§ In paragraph (a) of section one hundred and fifty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1952, there shall be inserted after the words "nineteen hundred and thirty-nine," the words "or consequent upon a change of employment or a change in the place of the employment on or after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-two."—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Houghton
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members may be a little surprised at the provisions in Section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. The Section puts into the consolidated Income Tax Act a wartime concession which was given on account of removal of place of employment or of residence involving additional travelling expenses through circumstances connected with the war. It will assist the House to understand what I propose if I read from the Section. It says:If it is shown in the case of a person assessed to income tax under Schedule E in respect of any office or employment—for Income Tax purposes
- (a) that his place of work or his residence has changed through circumstances connected with the war which began in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine; and
- (b) that in consequence he is obliged to incur, and defray out of the salary … arising from the office or employment, additional expense in travelling between his residence and his work, the additional expense so incurred and defrayed shall be allowed as a deduction …"… so, however, that not more than ten pounds shall be so allowed in the case of any person in any year.1149 That was a reasonable concession introduced in the exceptional conditions of disturbance during the war, but it has not been brought to an end, and there must be a very large number of allowances still being made in respect of changed circumstances which arose during the war or immediately after the war. What surprises me is that new claims are still being admitted under this Section of the Income Tax Act.
My proposal seeks, in fairness, either to bring the existing concession to an end or to extend it to an additional class of taxpayer. The words which I propose to insert after paragraph (a) of the Section extend the relief to those who incur additional travelling expenses between their home and their work consequent upon a change of employment or a change in the place of the employment on or after 6th April, 1952.
If additional claims are still being admitted on account of additional travelling expenses connected with the war, then a change of employment or a change of the place of employment in circumstances at this date equally merits the concession which is being given in the case of changes arising from the circumstances of the war.
Moreover, I think it would be a good thing to mitigate some of the hardship of change of employment or change of the place of employment by an allowance of this kind because we all realise that some degree of mobility is required. In present circumstances people should not hesitate to change their jobs or change the place of their employment if it is in the national interest that they should do so.
Certain changes in the pattern and location of industry are inevitable in present conditions if our industry is to remain flexible and adaptable, and we can adjust ourselves to the changing needs and circumstances of world conditions. We must not just stick in a rut and think that because we have a job near our homes which enables us to get there conveniently and cheaply that we should not move to another one which might be of greater importance in the national interest because it might involve us in additional travelling expenses.
On the administration of the existing Section, I believe that there is a substantial inequality as between one section 1150 of taxpayers and another, because as far as I know nobody has ever sought to say what is meant by the words:through the circumstances connected with the war.That is, obviously, wide open. Almost any change of residence and any change of location might conceivably be held to have arisen out of circumstances connected with the war. One might say that the building of a new housing estate on the fringe of one of our large towns to which many workers have had to go to live, increasing the expense of travelling to and from their work, was caused through circumstances connected with the war. Had it not been for the war this housing shortage would not have arisen; had it not been for the war there would have been the steady development of the housing programme; and had it not been for the war something else might have made a difference to what has actually happened.
I imagine taxpayers could put forward most ingenious reasons for this allowance on the grounds that something has happened through circumstances connected with the war. For instance, had it not been for the war there would not have been an enlargement of a particular establishment; had it not been for the enlargement of a particular establishment it would not have been necessary to hive part of it off to be housed in new premises some distance away; had it not been necessary to hive part of it off to be housed in new premises some distance away then those additional travelling expenses would not have been incurred; and, therefore a claim could be made that there had been an increase in costs arising from circumstances connected with the war.
I think the House would like to know just how wide open this Section is, and if it is that wide open, as I believe it to be, my proposed new Clause would not make it much wider, because many people change their employment or change their place of employment and under the existing Section the reason advanced is that that arose through circumstances connected with the war. But I think there is a positive rather than a negative reason for the proposed new Clause, and that is the one I have given.
I have no desire to withdraw from those who are getting the allowance, or can get the allowance, the benefit that 1151 they receive, but I think that we want to draw a line much more clearly between those who can claim under the existing circumstances and those who cannot so that we shall bring within the Section all the people who are just as deserving of this relief as those who are entitled to claim it now. In some cases may be they are more in need of this relief because they are probably making a move, not through circumstances connected with the war or at any rate not directly connected with it, but through circumstances connected with the change of the pattern of industry and the need to get additional manpower in essential jobs in order that production may be maintained and increased.
Although I fully understand the problems of administration, which I am always conscious of because I am so close to them, I submit they raise no new problems of administration within the existing Section, and it would in any case be worth while going to the trouble of considering and deciding all the claims under the proposed addition to the Section within the limits prescribed by it. The House will realise that the maximum relief is a tax of £10, so that there is nothing either in the Section or in the new Clause that I propose which will enable the person concerned to travel to and from Brighton or from some other expensive residential area with some relief to his Income Tax burden. This would be related to those who change their employment or change the place of their employment, and not to those who change for their own convenience or for their own purposes. It would not, in fact, bring a change of residence into the matter at all.
Finally, the House will appreciate that not only is there a limit on the relief that can be given, but the relief itself is restricted to the additional expenditure incurred. Therefore, it is only the extra cost arising from the change of place of employment or change of employment which would qualify for the relief in the same way that only the additional cost of travel qualifies for the relief under the existing Section.
§ Mr. Maudling
My impression was that the existing Section says that a person must show that his place of work or residence has changed through circumstances 1152 connected with the war. The hon. Gentleman proposes to add after the wordsnineteen hundred and thirty-ninethe wordsor consequent upon a change of employment. …I take it that that means that a man's place of work or residence is changed consequent upon the change of employment. Is that what the hon. Gentleman intended?
§ Mr. Houghton
It was not my intention, but I see that as drafted it would bring in a change of residence. I did not intend to bring in a change of residence, and I did not realise that the words before paragraph (a) would govern the extension to the new Clause, but as drafted it looks as if the whole preceding words would apply. In any case, I do not think that that would be a disqualifying feature of the proposed new Clause, because the change of residence through circumstances connected with the war is, of course, an entirely different matter from a change of residence connected with an extension of a factory, and so on. It would have to be related to a change of employment or a change in the place of employment.
Furthermore, one can assume—and this is probably the reason why I did not think that the question of change of residence did come or need come into the extended concession—that it was generally conceded that if there was a change of residence on account of a change of employment or a change of the place of employment it would be a change of residence nearer to the place of employment and not further away, whereas circumstances connected with the war drove people further away from their work than previously was the case. Having thought the matter out as I stand here there is nothing very serious about that point, but I freely admit that I had not taken it into account in drafting the Clause. I hope that the Economic Secretary will look at the proposed new Clause in a sympathetic manner, because I think it is something which is worthy of consideration and I wholeheartedly commend it to him.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mrs. E. M. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)
I beg to second the Motion.
I am rather sorry about the last few comments of my hon. Friend the Member 1153 for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), because there are many instances throughout the country where slum clearance is going on and people who live on top of their jobs are compelled, because of the alteration in housing accommodation or the use of housing accommodation for other purposes, to go very far distances.
In my own particular area dockers recently came to see me on this question. Their accommodation had been scheduled for demolition, and the only alternative accommodation they could get was a distance of approximately seven or eight miles from the centre of Liverpool. They had to travel daily to the docks for their employment, and they have been grumbling about the effects.
No provision has been made for additional travelling expenses although they have had increased costs because of the alteration in their original housing owing to a new zoning of areas in central Liverpool for slum clearance and redevelopment. I was hoping that that would be included or taken into account.
There is also the fact that many people change their jobs and remain in the same areas, particularly in a large industrial area like Liverpool where, arising out of the war, such departments as those belonging to the Ministry of Supply have had to go great distances from the residential areas or the central housing areas in Liverpool. That has meant high travelling expenses for the workers to reach their jobs, and they have had to do that because there was not employment in the area where they live and where their firm used to work but which had to be transferred to another centre.
People come to those of us who hold "surgeries" in our constituencies, and because of the peculiar situation in Liverpool I have had any number of people asking me how they can claim the additional cost of travelling because their employment has moved. One of the big firms in Liverpool moved from the Liverpool docks to Ellesmere Port and its employees had to go with it. People have asked me repeatedly how they could obtain relief. When I pointed out Section 25 to them, they said that the move had nothing whatever to do with the war but was because the firm had closed down in the area where they were living and had started somewhere 1154 else, involving them in an additional cost in many instances of between 8s. 6d. and 10s. a week on travelling.
Recently, when I was in Wolverton, two or three people told me that they had to pay 8s. 6d. a week to travel to Wolverton from some of the outlying areas. People who had been employed in small businesses now had to find employment in the industrial area of Wolverton and, consequently, to spend what were to them large amounts on travelling.
I agree with my hon. Friend that, administratively, there might be difficulty in operating this proposal, because certain firms provide travelling facilities from a central area to the place of employment. But it should not be outside the powers of the Inland Revenue to find some way of assessing the additional cost in travelling expenses for people who are compelled to move from work which is near their home to a job which is a considerable distance away. The closure of a firm locally can frequently involve a journey of seven, eight or nine miles. In the case of the move from Liverpool to Ellesmere Port, the journey is more like 12, 13 or 14 miles.
There are good reasons for considering the new Clause. I hope that it may be accepted in principle, even if not in the precise wording put forward by my hon. Friend. In any event, I hope that this matter will be looked at very carefully. People tend to take the attitude that they will not travel away from their own areas when they have been accustomed to working almost on top of their homes, unless in some way they get relief in the shape of additional travelling expenses. Equally, instead of travelling elsewhere to their same employment, people look for other work which is, possibly, less important.
I hope that the proposal will be examined to see whether it may be possible to administer it, perhaps, through P.A.Y.E. Employers will know the distances that employees have to travel from their homes and will know of the altered circumstances that arise because of the rearrangement of housing areas in large industrial centres. If some way can be found to give effect to this proposal, the relief thus afforded will be very much appreciated by many industrial workers.
§ Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
I shall not detain the House long but I want to make a few observations in support of this Clause arising out of my own experience. During the passage of the Finance Bill last year the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking that this would be considered during the next 12 months and therefore, while I have not looked up the exact terms of that undertaking, I hope it has been carried out. If not, it should be carried out during the next 12 months.
This is becoming an increasing problem in industrial areas. It is well known that housing estates are being built several miles outside the big cities, especially in the industrial North. At Stoke-on-Trent, where the whole city is undermined, the local authorities are having to consider where they can build houses so that they will not be subject to mining subsidence. So that housing estates are being built more and more outside the city, with the result that serious questions of travelling are involved. The same applies to Manchester and Salford and Liverpool. I can endorse every word my right hon. Friend said about Liverpool, because I have a brother living there. While he is not affected to any great extent, a large number of people are affected who live out in the Prescot district on towards Ormskirk on that side of the city of Liverpool where some of the largest housing estates in the country are being built.
When there are two or three members of the family who have to travel the seriousness of this matter will be readily seen. It is made worse by the fact that they know that in certain circumstances expenses are allowed for other people who are well placed in life. Surely, therefore, it is a legitimate grievance which should be dealt with? Many thousands living in Wythenshawe and surrounding districts work in Manchester, which is many miles distant. I mention these centres because I am familiar with them. Other hon. Members will no doubt be able to provide evidence to substantiate what has been said. I would not have arisen had I not heard my hon. Friend stating the case on behalf of Liverpool and knowing that when the matter was dealt with on the last occasion an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member opposite. Then the Financial Secretary was sympathetic and said 1156 consideration would be given to the matter.
§ Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip—Northwood)
My only quarrel with the Clause is that it does not go far enough. The attitude of the Revenue authorities at the moment seems to be that if a person does not live near his place of business that is his own fault and no allowance will be made for travelling expenses.
In these days of housing shortage, particularly after the war, many people are not in a position of being able to live near their place of business. I begin by giving a rather remote example, and I am sure I shall be corrected by experts on Income Tax if I am wrong. Take the position of a recorder who is suddenly promoted to that high office in some county far distant from London where, possibly, he has been practising as a member of the Bar. He has to go there quite a number of times in the year to carry out his duties for a very small remuneration. The fact that he does not happen to live in the town to which he is appointed as recorder and to which he goes, 10, 15 or 20 times a year, means absolutely nothing to the Inland Revenue authorities. Their retort is, "You can have no expenses for travelling to the town to which you have been appointed."
Probably that is on a high level, and I declare my interest in the matter as a practising member of the Bar, but I can give another aspect of this problem from my constituency. A large number of people have moved into a new estate, many coming from Acton and nearly every one of them against their will. They had no wish to move and their houses are, unfortunately, extremely expensive. But, having returned from the war, as ex-Service men they felt they had a right to marry and settle down and this was the only place where they could find houses. Now they find that with the increase in fares they have to pay far more than they budgeted for each year. This argument falls into line with the proposed new Clause. It was no fault of theirs that they had to move, but the Revenue still insist in taking the dogmatic attitude of, housing shortage or no housing shortage, results of war or not, no allowance can be claimed, one must pay the full fare as a result of not living near one's place of work.
1157 I do not for a moment suggest that at this moment the Treasury can afford to give a complete concession in this respect, but I should have thought that in these circumstances the Government could seriously consider giving, say, a 25 per cent. allowance in respect of extra fares in particular in relation to the new Clause so ably put forward by hon. Members opposite. That is not very much to ask and would not make very much difference in the way of revenue.
Today many people are afraid to take a new job. We of all people, the party of enterprise, should encourage people to move about the country and to take new jobs. I appeal to the Government to give some concession in this respect, however small it may be. I can assure them it is something which is deeply resented by numbers of people who, very much against their will and entirely owing to the difficult housing conditions existing today, are finding it more than difficult to make ends meet, particularly after the recent increase in fares.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Maudling
This is a matter of considerable importance to a great number of people. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) had to say about experiences in her constituency and also what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said. Representing, as he does, a surburban constituency in North London my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. F. P. Crowder) will know that the question of fares and travelling expenses falls heavily upon people who go up to the City each day.
This matter, which is obviously worrying a great number of people, was raised last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). I explained then why the Government could not accept the large departure in taxation principles involved in a proposal put forward then which was rather similar, though not on all fours with the present proposal. I said then that my right hon. Friend would no doubt carefully consider what had been said. Hon. Members opposite have leapt at me about an assurance that consideration would be given in the next 12 months.
This is one of the things being specifically considered by the Royal Commission, to whom representations have 1158 been made. They will provide us, in due course, with their advice on what is a complex problem. One of the complexities was illustrated in a point which arose as a result of my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member. I wished to be clear on a point about which I was not clear. But it is clear now that he did not intend an allowance of this kind to apply in cases where there was a change of residence but not a change of employment.
The hon. Lady, however, put forward a strong case for people who change their residence by moving from what is perhaps an old house to a new housing estate. The position is that there has always been a very clear distinction drawn between expenses which are allowable and those which are not. If people spend money in fitting themselves for their occupation or to put themselves in a position to carry out their occupation that is not allowable.
What one spends in carrying out the job is allowable. One could give many instances where it is a little difficult to draw the line. Expenses incurred in travelling to one's place of work are not allowable but travelling expenses on business are allowable. I think the case of Ricketts v. Colquhoun is the best known authority. We should be careful in departing from this distinction which had been established and has stood the test of time.
Once expenditure is admitted which is not incurred actually in the performance of the job we arrive at the position where we may have to consider a very wide range of things. One has to clothe oneself adequately, and a claim might be put forward on that basis. I agree at once that the question of special protective clothing raises quite a different point. There is also the fact that though a great many people may be compelled to live further from their work than they would wish, it is equally the case that a number of people live away from their work from choice. They pay the extra cost of travelling because they prefer to live outside a town, for example. They choose deliberately to enjoy more pleasant surroundings at the cost of paying higher fares.
In those circumstances, it will be agreed that there is no case for giving a 1159 special allowance for what is a matter of personal choice and not a matter of essential and necessary expenditure in the performance of the duty from which the income arises. That is the main question of principle.
To turn to the terms of the new Clause, I would say that I never listen to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) without learning something new about Income Tax law. I was interested in his remarks about the wartime allowance. I agree that the words in which it was framed are not very satisfactory. In practice, this provision has led to certain difficulties when deciding what exactly is allowable and what is not.
My impression was that, broadly speaking, claims under the Section had ceased shortly after the end of the war, but the hon. Gentleman is right. There are still a number of claims being put forward and accepted. I am told that they are few in number and that the total cost is very small. I do not think that the situation can be regarded as really satisfactory. On the other hand, it seems doubtful whether it would be justifiable to go ahead now and bring it to a stop deliberately rather than to let it peter out.
§ Mr. Maudling
That is interesting. We will take careful account of that information. But when the hon. Gentleman goes beyond that and proposes to extend the concession in the way suggested in the new Clause, a number of considerable difficulties arise. For example, he argued with cogency the desirability of encouraging the mobility of labour. But this new Clause would give its benefit to anyone who changed employment for any reason and in whatever direction. While mobility of labour is in many cases desirable, there is also an argument that excessive turnover in an indiscriminate manner could do harm.
Then, applying, as it does, to any change of work, a person who took a temporary job near home for a short time could thereafter always claim the allowance. That is a consequence which I do not think the hon. Gentleman wants. 1160 Then there would be the position of two people both living in Barnet and working in the same office in the City. One may have lived in Barnet and worked in the same office all his working life and he would get no allowance. His neighbour who had just joined him in the firm, having previously worked in a firm between Barnet and London, would get the allowance. Yet both work side by side doing the same job and one gets the allowance and one does not.
The Clause as drafted would not be a satisfactory answer to what is certainly a problem about which there is growing feeling. Therefore, my right hon. Friend cannot accept it. But I repeat again—and I hope that hon. Gentlemen have not heard this too often—that my right hon. Friend has thought it better to see what the Royal Commission have to say on the point on the basis of representations made to them. He will study with care what they have to say.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
The Economic Secretary has given us his usual courteous, almost disarming, reply and paraded a number of arguments against this Clause and the rather wider proposal which was referred to during the debate of allowing travelling expenses to work as a legitimate expense for Income Tax purposes. I must confess that I find myself somewhat dissatisfied with the situation as it is today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) dealt with great lucidity with the peculiar circumstances which developed during the war and the fact that Section 159 of the 1952 Act continues a war-time arrangement. I have no doubt that, whether or not the news about this was getting around before the debate, it will get around afterwards. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's previous associates will thank him for having made it rather easier perhaps to claim allowances against changes of work and residence.
§ Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the 1952 Act was a consolidation Measure? Therefore, we had to continue that Section. We could not take it out.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I fully appreciate that. I am not arguing that the Section should necessarily be brought to an end. I was 1161 interested to hear what the Economic Secretary said about that. He said that there are some claims continuing under it. Presumably that is the reason why it has not been repealed. Let us consider for a moment the reason why it was introduced. It was undoubtedly because, during the war, people were obliged to move a good deal in the interests of the country and, in consequnce, it was most unfair that they should have to endure additional travelling expenses without being able to claim them as an allowance against tax.
Quite apart from all the difficulties of interpreting the Clause in present circumstances, I think we have to face the question why, if it was desirable to make this change in the law during the war, in order to encourage people to move as the Government wished them to move, it should not be continued on a broader basis in peacetime. I should have thought that the Economic Secretary would have been impressed with the very powerful arguments put by all my hon. Friends in favour of encouraging the mobility of labour. If there is one thing on which experts all seem to agree, it is that, in a full employment economy, it is most desirable that the mobility of labour should be encouraged; otherwise, we get far too rigid a pattern, we do not get manned up the industries that ought to be manned up, and people remain far too long in occupations of less national importance.
We have not been given any reasons why this problem should not be dealt with; nor can I accept the criticism of this new Clause put forward by the Economic Secretary on the grounds that the wording would include a change of residence consequent upon a change of employment. I think my hon. Friend can be perfectly happy about the wording as it now stands. It would be quite reasonable, in our view, that when a change of residence is necessary because of a change of employment, the extra expense should be charged for Income Tax purposes. I appreciate the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who think that the Clause should be widened still further, but I know that 1162 they will agree that, however desirable it is, we are not actually concerned with it now. They will also agree that, if we can get half a loaf, it is better than no bread at all.
Therefore, I do not think we can accept the argument that this new Clause is unsatisfactory because of the particular wording involved. As a matter of fact, it would not be in the least difficult to alter it to correspond with what was originally in the mind of my hon. Friend. The Economic Secretary admitted that last year the Chancellor had, in fact, undertaken to consider this whole matter, and he even drew attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South seized upon this fact and thanked him for it. I do not think it is quite good enough to come back to the House and say that the Chancellor has been considering the matter all this year and that he is now asking a Royal Commission to look into it. If it was really to be left to a Royal Commission, it would have been sufficient to have said that last year, but we certainly got the impression that the Government were giving more careful attention to this matter than they seem to have done.
Finally, there is the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, which cannot be ignored. Admittedly, it goes rather wide of the particular Clause, but the fact is that, although the law does not allow the expenses of travelling to and from work to count against tax, it is well-known to all of us that those who use their cars to go to work, in fact, are in a position to, and I am afraid often do, get away with the expense of getting to and from their work. It is no use the Economic Secretary making a face; he knows perfectly well that it is so, and it is almost impossible to draw a sharp line between the expense of the car while at work and the expense involved while using it in getting to and from work. Exactly the same problem used to arise in connection with petrol rationing. It was a headache to us then, and this ought to be a headache to the Government now.
I do not know what my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading feels about this matter. It is his Clause, and he has moved it very ably. I do not feel 1163 that the Government's reply can be accepted as in the least satisfactory.
§ Mr. F. P. Crowder
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said about the use of motor cars is not quite true. I have to deal with the Revenue in this matter, as I go to and from my home to work. I always discuss with the Revenue the mileage over the area, and they take off some of it, having worked out the distance from my home to my place of business, and they arrive at the assessable part of that allowance. It is not fair to say that people are getting away with it.
§ I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be unjust, but what he said is not quite right.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I do not desire to be unjust, and I was not implying that the hon. Gentleman or any hon. Gentleman was getting away with anything; but I still think that a large number of people do get away with it.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 221: Noes, 246.1167
|Division No. 215]||AYES||[9.1 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Fernyhough, E.||McLeavy, F.|
|Adams, Richard||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Foot, M. M.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Forman, J. C.||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Freeman, John (Watford)||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Awbery, S. S.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Manuel, A. C.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Gibson, C. W.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A|
|Balfour, A.||Glanville, James||Mason, Roy|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mayhew, C. P|
|Bartley, P.||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Messer, Sir F.|
|Bence, C. R.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Benn, Hon. Wedgwood||Grey, C. F.||Mitchison, G. R|
|Benson, G.||Hale, Leslie||Monslow, W|
|Beswick, F.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Moody, A. S.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B. W|
|Blackburn, F.||Hamilton, W. W.||Morley, R.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hannan, W.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hargreaves, A.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)|
|Boardman, H.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)||Mort, D. L.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G||Hastings, S.||Moyle, A.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Hayman, F. H.||Mulley, F. W|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Nally, W.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Herbison, Miss M.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hobson, C. R.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Holman, P.||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Burke, W. A.||Houghton, Douglas||Orbach, M|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Hoy, J. H.||Oswald, T.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Hubbard, T. F.||Padley, W. E|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Paget, R. T.|
|Carmichael, J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Palmer, A. M. F|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pargiter, G. A|
|Clunie, J.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Paton, J.|
|Coldrick, W.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Peart, T. F|
|Collick, P. H.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Janner, B.||Popplewell, E.|
|Cove, W. G.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Pryde, D. J|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)||Pursey, Cmdr. H|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Rankin, John|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Reeves, J.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rhodes, H.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Keenan, W.||Richards, R.|
|Deer, G.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Delargy, H. J.||King, Dr. H. M.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Kinley, J.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Ross, William|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Royle, C.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)||Lewis, Arthur||Shackleton, E. A. A|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Lindgren, G. S.||Short, E. W.|
|Edelman, M.||Logan, D. G.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||MacColl, J. E||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||McGhee, H. G.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||McGovern, J.||Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||McInnes, J.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Sorensen, R. W.||Tomney, F.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Willey, F. T.|
|Sparks, J. A.||Usborne, H. C.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Viant, S. P.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Stakes, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Wallace, H. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)|
|Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)||Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)|
|Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E||Weitzman, D.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Swingler, S. T.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)|
|Sylvester, G. O.||West, D. G.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Wheeldon, W. E.||Yates, V. F.|
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Thomas, David (Aberdare)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)||Wigg, George||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.|
|Timmons, J.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Finlay, Graeme||McCallum, Major D.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Fisher, Nigel||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||McKibbin, A. J.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.||Ford, Mrs. Patricia||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Fort, R.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Maclean, Fitzroy|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Macpharson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Gammans, L. D.||Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd||Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Godber, J. B.||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Barber, Anthony||Gough, C. F. H.||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Gower, H. R.||Marples, A. E.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Graham, Sir Fergus||Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)||Gridley, Sir Arnold||Maude, Angus|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Grimond, J.||Maudling, R.|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Medlicott, Brig. F.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mellor, Sir John|
|Bowen, E. R.||Harden, J. R. E.||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hare, Hon. J. H.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Braine, B. R.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)||Neave, Airey|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Hay, John||Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)|
|Brooman-While, R. C.||Heald, Sir Lionel||Nield, Basil (Chester)|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Heath, Edward||Nutting, Anthony|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Higgs, J. M. C.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Bullard, D. G.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Carr, Robert||Hollis, M. C.||Osborne, C.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Partridge, E|
|Channon, H.||Holt, A. F.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Hope, Lord John||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Cole, Norman||Horobin, I. M.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Colegate, W. A.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Pitman, I. J.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hylton-Foster, H. B. H||Rayner, Brig. R|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Redmayne, M.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Joynson-Hicks, Horn L. W||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Keeling, Sir Edward||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Kerr, H. W.||Renton, D. L. M|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lambton, Viscount||Roberts, Peter (Heeley)|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Donner, Sir P. W.||Leather, E. H. C.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lindsay, Martin||Russell, R. S.|
|Drewe, Sir C.||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Llewellyn, D. T.||Scott, R. Donald|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Shepherd, William|
|Erroll, F. J-.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Fell, A.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Teeling, W.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)|
|Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Snadden, W. McN.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Spearman, A. C. M.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Speir, R. M.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Stevens, G. P.||Touche, Sir Gordon||Wellwood, W.|
|Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)||Turner, H. F. L.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)|
|Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Turton, R. H.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Storey, S.||Vane, W. M. F.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Sutcliffe, Sir Harold||Wade, D. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)||Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.|