§ (1) Where estate duty becomes or has become payable on property passing on the death of persons, being persons to whom this section applies, who die from wounds inflicted, accidents occurring, or disease contracted while on active service outside Great Britain against an enemy or on service outside Great Britain which is of a warlike nature or which, in the opinion of the Treasury, otherwise involves the same risks as active service, the whole of the estate duty payable upon all such property shall be remitted or, in case the duty has been paid, repaid.
§ (2) The persons to whom this section applies are the members of His Majesty's Forces who are subject either to the Naval Discipline Act or to military law, whether as officers, noncommissioned officers, or soldiers, under Part V of the Army Act. or of the Air Force Act.1654
§ (3) This section shall apply in the case of any persons dying from any such causes afore-said arising after the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and fifty.
§ (4) This section shall apply whether or not on any such death any property passes to the widow or lineal descendants or lineal ancestors or brothers or sisters of the deceased.—[Mr. Pickthorn.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Carlton)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There is a very large speech to be made on the question raised by this new Clause, but I do not propose to make a large speech, rather to put the short points as shortly as I am able. I shall begin by explaining the law to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his friends, not that I hope to instruct them because that would be arrogant and might turn out futile: but because if I explain what I take the law to mean, they can correct me if they think I am wrong, and then our debate will not proceed upon false assumptions.
As the law stands, no doubt it goes back to traditions which my learning does not reach: statutorily it goes back to the Stamp Act, 1815, and the Finance Act, 1894. As the law stands, in dealing with what are called common soldiers, which means, roughly speaking, sergeants and persons of lower rank than that, they are exempt from Estate Duty, in war or not, wherever they die, and whether it is in time of peace or war, or cold war, or what not. I do not use the term "common soldier" in any offensive way but technically.
Since 1914, all soldiers, including officers, who die anywhere on active service or what the Treasury regards as similar service pass on the first £5,000 of whatever estate they may have to close relatives without paying Estate Duty, unless it suits the estate better to opt for the Quick Succession Allowance. I think I am right in stating that is the position of the law as it now stands.
Secondly, I will try to indicate very briefly what the new Clause does. Leaving out the words, which are more or less unnecessary in common conversation but are necessary for drafting, the new Clause provides as follows:Where Estate Duty has become payable on property passing on death while on active 1655 service, it shall be remitted, and this shall have effect as from the beginning of the Korean operations.That is what the law would be if the new Clause I am moving were accepted, for officers as well as for "common soldiers."
I propose to give shortly the arguments in favour of that change of the law. As a rule, when I am submitting a proposal In this House I try to see the arguments against it as seen by hon. Members on the other side: often successfully, but I cannot see what in this case are the arguments against this Clause. A man is killed fighting for his country; and he is more likely to be killed, even in these days of conscription he has a considerable amount of control over the way in which he serves when his country is at war or in a condition approaching war, as at present; and he is more at risk of death according to the method of his choosing. It is a fact that as the service is one in which death is more probable, the more likely, is a man to be taxed by this Duty if he is an officer, and not if he is of any other rank. I cannot see that there can be any possible justice in that.
The case is stronger even than that looks; because—I would not for a moment start any competition about the comparative merits or degrees of courage between officers and other ranks, nobody who has ever served would be fool enough to start any such kind of meaningless competition—but, if we look at the simple arithmetical statistics, it is certainly true that officers run a much bigger risk of being killed than do other ranks. I could give figures, but I will not weary the House with them; I will admit that my figures are not exhaustive or exact, but I think the effect quite clear, for all the Services, and very, very striking for the Royal Air Force, very striking for the Army, if not as striking for the Navy.
Officers run, on the figures, a much higher risk of being killed in battle or something regarded as of the same nature as battle than other ranks do. It seems slightly absurd that those who assume for our country the greatest risk to their lives, thereby bring upon their families the greatest risk to their property. Again, I would not for a moment try to commensurate life and property when a family loses a son and has to pay x thousand pounds of Estate Duty, these two things 1656 are not the same sort of thing, nor can they be added to each other.
But here we are in this sublunary world, where it has been proverbial for ages that the two greatest certainties are also the two greatest evils—death and taxes. It is very hard that these persons who take upon themselves the highest risk of death in the interests of their country should also be those who will be the heaviest hit by taxation. That seems to me the general argument, and I could elaborate it a good deal. There is a variety of sentimental considerations of the proper sort of sentiment which could be put, but I do not propose to put it now. There are also some minor arguments, as, for instance, that the law as it stands sometimes tends to discourage a man from seeking promotion to commissioned rank where he might be more useful. That is a very tiny argument and I do not lay any weight upon it.
I have put my main point, and I was not challenged from the Treasury Bench, so I hope that I was right in indicating what the law is and what the law would be if this new Clause were passed. I should add in parenthesis that I am not wedded to the wording of the new Clause. I am quite prepared to admit that it might be better worded, and in some ways might need to be constricted.
The last thing I have to say is to try to persuade the House that this is the opportune time for dealing with this matter. I have not looked further back into it than my own memory takes me, but my recollection is that this question was raised in very much the same form 10 years ago by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys). We got a great deal of sympathy and support, but we did not get anything more on that occasion in 1941.
What is the difficulty about persuading the Treasury, when one raises this question, that it is an opportune time? It is difficult because the Treasury gets you with both barrels. When it is a time of war, we are "all in it together"—the current sentimentality is to pretend that we are all running equal risks—the Treasury want money more urgently than ever, and as more officers are being killed than usual it is a peculiarly inopportune time to make the proposal; and, in time of peace, they get you by saying: "There 1657 are lots more things to get on with, old boy. Why do you come bothering us with this?"
This unique year 1951 has ennobled the present Foreign Secretary, and it is precisely 100 years after 1851. It has the third uniqueness that we are not at peace and we are not at war. Officers are being killed by His Majesty's enemies, if that be not an excessively Blimpish way to describe those who are not in full accord and communion with the United Nations. We have never, or almost, been in precisely this situation before, and perhaps are never likely to be so again.
There was an old tale in Rome which I am sure the Wykehamists present will remember, how when a chasm opened in the Forum, the State was seen by that omen to be in danger, and the Oracle told the people to cast into the chasm whatever they had that was most valuable. The women threw in their jewels. the men threw in all but their arms, and so on, but still the chasm remained open and the barbarians came nearer to the Capitol. This went on until a Roman, whose name I am ashamed to say I have forgotten, said: "The valour of the young is the greatest value for this nation." He mounted his horse and leapt into the chasm, which thereupon closed upon him, the barbarians were repelled and Rome was saved.
The Treasury say that when our young men are thrown, by their own choice, into the chasm their families' property must be thrown in too. That is a little hard. I find it difficult to believe that this is the ground upon which civilisation can found that salvation which I hope that nobody now takes for granted in 1951, as he might have taken it, for granted in 1851.
§ Mr. G.R. Howard(St. Ives)
I beg to second the motion.
The hardship to which the mover of the Motion has referred is very much wider than may be realised by hon. Members. I want to put three points. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider not only active service abroad but active service at home. All that has been said about people who volunteer to go abroad can be applied equally in modern war to those who volunteer at home. In many cases they give up very good jobs in order to do so. 1658 and therefore they undergo considerable hardship.
I speak as many other hon. Members could in this House, from personal experience in my own family, not in one war but in two. This is not, and never should be, a political question. It is nothing but a human tragedy which involves the families of the men and women and especially those who go out and risk their lives as volunteers, before they are called, to serve their country when needed. Their death very often entails a forced sale of property in some form or other, which is grossly unfair to the person who has given all he has to give for his country. I hope that the Chancellor will bear these points in mind when he replies. If men and women are prepared to give their lives in time of war, making the greatest sacrifice they can, their country should at least reward their dependents afterwards.
§ General Sir George Jeffreys (Petersfield)
It is a fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) has said, that I once proposed a new Clause to this effect during the last war. I should like very briefly to add my voice in support of the protest against a tax on the estates of those who give their lives for their country. It has always seemed to me one of the meanest things that an ungrateful Parliament can inflict on the families of those who fight and die for their country. I remember in the last war reading an announcement in a newspaper of the death in action of the bearer of a noble name. It was headed:Duke Killed. Heavy Death Duties.There was no acknowledgment of the service of the deceased or of his devotion to duty. I suppose that had no news value. It was just "Heavy death duties." Those duties would have been far heavier if the death had occurred now, when the duty on large estates amounts to very little short of confiscation. What a tribute from our modern civilisation that one who gave his life for his country should have his home broken up—that is what very often happens—and his family gravely embarrassed as the result of his sacrifice.
I ask the House to consider these effects on a widow, even if her deceased husband had only a moderate estate. Heavy Death Duties are none the less 1659 exacted, and even the amounts of insurances for children's education do not escape. After fining her heavily—that is what it amounts to—for the loss of her husband, they give her a miserable pittance of perhaps one hundred and fifty depreciated pounds per annum, and possibly a small amount—I think it is £30 a year—for each child of school age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton has reminded the House that the private soldier and the junior noncommissioned officer are exempt from this duty. I am very glad that it is so, but why should not officers, warrant officers and senior non-commissioned officers be exempt, too? Nowadays it does not follow that the private soldier is a poor man. I believe there was one case in the recent war of a private soldier being killed who was very near to being a millionaire. It is perfectly possible under present conditions for a private soldier to have money. I do not suggest for one moment that he should be taxed or that his family should suffer, but I do suggest that it is wrong for the nation to fine the families of those who give their lives for their country.
I remember in France in the first war —my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) may also remember him—a very talented officer who used to draw for the entertainment of his brother officers what he called "fancy portraits." I remember that one of his fancy portraits was entitled "Portrait of an Inland Revenue official studying a casualty list." The Inland Revenue official's face bore a broad smile as he contemplated a casualty list which he thought would bring a large amount of duty to the Revenue. I do not suggest for one moment that that is the fact, but that is the way in which it is apt to be regarded, and it was not without some sense of grim humour that the officer drew that portrait.
These gallant officers are not afraid of their foes or of losing their lives, but they are rightly afraid of the effect of this iniquitous duty on the families and homes of those who give their lives for their country. I hope very much that the Chancellor will see his way to accept the Clause, which is a reasonable one in every way and will remove a cruel injustice which has continued far too long.
§ Mr. Gage (Belfast, South)
We ought all to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) for raising this very important matter. Although I have had an experience longer than I care to admit of anomalies raised by Statutes, I confess that this is one of the most extraordinary anomalies I have ever come across, and I did not know about it until my hon. Friend raised it.
I can imagine the Treasury making out a case for saying that all soldiers killed on active service should pay their Estate Duty like anyone else, and I can also see a case being made out, as suggested by my hon. Friends, for no Estate Duty having to be paid by any soldiers killed on active service—and I entirely agree with that—but I cannot imagine a case being made out for the present system whereby a wealthy lance-sergeant pays no Estate Duty while a poor sergeant does. That is a most extraordinary situation.
It was a very long time ago that the line was drawn just above the rank of lance-sergeant, to say that if a man is a lance-sergeant or below he shall not pay Estate Duty if he is killed, no matter how wealthy or how poor he is, but that if he happens to be immediately above that rank—for instance, a battery sergeant major—although he may not be very well off, he must pay Estate Duty. Can anyone uphold a system like that? Whatever view the Chancellor takes about the Amendment, he must agree that the present system is wrong.
I feel, with my hon. Friends, that a very strong case has been made that all who are killed on active service should be exempt from Estate Duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Howard) said, we have all experienced in our own lives the great tragedy of people who are close to us and have very small estates being killed on active service and of the wretchedness and despair caused to a widow through duty having to be paid on the estate. Everyone in this country feels that we owe a great debt to those who are killed on active service. Now we have an opportunity to repay these men in a material way. We readily express sympathy, but how rarely have the unfortunate relatives of those who are killed in active service ever received any material aid? This is a case in which material aid can be given, and I hope it will be.
§ 7.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have risen by now to indicate at least sympathy with the purpose of the Clause. I hope the fact that he has not so far intervened does not mean that he has closed his mind to a point of view about which many of us feel extremely strongly.
I want to add one point to what seems to be the overwhelming case made out by my hon. Friends. The House will remember that in the late war a considerable number of bearers of ancient names and inheritors of, at any rate formerly, great estates died in the service of this country. It was an fantastic anomaly that it was the acceptance by them of the higher responsibilities and, perhaps, the greater dangers of accepting His Majesty's Commission that alone exposed their estates to Estate Duty. Had those people—the names of many of them must be in the minds of some of us at the moment—consulted rather the interests of their families than the interests of public duty, they would have refused to accept promotion above the rank of lance-sergeant.
Nobody can possibly justify the retention of this anomaly. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), that it might be arguable—though it would be wrong to do so—that Estate Duty should be charged upon the estates of all killed in action, but it cannot be right to maintain this curious differentiation based on wholly out-of-date considerations between officers and senior N.C.Os. on the one hand and the rest of the N.C.Os. and other ranks on the other hand. That cannot be right and it cannot be defensible.
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not say that, because this is an ancient anomaly—which, of course, it is—he will not remedy it. It is an ancient anomaly and he is entitled to attack his and our predecessors for not having righted it, but one can accept that argument only on the basis that the Chancellor is prepared to do himself and his Government the credit of putting this right now.
I want to put another point to the Chancellor. In the very nature of the case, the people whom this provision affects were fit young men, having in the 1662 ordinary way a longish expectation of life, and it is therefore a very peculiar and special disaster that their death in action imposes on their families and on the remains of their estates. It is a peculiar injustice. The very fact that they were fit enough to do this work brings down the burden of Estate Duty upon their estates, while others who for one reason or another were not fitted to it did not bring down this additional misfortune on their families. Whatever may have been the faults of our predecessors in not putting this right earlier, I hope that for those reasons and even at this late hour the Chancellor will say that the present anomaly is utterly wrong and that he will put it right here and now.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
The only reason why I did not rise earlier was that I saw the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) rising, and I thought that he would like to speak before me.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
The account which the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthom) gave of the law on the subject was very accurate, and I wish to add only one thing to what he said. It is true that under the 1815 Stamp Act there is provision that those who are slain or die in the service of His Majesty are exempt from Estate Duty, if they are "common seamen, marines, or soldiers." The position of the higher ranks is governed, as he rightly said, by a series of Acts beginning in 1894 and ending in 1924. He referred to the complete exemption on the first £5,000 of the estate which applies to them. Unless I heard him wrongly, I do not think he made quite plain to the House the fact that for estates above that level there were also substantial reductions in the Duty which has to be paid.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
Yes, because that Is of considerable importance. This is what Parliament decided in the past, and we should take notice of it. The relief depends on the expectation of life at the time of death, and it is greatest for those who are youngest, the very persons to whom the hon. Member referred.
1663 For example, at the age of 22 the relief amounts to over 70 per cent. of the duty, at the age of 35 to over 60 per cent., and at the age of 46 to over 50 per cent. These are substantial reductions, which Parliament decided upon after considerable discussion, and they do not exactly fit in with the picture which some hon. Members seem to have of the present situation.
§ Mr. Pickthorn
If the Chancellor will permit me to say so, these are, of course, substantial figures which he quoted but they are different from 100 per cent. Forty per cent. is different from 100 per cent., so is even 60 per cent. My whole argument was directed and fairly directed, to the injustice involved in there being any Estate Duty upon this class of case.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
The remarks I made were not in reference to the hon. Member's speech. There were a number of other speeches which seemed to be based on perhaps a misapprehension. At all events, they gave me the impression that the hon. Members who made them did not appreciate that, as I repeat, substantial relief was already given under the existing legislation.
The benefits of the proposed new Clause would, of course, go to the dependants of those who were killed, and in view of what I have said it is clear that they will be greatest in the case of the largest estates and in the case of the widows of those who died at rather earlier ages. Those are the people who would benefit particularly by the Clause. All of us would subscribe to what has been said about the valour, courage, and qualities of the officers who have been killed on behalf of their country. There is really no division of opinion on that. But, if I may say so, death is a tragedy for those who survive, whether it be death on the field of battle or death in other circumstances.
For my part I do not think that one can really say that there is a greater hardship to those who remain when the man who has died had been killed in battle, than when he has died under more normal conditions at home. The difference is essentially that of the courage, valour and qualities of the person killed, and not one of the situation of the surviving relatives.
§ Mr. Pickthorn
The difference is surely this—I agree that we all owe God a death; no one can escape that, not even the poor; that is true enough—the difference is that the person killed in battle has voluntarily assumed a greater risk than the person who dies in a normal way, and the person who dies in a normal way has not done so.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I was trying to distinguish between—on the one hand—the hardship that might exist among the relatives or the effect on their feelings, to which reference has been made, and—on the other hand—the actual circumstances in which a man met his death. One can argue that a soldier killed in action is a braver man, and that we should give exemption from duty to his estate; but it cannot be argued that for his widow the tragedy is greater because he has been killed in battle. That is the point I was making, and I think that it is a legitimate one to make.
The question arises whether one can reasonably draw the line differently from where it is now drawn. I would willingly agree that the Stamp Act, 1815, which provides for the complete exemption of those in—broadly speaking—the ranks below the rank of sergeant is perhaps somewhat anomalous. On the other hand, that does not necessarily mean that there is a good argument for exempting completely all persons in the higher ranks.
The question immediately arises of whether there should be complete exemption from Death Duties so far as people killed on active service are concerned. But it must be remembered that all too frequently there is brought to mind in this House the case of miners, who from time to time unfortunately are killed in explosions and other accidents in the pits. One has to bear in mind also the seamen, because the accident rate is high, or relative to other occupations is high, in merchant shipping. I do not think that one can draw the line suggested and say that everyone killed on active service should automatically be entitled to complete exemption, whereas, in the case of others, the full duty has to be paid.
That is the view which has always been taken by my predecessors, and I think it is relevant to draw attention to that. The last occasion on which this subject was debated was not in 1941 but in 1944. It was debated on three occasions during 1665 the war, in 1940, 1941 and 1944. On that occasion Sir John Anderson, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:If you leave out of account, as I believe you must, the sharp contrast between the position of the common soldier and the position of the officer, I believe that the treatment given under the existing law to the estate of the deceased officer is as fair as it could possibly be made.I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will recall his own remarks on that occasion. He said:I am quite certain that if I had been"—here during the Chancellor's statement—I should have heard him say that the logical remedy for this anomaly—I know he regards it as an anomaly—would be to repeal the exemption of the common soldier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1944; Vol. 400. c. 2257–88 and 2262.]I can understand that. I think it is a reasonable point of view to adopt. It is a question of whether in practice it is worth while.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I have not the rest of the quotation here, but I should be surprised if as Financial Secretary, in turning down the proposal on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman departed from the lead given by his then chief.
It is one thing to say that it is anomalous, but it is another to say that the way to put it right is by giving all officers, and the higher non-commissioned officers, complete exemption, instead of the partial exemption which they receive. I should myself say that it is far more logical to repeal the provisions of the Stamp Act, 1815, but I do not think that in practice that would make a great deal of difference. The fact remains that there are not many persons in the ranks—there are some, I admit—who are likely to leave large fortunes. For the others, there is, in any case, exemption under the 1924 legislation—complete exemption if those concerned leave £5,000, and, as I have explained, substantial exemptions if they leave rather more than that.
Therefore, although I do not differ from hon. Members opposite in any way in my estimate of the qualities of those for whom they have been speaking, I cannot see that we should do well to alter what Parliament has in the past decided in this 1666 matter. I think that the present arrangement works quite well in practice. A line has to be drawn somewhere. The officers concerned have already been given considerable exemptions in the past, and I think that we should leave the matter there.
§ Mr. Assheton
Since the Chancellor referred to me, I should like to say a few words on this matter. I remember very well the circumstances in 1944, towards the end of the war. I, for one, was very troubled about this matter at the time. I remember the discussions that took place both with Sir John Anderson and with the officers of the board of Inland Revenue. It should be borne in mind that at that time the war was drawing to an end. There had been a great many occasions on which duty had been levied in respect of men killed in the war. It was a peculiarly inappropriate moment to make a change.
Now I do think we have an opportunity to reconsider it. There is a rather calmer atmosphere, and the question of the revenue in itself is, perhaps, of less consequence. The Chancellor admitted that this anomaly in the difference between the duty payable on the estates of officers and the duty not payable on the estates of men was really indefensible. I am sure the whole House agrees with that. I hope we shall not adopt the suggestion that the remission of duty for those who are not officers should be swept away in order to remove this anomaly. I should like the House to come to a conclusion in the other direction. I think that, whatever we may have done in the past, however long we have endured this form of tax, this form of tax is odious.
I should like to illustrate the point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with two cases that were brought to my notice at the time when I was at the Treasury. There was one family of which both sons were killed in the first war, and there were three boys in the next generation; two of them were killed, one was left alive, but with only one leg. In that case a great and gallant family was impoverished, and I think that a great injustice was done, and a great error of policy exemplified.
There was another case which came to my notice of a Scotsman who had been 1667 in a distinguished Scottish regiment. During the last war he served in the Home Guard. He was unfortunately killed in the Home Guard. It so happened that he was not considered an officer, and, therefore, his estate was exempt from duty, after considerable discussion. It also happened that he was a very rich man. His estate escaped duty. Alas, however, within a very few months, his only son, to whom the estate went, was killed in Palestine, and so the Inland Revenue got their money all the same.
Death is very arbitrary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that if a young man is killed at the age of 22 a relief is given in the amount of duty that has to be paid—a 70 per cent. relief in duty. But if that young man had not been killed he and his family would have been able to enjoy the whole of that money for, perhaps, another 40 or 50 years. The fact that a relief of 70 per cent. of tax is given does not appeal to that family as being justice.
I think we have to look at this matter in a different way. I think we have got to make an exception—an exception altogether—in the case of those who are killed fighting for their country. I support the Clause. and I hope that all those
§ on this side of the House and many also on the other side of the House will join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) in the Lobby, if he wishes to divide.
§ Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport (Knutsford)
I shall not keep the House more than a minute, but there is one point I want to make, and it is this. The Chancellor mentioned that there was relief from Estate Duty for persons killed on active service. The point I want to make is this. Suppose that such a person had not gone on active service; suppose he had stayed at home: he could then have lived, say, to the age of 50 or 60, and he would have then been able to make over his property. The point is that he cannot do this when he goes out on active service and gets killed. He has got no time to do it. So I think that talking of relief from Estate Duty does not give a true picture of the situation, when one bears in mind that other and larger relief can be obtained by one who does not go on active service.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes. 260; Noes, 289.1671
|Division No. 154]||AYES||[7.35 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Eccles, D. M.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Carr Robert (Mitcham)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Carson, Hon. E.||Erroll, F. J.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Channon, H.||Fisher, Nigel|
|Arbuthnot, John||Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.||Fletcher, Walter (Bury)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Fort, R|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Foster, John|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Clyde, J. L.||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M||Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxweli|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (llford, S.)||Gage, C. H.|
|Banks, Col. C||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gammans, L. D.|
|Bell, R. M.||Cranborne, Viscount||Garner-Evans, E. H (Denbigh)|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.||Gates, Maj. E. E.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Glyn, Sir Ralph|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Crouch, R. F.||Gridley, Sir Arnold|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Texteth)||Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Birch, Nigel||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Grimston, Robert (Westbury)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Cundiff, F. W.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)|
|Black, C. W||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)||Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||de Chair, Somerset||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||De la Bère, R.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.||Deedes, W. F.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Braine, B. R||Digby, S. Wingfield||Hay, John|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Dodds-Parker, A. D||Head, Brig. A. H.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Donner, P. W.||Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir Cuthbert|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Heald, Lionel|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Drayson, G. B.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Drewe, C.||Higgs, J. M. C.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Burden, F. A.||Dunglass, Lord||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Butcher, H. W.||Duthie, W. S.||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Hollis, M. C.||Marlowe, A. A. H||Scott, Donald|
|Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Marples, A. E.||Shepherd, William|
|Hope, Lord John||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Hopkinson, Henry||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Maude, John (Exeter)||Snadden, W. McN,|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Maudling, R.||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Mellor, Sir John||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Molson, A. H. E.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Monckton, Sir Walter||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Nabarro, G.||Storey, S.|
|Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)||Nicholls, Harmar||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)|
|Hylton-Faster, H. B.||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Jeffreys, General Sir George||Nugent, G. R. H.||Summers, G. S.|
|Jennings, R.||Nutting, Anthony||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Johnson. Howard (Kemptown)||Oakshott H. D.||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Odey, G W.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N)|
|Jeynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Teevan, T. L.|
|Kaberry, D.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr- R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Langford-Holt, J.||Osborne, C.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.|
|Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F|
|Leather, E. H. C.||Perkins, W. R. D.||Tilney, John|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Touche, G. C.|
|Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Pickthorn, K.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Lindsay, Martin||Pitman, I. J.||Turton, R. H.|
|Linstead, H. N.||Powell, J. Enoch||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)||vaughan-morgan, J K|
|Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O||Vosper, D. F.|
|Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Profumo, J. D.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Raikes, H. V.||Walker-Smith D. C.|
|Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)||Rayner, Brig. R.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Low, A. R. W.||Redmayne, M.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynernouth)|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Remnant, Hon. P||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Renton, D. L. M.||Watkinson, H|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|McAdden, S. J.||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Robson-Brown, W.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)|
|McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Wills, G|
|Maclay, Hon. John||Roper, Sir Harold||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Maclean, Fitzroy||Russell, R. S.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||York, C.|
|MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Sandys, Rt. Hon D.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Manningham-Buller, R. E||Savory, Prof. D. L.||Mr. Studholme and|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Daines, P.|
|Adams, Richard||Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Albu, A. H.||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Brown, Rt. Hon, George (Belper)||Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Burke, W. A||Davies, Harold (Leek)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Burton, Miss E.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||de Freitas, Geoffrey|
|Awbery, S. S.||Callaghan, L. J||Deer, G.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Carmichael, J.||Delargy, H. J|
|Baird, J.||Castle, Mrs. B. A||Diamond, J.|
|Balfour, A.||Champion, A. J.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Chetwynd, G. R||Donnelly, D.|
|Bartley, P.||Clunie, J.||Driberg, T. E. N.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Cooks, F. S.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Coldrick, W.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Benson, G.||Collick, P.||Edelman, M.|
|Beswick, F.||Collindridge, F||Edwards, John (Brighouse)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Cook, T. F.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Edwards. W. J. (Stepney)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Cooper, John (Deptford)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Cove, W. G.||Evans, Edward (Lowesloft)|
|Boardman, H.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Booth, A.||Crawley, A.||Ewart, R.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Crosland, C. A. R.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Crossman, R. H. S||Field, Capt W J|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Finch, H. J.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Follick, M.||Lindgren, G. S||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Foot, M. M||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Logan, D. G.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Ross, William|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||McAllister, G.||Royle, C.|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||MacColl, J. E.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||McGhee, H. G.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||McGovern, J.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Mclnnes, J.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Gilzean, A.||Mack, J. D.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Glanville, James (Consett)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Slater, J.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C||Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Granville, Edgar (Eye)||McLeavy, F.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Snow, J. W.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Sorensen, R. W|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Grey, C. F.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Steele, T.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Gunter, R. J.||Manuel, A. C.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||Mayhew, C. P.||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mellish, R. J.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Messer, F.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Middleton, Mrs. L||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)|
|Hamilton, W. W||Mikardo, Ian.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Hannan, W.||Mitchison, G. R.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Moeran, E. W.||Timmons, J.|
|Hargreaves, A||Monslow, W.||Tomney, F.|
|Hastings, S.||Moody, A. S.||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Hayman, F. H||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Tipton)||Morley, R.||Usborne, H.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Vernon, W. F|
|Holman, P.||Mort, D. L.||Viant, S. P.|
|Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Moyle, A.||Wade, D. W.|
|Houghton, D||Mulley, F. W.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hey, J.||Murray, J. D.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hubbard, T||Nally, W.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford. C)|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Weitzman, D.|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||O'Brien, T.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)||Oldfield, W H.||West, D. G|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Oliver, G. H.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Orbach, M.||While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Padley, W. E.||While, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Paget R. T||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A.||Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)||Wilcock, Group Capt C A B|
|Janner, B.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wilkes, L.|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Pannell, T. C.||Wilkins, W. A|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Pargiter, G A||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Parker, J.||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Jenkins, R. H.||Paton, J.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Pearson, A.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Peart, T. F.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Popplewell, E.||Wifliams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (W. Ham, S)||Porter, G.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S)|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Keenan, W.||Proctor, W. T.||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Kenyon, C.||Pryde, D. J||Wise, F. J.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Woodburn, Rt. Hon A|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Rankin, J.||Woods, Rev. G. S|
|Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E||Rees, Mrs. D.||Yates, V. F.|
|Kinley, J.||Reeves, J||Younger, Rt. Hon K|
|Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Lang, Gordon||Reid, William (Camlachie)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Rhodes, H.||Mr. Bowden and|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Richards. R||Mr. Kenneth Robinson|
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|