§ In subsection (1) of Section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952, as amended (which relates to relief in respect of children), the amount of relief shall be increased from tax at the standard rate on one hundred pounds to tax at the standard rate on one hundred and twenty-five pounds.—([Mr. Jay.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ The Chairman
I think it would be convenient to the Committee if we took, at the same time, the proposed new Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lt.-Col. Bromley-Davenport) dealing with the allowance in respect of school fees.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)
On a point of order. From time to time, Sir Charles, you are good enough to make available to hon. and right hon. Members the details of those new Clauses and Amendments which are to be called and those which have been ruled out of order or will not be selected. For the last two or three years a rather agreeable and convenient custom has grown up of showing, at the Bar of the House, what Members have taken part in a debate and the nature of the business currently being taken.
I was wondering whether you would give consideration—and perhaps give your Ruling tomorrow, at the beginning of our proceedings—to the possibility of a list of future new Clauses and Amendments, marked as selected, not selected, or out of order, as the case may be—not too far ahead; perhaps for the following page of the Notice Paper, and so allowing for some flexibility—being put on the panel at the Bar in company with the other items. Many hon. and right hon. Members coming to our debates would often like to take part immediately, or make whatever arrangements they can subsequently.
§ The Chairman
I should be perfectly willing for a list to be displayed of new Clauses and Amendments which are out of order, because that is definite; but I should be very reluctant to have my selections put up, because I want to have a free hand to vary them from time to time. I am always willing to mark anyone's Notice Paper if he comes to me privately, but it is always subject to alteration. I should be reluctant to put up a notice showing my selections, because it might be that I should not call a new Clause or an Amendment previously selected. Anyway, it is not I who stick up notices.
§ Mr. Jay
The new Clause which I have moved is a simple one. It is designed to raise the ordinary child allowance for Income Tax purposes from £100 to £125. Within the field of tax relief hon. Members on this side of the Committee give very high priority to this proposal. I say "within the field of tax relief", because we should be in favour of giving help, at the same time, to other families below the Income Tax level—but it is not possible to discuss that question this afternoon.
There are two reasons why a strong case can be made out for this concession to the large family. First, it unquestionably gives relief where the need is greatest. We do not believe that all tax concessions should necessarily be confined to those with the lowest incomes, and this concession would give relief right up the scale, even including certain Surtax payers. Although the relief may legitimately be spread over a range of income in that way, we nevertheless feel that it should be concentrated where the need is greatest.
The second main argument for this greater allowance is that it would directly relieve the very substantial inequality which now exists, at any given level of nominal income before tax, between what we may call the single-earner household and the large family household, that is to say, the household with a few earners and 41 a number of dependants. Although we have often debated this point before, in the last few years, I am not sure whether, even now, people realise how great is the inequality of income after tax as between the family with many dependants and the family with a single earner or the couple, both earning.
To illustrate that point, I would remind the Committee that in France, for instance, Income Tax is calculated according to the number of individuals in the family. In its second Report the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income described the French system in this way:… in France not only are the incomes of husband and wife aggregated, but the incomes of children are included in the income of the family unit. The aggregate income is then divided into a number of parts according to the number of persons in the family and tax is charged separately on each part.For this purpose the child is counted as one half. Were we to adopt that system, it would mean a revolutionary change, to the advantage of the family and the disadvantage of the single earner. Though I would not advocate going so far as that, it would be possible, without going so far, to go a very long way from our present system.
To illustrate that, I have tried to make a calculation—taking the income per head after tax as the measure of the standard of living in the family—of what difference there is between the single man with an all-earned income, on the one hand, and a married man with a wife and three children at the same level of income, on the other.
It is always rather remarkable to me how this sum works out. If we take either £10 a week, £20 a week—which is approximately £1,000 a year—£2,000 a year, or £5,000 a year, we get this result. On the test of income per head in the household after paying tax, the single man, or, indeed, the single women, at any of those levels of income, is between four and four-and-a-half times better off, according to my arithmetic, than a man with a wife and three children.
The implication of that is that all our tax arrangements for helping the family—including family allowances which I have included in my arithmetic—mean that the single man, instead of being five times better off, is four-and-a-quarter or four-and-one-third times better off. 42 Therefore, we have not made quite so much difference as some people might suppose.
If we consider the difference between the £10 a week single man and the £2,000 a year single man, again, all earned income, and take their incomes after tax, it is rather remarkable that the £2,000 a year man is only about three-and-a-third times better off on the same test. That is to say, there is a wider gap between the single man and the man with a wife and three children at either of those levels of income as there is between the £10-a-week and the £2,000-a-year single men. That, briefly, illustrates the great inequalities at all levels between large and small families.
The other fact which the public, and perhaps this Committee, has not really realised is that this gap has very much widened since before the war, as a result—I think quite an accidental result—of the way in which Income Tax was raised during the war; the way in which it was, step by step, reduced after the war, and of the rise in the cost of living over those same years.
This is well brought out in the minority Report of the Royal Commission. It is a little complicated, but I think the point just worth making. The authors of the minority Report, and this is a matter of arithmetic, say, in page 73:Nevertheless we doubt whether, if it had not occurred as an automatic and silent consequence of the inflation, Parliament would have sanctioned some of the changes in the incidence of taxation that have, in fact, taken place—particularly as between people in different family circumstances. We doubt, for example, whether the needs of revenue could justify the fact that the married man with two children who before the war, on a pre-war income of £400 a year, paid an identical amount of tax as the single man at £150 a year and the married man with no children at £250 a year should now be asked to contribute, on the same real income, more than three times as much as the corresponding single man and one-and-a-half times as much as the married man.It is rather complicated, but the essential point is that, as a result of the rise in the cost of living, the gap between the two types of families has widened very considerably since before the war. The minority Report is right in saying that at no time has Parliament, or any Chancellor, deliberately decided that there should be this shift in the burden away from the bachelor or single earner over that period.
43 It is relevant to point out that the Commission's Report was published in 1954, and that since 1954 the cost of living, has, of course, risen very considerably, by about 2s. or 2s. 6d. in the £. The Financial Secretary may, quite legitimately, point out that since the Commission reported the Government—very properly, as we think—have raised the child allowance from £85, at which figure it then stood, to £100, which is the present figure, and we are proposing that it should be extended further. If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I ask him to bear in mind that there has been a substantial rise in the cost of living since the Commission reported two years ago.
In our view, this concession would go a long way to meet some of the legitimate complaints, not merely of those with low incomes and large families, but, also, some of those with middle and professional incomes. We hear a great deal of lamentation from hon. Members opposite, and there is a good deal in the Press, about the sad plight of what some hon. Members opposite call the "middle classes".
When they refer to the "middle classes," I am not sure whether hon. Gentleman opposite mean simply Surtax payers who, according to the figures, represent about 1 per cent. of the population. But if hon. Gentlemen opposite mean a wider range of the community than Surtax payers, I think that the proposal we are putting forward would go a long way to assist that group, who, among other types of people, have a good ground for asking relief on the argument of need.
I think it might legitimately be said that many of these people have already been greatly helped since pre-war days by the National Health Service, on one side, and by scholarships for sending their children to the universities, on the other. That is relevant to a discussion about relief by way of Income Tax. Nevertheless, they have a claim, and I think, also, that this is a better way of meeting it than the proposal of the Commission for higher child allowances as income rises, which seems to us to be going too far in giving a greater benefit at the higher levels of income. It is true that, even with this proposal, in this Clause the men or the families with the 44 highest income, since they are paying more tax, get greater benefit than those on a lower income.
I think that this is a legitimate concession to the "inequalitarian doctrine," if I may so call it. Otherwise it is impossible to make a shift at all as between small and large families in the middle levels of income. We feel that this is justified while, on the whole, we do not feel justified in going so far as the Commission proposed and paying higher allowances for higher incomes or—as hon. Members opposite propose in another new Clause which we shall have before us—that there should be an outright tax relief for expenditure on education.
Without going into that matter at length, it seems to me that the same argument holds against that as against the oft-made suggestion that there should be an Income Tax allowance for the cost of travelling to work. After all, if anyone chooses to spend more than his fellows on travelling to work, if he chooses to live at Brighton and to travel to London with a first-class season ticket every day, he is welcome to do so, but I do not think that he has any right to charge the cost of so doing to the Exchequer and to his fellow taxpayers. I suggest that exactly the same principle applies to Income Tax allowances for the man who, of his own free will, chooses to spend money on education.
For that reason, we could not accept that suggestion, but we commend the proposal in this Clause to increase the amount of the allowance as fair and reasonable.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)
Am I in order, Sir Charles, in now moving my proposed new Clause now?
§ The Chairman
I am not asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to move his Clause. He can put his case for it, but the Clause will not be selected when it is reached.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
The object of my excellent new Clause, "Allowance in respect of school fees," is to provide a tax rebate for those who educate their own children at their own expense instead of sending them to the State schools to be educated at the expense of their fellow taxpayers. A great many Members of this Committee pay lip-service to the plight of the middle classes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone a long way to help them in his excellent proposals this year by enabling certain sections of the community, those who are self-employed, to provide for their own pensions, but that is not enough. Here is an opportunity for him to help all those people who, despite penal taxation, provide out of their own pockets and at great personal sacrifice for the education of their children.
If the proposal in my new Clause were accepted it would benefit everybody, including children who go to the State schools. The number of children at State schools continues to increase, and is not expected to fall till 1958, I understand. The magnificent building record of Conservative Governments is known to all, but despite the immense number of buildings that have been put up and the number reconditioned, we have not yet caught up with requirements. There are not enough State schools or enough State classrooms. Therefore, there are too many children in each class. It follows that the more people we can encourage to pay for their children's education and who can afford to do so, the better.
The number of children whose education is paid for by their parents is 500,000 while, according to the latest figures I have been able to obtain, those for 1954, the number of children attending State schools is 6,795,260. For the benefit of those hon. Gentlemen who could not work out the sum, or get it right even if they tried, may I say that the proportion works out that one child in 14 has its education paid for by its parents?
The object of the exercise embodied in my proposed new Clause is to encourage people, despite penal taxation and the increased cost of private and public schools, to continue to send them there. The second object is to encourage others to do so who can afford it. If we could accomplish these objects we should improve conditions in the State schools by 46 relieving the burden there, and the children at State schools would get a better education. Children who attend public schools would likewise benefit.
How are we to accomplish this object? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), in his charming and accurate way, replied to a Question put by one of my hon. Friends. He stated that the total expenditure per child from rates and taxes combined, over the whole education service from 1954 to 1955, was roughly £60. Therefore, in framing my proposed new Clause I suggest that the Income Tax authorities should be able to deduct a sum up to that figure in respect of school fees.
The middle classes deserve a break before their backs are broken. All Chancellors have done a lot for the wage earners in recent years by way of tax reduction. In 1955, nearly 2½ million of the lower Income Tax range received total exemption from Income Tax. Since October, 1951, prices have gone up 20 per cent., but wage rates have gone up 32 per cent. How many salaries have gone up as much as that? Insurance benefits and National Assistance scales have gone up, but the middle-class people are the sitting pheasants. They cannot strike; they go struggling on. They are the first class of people I propose will be helped by my new Clause.
There is another type, which I should like to call "the new rich". My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) referred in the Budget debate to council houses, into which it was known that as much as £40 to £50 was going in a week. We have only to look at the cars, and the television masts over the top of the houses, to realise that there may be some truth in that statement. To reinforce it there was an excellent article in the Sunday Times last Sunday. In describing the new towns, the newspaper said that the average family spent between £5 and £8 a week on beer, gambling and cigarettes.
Surely that money is literally frittered away. I am sure that a large number of these people have never thought or considered saving to pay for their children's education. They are accustomed to believing that, from the cradle to the grave, the State will provide everything.
47 My new Clause would provide an excellent incentive to such people to save money and to provide their children with better education. Children at the State schools would also benefit, because there would be more room and smaller classes there.
There is a third section of our public that my new Clause would help, the public schools themselves. I do not wish to raise a party question here, but how often has it been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that their ultimate objective is to destroy capitalism? Whether they succeed or not, if taxes go on increasing and the cost of living continues to go up, the public schools will end altogether, and that would be a national disaster. The middle class is the sitting pheasant. It sits at the top of a high tree in the covert, and successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have been unsporting enough to go on firing at it. They have very nearly killed it.
The middle class has to stint and economise for its children, and will go on doing so, even though forced to sell its homes and spend its savings, and, indeed, lose its independence. Some have been obliged to send their children to State schools as a result. [Laughter.] I do not want to disturb hon. Gentlemen opposite too much, but if they want to shout will they please shout later. Some middle-class people object to being obliged to send their children to State schools. That may be good Socialism, but it is bad Conservatism. These people do not want to batten or depend in any way upon the Welfare State, because the essence of their outlook is independence and responsibility. That is the outlook of the Conservative Party, and both are being destroyed by high taxation.
For the third time I am going to talk about the sitting pheasant. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is well known as one of the finest shots in England. If he shoots at this bird, it will have "had it." I ask him to help this unfortunate class of people in every way he can. However much hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, one thing is certain. If the middle classes are destroyed that will be a disastrous day for England, so please do something more to help them.
§ Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)
I think that all of us on this side of the Com- 48 mittee enjoy the class prejudice of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport). At any rate, we know exactly where we stand when he is speaking and there is no doubt what he stands for.
I must say I was slightly surprised at his definition of the middle class because, according to that, it consists of those people who send their children to fee-paying schools and, again according to the definition of the hon. and gallant Member, it amounts to 7 per cent. of the population. There have been a large number of attempts at defining the class structure of this very complicated country. There are economic, sociological and other definitions, but I do not think that anyone has ever reduced the middle class to a total of 7 per cent. of the whole population. If we want to include what generally are called the middle class, we find that the great majority of them send their children to State schools.
Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Member made a clear plea for tax reliefs for the wealthier members of the community. His speech contained some very strange logic indeed. It is well known that our State school system is not yet good enough by any means. The number of children per teacher in State schools, including many of the grammar schools I regret to say, is still too high. That cannot be said of fee-paying schools, where the number is very much lower. If we were to give tax relief to those who send their children to fee-paying schools we should be attracting the limited number of resources from the State schools and putting them in the fee-paying schools.
The same argument has been used by hon. Members opposite about the National Health Service. The more that is spent on private medical attention the less is there available for the 90 per cent. or so of the population who benefit from the National Health Service. We on this side of the Committee would rather see what is taking place in regard to the National Health Service take place in regard to education. There is no doubt that the middle classes, in whom the hon. and gallant Member is so interested, are becoming more and more interested in a better health service. The more of them who send their children to the ordinary State schools—secondary-modern, 49 technical and grammar schools—the more we shall have for a better State education service. I feel than any such attempt to give an advantage to those who wish to pay fees for the education of their children would be against the whole development of our society in recent years and against the best development of our educational system.
I am not pretending that our educational system is good enough—there is no country in the world in which it is—but I do not want to see tax relief given which would have the effect of acting as a deterrent to the general system of education from which, on the figures of the hon. and gallant Member, 93 per cent. of the children of the country benefit. Therefore, I am glad that the new Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member is not being called and will not be voted upon. I rather imagine that, in spite of his well-known courage, moral and physical, the hon. and gallant Member would find it extremely difficult to carry himself or any of his hon. Friends into the Lobby if it had been called.
I prefer to support the new Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which deals with his well-known personal interest in large families. On nearly every previous occasion my right hon. Friend has declared his personal interest in this matter and I do not think that hon. Members will desire him to do so again today. I do not propose to redeploy the whole argument put forward by my right hon. Friend, particularly the very startling figures he gave about the change in the relationship of a taxpayer with a large family and a taxpayer with no family.
As my right hon. Friend said, the change which has taken place since the war merely because of the fall in the value of money and the incidence of taxation was never intended by any Chancellor to have this effect. Whether we are dealing with taxation, wages or general family incomes, it is always the large family which suffers at present. If one compares the large family with the standard of living which can be enjoyed by even young persons before they are married, and before National Service is done, with that of bachelors and unmarried people after National Service, or married persons without children, especially married persons when both the 50 husband and the wife are working, one sees that the level of the standard of living for similar jobs and incomes is extraordinarily inconsistent.
In my opinion, we have not done nearly enough to assist the family. Of course, that is particularly important during the time when children are growing up and expenses are high. When children are grown up both parents can work and expenses become lower. I am certain there is a case for an increased tax relief and, although I would be out of order if I pursued it at length, I think there is a case for increased family allowances for those with large families. I support the new Clause and I hope the Chancellor will never open his ears to his hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that he should take his eye off the pheasant for a moment.
§ Mr. Angus Maude (Ealing, South)
I do not propose to detain the Committee for very long, and probably I would not have spoken had it not been for something said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Discussing the need for an increased family allowance, he rightly pointed out that there was an alternative to his proposal to increase the flat rate of allowance—the proposal of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, to substitute a graduated percentage child allowance up to a maximum level on an income of, perhaps, £1,500 or £2,000 a year.
In my view, the right hon. Member dismissed that somewhat cursorily on no better grounds than that it seemed to him and to his hon. Friends to be unegalitarian which, of course, in some ways it is. I do not dissent from most of what the right hon. Member said about the very considerable need for some improvement in the system of child allowances for Income Tax. There is no question, as he said, that the position of married couples with medium or large families has considerably deteriorated compared with the pre-war position vis-à-vis the unmarried and childless.
I would, however, ask my right hon. Friend to believe that many of us do not consider that the proposal of the majority of the Royal Commission can be dismissed nearly so cursorily as the right hon. Member suggested, because it 51 has innumerable advantages over this proposal. First, there is the fact that it is a much more satisfactory system in a time of rising incomes than a flat rate system. If the cost of living were to continue to rise and wages and salaries were to rise, however slowly or unevenly, with it, in order to maintain the position of large families every Government would have to increase the flat rate of the child allowance continually to keep the heads of large families above water.
It will be obvious that a percentage allowance would not have that disadvantage because it would retain the relative position of the large family as income increased with the cost of living. There is also the advantage that it would do what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was seeking and much more. I have never been able to agree with him and certain other hon. Friends who want to give a rebate to parents who send their children to independent schools, not because I do not sympathise with their motive, but because I see great difficulties in principle and practice.
I am not attracted by the idea of allowing people to be compensated in cash for contracting out of the social services. I see great difficulties because the precedent could be applied to the National Health Service and a number of other services. Furthermore, I think it is extraordinarily difficult to get a figure of the rebate which would bear any relation to the proportion of a man's tax which did, in fact, go towards the education budget of the country. The percentage increase has the very great advantage that it recognises the plain fact that the expenses of rearing children, including the cost of their education, rise rapidly with income up to somewhere about the middle range, let us say, £2,000 a year. That is to say, it is a human and psychological fact that parents do tend to spend roughly a constant proportion of their incomes on their children, and that, if their income increases, they tend to spend rather more on their children—in housing, holidays, education, clothing and a number of other respects.
The percentage children's allowance, of course, enables the man who prefers to send his son or daughter to a grammar 52 school, rather than to pay fees at an independent school, to use the money he saves in order to save for a university, for sending the child abroad, for professional training, and so forth. It gives precisely the sort of free choice in expenditure which I should have thought a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer might well wish to encourage.
I believe that this suggestion now has the support of two Royal Commissions, not merely the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, but also the Royal Commission on Population, in 1949, of which I believe the wife of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was a member, and, I believe, dissented from that recommendation in the minority Report. In 1949, the proposal had not been very well thought out or refined, and the proposal of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income seemed to me to be very much better. It placed a maximum limit at an income of, I think, £1,500 or £2,000, so that incomes above that would receive the percentage children's allowance at the maximum rate and no more.
This is a direction in which my right hon. Friend might well turn in subsequent years, when we hope that he will feel able, in the then economic circumstances, to give some benefits to those people of middle incomes and parents of large families who, as I think everybody in the Committee will agree, are finding life particularly difficult at present. I hope that he will not allow himself to be deterred from it by the somewhat summary rejection of the Royal Commission's recommendation by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
§ Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)
I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be embarrassed if members of the Opposition urge him to resist the proposals made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport). At the same time, I would urge him to give careful consideration to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said from the Opposition Front Bench about the new Clause which he moved, and with which I am in complete sympathy.
I rise to urge the Chancellor, whatever else he does in this Finance Bill, not to 53 accept the proposal to subsidise the children of middle-class parents who seek to buy their children out of State education. When I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford, I was appalled at the practical demonstration in his speech of the survival of class warfare in this country even in these enlightened days.
Anyone who can object to someone earning £40 a week merely because he is a worker, or to £40 a week going into a home merely because it is a working-class home, anyone who can assume that the only person who is likely to spend one-fifth of his income on beer and tobacco is a member of the working classes, ought to remember that he comes to this House, in the last resort, by the votes of hundreds of ordinary respectable, decent working-class people in his own constituency.
To divide the people of England into these two groups, and to assume that all working-class families are getting £40 a week today, and that all working-class people fritter away their incomes, while all middle-class people prudently save theirs, is a lamentable, class-ridden picture of the community, which is, in fact, vastly different from that. May I say, too, that the withers of hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not wrung when the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford claims to suggest that one of the hardships among some middle-class people is that they are now being compelled to send their children to State schools?
His proposal was a narrow one. He sought to give, for some children in the country between the ages of five and 15, a tax relief to the parents of £60, which would mean between £30 and £50, according to the income of the parents, as a contribution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the school fees of those children, and this in a country which has to provide under the 1944 Act an efficient primary education and an efficient secondary education for all our children.
If, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, what the State is providing for all children, including some of these children of the middle classes, is not the best, then it ought to be. If State education has lagged behind the best private education, it has only lagged behind because some parents have wilfully with- 54 drawn their children from the State schools, and have then continued, as governors, in Parliament, in local authorities, as local government officers and in the Civil Service, to run the schools for somebody else's children.
I should like to say this to the members of the middle classes. Already the best State schools are approaching some of the best private schools in the education which they provide for children; already the best State schools are much better than the worst private schools. If the Chancellor were to give this tax concession, he would in fact be bribing some of the middle classes to hurt their children by sending them, in some cases, to schools which are inferior to the State schools, from which they seek to exclude them.
It may or may not be common ground between both sides of the Committee that we do not wish rapidly and revolutionarily to destroy the class system of education. I am not sure whether I would include myself in that common view. But most people hope that class education will wither away as we build up the State schools until they have achieved complete parity with other schools. At any rate, I would have thought that it was common ground between both sides of the Committee that, while we do not proceed revolutionarily to tear up the present class structure of education, we certainly would not wish, by tax concessions, to bolster it up. If the Chancellor has the amount of money which is involved in the new Clause moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and wishes to spend it, I suggest that he could spend it much more effectively and efficiently on the State schools.
Some day, we shall end the anomaly by which this country, alone in the world, divides children up from birth and sends them to two different sets of schools for their education. We have done that as far as the Health Service is concerned, and, even in the days when some people could buy medical attention and surgical treatment, and when some people were deprived of it, nobody had the impertinence to ask this House for an Income Tax concession to enable them to purchase privileges in health. I hope that, whatever else the Chancellor does during this Committee stage, he will resist the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
I should like to support both the proposals before the Committee in principle, although, in view of the financial stringency of the times, I support neither in fact. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, when my right hon. Friend feels able to be more generous, he will look at both proposals.
First, I am attracted towards the new Clause which suggests larger child allowances for the reasons which have been deployed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude); but I am also attracted by the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), for I proposed such a new Clause as his some years ago.
I do not take the view taken by hon. Members opposite, notably the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and Itchen (Dr. King), that it is inherently wrong that a parent should spend money on obtaining a better education for his children. We pay people differently according to their work, and the money which they are given should buy valuable things.
The idea that differentials should be expendable only on champagne and caviare is too ridiculous. If that is so, parents who spend their money on the education of their children are performing a public service. It is not simply a question of what is the best kind of education; in a country like this there ought to be room for a great many opinions on what is the best kind of education. If there were not conflicting opinions on a great variety of prescriptions, we should lose all the advantage which a nation derives from conflicting ideas worked out in practice.
I therefore want to see private schools encouraged for precisely the opposite reasons to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South—because I am attracted by the idea of people being compensated in cash for contracting out of a social service.
As the social services expand in their scope and their weight on the community, we cannot indefinitely avoid facing this issue. If people are to enjoy the freedom in which we believe in the disposition of 56 their resources, is it not illogical that a parent who decides to give his child a much more expensive form of education, whether it be better or not, should also by law be compelled to pay fully for the less expensive form which he is not using?
I tried to draft an Amendment to deal with this matter some years ago and I therefore know that there are difficulties, technical and political; but I believe that they ought to be and can be overcome, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, not this year, which is one of financial stringency, but at some time in the future, will courageously face this controversial issue, which is far more important to the welfare of the country than many people imagine, and will not only give larger child allowances, which I think are entirely justified, as soon as we can afford them, but will also try to help those who happen not to like the particular prescription of education which the State prescribes and wish, at their own expense, to give their children another kind.
§ Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)
I do not think it necessary at this stage to argue the necessity for giving some kind of assistance to those with large families. Unfortunately, the fact that we are now dealing with a new Clause on Income Tax rules out those people with the largest families and to whom the greatest help should be given, because these are precisely the people who are not fortunate enough to pay Income Tax. Thus, one whole range of people who ought to be compensated cannot be discussed. If any amelioration were to be given, I would rather it were given in the form of family allowances to the first child or increased family allowances to the other children than in the way suggested in the new Clause.
Nevertheless, we are rigidly confined to discussing whether it is right that people with large families should be given an extra relief from Income Tax of £25 per child, and I think that the case for accepting that proposition has been made out completely. Perhaps I may for a moment deal with the case made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), who is no longer in his place. His proposals, supported by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell), were completely unacceptable politically 57 to hon. Members on this side of the Committee and, I think, to many of his own supporters. We cannot put back fifty years of history by a new Clause of this kind—and that is precisely what hon. Members opposite seek.
Socially, too, the proposals are completely undesirable. They lead away from the kind of society which we have been trying to create over the past hundred or fifty years, and even more rapidly over the past ten years. Educationally, we could argue which system is better, but, even so, I think the proposals to give a subsidy to parents sending their children to private schools are educationally undesirable. The remedy lies in their own hands; whether they send them there is their own choice. If they are straining themselves beyond endurance to do it there is a simple remedy—not to send their children there. I am certain that what the State schools offer in education today is the equivalent of anything but that offered by the top public schools.
For these reasons—political, social and educational—the Chancellor should resist the proposals made to him by his hon. Friends. If he has any spare cash, which I doubt—and which, in view of the statement we may have later this week, he probably doubts, too—he could better spend it by stopping the cuts which are pending in the building of State schools rather than by giving a subsidy to keep many schools in existence which on educational grounds ought not to be in existence. Since the war, many private schools have come into existence—
§ Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)
The hon. Gentleman has used the word "subsidy" once or twice. Would he regard it as a subsidy to ensure that a parent pays only once and not twice for education?
§ Mr. Chetwynd
The choice is freely his. The State schools are there for his children if he wishes to use them. The National Health Service is there if he wants to use it. This also applies to religious schools.
If we accepted such a new Clause as the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford's we should open the door very wide, and I do not think it wise to do so. I believe that some hon. Members opposite do not think it wise either, and I hope that the Chancellor will not support it. I ask him to give favourable consideration to the proposal put forward by my 58 right hon. Friend, in the new Clause before the Committee, as the only practical method we have at present of giving assistance to those who are in considerable need of assistance.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan)
It would perhaps be wise to say at the beginning of my speech that I shall not find it part of my duty to recommend the Committee to accept either new Clause. That is not because of any lack of sympathy with the broad thought which lies behind these proposals; that is, that, as things have worked out, the larger families carry rather a heavier strain and the heads of those families carry a burden greater in proportion than they did in the old days—greater, perhaps, than the single man of the same position or with the same income.
Nevertheless, it would be fair to say—as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) knows—that there have been a number of moves in this direction in recent years. The child allowance for Income Tax stood at £70 when we took office. It was increased by my predecessor to £85 and was then further increased to £100. There are strong arguments that it would be desirable to make a further increase, and it would certainly be very agreeable to me as Chancellor if I were able to recommend an increase on this or some future occasion. Nevertheless, since I am not going to recommend the Committee to do so, I should like to take advantage of the very admirable debate that we have had and deal with the important question which has been raised as to whether this is precisely the right method, even as suggested in the first proposed new Clause.
As the Committee knows, the Royal Commission put forward a slightly different plan, for which a strong and powerful plea has been made. It is a matter of balance. It needs considerable thought. But even though, unfortunately, I am not this year able to recommend acceptance of an Amendment costing the Revenue so large a sum, I am at any rate in a position still to consider, as regards the future, whether this method of a direct increase of the flat rate, in which we have followed successive Governments in the past, is the best way, or whether some variation, as recommended by the Commission, would be the better approach.
59 If this new Clause were accepted, it would cost £26 million in the first year and £32 million in a full year. That would not be in tune with the general purpose of the Budget. As I have said of other new Clauses, I felt it right to recommend to the Committee to accept an increase in taxation and an increase in the probable Budget surplus; that was for reasons which were well known to hon. Members and which were broadly applauded by economic opinion on both sides of the Committee. I thought it right to fortify the Revenue both in indirect and in direct taxation.
The only remissions which I was able to recommend were in the form of those closely associated with the stimulation of saving. Everybody felt that the increase of saving was one of the finest methods we had for dealing with our present difficulties. I was able to recommend remissions, but always within that sphere. I felt that, if I went outside it, I should lay myself open to various suggestions one after another, which would make the whole position of the Budget untenable.
Nevertheless, I would point out, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was good enough to mention, that in respect of what are called the middle classes—I detest the expression; I refer to the people whose incomes are of a moderate kind—proposals concerning the self-employed and the professional men have met with generous support from both sides of the Committee. Therefore, even in that respect we have been able, even in this Budget, to do something of particular value to assist a section of the so-called middle or professional classes.
I would also point out, which I think it is only fair to do, that in recent years quite considerable reductions in tax have been made in this range. For instance, the tax paid by a married man with an earned income of £2,000 a year and with two children has been reduced by £133 since 1951. If his income is £3,000 a year his tax has been reduced by £185. Further down the scale, however, a man with a salary of £1,000 a year has had his tax halved. It was £167 in 1951 and it is now £85. For someone earning £700 a year the reduction has been much more spectacular; it has decreased from £57 to £17.
§ Mr. Macmillan
I do not wish to be drawn into such issues. We are having an important debate on matters affecting our children.
I was saying that in this range a man earning £2,000 a year has had his tax reduced by £133; a man earning £3,000 a year has had a tax reduction of £185; a man with £1,000 a year has had his tax halved, and that if a man has £700 a year his tax has fallen from £57 to £17. The married man with two children who earned £11 a week and who paid £27 10s. under the former Administration now pays nothing at all. Therefore, I feel that it is quite unfair to say that nothing has been done. Very substantial reductions have been made in this middle class of income.
Nevertheless, we all have every sympathy with the difficulties with which they are faced, and if I may deal with this part of the matter first, I would just say this. I do not want to get drawn into the relative advantages of different forms of education in this country. I think that there are great advantages in variation. I certainly do not think that this ought to be, or is, a party question. Certainly, if we follow practice rather than principle, I observe that the public schools are very well represented among the party opposite.
I do not think that the reasons parents wish to send their children to schools which they attended themselves are ignoble reasons—not at all. I think that such people make great efforts to obtain for their children something which they value. It is often not only the teaching itself which they value. They value something which they think those schools give—tradition and even training of character which, to them, is important. It is a moving and not a laughable matter that many people, as we all know, make great efforts and deprive themselves of a great deal in order to carry on a tradition which in many cases has gone on through many generations and has brought to this 61 country in every field of endeavour great service and glory.
What I ask myself is whether this method of assisting them as proposed in the new Clause is the right one. I feel that if, when the time comes, we can move into a position in which some of our surplus can be given back to the people who produced it, to the taxpayers, we must choose the best method. I rather doubt whether the method which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes is really the right one. I think that there are other methods of achieving the same thing which would avoid some of the difficulties. I think that most of us, whatever our views—and, of course, we do get keen partisan views—feel that in this form of education to which my hon. Friends have referred there is something very precious to the country, and it would be a pity to prejudice it by bringing it into the field of bitter or partisan discussion.
I now return to the facts of the main new Clause. We raised the Income Tax allowance twice, in 1952 and again last year. I cannot accept a cost of some £26 million this year and £32 million in a full year at this stage. I think, however, that the discussion which we have had has been very valuable, and will certainly give me or any future Chancellor a great deal of useful guidance.
There is one thing that I would add. As we have taken such a lot of people out of Income Tax altogether, I am not at all sure that in a year of stress this proposal is the best method of approach. It is for that reason that in a Budget even where I had to increase direct taxation and indirect taxation we have done two other things which it is only fair should be taken into account. We took
§ two measures, the first relating to family allowances, which I think is generally welcomed, raising to 18 the age at which the family allowance of 8s. a week will continue if children remain at school or are apprenticed. That is something which ought to be taken into account, for it is helpful. And I have, of course, made a small addition, but still a notable one, in view of the year in which it is given, to the family allowance scale for the third child.
§ Taking account of the valuable discussion we have had on this whole subject of the family and the children, I would ask the Committee to appreciate that in this year I could not accept the proposed new Clause.
§ Mr. Jay
I agree with the Chancellor in rejecting the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), and I agree with certain other things that he said. It is, of course, true that a series of increases in the child allowance has been made ever since the war. Our complaint today is that, although certain things have been done, what has been done is not yet enough. I think that it is relevant, when the Chancellor points out the increase in the allowance since 1951, to remind him that there has been a rise in the cost of living of about 4s. 6d. in the £ since that year. That is extremely relevant to this problem.
However, it is mainly to encourage the Chancellor to act on this new Clause next year, if he will not do so this year, that I advise my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 248.65
|Division No. 230.]||AYES||[4.51 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Boyd, T. C.||Cronin, J. D.|
|Albu, A. H.||Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Grossman, R. H. S.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Brockway, A. F.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Deer, G.|
|Anderson, Frank||Brown, Thomas (Ince)||de Freitas, Geoffrey|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Delargy, H. J.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Dodds, N. N.|
|Benson, G.||Callaghan, L. J.||Donnelly, D. L.|
|Beswick, F.||Chapman, W. D.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)|
|Blackburn, F.||Chetwynd, G. R.||Dye, S.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Clunie, J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Coldrick, W.||Edelman, M.|
|Boardman, H.||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Cove, W. G.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||King, Dr. H. M.||Reid, William|
|Fienburgh, W.||Lawson, G. M.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Finch, H. J.||Lewis, Arthur||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Lindgren, G. S.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Logan, D. G.||Ross, William|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Royle, C.|
|Greenwood, Anthony||McGhee, H. G.||Short, E. W.|
|Grey, C. F.||McInnes, J.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||McLeavy, Frank||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Mahon, Simon||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Grimmond, J.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Hale, Leslie||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Snow, J. W.|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Hannan, W.||Mason, Roy||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Mayhew, C. P.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Hastings, S.||Messer, Sir F.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mikardo, Ian||Summerskill, R. Hon. E.|
|Healey, Denis||Mitchison, G. R.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Monslow, W.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Moody, A. S.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)||Tomney, F.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Moyle, A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Holman, P.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Weitzman, D.|
|Holmes, Horace||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Holt, A. F.||Oliver, G. H.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Oram, A. E.||West, D. G.|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Orbach, M.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Oswald, T.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Owen, W. J.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Hunter, A. E.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Irving, S. (Dartford)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Janner, B.||Parkin, B. T.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Paton, John||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Pearson, A.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)||Peart, T. F.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Woof, R. E.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creeoh (Wakefield)||Probert, A. R.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Proctor, W. T.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Pryde, D. J.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Randall, H. E.|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Rankin, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Kenyon, C.||Redhead, E. C.||Mr. J. Taylor and|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Reeves, J.||Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Erroll, F. J.|
|Alport, C J. M.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Farey-Jones, F. W.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Campbell, Sir David||Fell, A.|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Carr, Robert||Finlay, Graeme|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Channon, H.||Fort, R.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Cole, Norman||Freeth, D. K.|
|Armstrong, C W.||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Gammans, Sir David|
|Ashton, H.||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert||George, J. C. (Pollok)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Gibson-Watt, D.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Glover, D.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Godber, J. B.|
|Balniel, Lord||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Gough, C. F. H.|
|Banks, Col. C.||Crouch, R. F.||Gower, H. R.|
|Barber, Anthony||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Barter, John||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Grant, W. (Woodside)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Cunningham, Knox||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Currie, G. B. H.||Green, A.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Dance, J. C. G.||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Davidson, Viscountess||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Deedes, W. F.||Gurden, Harold|
|Bishop, F. P.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Black, C. W.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.|
|Body, R. F.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||du Cann, E. D. L.||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Bossom, Sir A. C.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Braine, B. R.||Duthie, W. S.||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Hay, John|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Errington, Sir Eric||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||McKibbin, A. J.||Robertson, Sir David|
|Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||Sharpies, R. C.|
|Hope, Lord John||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Shepherd, William|
|Hornby, R. P.||Madden, Martin||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Speir, R. M.|
|Howard, John (Test)||Marples, A. E.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Marshall, Douglas||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Mathew, R.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Maude, Angus||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.||Mawby, R. L.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Nairn, D. L. S.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Keegan, D.||Neave, Alrey||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Touche, Sir Gordon|
|Kerr, H. W.||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Kimball, M.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Kirk, P. M.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Lagden, G. W.||Oakshott, H. D.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Vickers, Miss J. H.|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Leather, E. H. C.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Leavey, J. A.||Osborne, C.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Page, R. G.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Peyton, J. W. W.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Powell, J. Enoch||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Wills, C. (Bridgwater)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Profumo, J. D.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.||Raikes, Sir Victor||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Ramsden, J. E.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Redmayne, M.|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Rees-Davies, W. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|McAdden, S. J.||Remnant, Hon. P.||Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.|
|Renton, D. L. M.|