely say that this would make a very great inroad into the amount collected from Death Duties. I do not foresee a sudden rush of everyone wanting to leave considerable sums of money to places of worship throughout the country. It might be a good thing if that were the case, because the repair 300 problem would be settled perhaps for a century or more; but I do not see that happening as a result of the adoption of such a proposal as this.
I should like to make another remark regarding the debate we had the other day on a proposed new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) arising out of the Gowers Committee's Report, when the Chancellor declined, at this stage at any rate, to accept anything on those lines, saying, as I understood it, that the Treasury would prefer to make ad hoc grants from time to time—this was for secular buildings—for particular historial buildings which mght need repair. That may be the end of the story in regard to secular buildings, but I should hesitate to suggest that that kind of claim would be suitable for places of worship.
I should be sorry if the Treasury, or anyone else, had to make a decision whether the parish church of Little So-and-so should receive a £100 lump sum to repair the lead piping, or something of that sort. I think we might be able to give quite a lot of alleviation of the extra burdens placed upon all places of worship by the high cost of repairs if we could adopt some sort of principle such as the one I am suggesting.
In the case of war damage, I think of many churches, some of which require a great deal of rebuilding—the Roman Catholic Cathedral at Southwark, the City churches, and a great number of churches in other towns and villages throughout the country which suffered war damage. Although I am the first to admit that the State is doing its share through war damage payments, in the nature of things it cannot be sufficient to put back those places of worship into anything like the condition in which they were. Nor do I think it fair to ask the general body of taxpayers to do it. I do not think a proposal of this kind for exempting from Death Duties any moneys bequeathed wholly for the repair or reconstruction of places of worship of all denominations would either cost the Treasury very much or harm any of the ordinary sound principles of taxation.
On the other hand, I am quite satisfied that it would go a long way towards helping in the difficulties of those who have the responsibility of looking after places of worship of every denomination. 301 It is in order to launch the idea that I move the Clause. I am quite prepared to be told that it is not properly drafted and I should not be surprised if it were refused because, after all, this is only the first time of asking.
§ Mr. Baker White (Canterbury)
I wish to support my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). I have the good fortune and great honour to represent the City of Canterbury, among other places, which contains not only Canterbury Cathedral, but one of the finest and oldest of small churches in the world. I know that the problem of maintaining these churches is a continual headache to those responsible.
At this time of the year, up to 10,000 pilgrims a day are coming to Canterbury Cathedral and I am sure that many of them who see the fine condition in which it is kept, who cannot go up and see all the troubles there are in the roof, and who do not appreciate the great cost of putting back the stained glass taken out during the war, believe that there is somewhere an ample sum of money for its maintenance. There is no such sum of money. Most of the money now has to be raised by that remarkable organisation the Friends of Canterbury Cathedral. Many sums at death come through that organisation in addition to subscriptions and gifts by living friends, for which we are also very thankful, but, as they are subject to Death Duties, those sums consequently diminish.
Only a few days ago I received an appeal for St. Martin's Church, which is not only one of the oldest places of Christian worship in this country, but I think one of the oldest places of Christian worship in the world. They want a sum of money urgently. My own parish church has recently received a small sum from an estate. If we had a little more the whole of the work that needs doing to that church could be done.
My right hon. and gallant Friend mentioned war damage. At Canterbury German bombs fell all around the Cathedral. They completely destroyed the Cathedral Library and did considerable damage, which has only just been found, to the Cathedral itself. War damage payments cannot meet all the work which needs to be done and the cost of the day-to-day maintenance of this enormous church. If 302 anything can be done along the lines suggested in this Clause, I am certain that anyone who is concerned with this problem of the maintenance of our places of worship will be very thankful indeed for anything the Chancellor can do.
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)
I will not take many minutes, but I hope that the Treasury Bench's withers, wherever situated, are not unwrung by the two urgent and moving speeches to which we have listened. I want to add two or three quite short sentences.
What my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said about going, to far-distant parts and there observing the comparative poverty of ecclesiastical buildings—comparatively small numbers and so on—might be strengthened by not going very far, but going only to France. It is really very striking that, although the Reformation happened here and not there, so to speak, at least not in the same sense, how very much better, on the whole, ecclesiastical buildings have been preserved here; and that is for a series of historical reasons which do great credit to our ancestors.
It would not be in order now, nor do I wish, to discuss whether or not the State in which we now live, a State in which all capital and all income are all the time at the mercy of an omnicompetent administration and very high proportions of them are taken—unprecedentedly high proportions—I would not for a moment argue whether that is a good thing or not; but it makes almost infinitely more difficult the business of people who have the responsibility for preserving these things. As one who has, with a few others, responsibility for one 14th Century building, I may say that it is no use saying that with good management they would be kept up-to-date, even leaving aside war damage and the rest.
I know well what happens when one goes to the best architects and experts. One is told, "You must spend £8,000 and you will be safe for another 200 years." The £8,000 is spent, and, sometimes after an almost farcically short interval, the same again is required. In the case I am thinking of at the moment, £10,000 is required. The State and the Treasury, the revenue-collecting part of 303 the State, are in an entirely different relation to this problem from what they ever have been before; and I cannot believe that the best answer is that each case should be put up on its merit before the Treasury or some advisory committee or anything of that kind. Here I think is a better way than that, clearly. At the very least, something of this sort ought to be considered. If not, we may at any rate turn on the Treasury Bench what they are so fond of saying to us and say, "What would you do, chum?"
I think really that if they do not think this is one of the best ways of alleviating a very heavy burden which ought not to fall on those bearing it, if they cannot think that this is one way, then they ought to inform the Committee that they have hopes of discovering other and better ways, and very speedily.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
In moving this new Clause, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the extraordinary variety of topics we are discussing this afternoon and have been discussing for the last two or three days. There is, of course, a very simple explanation for that. The Committee stage of the Finance Bill is an occasion when hon. Members put forward various propositions on behalf of various sections of the community, either in relation to the taxes they pay, or in relation to certain other hardships from which they suffer. This is a case in point.
I imagine that a great many hon. Members, perhaps all of us, have had appeals, and have no doubt responded to them, to assist in the restoration and repair of local parish churches. Nobody for one moment would dispute that the object of those appeals is a very worthy one; but I think there are serious difficulties about this particular proposition which I would like to explain to the Committee.
It is obvious that the benefit of the exemption from Estate Duty here proposed would in the first instance go to the estate. The purpose of proposing it is that, because of that benefit, more people would be likely to leave money for this particular purpose. I do not dispute that. It may be so, but in passing I would mention that since this is a charitable object it does have the benefit of the one-year provision as regards gifts 304 inter vivos; any money given more than a year before the death of a person concerned would not be subject to Estate Duty at all, and so that makes some difference.
I do not think it easy for us to single out the repair and reconstruction of churches as a particular charitable object. There are many other worthy causes, and I do not see how one can draw the line. I realise that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members may have special feelings about this. I have no doubt that other hon. Members would claim that money left for educational or other charitable purposes was equally worthy. It would be very difficult for me to resist that argument and to say that I thought there was something special about the reconstruction of churches which did not apply in other cases.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the matter we discussed the other day on another new Clause, that is, the special arrangements made in connection with historic houses. I think he would agree that there is probably no very perfect analogy there. In the first place, one of the great difficulties about historic houses was the taxation from which the owners were suffering in respect of those houses, the payments they had to make under Schedule A and the Estate Duties which had to be paid. That naturally does not apply in the case of churches, on which no taxes are paid.
In the second place, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, it would be invidious, to say the least of it—he was not proposing it, and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) took the same line—for the Treasury to select individual churches and to say, "We think this one worthy of preservation and we will help it, but we will not help that one." In the case of historic houses we do say that we will select. That was also involved in the recommendations of the Gowers Committee. I think, therefore, that we cannot really draw an analogy of the kind suggested.
Though we all, I think, would agree that at any rate a large number of churches are also historic treasures and buildings of great importance to the community, nevertheless, there are those who attend such places of worship who would normally themselves accept the responsibility for preserving and looking after 305 them. We have to be very careful not to put on to the general taxpayer the responsibility which, as I say, those in that position would naturally assume; and I do not believe that they would wish that to be the case. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that is what would be happening if we granted an exemption from Estate Duty.
It may be said that it is not very much, that it will not cost the Revenue a great deal, but the fact remains that we are reducing the Revenue accordingly, and that is a point which would have to be explained to the taxpayer. I appreciate the purpose of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in raising this matter. We all feel that this is a worthy cause and I am prepared, where there is evidence of serious difficulty, to see whether there is any way in which we would be justified, as a community, and as the Government representing the community, in doing something to help.
Naturally, I cannot be held to make any promises here. I would say only that I will look into the matter and see how much evidence there is of serious decay, and of churches falling to pieces which ought not to be allowed to go to pieces, and see if there is anything which can be done.
§ Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth East, and ChristChurch)
Surely the right hon. Gentleman has seen the statement made by the Pilgrim Trust which has given such great help to historic churches, that now the number of repairs is so great as to be beyond their means? The right hon. Gentleman must surely know, when he talks of the generosity of parishioners, that some of the most attractive churches in England are now closed because the livings have been amalgamated. This is a very urgent problem and something the Treasury really ought to attend to. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels about these matters. I think he should re-read the Pilgrims Trust Report, and then he would not be so hard-hearted.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite fair in describing my speech as that of a hard-hearted person. The Chancellor of the Exchequer very often has to be hard-hearted, but I do not think that this afternoon I am showing any particular signs of hardness. 306 We really need to be clear about our purpose in taking any action of this kind. The argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not directed to the historic or artistic value of the buildings. It is one thing to show concern with that aspect of it and I can look at it, but it is another to ask for assistance on a much wider scale for a particular charity; and I am bound to say that the latter seems to present very great difficulty.
§ Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)
While I recognise that the Chancellor is prepared to look at this question again, I do not think that the reason he gave is adequate. The new Clause deals with places of worship of all denominations. The argument of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) seemed to me to be conclusive. When the State is extending its power and everybody comes within the scope of the State, then all the voluntary bodies that are left without the State, especially bodies of this sort, should be aided as far as possible or they should come within the sphere of exemption and remain voluntary bodies.
I make a strong appeal to the Chancellor to consider, not the narrow aspect of keeping historic buildings, but the question of exempting from State action all places of worship.
§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
In my constituency there are about 50 small beautiful churches scattered about the countryside. In making a plea for these churches, I will attempt to answer some of the arguments advanced by the Chancellor. They are mainly churches of the 13th and 14th centuries which are famous all the world over for their beautiful spires.
The Chancellor mentioned that the need of such places will be met to some extent by gifts inter vivos. I suggest that that argument misses the point. The point is that these churches, especially the small village churches, were mostly founded by private benefaction and they had to be maintained by private benefaction through the ages. Private benefaction now finds itself not so well able to meet the obligations as it was formerly. Therefore, private benefactors, with the best will in the world, are not likely to be able to afford to take advantage of the rule whereby gifts inter vivos will be exempt 307 from duty for one year. It must be a question of legacy duty if the churches are to benefit.
With regard to the argument that the people who worship in the churches should be the people to help the church, I am afraid that that will not save our churches. It may be a lamentable fact, but it will not save our churches. I have no hesitation in saying that this is a charge which ought to fall on the whole of the community. I say that for several reasons.
Apart from the regular worshippers, nearly every member of the community at some time in his or her life enters either a church or a chapel. In addition to the churches in my constituency, which is the home of non-conformity, there are a great many ancient chapels some of which are of historical significance. Apart from the regular worshippers, everyone at some time or another will require to use a church or chapel. Surely everyone should take pride in bearing responsibility for preserving these ancient, historical and aesthetically beautiful buildings which are part of our national heritage.
In the village in which I live, where there are about 200 people, we have a very old church. For about 10 years we have been about £400 in debt on our repairs bill. We have just been advised that in order to save the church tower from falling down we must spend another £1,200.
Are we not going rather beyond the exemption from Death Duties of money bequeathed for the repair of places of worship?
§ Mr. Renton
The right hon. Gentleman asked for some evidence on which he could base his decision. I was trying to give evidence.
§ Mr. Renton
I will cut my remarks short by saying that what is typical of our village church is typical of many other churches in my constituency. There is a heavy bill to meet and if we in our generation do not do something about the matter, future generations will greatly resent our folly.
§ 6.45 p.m.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)
I consider it to be rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman should in this Finance Bill be making active preparations to maintain houses of historic importance, albeit they are architecturally of extreme value, and have been so slow to appreciate the needs of the churches. Not only has my right hon. and gallant Friend's Clause been on the Order Paper for some time—and the Chancellor has failed to examine it adequately enough to be able to bring forward a more concrete and agreeable reply—but there have been reports by the churches over the last five years about the state of deterioration of these noble buildings all over the country.
I find it strange that a Socialist Government who profess themselves to be a highly Christian set of ladies and gentlemen should have failed to take into account the increasing dilapidations, the wear and tear, the fact that so many of these churches are falling into disrepair, that their doors are locked and people are unable to get into them, and other considerations.
When my right hon. Friend brings forward a Clause and the churches themselves have written in their reports that something should be done, and the Chancellor fails to take account of it but instead brings forward legislation to provide for the maintenance of historic homes, I think his action is entirely disproportionate. I can only urge on the right hon. Gentleman that he should give far more active consideration to this problem now that it has been raised and be prepared, if necessary, to say something on the Report stage in a more friendly way.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite - Eyre (New Forest)
The Chancellor made a case which does not bear examination. He mentioned various factors and, as usual, knocked down bogeys which were not put up. My right hon. Friend made it clear that among other considerations was the question of reconstruction. We call ourselves a Christian country. We are the only country in Europe which has given no facilities for the reconstruction of churches after bomb damage. Wherever one goes abroad one sees churches being re-established and reconstructed. We are the only people who are not doing that.
309 If we pride ourselves on being a Christian country, now is the time, under this Clause, to make some small concession to enable this work to be carried out. The concession could not cost the Treasury very much, but it would give some value to the many pledges which the Front Bench opposite are apt to make showing their adherence to the principle of promoting Christian worship. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to show that the Government recognise the value of places of religion by granting this concession as a means of ensuring our national heritage.
§ Captain Crookshank
I was very disappointed at the reply which the right hon. Gentleman gave to what I thought was a very modest proposal which was entirely sui generis—it could not possibly be confused with anything else—but the right hon. Gentleman said that if he opened this door it would open the question of all sorts of other charges. He said that if he did this, others would want similar concessions about education. That may be so, but surely the whole point which we are debating concerns places of worship. I am not persuaded, and I do not think that any other hon. Member is, that questions of worship are analogous to questions of other kinds.
It is true to say that we have been very laggard in this country in facilitating the repair and reconstruction of all places of worship. I repeat that I spoke particularly of the parish churches, because they
§ happen to be the oldest, and therefore suffer the most from decay through the effluxion of time. I am not limiting myself to that case, however; I am on a very much broader issue, covering all places of worship, whether cathedrals, churches, chapels, conventicles and anything which might come within the definition of a place of worship, and which should be able, through the charity of bequests made by people who have died, to get some relief in their high costs.
§ The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that this sort of gift comes within the inter vivos relief of one year. If a person makes the bequest and lives for a year after, the money does not have to pay Estate Duty by aggregation. That is quite true, and I knew that when I made the proposal, but that is quite a different matter. It is just human nature that many people will leave something when they die, though they are quite reluctant to make that gift during their lifetime. In fact, they may not be able to do so, because they would require the income from the capital which they wish to give away in order to live upon it. I think the Chancellor has held out no hope at all to those of us who have spoken on this matter, and, in my disappointment I shall certainly go into the Lobby in protest against his decision.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278: Noes, 287.311
|Division No. 142.]||AYES||[6.52 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. Gurney||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W||Davidson, Viscountess|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Davies, Nigel (Epping)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||de Chair, Somerset|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Burden, Squadron Leader F A.||De la Bere, R.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Butcher, H. W.||Deedes, W. F.|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Digby, S. W.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Donner, P. W.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M||Carson, Hon. E.||Drayson, G. B|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Channon, H.||Drewe, C.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Churchill, Rt Hon. W. S.||Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)|
|Beamish, Major Tufton||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Dunglass, Lord|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Clyde, J. L.||Duthie, W. S.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Colegate, A.||Eccles, D. M.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Birch, Nigel||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)||Erroll, F. J.|
|Bishop, F.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Fisher, Nigel|
|Black, C. W.||Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Fletcher, Walter (Bury)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)||Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)||Fort, R.|
|Boothby, R.||Cranborne, Viscount||Foster, John|
|Bossom, A. C.||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Gage, C. H.|
|Braine, B. R.||Cundiff, F. W.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow. W)||Cuthbert. W N||Gammans, L. D|
|Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Glyn, Sir Ralph||McAdden, S. J.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Ropner, Col L|
|Granville, Edgar (Eye)||Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)||Russell, R. S.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Grimond, J.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||McKibbin, A.||Savory, Prof. D. L|
|Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Scott, Donald|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maclay, Hon. John||Shepherd, William|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maclean, Fitzroy||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)|
|Hay, John||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Head, Brig. A. H.||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Spearman, A. C. M|
|Heald, Lionel||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Heath, Edward||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Marples, A. E.||Stevens, G. P.|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maude, John (Exeter)||Storey, S.|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maudling R.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Medlicott, Brig. F.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Mellor, Sir John||Summers, G. S.|
|Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Molson, A. H. E.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Hope, Lord John||Monckton, Sir Walter||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Moore, Lt.-Col., Sir Thomas||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Teeling, W.|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Teevan, T. L.|
|Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N,)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Nabarro, G.||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Nicholls, Harmar||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Nicholson, G.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N|
|Hurd, A. R.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.||Tilney, John|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Nugent, G. R. H.||Touche, G. C.|
|Hutchison, Colonel James||Nutting, Anthony||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Hyde, H. M.||Oakshott, H. D.||Turton, R. H.|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Odey, G. W.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Jeffreys, General Sir George||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Jennings, R.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Johnson, Major Howard (Kemptown)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Wade, D. W.|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Kaberry, D.||Osborne, C.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Langford-Holt, J.||Pickthorn, K.||Watkinson, H.|
|Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Pitman, I. J.||Webbe, Sir Harold|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Powell, J. Enoch||Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Lindsay, Martin||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Linstead, H. N.||Profumo, J. D.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Llewellyn, D.||Raikes, H. V.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Wills, G.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Redmayne, M.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Remnant, Hon. P.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Renton, D. L. M.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||York, C.|
|Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W)||Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)|
|Low, A. R. W.||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Mr. Studholme and|
|Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Benn, Wedgwood||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D|
|Adams, H. R.||Benson, G.||Brown, George (Belper)|
|Albu, A. H.||Beswick, F.||Brown, Thomas (Ince)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Burke, W. A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Bing, G. H. C.||Burton, Miss E|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Blenkinsop, A.||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Blyton, W. R.||Carmichael, J.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Boardman, H.||Castle, Mrs. B. A|
|Ayles, W. H.||Booth, A.||Champion, A. J.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Bottomley, A. G||Chetwynd, G. R|
|Baird, J.||Bowden, H. W.||Clunie, J.|
|Balfour, A.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Cocks, F. S|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Coldrick, W.|
|Bartley, P||Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Collick, P.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Collindridge, F|
|Cook. T. F.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Cove, W. G.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St Pancras, S.)||Rankin, J.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jenkins, R. H.||Rees, Mrs. D.|
|Crawley, A.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Reeves, J.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Crossman, R. H. S||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Richards, R.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Daines, P.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Keenan, W.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Kenyon, C.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Royle, C.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||King, Dr. H. M.||Shackleton, E. A. A|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley|
|Deer, G.||Kinley, J.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Diamond J.||Lang, Gordon||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Donnelly, D.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Simmons, C. J|
|Driberg, T. E. N||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Slater, J.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Dye, S.||Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lindgren, G. S.||Snow, J. W.|
|Edelman, M.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Logan, D. G.||Soskiee, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Sparks, J. A|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||McAllister, G.||Steele, T.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||MacColl, J. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||McGhee, H. G.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McGovern, J.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Ewart, R.||McInnes, J.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mack, J. D.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Field, Capt. W. J.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Finch, H. J.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||McLeavy, F.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Follick, M.||MacMillan Malcolm (Western Isles)||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Foot, M. M.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Forman, J. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Gibson, C. W.||Manuel, A. C.||Timmons, J.|
|Gilzean, A.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Tomney, F.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mayhew, C. P||Ungoed-Thomas, A. L|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Mellish, R. J.||Usborne, H.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon Arthur (Wakefield)||Messer, F.||Vernon, W. F.|
|Grenfell, D. R.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Viant, S. P.|
|Grey, C. F.||Mikardo, Ian||Wallace, H. W.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Moeran, E. W.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon James (Llaneffy)||Monslow, W.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Gunter, R. J.||Moody, A. S.||Weitzman, D.|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||Morley, R.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||West, D. G.|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mort, D. L.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J. (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Moyle, A.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Hamilton, W. W||Mulley, F. W.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Murray, J. O.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Hargreaves, A.||Nally, W.||Wigg, G.|
|Hastings, S.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B|
|Hayman, F. H.||Neal-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. D||Wilkes, L.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)||O'Brien, T.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Oldfield, W. H.||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Oliver, G. H.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Hobson, C. R.||Orbach, M.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Holman, P.||Padley, W. E.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Paget, R. T.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|Houghton, D.||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Hoy, J.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Pannell, T. G.||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Parker, J.||Wise, F. J.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)||Paton, J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A|
|Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N)||Pearson, A.||Woods, Rev. G. S.|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Peart, T. F.||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Poole, C.||Yates, V. F.|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Popplewell, E.||Younger, Hon. K.|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Porter, G.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Janner, B.||Procter, W. T.||Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.|
|Jay, D. P. T||Pryde, D. J|