§ In subsection (1) of section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which provides for earned income and old age reliefs), there shall be added after the word "rate" the words "on the greater of the two following amounts, that is to say, (a)" and at the end of the subsection the words "or (b) on one hundred and twenty pounds and, if the claimant is entitled to a deduction under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two hundred and ten of this Act or to a deduction under section two hundred and twelve of this Act including a deduction consequent on apportionment under section two hundred and thirteen of this Act), also on two-sevenths of the amount, on which tax at the standard rate constitutes that deduction or those deductions."—[Mr. Mulley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
If the Financial Secretary found the previous Clause rather expensive, I am rather afraid that that is the argument he will deploy against this one. However, in moving it I am fortified by the knowledge that the principle has been suggested by the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission. The matter was dealt with in the second report of the Royal Commission. In moving the Clause, we are concerned chiefly with the principle and not necessarily with the arithmetical calculation.
The Clause is designed to introduce two new principles into the basis of the treatment of earned income for taxation purposes. First, we propose that there should be a minimum earned income relief. There is already a maximum earned income relief, and I do not see why there should not equally be a minimum. Secondly, we propose that there should be a differential minimum 328 according to the personal and family circumstances of the taxpayer. That is to say, instead of it being related solely to the amount of earned income, consideration should also be given to the marriage and child responsibilities of taxpayers.
We suggest a minimum of £120, which means in the case of single persons that those below an earned income level of £540 will benefit. I apologise to the House if I get my arithmetic wrong, as I probably shall in the examples which I propose to put before the House. I am sure the Financial Secretary will be only too glad to correct such errors as I may make.
The basis of the differential calculation is to take, in the case of a married person, two-sevenths of the personal allowance, which at the moment is £240, and, in the case of a married person with children, two-sevenths of the child allowances. In my calculation in the case of married men with two children, the classical example always used by Chancellors of the Exchequer, this would mean that the minimum would be £245. If my arithmetic is right, it means that the Clause is designed to help single persons with earned incomes of less than £540, married persons with no children with incomes of £760 and less, and married persons with two children with earned incomes below £1,100.
The purpose of the new Clause, and the reason which in my opinion motivated the Commission in making this suggestion, is that only by a method similar to this can we give relief to the lower ranges of income without also at the same time extending it to the upper ranges, where the case for the reduction is less well made out. I think it is now thoroughly appreciated by all parts of the House that 329 special consideration should be given to family taxpayers with large commitments resulting therefrom.
Already, the trend has been for personal allowances and children's allowances to be raised when Chancellors of the Exchequer have found themselves able to make some relief in the level of Income Tax, but we say that the flat rate itself is not always the appropriate way and is often not sufficient. Secondly, of course, the flat rates of personal and children's allowances cannot be increased without giving those at the top of the tax ranges more relief than those in the lower ranges, for whom perhaps such relief is primarily designed.
The House ought to recognise that it is not only a case of helping those in the lower tax-paying groups, but, within the same broad income group, the financial circumstances of persons whose families or households vary very much according to the particular stage of life which they may have reached. In the case of a single person, he probably reaches at the age of 21 his maximum gross income. When he marries, he may, if his wife is also working, have a very reasonable and stable financial basis, but as soon as the wife has to stop working as the result of the arrival of children, and on account of the mounting costs of maintaining and taking care of them, there is a dramatic change in the fortunes of that family. Again, later on, when the children leave school and begin to work, especially if they remain at home, the total family income goes up very substantially. Yet again, there is the most dramatic change of all when the wage-earner ceases work and has to rely on the very low level of the old-age pension.
I do not want to develop this theme in detail at this hour, but to make the point that in connecting the earned income relief with the particular family circumstances of the taxpayer, we are trying to meet not only the special problem of the lower income group ranges without giving even more money away to those who perhaps need it much less, but are also trying to deal with a special problem within one group of income because of the period of perhaps 20 years when people are bringing up a family.
I hope, therefore, that since this principle has at least been blessed by both the minority and the majority of the 330 Royal Commission, the Government will give us a reassuring answer tonight. I would stress that we have heard a lot from the Government about incentives. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said earlier, the incentives seem to be directed mainly at the higher managerial and bigger income classes, but if the Government want, as I am sure they do, production to go up, they should think much more of directing their incentives to the range of people on the factory floor and in the various sections of industry who would benefit from the reduction in tax that would accrue if this new Clause were accepted.
I therefore hope that, for these reasons, the Government will say that they will accept the Clause, or, if they cannot accept the detailed proposals which we have set out in it, will approve the principle on which it is based.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. H. Brooke
When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) rose, I thought for a moment that he was about to expedite our proceedings by moving the next new Clause on small lotteries and gaming, in which I know he has a parliamentary interest. I was a little disappointed, despite the hon. Member's excellent speech, that this Clause was not moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), because I thought that I detected in it the right hon. Gentleman's paternity. About 3½ years ago, an article over his signature appeared in the Daily Herald, entitled:Five Million P.A.Y.Ers The Chancellor Would Not Miss.It was not I who invented that horrible noun, "P.A.Y.Ers," but the right hon. Gentleman.
It was in that article that he adumbrated the idea of a minimum earned income relief. The minority and the majority of the Royal Commission thought on the same lines, and the right hon. Gentleman may have given important thoughts to the world in consequence. Perhaps we shall have the advantage of his views before the debate closes. Of course, a good deal has happened, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, recognises, since the Royal Commission reported.
331 Let me first address myself to what the Clause would do. It would provide that the earned income relief should be a minimum of £120, if that amount exceeded two-ninths of the taxpayer's earned income. In other words, the allowance on an earned income of £400 would be £120 instead of about £89, as the law stands. That being the case, as there are very large numbers of taxpayers, I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that the cost would be very considerable. It would be further increased by a technical mistake in the drafting of the Clause.
The Royal Commission advocated system of a minimum earned income relief, because that seemed both to the majority and to the minority the best means of taking out of the tax range a large number of small taxpayers. However, since the second Report was presented, a good deal has happened. The 1955 Budget increased the tax-free personal allowances and I am not sure whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are still keen on this idea of a minimum earned income relief fully realise how much it will cost over and above the cost, which has already been granted by Parliament, of the increased tax-free allowances.
If I remember rightly, the minority of the Royal Commission, on whose views the hon. Member is founding himself, accompanied its suggestion of a minimum earned income relief with a recommendation that the single person's tax-free allowance should actually be cut, that it should be reduced from £120, as it then was, to £100 and that a married man's tax-free allowance should be reduced from £210 to £200. However, the trend has been in the opposite direction. In the 1955 Budget, the tax-free allowance for a single person, instead of being reduced, was increased from £120 to £140 and the tax free allowance for a married couple was increased from £210 to £240.
We devised a means by which we could do what the Royal Commission was seeking, while, at the same time, preventing the full benefit from running right up to the higher incomes. We accompanied the increase in the tax-free personal allowances with a cut in the band of income chargeable at the lowest of the three reduced rates. In the 1955 Budget we were achieving the main purpose of the Royal Commission by a separate device.
332 I do not want to slip out of answering the case made by the hon. Member merely upon the grounds that it is now out of date.
§ Mr. Mulley
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not ignore the difficulties experienced by the Opposition because of the constitutional rules about moving Amendments relating to taxation. That is one of the reasons why we did not take up some of the other points he has made. I am sure he will not suggest that the 1955 Budget failed to pass on many additional advantages in the way of personal tax allowances to people in the higher income groups.
§ Mr. Brooke
If the hon. Member were Financial Secretary—and I am quite prepared to share my work with somebody—he would find that an enormous number of taxpayers, not merely in the higher but also in the medium range of income groups, write to their Members of Parliament complaining that the cut in the band chargeable at the lowest of the reduced rates has deprived them of practically all, though not quite all, the advantages that they would otherwise have gained from the increased tax-free allowances. That expedient, introduced in 1955, was extremely successful in accomplishing the object of the Royal Commission.
The hon. Member is now quite reasonably adumbrating to the House the idea of a tax-free minimum earned income relief. I should like to examine what that would mean in practice. It would exempt a considerable number of taxpayers from taxation, and would do so in a manner which, administratively, would be both complicated and expensive. In many cases tax offices would have to make forecasts of taxpayers' incomes a year ahead, so as to decide provisionally whether they would or would not be within the scope of this relief in that year, and then make the necessary adjustments to P.A.Y.E. codings where it was thought that the taxpayers concerned would be within the range of earnings affected.
A great deal of work would be entailed in making those forecasts, and after that a great deal more would have to be done in correcting them and clearing up the liability. Moreover, the hon. Member will probably accept from me that this scheme would not be at all easy to explain 333 to the taxpaying public. He is thinking of it as a scheme which would benefit small taxpayers, whose numbers amount to millions. The present plan of an earned income relief amounting to a certain fixed fraction of earned income has become reasonably familiar to taxpayers.
The proposal contained in the Clause is quite a new conception, and one which, for the reasons I have explained, would complicate P.A.Y.E. codings and lead to a certain amount of hit-or-miss work, and a great deal of clearing up work at the end of the year. Those were some of the reasons which led us in 1955 to seek a simpler method of achieving the object of the Royal Commission.
In this case, the hon. Member has suggested a minimum earned income allowance of £120, which was the figure recommended in the minority Report of the Royal Commission. Of course, it was recommended by them in the light of the personal allowances as they then were and of the reduced personal allowances that they suggested at the time. In fact, thanks to the 1955 Budget, the figures at which tax becomes payable by individuals and by married people have risen substantially, so to that extent also there is not the same case for it.
I must give the cost of this, of which I think the hon. Member himself stood in fear. He will not be unaware that the minority Report of the Royal Commission was setting itself to work out a scheme which would produce overall a rough balance, leaving the yield of revenue unaffected. I recognise at once that it is not possible for private Members to move new Clauses which can offset tax concessions with tax increases that may fall upon other people. But the cost of this is almost as fearsome in present circumstances as the cost of the last new Clause which I was obliged to reject. The cost of this one would be about £68 million a year in a full year, which is something that my right hon. Friend could not afford.
Faulty drafting has somewhat increased the cost of the Clause. I am not sure whether the hon Member really intended to give relief to people who have no earned income at all. But were the House, by a mischance, to write this 334 Clause into the law I must advise that it would give an extra allowance not only to small earned income taxpayers, but to Surtax payers living on investment incomes. For that reason alone I could not recommend the acceptance of this Clause.
But I do not rest on that. I recognise, perhaps better than most, the extreme difficulty of drafting Clauses which will achieve precisely the purpose in mind. I am asking the House to reject the Clause on two grounds, first, that in the 1955 Budget we have substantially, by a different method, fulfilled the Royal Commission's purpose, and secondly, that were we now to adopt this new Clause, it would cost over £60 million of revenue.
§ Mr. Jay
I thank the Financial Secretary for his tribute to my consistency, and also for his attribution to me of the parentage of this idea. But, in all honesty, I must say that the latter compliment is not justified. So far as I can recall, it was one of the members of the Royal Commission who suggested the idea to me, and I made use of it before the Report actually appeared, so I think it had a common parentage.
The Financial Secretary rightly told us that the cost of this change would be very large, and naturally that weighed heavily on him and the Chancellor. However, I will say to the Chancellor that when he said a few days ago that the total cost of all the Amendments proposed by the Opposition would amount to £600 million, I think he was overlooking the fact that since we discussed these matters one by one, they are, of course, alternatives. It is never proposed by an Opposition that when a whole lot of Amendments have been turned down we should discuss the later Amendments on the assumption that the earlier Amendments have not been turned down.
In any case, I remember one hon. Member opposite—when the Conservatives were in Opposition—describing the various Amendments put forward to a Finance Bill as an annual parade set out in order that everybody should have a look at it. I would not go as far as that, but we have to remember that these are alternatives, and among the alternatives 335 we attach a good deal of importance and priority to the idea behind this proposal.
I do not think the Financial Secretary disposes of the argument simply by saying that the Government went some way in the Budget of 1955 to achieve the purpose which the Commission had in putting this idea forward. To some extent, I agree, the same ground was covered, but the Financial Secretary will also agree that it is perfectly practicable to make a second instalment and to carry the general idea still further.
The idea which we wish to put before the House at this stage is that there should be a reduction of Income Tax by way of the exemption of a number of people at the lower end of the scale, without extending it to the higher end and certainly not to the top of the scale. This is an idea, I feel, with which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) would have some sympathy.
At any rate, we see several strong reasons for some move in this direction. First of all, we on this side of the House believe that, particularly in an inflationary period, there is a strong argument for shifting the burden of tax somewhat from personal incomes to the taxation of business profits. In an inflationary period there is a tendency all the time for the real incomes of individuals to fall and for business profits to rise, and that in itself is an argument in this direction.
Secondly, it seems to us—and this was an argument which I put forward in the article which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—that we are still collecting very small amounts of tax from a very large number of people. I still doubt whether it is worth the administrative trouble involved. The total revenue from Income Tax is now about £2,000 million. The total from Schedule E is only £500 million to £600 million. It is probably still true—and the Financial Secretary can say whether this is wrong—that from 5 million people, or about one-third of the Income Tax payers, we collect only about £40 million to £50 million. I should have thought that they could be given complete exemption with the loss of very little revenue and with the saving of a great deal of trouble. Does the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth wish to intervene?
§ Mr. Jay
—that I thought she was trying to make an interjection.
If she does not wish to intervene, I will rapidly make the third point of my argument, which is that both the minority and the majority of the Commission argued very strongly that, as a result of the fall in the value of money since before the war, the tax was continually pressing lower down than before and probably lower than Parliament had ever intended. The minority put it this way:In the first place, the starting point of liability is at a much lower level of real income than before the war.The majority of the Commission gave the actual figures—and this was two years ago since when, as we all know, the cost of living has risen considerably. They said that the single man with an earned income of £500 pays 11 per cent. of his income in tax. In 1938 conditions and at 1938 prices such a man could not have been expected to be earning more than £250, and at £250 on present tax rates he would pay less than 5 per cent. Therefore, there has been a considerable increase in the burden on the same real incomes of those at the lower end of the scale.
For all those reasons, it seems to me that even allowing, as I think the Financial Secretary has shown, that the drafting of this particular Clause is not perfect, there are still strong grounds for accepting this proposal, and I hope that the Chancellor will bear this in mind in any future Budget he may be contemplating—either before or during next April—and will seriously consider giving relief of this kind to the large number of taxpayers at the bottom end of the scale who are paying very small amounts.
§ Dame Irene Ward
I shall not detain the House very long, but I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a word about what I think the Government ought to do in relief of taxation for the small fixed income groups. I am very glad to be able to say straight away that, although it has not been my good fortune to have my proposals considered by the House, I am, nevertheless, delighted that an opportunity has arisen on which some 337 discussion at any rate of the plight of these people can take place.
I have listened with very great interest to what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has had to say. Of course, he has great charm in the presentation of his case. He has great clarity in explaining the reasons why he cannot do anything, but I noticed—and I want to put this on the record, and that is why I have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—that my right hon. Friend never gave any indication that he would consider whether anything could be done to help this section of the community. I must say that I took very great exception to that.
The recent expressions of opinion that have fallen from the lips of the Treasury Ministers have all been in the direction of saying that the stemming of inflation will, of course, bring greater benefits to these people than will anything else. Of course, in considering the general security and financial stability of the country, I would agree, but what I want to put on the record is that in at least two major speeches recently made in the country the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—both important, indeed the important, members of the Government—went out of their way to select, to mention and to emphasise the position of the small fixed income groups, and to give specific pledges that something would be done.
I can very well appreciate that from the point of view of the finance involved the methods that have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not necessarily commend themselves to my right hon. Friend. That I well understand, but what I want to know is what is going to be done. What is going to be done?
§ Dame Irene Ward
The hon. Gentleman says, "Do not trust the Tories." All I can say is that the Tories have done a great deal more for the small fixed income groups than have right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Believe me, I am not playing in the camp of the party opposite, because I think that they "pinched" this idea from me.
At this stage I have only one further comment to make on my right hon. 338 Friend's speech. He drew attention to the effect of the action that had been taken by the Chancellor in the last Budget. I was very pleased about that, but he failed to refer to the mean little trick that was coupled with the increase in the personal allowance, and that was the reduction of the band of taxable income from £100 to £60. That reduction made a tremendous difference to the small income groups.
I know that my right hon. Friend has on several occasions pointed out that the reason was that the Royal Commission had pointed out that the benefit of the level of Income Tax payment starting at a higher rate should not be carried on to the highest income groups. We accept that, of course. If it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to protect those living upon small fixed incomes and not to help those in the higher income groups, he could, of course, have put a ceiling at which that reduction from £100 to £60 came into force.
I say again that I think it was a very mean trick indeed. Of course, what happened was that all the people who had reasonable incomes got the benefit of the reduction of the standard rate of Income Tax, and the people having between, say, £250 and £500 got very little benefit at all because the benefit that they did get was offset by the reduction in this band of taxation.
I am waiting to hear from Treasury Ministers what they really are considering. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not just going to come down to the House and give all the reasons why he rejects the basic proposals of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, giving no constructive suggestions of his own. As I say, I do not want to go into this whole matter further tonight. I have noticed that the Economic Secretary is always referring nowadays to the speech which I made in which I said that I was going to take a hammer; I am going to take just one tiny hammer tonight—nothing will induce me to vote for my Government.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 217.327
|Division No. 258.]||AYES||[9.27 p.m|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Holmes, Horace|
|Albu, A. H.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Howell, Denis (All Saints)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hoy, J. H.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hubbard, T. F.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Baird, J.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Balfour, A.||Deer, G.||Hunter, A. E.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)||Delargy, H. J.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Benson, G.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Irving, S. (Dartford)|
|Beswick, F.||Dye, S.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Janner, B.|
|Blackburn, F.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Jeger, George (Goole)|
|Boardman, H.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Fernyhough, E.||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Fletcher, Eric||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Forman, J. C.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Kenyon, C.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Gibson, C. W.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Burke, W. A.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Lawson, G. M.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Grey, C. F.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hale, Leslie||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Logan, D. G.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hamilton, W. W.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Chapman, W. D.||Hannan, W.||MacColl, J. E.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||McInnes, J.|
|Clunie, J.||Hastings, S.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Coldrick, W.||Hayman, F. H.||McLeavy, Frank|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Herbison, Miss M.||Mahon, Simon|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hobson, C. R.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Holman, P.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Messer, Sir F.||Proctor, W. T.||Thornton, E.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Pryde, D. J.||Timmons, J.|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Randall, H. E.||Tomney, F.|
|Moody, A. S.||Rankin, John||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Mort, D. L.||Redhead, E. C.||Wade, D. W.|
|Moss, R.||Reid, William||Warbey, W. N.|
|Mulley, F. W.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Weitzman, D.|
|Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Oliver, G. H.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Oswald, T.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||West, D. G.|
|Owen, W. J.||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Padley, W. E.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Paget, R. T.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Sparks, J. A.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Steele, T.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Parker, J.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Parkin, B. T.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Plummer, Sir Leslie||Summerskitl, Rt. Hon. E.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Popplewell, E.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Thomas lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons|
|Probert, A. R.||Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Drayson, G. B.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Joseph, Sir Keith|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Duthie, W. S.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Kaberry, D.|
|Ashton, H.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Keegan, D.|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Kerby, Capt. H. B.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Errington, Sir Eric||Kerr, H. W.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Fell, A.||Kimball, M.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Fisher, Nigel||Kirk, P. M.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.||Lagden, G. W.|
|Barber, Anthony||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Foster, John||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Barter, John||Freeth, D. K.||Langford-Holt, J. A.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Leavey, J. A.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Gibson-Watt, D.||Leburn, W. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Glover, D.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Godber, J. B.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Gough, C. F. H.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Gower, H. R.||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Black, C. W.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.|
|Body, R. F.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Green, A.||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N. W.)||Mackie, J. H.(Galloway)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Braine, B. R.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hay, John||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)|
|Bryan, P.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Maddan, Martin|
|Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Campbell, Sir David||Hirst, Geoffrey||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Channon, H.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Marshall, Douglas|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hornby, R. P.||Mathew, R.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Maude, Angus|
|Cole, Norman||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Mawby, R. L.|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Howard, John (Test)||Medlicott, Sir Frank|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J.||Moore, Sir Thomas|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Cunningham, Knox||Hurd, A. R.||Neave, Airey|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hyde, Montgomery||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'eh)|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Iremonger, T. L.||Nield, Basil (Chester)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Russell, R. S.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Page, R. G.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Partridge, E.||Sharples, R. C.||Vosper, D. F.|
|Peyton, J. W. W.||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Pitt, Miss E. M.||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Pott, H. P.||Speir, R. M.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Stevens, Geoffrey||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Profumo, J. D.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)||Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Raikes, Sir Victor||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Rawlinson, Peter||Studholme, Sir Henry||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Redmayne, M.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Remnant, Hon. P.||Teeling, W.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Ridsdale, J. E.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Rippon, A. G. F.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Roper, Sir Harold||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Turner, H. F. L.||Mr. R. Thompson and|
|Mr. E. Wakefield.|
|Division No. 259.]||AYES||[10.12 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Grey, C. F.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Albu, A. H.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Hamilton, W. W.||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Hannan, W.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Parker, J.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hayman, F. H.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Popplewell, E.|
|Baird, J.||Herbison, Miss M.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Balfour, A.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Hobson, C. R.||Probert, A. R.|
|Benson, G.||Holman, P.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Beswick, F.||Holmes, Horace||Pryde, D. J.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Randall, H. E.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hoy, J. H.||Rankin, John|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hubbard, T. F.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Reid, William|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hunter, A. E.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Irving, S. (Dartford)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Burke, W. A.||Janner, B.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jeger, George (Goole)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Kenyon, C.||Steele, T.|
|Clunie, J.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Coldrick, W.||King, Dr. H. M.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Lawson, G. M.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Logan, D. G.||Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Thornton, E.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||MacColl, J. E.||Timmons, J.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||McInnes, J.||Tomney, F.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McLeavy, Frank||Warbey, W. N.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Weitzman, D.|
|Deer, G.||Mahon, Simon||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||West, D. G.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mellish, R. J.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Mikardo, Ian||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Dye, S.||Mitchison, G. R.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Moody, A. S.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mort, D. L.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Moss, R.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Mulley, F. W.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Oliver, G. H.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Forman, J. C.||Orbach, M.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Oswald, T.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Owen, W. J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Padley, W. E.||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Paget, R. T.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Bishop, F. P.||Corfield, Capt. F. V.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Black, C. W.||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Body, R. F.||Crouch, R. F.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Boothby, Sir Robert||Cunningham, Knox|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Bossom, Sir Alfred||Currie, G. B. H.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Dance, J. C. G.|
|Armstrong, G. W.||Boyle, Sir Edward||Davidson, Viscountess|
|Ashton, H.||Braine, B. R.||D'Ayigdor-Goldsmid, SirHenry|
|Atkins, H. E.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Deedes, W. F.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bryan, P.||Doughty, C. J. A.|
|Barber, Anthony||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Drayson, G. B.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Burden, F. F. A.||du Cann, E. D. L.|
|Barter, John||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.|
|Beamish, Mej. Tufton||Campbell, Sir David||Duthie, W. S.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Channon, H.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Chichester-Clark, R.||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Cole, Norman||Errington, Sir Eric|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Fell, A.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Kirk, P. M.||Pott, H. P.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lagden, G. W.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Foster, John||Lambert, Hon. G.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Freeth, D. K.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Leather, E. H. C.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Leavey, J. A.||Redmayne, M.|
|Glover, D.||Leburn, W. G.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Godber, J. B.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Gower, H. R.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Grant, W. (Woodside)||Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Longden, Gilbert||Russell, R. S.|
|Green, A.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Sharples, R. C.|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Shepherd, William|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Speir, R. M.|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Macmillan Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maddan, Martin||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Teeling, W.|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Hornby, R. P.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Mathew, R.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Maude, Angus||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Mawby, R. L.||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Vosper, D. F.|
|Hyde, Montgomery||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Nairn, D. L. S.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Neave, Airey||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Nicholls, Harmar||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Oakshott, H. D.||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Kaberry, D.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Keegan, D.||Page, R. G.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Partridge, E.||Mr. R. Thompson and|
|Kerr, H. W.||Paton, John||Mr. E. Wakefield.|
|Kimball, M.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|