HC Deb 19 May 1953 vol 515 cc1995-2033
Mr. Gaitskell

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out "Cricket matches," and to insert: All entertainment which consists of games or other sports. I think the Committee will agree that this is the most important Amendment we have so far discussed in this Bill. A large number of my hon. Friends wish to speak on it and on the other Amendments relating thereto. I understand, Colonel Gomme-Duncan. that you are likely to call the next Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and also the one immediately following relating to boxing?

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan)

indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell

I thought it was best to get the position clear. That is, of course, in the event that this Amendment is not carried. That is an important qualification which one must make.

It is appropriate that I should remind the Committee of recent developments in Entertainments Duty. Up to last year we had two groups of entertainments so far as taxation was concerned. First, films, and with films went horse racing, greyhound racing and speedway racing. Then there was the second and lower group which consisted of all the other sports and the live theatre. Last year, however, as the Committee will recall, the Chancellor introduced a third group by reducing horse racing, greyhound racing and speedway racing to the middle level, leaving the live theatre as the third group paying the lowest rate of tax. This year we have a further change, the exemption of certain amateur entertainments and, of course, the exemption of cricket altogether.

9.30 p.m.

Last year, when we debated at considerable length the Chancellor's proposals, we on this side of the Committee objected to the increase of the duty upon sport. We objected to it on the two grounds: first, that it would create financial difficulties for a great many sports clubs of different kinds up and down the country, and secondly, because we could not see any ground for discriminating in favour of the live theatre and against sport. We still hold strongly to that opinion. We did not, unfortunately, prevail upon the Chancellor to accept our views and to go back so far as sport was concerned to the earlier scale of duties. The only concession that we got from the right hon. Gentleman was a temporary one in the case of cricket.

This year, we base our case once more on the financial difficulties of football clubs and other sporting organisations, which have become far more serious since the last Budget. But we also base our case once again on the ground of discrimination. This time we are bound to emphasise that the Chancellor has discriminated in favour of one sport— namely, cricket—and has left all the others out.

Before I go any further, there are two points that I should like to clear out of the way. In the Amendment on which I spoke last year, we included not only games and sports, but racing also. This year, as the Committee will have noticed, our Amendment is confined to games and sports only. The reason we did that was that last year the Chancellor, in reply to our Amendment, made it perfectly plain that he objected most strongly to the idea of making any further concession to horse racing and dog racing. I do not feel Very strongly one way or the other on this issue.

I said then, and I still believe it is true, that it was difficult to sustain permanently a distinction between racing— horse and dog racing, and the others— and football, cricket, and so on. I still think it is difficult to do so, but it is certainly not a point that I would press. When we were in power we maintained that distinction for a long time, and in deference to the Chancellor's wishes last year I thought it better that we should leave racing where it is now and confine our Amendment to the other sports.

The second point that I should like to take up is the position of films. Later during the passage of the Bill we shall, I hope, be able to discuss whether the present rates of taxation on cinema attendances are fair, whether they can be borne and whether they ought to be reduced—but that is not, of course, the subject for discussion tonight. I think we can all agree that whether or not the present rate on cinemas should be reduced, at any rate the tax on cinemas is now in a separate category.

The Chancellor put it in that separate category last year. I do not blame him for doing so, and have never objected to that. We must recognise that this form of entertainment is likely to remain in a separate category, whatever level it may be, for the frank reason that it constitutes the major part of the Entertainments Duty. I think I am right in saying that out of the £43 million or so of Entertainments Duty, something like £39 million is derived from films.

Mr. R. A. Butler

indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell

That leads me straight to the first point that I want to establish. The amount of revenue involved in the rest of the Entertainments Duty must be admitted to be very small indeed. It may be £4 million or is probably even less; but if it is £2, £3 or £4 million the right hon. Gentleman cannot this year say that he cannot afford the concession. After all, this year he has given away in a full year £200 million in taxation, and it is no answer to us to say that if he has been able to do that it is too extensive to make a concession on sport.

This discrimination in favour of cricket was defended by the Chancellor in his Budget speech. Before quoting from that speech, I should like to say that we are not objecting to the exemption of cricket from Entertainments Duty. On the contrary, we pressed for concessions last year and we are always glad to have concessions made to us, but this does leave the Chancellor in a very difficult position— on a very sticky wicket. How does he defend this discrimination? The paragraph which contains his argument reads as follows: In most sports the amateur definition which I have devised will, I think, work reasonably well, but it will not do for cricket In this country cricket occupies a special place among sports, not only as forming part of the English tradition but as a common interest helping to bind together the various countries of the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.] The only other argument adduced is that receipts the Revenue derives from Entertainments Duty on cricket are very small. Exactly how does the Chancellor justify this distinction between cricket and other sports on amateur grounds? I take it that the first sentence of the paragraph I have quoted means in effect that he cannot exclude it on the basis of the definition of "amateur" that he has put in the Bill but wants to exclude it because he vaguely regards it as a more amateur sport—I will not say an amateurish sport. I hope we shall not have comments on recent matches. Coming from myself, who cannot play cricket at all, that would be quite indefensible and I am reminded that Yorkshire are not doing very well.

The position surely is that certainly there are some cricket teams which have quite a number of amateurs and some very few amateurs, but the Chancellor will find that other sports also, at any rate occasionally, have amateurs playing with professionals. I know that it is not very common in Rugby League football and not common in the First Division Association clubs, but I am informed that there are occasional instances even in the case of Rugby League first teams and many more instances when we go, so to speak, lower down the sporting scale.

It is true that in the case of Rugby League those who play are overwhelmingly professionals, but in this sense they are all part-time professionals. They do not make a living solely in this way. Indeed, it is a condition, I am assured, which the clubs lay down that their players shall have other jobs. They get small sums of money for playing, but they are working in factories, shops, or offices. There is no doubt at all that in the case of the club in my constituency, Hunslet, which is in a very heavy industrial area of Leeds, most of the players— except when they get occasional help from Wales—are local men and they spend their time in other jobs.

Thirdly, even so far as they are professional players, I do not think it is possible to draw a line solely on that basis. We have to bear in mind that the professional clubs, if we can call them that, do a very great deal for amateur sports. In the case of the Rugby League teams to which I have referred, a very great deal is done in that way. They help the coming players. I am told that in Leeds the clubs assist no less than 80 school teams in the city in various ways. They have charity matches to assist them and allow them the use of their grounds. In such ways they are undoubtedly contributing to amateur play.

The Chancellor says that cricket has a special place and that it is part of the English tradition. That was not a very convincing argument. We know that the word "tradition" makes a special appeal to the Conservative Party. It really means that the older a thing is the more they are in favour of it. The Chancellor should furbish up the facts on this and see just how cricket and football stand in relation to each other. The results of my researches show that football is a great deal older than cricket. It was played in some form by the Greeks and the Romans. It was played in London in 1175. It was forbidden by Edward II in consequence of "the great noise in the City caused by hustling over large balls." It was again prohibited by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I because, I understand, of the brutality and violence associated with the game.

After this splendid record in our island history I am afraid that cricket cannot bear comparison. As far as I know, it was not until the reign of Edward IV that cricket was prohibited—several reigns after the time when football was prohibited. I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying, Colonel Gomme-Duncan, that we feel that you, coming as you do from Scotland, will be reasonably impartial in this matter though, if anything, you would side rather more with football than with cricket.

The truth of the matter is that we may say that cricket is our national summer pastime. But the fact is that football is our national winter pastime, and the Chancellor is discriminating against the winter sport. I can understand the attractions of summer sport, but when we come to taxation surely the argument should be the other way. It is very attractive to play or to watch games in the summer: it is much less attractive in the winter when it is windy, wet, cold, snowy and frosty. Winter sport should be helped rather more than summer sport.

As for the Commonwealth links, it is true that there are games between the Australian and British teams, the South Africans and West Indians, and so on. But there are other sports also which play an important part with the Commonwealth. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Argentine?"] The Argentine is not part of the Commonwealth. Again, to return to Rugby League. Test matches are played in Australia and New Zealand. The Australians and New Zealanders come over here. I assure the Chancellor that attendance at these Test matches, both here and in Australia and New Zealand, is very high indeed.

I am told that the Australians themselves are particularly asking that in the Rugby League Test matches when they come over here a special concession should be made so that no Entertainments Duty will be paid. I believe that in New Zealand a concession has already been made. Therefore, the Chancellor has some precedents to go on. We know that precedents appeal to him just as tradition appeals. New Zealand has now set a precedent which he might be prepared to follow.

As for soccer, it may be true that, for various reasons, international matches do not attract so much publicity or take on so much importance as Rugby League football and cricket matches. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that international soccer matches are not of the very highest importance. We all know that there was one only the other day somewhere in Latin-America—in the Argentine. It was true that it was washed out and it is true that the English team lost the preceding game, but we moist not be influenced by whether the teams are doing well or badly. I can recall being abroad before the war—I think it was in Vienna—and being astounded to find the passionate interest which the Austrian people took in the results of English league matches, so widely had the fame of our soccer spread. I do not think that the Chancellor's argument will hold water for one moment.

There is no doubt that the Chancellor will say, as he did last year, that cricket is in a very difficult position, that clubs are losing money, attendances are falling, and so on. I really must tell him that precisely the same thing is happening in other sports. There are falling attendances, and at the same time, more tax. Indeed, as long ago as 1950–51, after the steady decline in their financial position, half the Rugby League clubs were making losses, and I have no doubt whatever that their position is a great deal worse now, because, since then, attendances have continued to fall and the tax has been imposed. It may be true—I dare say it is—that most First Division Association clubs are perfectly happy and fairly wealthy, but everybody knows that this is certainly not the case with Third Division clubs, and, I am sorry to say, some Second Division clubs as well.

9.45 p.m.

The fact is, of course, that at time of declining trade and tighter money, of which the Chancellor is very proud when he speaks on other occasions, he has im- posed a higher tax and made things extremely difficult for those clubs. I say to him that this is a quite untenable position. Many of these clubs are in great difficulties, and I cannot see how he can possibly defend this special treatment of cricket while leaving all other sports to bear the higher taxation which he imposed last year.

This is the first of three Amendments, and I very much hope that the Chancellor will accept it. I am sure that the clean and straightforward thing to do is to take tax off all sports. It will cost very little money, and will be extremely popular. If he will not accept that proposal, we shall certainly continue to press for concessions to be made in respect of football and boxing, which are referred to in the two Amendments which have been selected by the Chair for discussion. Sooner or later, we shall all have to come to the conclusion that it would be far better to take the tax off sport altogether.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I have known the Chancellor a long while. We have grown grey together. Although we differ politically, I have always looked upon him as a man of his word. Last year, I was very impressed by the Chancellor's attitude towards this problem, his sympathetic approach to what we said, the tone of his voice, his general demeanour and the promise which he made. Therefore, it was a great surprise to me when I heard him announce in his Budget statement this discrimination between one form of sport and another. In our debate last year, the Chancellor spoke against any differentiation, and said: And if we were to make differentiations of that sort, we should rapidly upset confidence in the structure of the duties as a whole, — Therefore, if he is a man of his word, he must now withdraw the proposals contained in this Finance Bill. Does the Chancellor accept what I have said? Of course he does. If so, why did he introduce this time this differentiation to which he said he was opposed on the last occasion? On the same date— column 282, if anybody wants to check it—the Chancellor said: I shall do my duty by undertaking to review this aspect of the tax in the light of the evidence I can collect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 280–2.] Is this differentiation which the right hon. Gentleman is now introducing between one sport and another and between one grade and another—and owing to my background I am inclined to say something else, but I will not because I do not want to introduce a controversial note at this stage—the result of that review? If so, when he comes to reply will he produce the evidence which has convinced him that it is correct to introduce this differentiation between one sport and another? Has the Chancellor received from his advisers and from other cohorts—because he is himself interested in sport—examples of the almost impossible task he is imposing on those who will have to administer this differentiation, and the impossibility of defining an amateur organisation as against a professional one? Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed about the difficulties involved in the administration of this proposed discrimination?

Many in the House are interested in golf. There are 3,000 golf clubs in this country and many of them employ a professional, a groundsman who acts as a professional or a captain who is really a professional.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)


Mr. Smith

Many employ a coach. Now say "No" to that. Many of us are friendly with these men and we know that they are really professionals. Other clubs pay amateurs to act as captain or coach and they are not described as professionals. How are they to administer contradictions of that character?

Mr. Osborne

Which sport is the hon. Gentleman talking about? What clubs pay amateurs?

Hon. Members


Mr. Smith

Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to what I was saying he would have realised that I was speaking about golf. I think too much of personal relationships as otherwise I could produce the evidence.

These clubs also play games for club funds and charities. Will they be dealt with under these proposals and will they benefit by these proposals? How will the amateur cricket clubs be affected if they employ professionals or a groundsman or a coach who play in the team as amateurs? How will that be adminis- tered? How will the clubs that play in the Staffordshire League and in the Central Lancashire League, where real cricket is played, be affected by the proposals?

I should like the Chancellor to listen to my next point because I hope to win him over to my interpretation. Many amateur clubs organise Sunday games for club funds and benevolent and charitable purposes. In order to attract people they often invite a professional to play for them on that day. I have seen hundreds of people, including many who live in my district, go in droves to watch a cricket match on Sunday because Constantine was playing. These proposals will mean that, although these clubs play for charitable purposes and for objects which most people of public spirit wish to see encouraged, if a man like Constantine plays for them the event will not be interpreted as an amateur game. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider this matter before he replies and will give the real interpretation which he gave last year so that we can eliminate these difficulties which people who are called to administer these clubs have to face.

Mr. Nabarro

I have been asking my right hon. Friend many Parliamentary Questions in the course of the last few weeks in order to arrive at some reliable statistics on the revenue derived respectively from cricket and football. My right hon. Friend told me that the loss to the Revenue in respect of withdrawal of Entertainments Duty on cricket would involve only £36,000 in a full year, but in the case of football the amount is no less than £1,500,000, or something like 40 times as much.

In common with most other hon. Members on both sides of this Committee, representations have been made to me by local football teams and clubs, notably the small clubs, who aver that their finances are seriously affected by my right hon. Friend's depredations. I have every sympathy with the small clubs, but very little sympathy with the Arsenals, the West Bromwich Albions and other large and wealthy clubs.

Mr. Ellis Smith

On a point of order. I regret to labour the point, Sir Charles, but you know the undertaking that was given and most of us have tried to abide by it.

The Chairman

I have only just come into the Chair. I understood that what was arranged was that everything except football and boxing should come under this Amendment, and I proposed to call the next Amendment about football and the subsequent one about boxing. I thought that these references should be kept until we came to those Amendments.

Mr. Nabarro

Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), who moved this Amendment, had a great deal to say about football and cricket and their respective merits.

Mr. Gaitskell

I did not understand the ruling in that sense. Sir Charles. I understood that there was to be a general debate, and while, naturally, we would not go into details of individual clubs, nevertheless we would discuss the broad issue of whether it was right to favour cricket vis-à-vis other sports, including football. I should have thought that if we left football and boxing out altogether the general purpose of this Amendment would be completely nullified.

The Chairman

I am completely in the hands of the Committee, but I thought that we were to discuss football by itself and boxing by itself.

Mr. Ellis Smith

If you will pardon my saying so, Sir Charles, I am not blaming you for your handicap in this matter. Mr. Bowles was in the Chair when this matter was brought up. We undertook to abide by the ruling of the Chair that we should not mention specific sports when debating this Amendment and that we should leave football and boxing until the Amendments specifically concerning them came before the Committee.

10.0 p.m.

The Chairman

That is what I thought was going to meet the convenience of the Committee. I thought the intention was that in this debate we should discuss tennis, bowls and some of the other sports and then deal separately with football and boxing.

Mr. James Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

When the Chancellor replies he will be in duty bound to refer to the financial aspect of all sports. It would save the time of the Committee and enable us to get to grips with the problem much more speedily if we included all the sports. I am satisfied that the Chancellor cannot reply properly to this debate without including football. We should be wasting time if the Chancellor were to reply early on and we were then subsequently to debate football.

Mr. Nally

The Committee have been placed in a completely ridiculous situation. I thought we understood from Mr. Bowles that while it was recognised that there would be a certain degree of elasticity, you. Sir Charles, had ruled that we should not discuss boxing and football in detail. Unless we honour the undertaking that there shall be a general debate on the taxes that affect sport without going into too great detail, not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) but everybody who has spoken since has been out of order.

The understanding from Mr. Bowles was that you had decided that we should have a general debate in which, without going into too great detail, we should discuss the general issues of discrimination between cricket and football, professionalism and amateurism, and so on. If we cannot do that we might as well finish the debate now.

The Chairman

Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if we touched only lightly on the question of boxing and football now and discussed them in detail when we come to the later Amendment. According to my note, we were to leave the discussion of football— both Association and Rugby—and boxing until we come to the later Amendment.

Mr. Gaitskell

We must get this clear. I undertsood that we had taken these three Amendments together. The first one includes football and boxing and all the sports. It is impossible to discuss this Amendment and to give any meaning to our discussion if we leave out football and boxing. I agree that we should not go into details because those two sports are covered by a later Amendment, but I never understood that we were not to discuss football or boxing at all.

The Chairman

Perhaps the Committee would rather have a detailed discussion on this Amendment and then have divisions without further discussion on the other Amendments.

Mr. Ellis Smith

This matter has worked out in a very unfortunate way. Mr. Bowles gave us the benefit of your advice, Sir Charles, and we all accepted it. We have worked to it and now we expect that the undertaking and the ruling will be honoured.

The Chairman

I think the view of the Committee is that we should touch lightly upon football and boxing and deal with them in detail when we reach the later Amendments.

Mr. Nabarro

If I interpret your ruling correctly, Sir Charles, by the use of comparative statistics concerning these sports, I shall not have strayed too far from the rules of order which you have defined. I have a good deal of sympathy with the small clubs but not very much sympathy with the large ones, which are capable of attracting big gates generally and are in a sound financial position.

The fact is that my right hon. Friend has to raise the revenue from some source or other. It is a matter of degree, but Entertainments Duty does make a substantial contribution to revenue. Out of a total sum of £43 million raised in Entertainments Duty last year, about £4 million was in respect of sport. Of that £4 million, £1,500,000 is for football and only £36,000 is for cricket. Hon. Members opposite who think it would be a good thing to abolish Entertainments Duty on football, ought to say what tax or duty they are prepared to levy as a substitute in raising that sum in revenue. As far as I can see, the total of all the Amendments they have placed on the Order Paper for the Committee stage run to reliefs of taxation amounting to several hundred million pounds. In 1945, again in 1950 and again in 1951, the overwhelming majority of the people of this nation voted for a Welfare State.

Mr. Nally

On a point of order. I realise, Sir Charles, that you are listening very carefully, but if we are to have even the sort of sentences which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is using, and if we are to take them as a precedent for what hon. Members on this side may say in the next half-hour or couple of hours, we shall be here for a very long time. May I ask you not to stretch your generosity too far?

The Chairman

I am waiting for the argument to develop.

Mr. Nabarro

In 1945, again in 1950 and again in 1951, the overwhelming majority of the people of this nation voted for a Welfare State. The trouble is that when they do so they often expect somebody else to pay for it. Today, over 60 million people pay Entertainments Duty in the course of a year to watch football matches. All of those people are principal beneficiaries of the Welfare State and ought to be prepared to pay a small sum on every football ticket they buy in order to sustain an order of society for which they voted through the ballot.

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

What about golf balls?

Mr. Nabarro

I do not play golf.

There may well be an alternative in this matter within the narrow confine of the one sport which will be the principal subject of our discussion—namely, football. If Entertainments Duty on football is to be withdrawn, why should not hon. Members opposite advocate that the revenue be made good by an increase in the football pools tax which at present is levied at 30 per cent. It would require to be increased by only 2½ per cent. to make good the loss of revenue of £1,500,000 which would be entailed if the Entertainments Duty on football were withdrawn. If Entertainments Duty on the whole of sport were withdrawn and the loss of revenue were £4 million, as we are told, it would be necessary to increase the amount of the football pools tax by approximately 7½ per cent. to 37½ per cent.

My submission is that those advocates of the abolition of the Entertainments Duty on football and other forms of sport ought to say how the revenue is to be made good and, in addition, ought to say whether they are prepared to see the football pools tax commensurately increased so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find the necessary revenue to sustain the Welfare State from which the overwhelming majority of people who pay Entertainments Duty are the principal beneficiaries.

Mr. Nally

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wealthiest football millionaire in this country is a former Tory Party candidate for the Clay Cross division and a former Tory councillor in Liverpool? Hon. Members on this side have always been in favour of taxing football pools. Would the hon. Member tell us what consultations he has had with the football pool promoters, a large number of whom provide funds for the Tory Party, about the proposal which he is putting forward?

Mr. Nabarro

I am sure, Sir Charles, that you have listened carefully to me throughout the last 10 minutes, and that you know that I have not proclaimed my support for any increase in the tax on football pools. What I have said is that it is the responsibility of hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they support the abolition of Entertainments Duty on any particular form of sport, to say how the revenue is to be made good. I am suggesting an easy recourse for them, which would find favour very readily with their constituents, I have no doubt, particularly with the constituents of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally), in that he should go on public platforms and advocate an increase in the football pools tax. That would evidently be a reasonable and rational course for him to follow.

Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)

The Chancellor has so far been following this debate with the rigid and somewhat embalmed look of a gentleman who strays into the players' dressing room and does not understand the language. I hope that before the debate is completed he will have unbent a little and taken advantage of the opportunity I wish to propose to him to help a sport I wish to draw to his attention, very briefly, and have shown his willingness to assist not only cricket, which, I entirely agree with him, is the cement of the Commonwealth, but also the game of tennis, which is an element in binding together the Atlantic community.

Let me declare my own limited interest in the matter. I am an enthusiastic and mediocre tennis player. None the less, I feel that we have gone a long way from the time when tennis used to be simply a royal occupation. Today tennis is a sport which is practised by thousands of week-end players up and down the country on tennis courts provided by municipalities. One of the most striking and, indeed, alarming things about tennis as a sport as practised in this country is the remarkably low standard of play, and that is entirely due to the fact that there has not been that degree of professional skill accessible to the vast new numbers of those playing the game today.

There has not been that amount of skill available to give the guidance, training and coaching necessary for the development of any sport. If we compare the progress of tennis in this country with, say, the progress of tennis in the United States we find that gradually the gap in proficiency in the sport between the one country and the other had steadily widened. The reason has been that in the United States there has not been that snobbery about professionals in tennis that is still retained in tennis here, alone among the major sports of this country.

Each year there are three tournaments promoted for the participation of tennis professionals. There is the tournament at Scarborough which is promoted by Slazenger's, to advertise the products of the firm; there is the Lawn Tennis Association's promotion known as the Professional Championship at Eastbourne; and there is the London International Professional Tournament promoted by private interests at Wembley. The tournament at Wimbledon is promoted entirely for the interests of amateurs. The three main professional tournaments are limited by locality and also by the numbers of people who view the game. The result is that literally tens of thousands of young players never have an opportunity of seeing tennis played in a highly skilled and professional way.

The Wimbledon tournament attracts annually large numbers of viewers. Nonetheless, a number of keen tennis players do not get an opportunity of attending the Wimbledon tournament either because they cannot afford the price of a seat or because they cannot get in at the most crowded periods of the tournament at weekends. These people do not have the opportunity of seeing lawn tennis played in the best way. It is because of that, I am urging the Chancellor to remit the Entertainments Duty on professional tennis tournaments.

10.15 p.m.

When I mentioned that there were only three professional tennis tournaments I emphasised that point to draw the Chancellor's attention to the limitations of the problem which faces us. When he removed the Entertainments Duty from cricket he stated specifically that he was encouraged to do so by the fact that the problem facing him was a small one. Because it was a smaller problem than removing the Entertainments Duty on football it made him all the more ready to apply himself to that particular solution.

I would point out that the actual sum of money involved—the actual total of gate receipts for professional tennis is almost negligible. During the year these add up to little more than £30,000. If he were to consent to remove all Entertainments Duty from these professional tournaments it would be encouraging to those admirable professionals whom we have in this country to go touring and give demonstrations of lawn tennis, not only in the more rarified areas of Eastbourne and Scarborough and, indeed, of Wimbledon, too. but encourage them to go to other places and give people an opportunity of watching tennis played in the best possible way.

Recently the Lawn Tennis Association appealed specially for parties of young players to be taken to the International Professional Tournament at Wembley. I think that we can see in that some prospect that the time will come when there will be not only amateur tournaments for all England inviting all comers but when there will be a mixed professional and amateur tournament which is available to all.

When that time comes, it is quite clear that tennis, instead of being a game still retaining its old upper class and middle class associations, will become a genuinely popular game, a game not simply accessible to all but a game in which all will be able to excel their present standard. I urge the Chancellor to deal with this very limited problem and to say that he is in earnest when he says that he is prepared to encourage other sports in due course by the remission of Entertainments Duty.

Before I conclude, I want to add two or three sentences on the question of Entertainments Duty on football. I speak for a football team in Coventry which has undergone many vicissitudes and, perhaps I ought to say that the position which it occupies in the League in no way reflects its skill or prowess. I must add that Coventry City is a team which is at home in whichever league or division it may find itself. It readily adapts itself to that situation. Nonetheless, Coventry is poor in finance although rich in spirit.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I do not want to go against the Rulings of the Chair, but I would point out that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) has had her name down for weeks to speak on this matter, and I think that that ought to be borne in mind.

Mr. Edelman

Bearing that in mind, I was about to conclude by saying that in moving this Amendment on the question of tennis I do so in no narrowness of outlook but merely to show that tennis is a part of that galaxy of games from which Entertainments Duty should be removed so that when the Chancellor next makes his appearance on television he will not flourish a little bat but stand in front of a complete sports shop.

Mr. P. B. Lucas (Brentford and Chiswick)

We have heard a great deal about a variety of sports, but, so far, very little has been said, except derisively, about golf. I have no financial interest in the game, although I have a long and abiding personal interest in it.

The point I wish to raise is a narrow one, concerning the two championships run by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews, the Open Championship and the Amateur Championship. From the wording of the Bill it would seem that the Amateur Championship will be exempt from Entertainments Duty, but the position of the Open Championship is not so clear, and it is about this that I wish to say a word.

The event is run by a strictly amateur body, the championship committee of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. It is financed on a non-profit-making basis, from a fund which is entirely separate from the Royal and Ancient Club's general trading account. The moneys received from the tournament are ploughed back into the fund and used for the sole purpose of enabling the championship to be staged in future years.

The competitors consist of both amateurs and professionals, and none receives any financial payment at all for taking part. The great majority of professionals who compete are substantially out of pocket at the end of the week; indeed, only a handful can show any profit on their winnings.

The rewards for those who are successful are relatively small in comparison with the importance of the event. This is one of the reasons why we do not see from overseas the same sort of entry that we used to have in days gone by, particularly from the United States, and this is a pity. To any British professional who wins the tournament, the value of his victory in prestige and in subsequent earning power far outweighs the monetary reward which he receives. In the event of an amateur winning the competition—since 1860 this has happened only half a dozen times—he receives no monetary reward at all and the prize which he would have received had he been a professional is paid into a benevolent fund.

This event seems to me to deserve special treatment. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give the assurance that, together with the Amateur Championship, this tournament will qualify for exemption from the duty. It is one of the oldest, and, I think, still one of the greatest, events in British sport. It arouses a wide interest throughout the whole of the world, not least in the British Commonwealth, and it retains its unique atmosphere primarily because it is run on a strictly non-profit-making basis by an essentially amateur body. For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he will treat this event and the Amateur Championship kindly and will exempt them both from Entertainments Duty.

Mr. W. T. Proctor (Eccles)

I wish to speak on behalf of the game of bowls. I received a deputation at the House from the Lancashire Professional Bowling Association, who informed me that the Entertainments Duty presses hard upon them, and I appeal to the Chancellor to consider whether it is worth while financially for him to continue to collect the duty. The Lancashire Professional Bowling Association operates throughout the county. This week it has a match in Wigan, and it holds matches in various areas in Manchester and also in Bolton, and I hope hon. Members who represent those areas will be interested in this matter.

The Association inform me that they have raised a great deal of money for charitable purposes. They also told me that their balance in hand has gone down from £550 to £309, which they ascribe totally to the operation of the increased Entertainments Duty, and that they do not feel it possible to pass the tax on to spectators who come to watch their games because they are largely composed of old-age pensioners.

One interesting point which emerges from the information they have sent me, is that the four players receive 4d. for each game. I am sorry that they lose their amateur status for such a small sum of money. I appeal to the Chancellor to look into this matter and give some consideration to the bowling fraternity and see whether he cannot deal with bowls on the same basis as he is dealing with cricket. There is an historical association with bowls. Sir Francis Drake, on a famous occasion, wanted time to finish his game. I ask the Chancellor to find time not to finish the game.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

I want to say a word or two about the Amendment, not to add another sport to the many already discussed, but because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the point at issue is the discrimination in favour of cricket in contradistinction to all other sports. I do not think that as yet the Committee have dealt fairly with the parlous financial condition in which cricket finds itself, and I think that that is a relevant consideration in discussing this Amendment. While I am convinced that the Chancellor is right in what he proposes to do, I am less happy about the reactions to the reasons he gave for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted my right hon. Friend's phrase: In this country cricket occupies a special place among sports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 55.] I think that has been misinterpreted in many places. By some soccer fans I know it has been attributed quite wrongly to a class bias.

I do not want to dwell upon the amateur aspect that the right hon. Gentleman raised, because as far as cricket is concerned the amateur era is drawing rapidly to a close. No case could be made on amateur grounds as far as first-class cricket is concerned. While there can be no defence on sentimental ground, there does seem to me to be the strongest defence on grounds of a blood transfusion into the game, without which I, for one, am of the opinion that first-class cricket will not exist in a year or two.

I have some evidence to support the case that, financially, first-class cricket is suffering an alarming decline. The attendance last year, which was a fair year, was 2½ million. That is well below the average attendance in 1951, which was a wet season. Of the 17 counties involved in this game and which form the basis of the sport in this country, all are in some financial difficulty, and only one last year made a profit before receiving the distribution of largesse which the M.C.C. gives from accumulated earnings on tours abroad or international fixtures in this country.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that many first-class counties like Worcestershire and Leicestershire are getting this shot in the arm he talks about by having football pools? They are making £20,000 a year by football pools like Littlewoods.

Mr. Deedes

I was about to add that the financial results would be even worse if they did not indulge in such activities, or if some of their secretaries did not spend their winters organising whist drives. I know that 17 clubs in the three years 1949, 1950 and 1951 made a total profit of £50,000, which was an average of £17,000 a year, or less than £1,000 each. That was the margin on which first-class cricket existed.

I am well aware of the fact that many football clubs can tell roughly the same story, but there are one or two important distinctions. First, the game of cricket, particularly first-class three-day cricket, is affected by the weather almost more than any other sport, far more so than football. Secondly, the aggregate attendance for first-class cricket in this country in the whole of the summer does not exceed the gates of League football on three Saturdays in the winter. That will give some comparative impression of the public impact on the two games.

Thirdly, I would not dream of quoting the Commonwealth on sentimental or international or political grounds, but the fact is that cricket in the Commonwealth depends almost exclusively on the money they can get from tours in this country or our tours with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that money has a great deal to do with financing the game in their own countries.

Many hon. Members might say, "Let the game die out," but I think many people would regret that. Even the strongest Soccer fans would be sorry to see that happen, and it might happen even more suddenly than hon. Members realise. I think it is a mistake to suggest that the financial answer is the only answer. While my right hon. Friend might be out of order if he tried to do so, I should like the Chancellor to warn cricket lovers and organisers of first-class cricket at large that what the Treasury can do for them is only a little part of what they have to do for themselves, because this game has to be reorganised in accordance with postwar trends and public desires.

As one who has watched and loved cricket for 25 years I am well aware of that. It may be that 17 counties cannot support this game, that it will have to be reorganised. The Australians have ideas as to what might occur, although we may not want to take their ideas on the subject. All this needs thinking about, and I hope that if the Chancellor goes through with it he will take occasion to say, "The Treasury can go so far but the game must now do something for itself, and it must organise itself in a way which, in future, will make it self-supporting because this is the last thing I, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can do for you." If that is said and acted upon, if the M.C.C. were to set up a commission to inquire into the organisation of the game, we might tonight have taken a useful and important step in the interests of the game.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I rise, not to describe, on the whole, the way in which we can help first-class cricket, although selectors might look at club cricket to see whether there is any talent which might be brought in.

I want the Chancellor to answer this point in defending his discrimination of first-class cricket against other sports. There is very little professional athletics in this country. How much does the Chancellor expect to get from the one or two professional meetings held each year? Is it worth collecting? He must have had some estimate. I do not believe it is worth collecting. What is the amount?

Mr. Osborne

I want to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) and ask the Chancellor to look sympathetically at the position of golf, especially the two big meetings. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) made many extraordinary statements about the game of golf, including the statement that many golf clubs pay their captains. I should not like that to go out uncorrected and I must protest against it, because in no sport is amateur status more carefully and jealously guarded than in golf. I very much regret the statement that the hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu (Huddersfield, East)

I very much hope that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) realises that none of us wish to go back on the exemption of cricket. The point is the discrimination, and not only the discrimination between cricket and other sport. I think that all attempts to discriminate between various sports are wrong, quite illogical and unworkable, but I think the particular discrimination the Chancellor has chosen is the very worst discrimination of all. That is the distinction between amateurs and professionals. I can see no special merit in amateur or professional; each plays the game and gives great pleasure to those who watch. On these grounds alone, I would not admit the discrimination which the Chancellor is forcing upon us.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I am sorry to interrupt, as the hon. Member knows a great deal about sport, but I am not prepared to answer on that basis on cricket because we have dealt with the amateur question on Clause 5 and this is Clause 6. I should be in some difficulty in answering, if I were in order to do so.

Mr. Mallalieu

Not on cricket only; it is the whole business of the distinction made between amateur and professional sport and not merely in regard to cricket.

The second point about this particular distinction is that it is extremely difficult to decide what an amateur is. There are plenty of well-known sportsmen who are called amateurs, but are as much professionals as anyone. I am not at the moment talking of sham amateurs, but of people who are secretaries of clubs which they captain, people who write about sport and broadcast—

The Chairman

I think we have passed the amateur Clause.

Mr. Mallalieu

I believe that the distinction which the Chancellor is making as between amateur and professional is very much embodied in the Amendment to which I am speaking. It is an integral part of it and, if you will allow me, Sir Charles, I should like to press lit. It is very difficult to decide what an amateur really is and the proposals which the Chancellor has put before us will not have the effect which he desires.

The Chairman

I think the hon. Gentleman is pressing this amateur point. It is only cricket, which includes both amateurs and professionals, which is included in this Clause. The amateur Clause was Clause 5, and we have finished with that.

Mr. Gaitskell

On a point of order. With great respect, this Amendment is deliberately drawn fairly wide. It is our main Amendment on which we are arguing against the major Budget policy of the Chancellor, that is, the exemption of amateur sport and cricket and leaving everything else in. I submit—particularly as the Chancellor has argued on occasion, or his words implied, that one of his reasons for exempting cricket is that there is a certain amateur quality about it—that my hon. Friend is in order in putting this point.

The Chairman

It does not say so in the Clause, does it? [Interruption.] Perhaps I might be allowed to talk a little myself. Clause 5 deals with the amateur part, and this Clause, as far as I can see, exempts cricket; professional and amateur, it does not make the slightest difference.

Mr. Gaitskell

The Amendment proposes to insert, for "Cricket matches" "All entertainment which consists of games or other sports." I should have thought that it was perfectly legitimate that, as the proposal of the Chancellor is to take out amateur sport and cricket, while leaving everything else taxed, my hon. Friend should continue with his argument.

The Chairman

My reading of the Clause is that it covers cricket, which might include amateurs or professionals, but we are past the amateur point.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu

We wish to get rid of the discrimination, and that is why we are seeking to insert all sport, including all amateur sport. I am arguing the case slightly in reverse by taking the case which the Chancellor himself has put to the Committee, and I submit that I am in order.

The distinction between amateurs and professionals is, in my opinion, invalid and cannot be worked out. The Chancellor's proposals will have the reverse effect to that which he intends. He wishes to help the amateurs, but amateur clubs which are the majority in this country are not affected by Entertainments Duty at all. They do not usually charge for admission. The only amateur clubs to be affected are the big wealthy clubs, in other words the practitioners of sham amateurism. It will not help amateurs but will tend to help the bogus amateurs, who are the worst of the lot.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said that it is from the professional clubs that the help for the real amateurs comes, that all the vast sums of money poured out by the Football League and the Football Association, that are given to amateur clubs, come from the professional bodies. This discrimination does much to defeat that immensely valuable fund. I wish to make two direct references to football. The effect of these proposals on the professional game is that the smaller clubs in the Third Division will find it almost impossible to pay their way out of the ordinary gate money. They will be forced into keeping their heads above water by selling players. What the Chancellor is now doing is to encourage the very worst features in professional football by forcing these clubs to continue the transfer system which, in my opinion, is wholly wrong, if they are to have a chance of survival.

There are in many games, cricket is one and football is another, small clubs which are almost wholly amateur, but which have one professional as a player. He is there not only as a player, but as a coach. These football and other clubs are going to say, "If we keep this professional, who is improving our young men, we shall get a high rate of Entertainments Duty. Therefore, we will sack him in order to get exemption from the duty."

What the Chancellor is doing is to make sure that the quality of play in a whole series of games in minor leagues throughout the country will suffer. I therefore ask him, for all these reasons, which are considerable, to look at this once again in the spirit in which he looked at it last year. Having turned one somersault, I beg him to exercise his talents and to turn another one tonight.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

If a certain amount of money has to be raised for public purposes, then I think that the Entertainments Duty is not an unreasonable way of doing it. Let us not confuse the playing of games with the watching of games. I cannot help feeling that far too much "spectatorism" goes on in this country at present. What we want to achieve is a great increase in the playing of games and a great decrease in the watching of games.

I am sometimes shocked to see thousands of young men on a Saturday afternoon, apparently in good health, wasting the afternoon in a kind of mass hysteria by watching other people doing what they ought to be doing themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "They should be allowed to do what they like."] I quite agree that they should do what they like, but if we have to raise revenue in one way or another then the taxation of that activity is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it.

I say that because I think some speakers this evening have referred to the taxing of cricket, football or golf when what they really meant was the taxing of those who watch these sports. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) even expressed the hope that the game of cricket would be modified in accordance with the desires of the spectators. One frequently hears the same opinion expressed in relation to other sports.

For instance, even that highly amateur sport, cross-country running, I am sorry to say, now takes place round a closed circuit so that as many people as possible can watch it going on. In this way sports can be quite spoilt and turned into mere public spectacles. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not yield to the rather emotional appeals which have been made to him upon that basis.

Cricket, I think, is in a different position, because it is not an entertainment at all. According to one's attitude towards it, it is either an inspiration or a soporific. Most people go to a cricket match not to watch the game, but to sleep in the sun. That is a delightful reason for going to a cricket match. It is part of the English way of life, and I hope it will not change. I trust that the people concerned will not take the bad advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and try to wake up cricket to such an extent that, in the process, they wake up the spectators as well.

There is something peculiarly refreshing and restful about sleeping in the proximity of a cricket match, which puts it in a special position among sports. I cannot imagine anybody indulging in the same relaxation at an Association football cup final. I think, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is right in relieving the watching of cricket from Entertainments Duty, and for similar reasons I hope that he will not be persuaded to take it off other sports.

Mr. R. J. Taylor (Morpeth)

I shall not be so bold as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who said that he knows the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It happens that we made the acquaintance of the right hon. Gentleman about the same time in 1935, but I would not be sure that I know him. The Committee have been talking about golf, tennis and other "classy" sports, but I want to talk about foot-running. At the 71st Morpeth Olympic Games last year there were foot-running, pole-jumping and the ancient Cumberland and Westmorland sport of wrestling.

I remember an occasion when an hon. Member spoke in this Chamber of opportunity, and used as an illustration the story of the Greek marathon runner who had a lot of hair close to his forehead and none on the back of his head. If one wanted to take the opportunity one had to grasp that lock of hair because once the runner had passed there was no hair at the back of the head for one to grasp.

I am taking this opportunity to put a case to the Chancellor, not so much on behalf of the pole jumpers, the wrestlers and the runners, as on behalf of a very large body of men who keep sport alive and who make nothing out of it. They do not intend to make money, but year after year they hold games and contests from which large numbers of people derive enjoyment. They give their time and energy for no gainful purpose and they cannot understand why a duty which, last year, was 3d. on a 2s. 6d. ticket has been raised to 6½d. this year, an increase of over 100 per cent.

These people think of the 1937 Physical Training and Recreation Act, which was to provide facilities for the encouragement of physical training. At the Morpeth Olympic Games there were over 400 competitors from among men who train and make themselves fit not only to win sports events, but to make it possible for them to hew more coal. It also helps them to make a better contribution to the industrial output of the country. Hon. Members who have tried to run these sports know how precarious such affairs can be. If two successive meetings in two years are practically washed out the organisation has to be built up again. The amount which the Chancellor will get must be small. In view of the discouragement which this is giving to those who are keeping these sports alive, I ask the Chancellor to see whether he can assist this sport.

Mr. R. A. Butler

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to give some idea of how far the Government want to go tonight. I would make the following suggestion: that we should finish this debate and come to a conclusion. No doubt it will mean a Division. Then we shall reserve for tomorrow the discussion on football, which will allow hon. Members who are unable to speak tonight an opportunity to do so tomorrow. That will mean that it will not be necessary to ask the Committee to sit too late tonight. I have had the temerity to rise now to state the Govern- ment's case, so that hon. Members will be in a position to see whether they can reach a decision on this main subject. I cannot bind anyone to this, but if hon. Members follow it I think it will be the best arrangement.

Several questions have been put to me. I desire, first, to deal with some of the points put by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) raised the question of bowls. I had understood that bowls was predominantly an amateur game, and, as such, would, according to my information, be for the most part excluded from tax. In the event of charges being made for a game of bowls organised commercially I could not help under this Finance Bill; but, in general, I was advised, and I am still advised, that it will escape. However, if the hon. Member cares to do so I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

Now I come to the question of golf, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas). We have already agreed that the English Amateur Championship and the Brabazon Trophy Matches are excluded. I do not think that the Open Championship will be excluded under Clause 5, to which the hon. Member referred, because it is not provided, to use the terms of the Bill, for the promotion and furtherance of amateur games and sports. In so far as professionals continue to be paid by their clubs, this particular function would not escape under Clause 5. I am willing to discuss with the hon. Member the extent to which golf will escape.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) dealt with tennis. This game has had a considerable escape under this Bill. In fact, it has escaped almost entirely, except for the particular professional bouts to which the hon. Member referred. I cannot exempt these under the terms of amateur exemptions; but apart from that a great part, including Wimbledon, is exempted. To that extent we have rendered tennis no longer the game of kings, but the game of the people.

Now I come to the very serious, and as usual, the attractive speech, of the hon. Member for Stoke, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). He was kind enough to refer to his long association, perhaps I may be so bold as to call it friendship, with me; and I feel a sense of disappointment that he has lost confidence in me as a result of my decision about cricket. I take that as seriously as the hon. Member takes it, and perhaps I can now give the answer which I have been waiting to give to the Committee and the country.

11.0 p.m.

The hon. Member referred, in particular, to the debate last year, and I will take the speech from HANSARD as it is reported. He referred to columns 280 and 282 of the report of our debates on the Entertainments Duty last year, in which he quite rightly reminds us that I said: I must warn the Committee that if we were in a hurry to make a differentiation for these sports and leave untouched others … we should get into trouble for that. But the hon. Gentleman did not read further—and this is where I think my moral position, as I hope it always will be, remains intact—for in column 282 I went on to say: The position of cricket seems to me to be quite different. I went on to explain that attendances at first-class matches were falling—and here I took the advice last year of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) and said that cricket must brighten itself up if it were to survive; and I say that again today—and I went on to say, as reported in column 282: I want to say to the Committee that, in view of representations made to me about cricket, I undertake during this year and prior to the next Budget that we shall watch carefully the gates and the position of the cricket clubs on the old duty; and we shall have an opportunity to consider this before the next cricket season, if on close examination we find that the situation is really bad for the future of this great national game."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500. c. 280–282.] It is in furtherance of the pledge which I gave to the Committee on 6th May last year that I have followed the position of the clubs most carefully and have made a close examination, and the conclusion of that examination is exactly the same conclusion as that of the hon. Member for Chelmsford—that if I were to continue to ask cricket to pay duty on the terms they were let off during last year, it would be bad for cricket and might even have a disastrous effect on cricket. I therefore came to the conclusion that it was unwise, in the interests of this national game, to ask for the amount— and the exact amount is not £36,000, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) but £80,000—which would otherwise be taken from cricket.

I had anticipated that there would be a good deal of public opinion in favour of the course I was pursuing, and I was fortified in that by a Motion which was placed on the Order Paper in February this year by some hon. Members opposite —the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), for Newton (Mr. Lee), for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft), for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), for Salford, East (Mr. Hardy), for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), for Bilston (Mr. Nally) and for Leigh (Mr. Boardman). The Motion read as follows: That this House directs the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the precarious financial conditions of first-class cricket as a national institution in this country following several seasons in which Lancashire and other first-class counties have only balanced their accounts with difficulty, and to the great apprehension which exists that the projected increase in entertainment tax in the coming season may have disastrous results for the national game. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South will call it a day in his argument with me.

Mr. Ellis Smith

That is a fair point to make, but the Motion does not suggest discrimination.

Mr. Butler

I am not trying to catch the hon. Member on the horns of any dilemma, but simply to define my own decision, following last year's debate, to exempt cricket.

For a moment let us look back on the position last year. The Committee will remember that a great many hon. Members opposite made strong representations about cricket. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in the same debate said: The position in regard to cricket is very serious indeed. Then we march on and find that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) said: Broadly speaking, the sport must pay its way. If, under this new tax, the Derbyshire County Cricket Club have to pay at least double what they were paying before—a sum which they simply could not find—I think it will probably push their heads under water. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—with particular knowledge of the Commonwealth: I venture to say that this is a tax on Commonwealth intercourse, on Commonwealth good will and on Commonwealth enterprise in organising this kind of competitive friendly sport. In my decision I am, therefore, simply following up the arguments put by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

I also argued for the removal of the duty from all other sports.

Mr. Butler

I was not speaking on Clause 5, but it is evidently in order to make mention of it here. By my decision on amateur sport I have met a great many of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman put before me both by letter and in debate in the House.

Now I come to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who took a great part in our debates last year. She said: The Chancellor will know that there are only 17 first-class county cricket clubs, and that last year Warwickshire did win the championship. She then stated the amount of Entertainments Duty, and went on: County cricket clubs are non-profit concerns They offer six hours of sunshine for 1s. 6d. when we have a good summer, and even if we go there and get wet as well the rain provides a sticky wicket and good entertainment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 207–256.] She went on to appeal for a relief from the duty of cricket.

The fact is that all these arguments lead to the same conclusion, namely, that it would have been virtually impossible for me to levy a tax on cricket. According to the information I have received—and upon which I do not want to dilate to the Committee, because it would be revealing details which I ought not to reveal—if I had done so it would have been impossible for this national game and the clubs concerned to live. If I had forced this issue to a Division in last year's discussion I should not have been able to get a majority.

In this matter, therefore, I have been trying to act not only in the interests of cricket but according to the behests of the Committee as a whole. It has been difficult, as it always is for anybody in a responsible position, to try to differentiate between one sport and another and therefore, having given this pledge last year about cricket and having exempted it from duty during the year, my first attempt was to exempt it by means of Clause 5, dealing with amateur entertainment. On examination I found that that would not work.

To begin with, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is right —there are amateurs and professionals in other sports, and while there is a special position with regard to the amateur in cricket, and one could make a case about it—I have been provided with such a case—I do not think it stands up intellectually, and I should have got into trouble if I had based my decision on those grounds. The right hon. Gentleman has already perceived that that is an intellectual non-starter.

I could not have reversed the decision I made last year not to subject cricket to tax, and I therefore came to the conclusion that as it could not be covered by the amateur definition alone, my only course was to exempt it altogether. I came to that decision for very much the same reason as that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The Committee should also realise that cricket is in some respects different from some of the other sports which we shall be discussing tomorrow, namely, football, or even boxing. Cricket has to be played over a long period, and is subject to the vagaries of the weather. For example, on 16th May there was no play at Lords because of adverse weather. At the Oval the match between Surrey and Warwickshire took a spectacular turn. A three-day match was over in one day.

Although it has been very difficult to take a decision to differentiate one sport from another, I think that if the Committee will look at the picture as a whole, and see the picture of amateur sport, and the differentiation which I have achieved in the Bill, and the exemption of cricket, it will find I have not been unfair. It will find that I had no other decision to take in the light of the information which came before me.

We shall discuss the particular case of football tomorrow. By the concession to cricket I shall lose only £80,000. If I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment I should lose between £1½ million and £2 million. I am afraid that I cannot spare that money. Therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment. I must ask the Committee to come to a decision on this issue, as soon as possible so as not to make us sit too late tonight. The issue is that we accept the solution I have put forward in the Bill for the relief of sport to a certain extent in this year's enterprise.

I do not think that hon. Gentlemen will feel their consciences are unduly affected when they look at the tradition and history of cricket, and at all that it means to the Commonwealth as well as to our own country; when they consider that many working people are unable to go to cricket as often as it is played owing to the fact that a match is spread over such a long time; and when they reflect that I honestly believe that the exemption could not be fitted in in any other way and that, in following the undertaking I gave last year to the Committee, I am taking the only course I could adopt.

Mr. Gaitskell

I think the Chancellor's suggestions on procedure are reasonable, that we should come to a decision on this Amendment tonight and defer starting on the football and boxing Amendments until tomorrow. But we cannot accept the substance of his reply. The greater part of what he said was a defence of the exemption of cricket. We are not challenging that for one moment. We have made that plain again and again. What we are challenging is the failure to give the same treatment, and very deserved treatment, to other sports as well. In view of the Chancellor's refusal to do that I suggest that we should now divide.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 256.

Division No. 176.] AYES [9.15 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Dodds, N. N.
Adams, Richard Brown, Thomas (Ince) Donnelly, D. L.
Albu, A. H. Burke, W. A. Driberg, T. E. N.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Burton, Miss F. E. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Callaghan, L. J. Edelman, M.
Awbery, S. S. Carmichael, J. Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Bacon, Miss Alice Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Baird, J. Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Balfour, A. Chapman, W. D. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Chetwynd, G. R. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Bartley, P. Clunie, J. Evans. Stanley (Wednesbury)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Coldrick, W. Fernyhough, E.
Bence, C. R. Collick, P. H. Fienburgh, W.
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood Cove, W. G. Finch, H. J.
Benson, G. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Beswick, F. Crosland, C. A. R. Follick, M.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Crossman, R. H. S. Foot, M. M.
Bing, G. H. C. Cullen, Mrs. A. Forman, J. C.
Blackburn, F. Daines, P. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Blenkinsop, A. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Freeman, John (Watford)
Blyton, W. R. Darling, George (Hillsborough) Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Boardman, H. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Bowden, H. W. Davies, Harold (Leek) Gibson, C. W.
Bowen, E. R. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Glanville, James
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth de Freitas, Geoffrey Gooch, E. G.
Brockway, A. F. Deer, G. Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Brock, Dryden (Halifax) Delargy, H. J. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Greenwood, Rt Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Grey, C. F. Mann, Mrs. Jear Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Manuel, A. C. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Skeffington, Arthur
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Mason, Roy Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Crimond, J. Mayhow, C. P. Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mellish, R. J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Messer, F. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Hamilton, W. W. Mikardo, Ian Snow, J. W.
Hannan, W. Mitchison, G. R. Sorensen, R. W.
Hargreaves, A. Monslow, W. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Moody, A. S. Sparks, J. A.
Hastings, S. Morley, R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hayman, F. H. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Mort, D. L. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Harbison, Miss M. Moyle, A. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Hewitson, Capt. M. Mulley, F. W Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hobson, C. R. Murray, J. D. Swingler, S. T.
Holman, P. Nally, W. Sylvester, G. O.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Houghton, Douglas Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hoy, J. H. Oldfield, W. H. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Oliver, G. H Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Orbach, M. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oswald, T. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Padley, W. E. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Paget, R. T. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paling, Rt Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thornton, E.
Irving W. J. (Wood Green) Palmer, A. M. F. Timmons, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pannell, Charles Tomney, F.
Janner, B. Pargiter, G. A. Turner-Samuels, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Parker, J. Usborne, H. C.
Jeger, George (Goole) Paton, J. Viant, S. P.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Peart, T. F. Wade, D. W.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Plummer, Sir Leslie Wallace, H. W.
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Popplewell, E. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Porter, G. Weitzman, D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Keenan, W. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Wells, William (Walsall)
Kenyon, C. Prootor, W. T. West, D. G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pryde, D. J. Wheeldon, W. E.
King, Dr. H. M. Pursey, Cmdr. H. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Kinley, J. Rankin, John White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Reeves, J. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Wigg, George
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Reid, William (Camlachie) Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Lewis, Arthur Rhodes, H. Wilkins, W. A.
Lindgren, G. S. Richards, R. Willey, F. T.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Williams, David (Neath)
Logan, D. G. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
MacColl, J. E. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
McGhee, H. G. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
McGovern, J. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
McInnes, J. Ross, William Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Royle, C. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
McLeavy, F. Shackleton, E. A. A. Wyatt, W. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Yates, V. F.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Short, E. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.
Aitken, W. T. Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Butcher, Sir Herbert
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Alport, C. J. M. Bennett, William (Woodside) Campbell, Sir David
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Carr, Robert
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Birch, Nigel Cary, Sir Robert
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Bishop, F. P. Channon, H.
Arbuthnot, John Black, C. W. Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Boothby, R. J. G. Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Bossom, A. C. Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Cole, Norman
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Boyle, Sir Edward Colegate, W. A.
Baldwin, A. E. Braine, B. R. Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Banks, Col. C. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Barber, Anthony Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Barlow, Sir John Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Cranborne, Viscount
Baxter, A. B. Brooman-White, R. C. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Bullard, D. G. Crouch, R. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Burden, F. F. A. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Davidson, Viscountess Leather, E. H. C. Remnant, Hon. P.
Deedes, W. F. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Renton, D. L. M.
Digby, S. Wingfield Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Robertson, Sir David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Linstead, H. N. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Donner, P. W. Llewellyn, D. T. Robson Brown, W.
Doughty, C. J. A. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Drayson, G. B. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Roper, Sir Harold
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. Longden, Gilbert Russell, R. S.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Low, A. R. W. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Finlay, Graeme Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fisher, Nigel Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Fletcher-Cooke, C. McAdden, S. J. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia McCallum, Major D. Scott, R. Donald
Fort, R. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Macdonald, Sir Peter Shepherd, William
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) McKibbin, A. J. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Gammans, L. D. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Maclean, Fitzroy Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) Snadden, W. McN.
Glyn, Sir Ralph MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Spearman. A. C. M.
Godber, J. B. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Speir, R. M.
Gough, C. F. H. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Gower, H. R. Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Graham, Sir Fergus Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Stevens, G. P.
Gridley, Sir Arnold Markham, Major S. F. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Marlowe, A. A. H. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Marples, A. E. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Storey, S.
Harden, J. R. E. Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hare, Hon. J. H. Maude, Angus Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Maudling, R. Studholme, H. G.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C Summers, G. S.
Harrison Col. J. H. (Eye) Medlicott, Brig. F. Sutclifte, Sir Harold
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Meller, Sir John Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Teeling, W.
Hay, John Morrison, John (Salisbury) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Heald, Sir Lionel Nabarro, G. D. N. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Heath, Edward Nicholls, Harmar Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Higgs, J. M. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Tilney, John
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nield, Basil (Chester) Touche, Sir Gordon
Hirst, Geoffrey Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Turner, H. F. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Nugent, G. R. H. Turton, R. H.
Hollis, M. C. Nutting, Anthony Vane, W. M. F.
Hope, Lord John Oakshott, H. D. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Odey, G. W. Vosper, D. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Horobin, I. M. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Osborne, C. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Partridge, E. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Watkinson, H. A.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Perkins, W. R. D. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hurd, A. R. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Wellwood, W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Peyton, J. W. W. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Jennings, R. Pitman, I. J. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Powell, J. Enoch Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Wills, G.
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Profumo, J. D. Wood, Hon. R.
Keeling, Sir Edward Raikes, Sir Victor
Kerr, H. W. Rayner, Brig. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lambert, Hon. G. Redmayne, M. Mr. Drewe and Mr. Kaberry
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Rees-Davies, W. R.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 177.] AYES [11.15 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. George, Rt. Han. Maj. C. Lloyd Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Glyn, Sir Ralph Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Alport, C. J. M. Godber, J. B. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Gough, C. F. H. Nabarro, G. D. N.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Gower, H. R. Nicholls, Harmar
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Graham, Sir Fergus Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Arbuthnot, John Gridley, Sir Arnold Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Grimond, J. Nield, Basil (Chester)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Nugent, G. R. H.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Hall, John (Wycombe) Nutting, Anthony
Baldwin, A. E. Harden, J. R. E. Oakshott, H. D.
Banks, Col. C. Hare, Hon. J. H. Odey, G. W.
Barber, Anthony Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Barlow, Sir John Harris, Reader (Heston) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Baxter, A. B. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hay, John Osborne, C.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Partridge, E.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Heald, Sir Lionel Perkins, W. R. D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Heath, Edward Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Birch, Nigel Higgs, J. M. C. Payton, J. W. W.
Bishop, F. P. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Black, C. W. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Boothby, R. J. G. Hirst, Geoffrey Pitman, I. J.
Bossom, A. C. Holland-Martin, C. J. Powell, J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hollis, M. C. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hope, Lord John Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Braine, B. R. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Profumo, J. D.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Raikes, Sir Victor
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Horobin, I. M. Rayner, Brig. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Redmayne, M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Brooman-White, R. C. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Remnant, Hon. P.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Renton, D. L. M.
Bullard, D. G. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Robertson, Sir David
Burden, F. F. A. Hurd, A. R. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hutchison, Lt-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W) Robson-Brown, W.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Campbell, Sir David Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Roper, Sir Harold
Carr, Robert Jennings, R. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Russell, R. S.
Channon, H. Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Keeling, Sir Edward Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Kerr, H. W. Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Lambert, Hon. G. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Cole, Norman Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Scott, Rt. Donald
Colegate, W. A. Leather, E. H. C. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Shepherd, William
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cranborne, Viscount Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Linstead, H. N. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Snaddon, W. McN.
Crouch, R. F. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Spearman, A. C. M
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Speir, R. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Longden, Gilbert Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Davidson, Viscountess Low, A. R. W. Stevens, G. P
Deedes, W. F. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Storey, S.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. McCallum, Major D. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Donner, P. W. Macdonald, Sir Peter Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Doughty, C. J. A. McKibbin, A. J. Studholme, H. G.
Drayson, G. B. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Summers, G. S.
Drewe, C. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Maclean, Fitzroy Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M. MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Teeling, W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Erroll, F. J. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Finlay, Graeme Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Fisher, Nigel Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Markham, Major S. F. Tilney, John
Ford, Mrs. Patricia Marlowe, A. A. H. Touche, Sir Gordon
Fort, R. Marples, A. E. Turner, H. F. L.
Foster, John Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Turton, R. H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Vane, W. M. F.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Maude, Angus Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok) Maudling, R. Vosper, D. F.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gammans, L. D. Medlicott, Brig. F. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Mellor, Sir John Walker-Smith, D. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) Williams, Gerald (Tenbridge) Wood, Hon R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.) York, C.
Watkinson, H. A. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wellwood, W. Wills, G. Major Conant and Mr. Kaberry.
Acland, Sir Richard Glanville, James Moyle, A.
Adams, Richard Gooch, E. G. Mulley, F. W.
Albu, A. H. Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Murray, J. D.
Alton, Arthur (Bosworth) Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Nally, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Awbery, S. S. Grey, C. F. Oldfield, W. H.
Baton, Miss Alice Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oliver, G. H.
Baird, J. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Orbach, M.
Balfour, A. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Oswald, T.
Barnet, Rt. Hon. A. J. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Padley, W. E.
Bartley, P. Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Paget, R. T.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hamilton, W. W. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Bence, C. R. Hannan, W. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood Hargreaves, A. Palmer, A. M. F.
Beswick, F. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Pannell, Charles
Sevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hastings, S. Pargiter, G. A.
Bins, G. H. C. Hayman, F. H. Parker, J.
Blackburn, F. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Paton, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Pearson, A.
Bryton, W. R. Herbison, Miss M. Peart, T. F.
Boardman, H. Hewitson, Capt. M. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bowden, H. W. Hobson, C. R. Popplewell, E.
Bowen, E. R. Holman, P. Porter, G.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Houghton, Douglas Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Brockway, A. F. Hoy, J. H. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pryde, D. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Burke, W. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Burton, Hiss F. E. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reid, William (Camlachie)
Callaghan, L. J. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rhodes, H.
Carmichael, J. Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Richards, R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Janner, B. Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Champion, A. J. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Chetwynd, G. R. Jeger, George (Goole) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Clunie, J. Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Parcras, N.)
Coldrick, W. Johnson, James (Rugby) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Collick, P. H. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Ross, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Shaekleton, E. A. A.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Crosland, C. A. R. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Short, E. W.
Crossman, R. H. S. Keenan, W. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Kenyon, C. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) King, Dr. H. M. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Slater, Mrs. (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Lewis, Arthur Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Deer, G. Lindgren, G. S. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Delargy, H. J. Logan, D. G. Snow, J. W.
Dodds, N. N. MAcColl, J. E. Sorensen, R. W.
Donnelly. D. L. McGhee, H. G. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Driberg, T. E. N. McGovern, J. Sparks, J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Mclnnes, J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McLeavy, F. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Edelman, M. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse) McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Stross, Dr. Barnett
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Swingler, S. T.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Mann, Mrs. Jean Sylvester, G. O.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Manuel, A. C. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fernyhough, E. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Fienburgh, W. Mason, Roy Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Finch, H. J. Mayhew, C. P. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mellish, R. J. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Follick, M. Mikardo, Ian Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)
Foot, M. M. Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Forman, J. C. Monslow, W. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moody, A. S. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Freeman, John (Watford) Morley, R. Thornton, E.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.) Timmons, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Tomney, F.
Gibson, C. W. Mort, D. L. Usborne, H. C.
Wade, D. W. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Wallace, H. W. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Watkins, T. E. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.) Wigg, George Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Weitzman, D. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Wilkins, W. A. Wyatt, W. L.
Wells, William (Walsall) Willey, F. T. Yates, V. F.
West, D. G. Williams, David (Neath)
Wheeldon, W. E. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Royle and Mr. Horace Holmes.

To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir H. Butcher.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.