HC Deb 26 June 1956 vol 555 cc279-95

(1) In relation to a claimant to whom this section applies, section two hundred and nineteen of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which provides for relief in respect of certain insurance premiums and similar payments) shall have effect with the substitution for "two-fifths", wherever that word occurs in that section, of "two-thirds".

(2) This section applies to any claimant, who satisfies the following conditions, that is to say that

  1. (a) the said section two hundred and nineteen applies to him;
  2. (b) he is not entitled to, or elects not to claim, any relief under section eighteen of this Act; and
  3. (c) three-quarters or more of his income chargeable to tax for the year of assessment in question consists of relevant earnings for the purposes of Part III of this Act.—[Mr. Gordon Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This new Clause has a very respectable ancestry and we move it with very serious intent. I hope the Financial Secretary, who, I gather, is to reply, will give it very careful consideration.

He will be aware, as will the Committee, that the new Clause puts into legal words the views of two people who dissented from the Millard Tucker Report and put in a written dissent—Mr. Woodcock and Sir John Cater. It also represents the views of the minority of the Royal Commission on The Taxation of Profits and Income on this matter.

Both those two bodies of people drew a clear distinction between self-employed people, on the one hand, and non-pensioned employees, on the other hand, and the minority of the Royal Commission drew a sharp distinction between those taxed under Schedule D, with the exception of those under Case II, and those taxed under Schedule E. The dissenters to the Millard Tucker Report and the minority of the Royal Commission both drew a very clear distinction in respect of tax relief on premiums for annuities between self-employed people and others, on the ground that self-employed people were not suited to the normal pension arrangements which exist under various Acts which give benefits to those schemes.

First, their remuneration is not under contract of service and is, therefore, not predictable in the way that an employee's remuneration is predictable. Secondly, most self-employed people have no regular retiring age, as have employed people. Very often they have capital resources which make it less necessary for them to make provision for their old age. This applies particularly to controlling directors who, by definition, must be people with capital resources.

In this class of self-employed people, particularly outside Case II, we find the most massive tax avoidance. We also find that they are in a position to make the greatest additions to their spending income, as distinct from their taxable income, either by expense allowances for entertainment or by direct capital gains. For that reason both Mr. Woodcock and Sir John Cater, on the one hand, and the minority of the Royal Commission, on the other hand, rejected the Millard Tucker proposals in respect of these pensions for self-employed people.

But Mr. Woodcock and Sir John Cater said—and this point is embodied in our new Clause—that the high taxation which has lasted for a very long time has operated in one respect to the disadvantage of self-employed people and non-pensioned employees as against pensioned employees. As they pointed out in their dissenting note, the effective value of the existing tax relief on life insurance premiums under the present law works to the disadvantage of self-employed people and non-pensioned employees. The limitation of the allowable premiums to two-fifths is unfair, under the very high taxation which now prevails, to self-employed people and non-pensioned employees.

As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, they suggest that the right way to deal with this is to raise from two-fifths to two-thirds the limitation which is allowed for tax relief on premiums, of course under the existing restrictions of the law, but add that this new concession should be limited to self-employed people and non-pensioned employees.

This would be by far the simplest way of doing justice to those people who have not the same advantages as have employees who belong to a proper pensions scheme. It is far simpler than the Millard Tucker proposals and the proposals embodied in Part III of the Bill. Incidentally, it would avoid many of the problems which arise as a result of the Government's adoption of the main Millard Tucker proposals. For instance, the discrimination which they have been compelled to introduce between 1922 Act schemes and 1947 Act schemes—one of the major anomalies in Part III of the Bill, which may lead to very considerable switching, we have been told—would have been avoided if the very simple proposal of the minority of the Royal Commission and the two dissentients to the Millard Tucker Committee Report had been adopted.

This ought to please hon. Members opposite who spoke in the debates on Part III: it would provide a tax-free lump sum in a perfectly acceptable form and under proper conditions, which is one of the things for which they argued. Under a superannuation scheme of this kind the lump sum is equal only to the actuarial value to which the person paying the premiums is entitled, and this lump sum is not paid out of a tax-free build-up, which is the principal argument against tax-free lump sums under the 1947 Act schemes.

In very many cases there is little doubt that the proposal embodied in our new Clause would prove much more attractive to people who want to make provision for their old age and who cannot do so under the present system because they are not in a pension scheme. As one of their main objectives, they want to provide for their widows and children, and they could do so more easily and satisfactorily under a superannuation scheme of this kind, which now receives tax relief up to two-fifths, than by the new proposals in the Finance Bill. This Clause would not only be much simpler but, I am sure, would prove more attractive to a great many people who are more concerned to provide security for their widows and children than to have large annuities for themselves during their own lives.

For that reason we prefer our new Clause to the whole of Part III of the Bill, although that is no longer in question because we have disposed of it. Nevertheless, we still put forward our new Clause very strongly as a desirable alternative which should be offered to people—obviously an exclusive alternative, for one would not be able to opt to enjoy both the benefits given under Part III and those given under the new Clause, as is made clear in the Clause.

We suggest it as a very serious contribution to a very difficult problem. It would simplify the position and be more just to adopt our Clause as an alternative to the various provisions under Part III of the Bill. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would certainly, to a great extent ease the administrative problem which will be involved in carrying Part III into operation. To raise the figure from two-fifths to two-thirds would be a very simple operation; it could be worked under the existing machinery and there would be no difficulty at all. It is just a mathematical problem of working out the sum. Insofar as people opted for the alternative provided under the new Clause instead of for the alternatives provided in Part III, it would ease the administrative problem which would arise under the operation of Part III, which must be considerable.

That is a fact which must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who clearly must be concerned about the administrative problems involved in this matter, which might be very considerable indeed if there is a greater switch from 1947 Act schemes than he anticipated when he replied to the previous debate. We put the new Clause forward as a serious and constructive suggestion, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard it in that light and will give serious consideration to accepting, at any rate, the principle of the new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

I should like briefly to support the new Clause. It would, perhaps, be right that a number of hon. Members who may speak on this should declare an interest. There must be quite a number of hon. Members who are no longer able to obtain employment which will be subject to superannuation or pension schemes and who, therefore, are having to rely on what they can afford to pay in insurance premiums. What applies to us as self-employed persons, as we are described, applies to a fairly large number of people who, for a number of years, have been paying premiums on policies of this sort for such a purpose as is dealt with in this Finance Bill.

Like my right hon. Friend, I support this new Clause on the ground of simplicity. As the Millard Tucker minority Report pointed out, this is the simplest way, if not of entirely dealing with justice with all those who suffer under the present tax arrangements, at any rate for a very large proportion of them. I should have thought that one of its great advantages is that it would give an option to an extremely large number of people who already pay, or have been for many years paying, insurance premiums of this kind. Under Part III of the Bill they can now make other arrangements, but, obviously, the simplest thing for those who have been taking out insurance policies during the course of their lifetime, and have now reached middle age, would be to continue with what they have been doing.

I have not gone into the economics of the cost of making the change to Part III, but I should imagine that from both the administrative and the financial point of view this Clause affords the simplest and most economical way of giving the relief which hon. Members on both sides have agreed should be given. As I say, I do not know what it would cost, but, on the whole, this is a small concession. Moreover, the conditions outlined in the new Clause are drawn rather tightly. A beneficiary cannot benefit both under this Clause and under Clause 18, nor would he be entitled to benefit if benefiting under any type of superannuation policy.

I should imagine, therefore, that the cost to the Chancellor could not be very great. On the other hand, the advantage to a large number of beneficiaries would be very great indeed. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary was nodding in some agreement with my right hon. Friend, so I hope that we shall receive a favourable reply and that the Government will accept the Clause.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)

I must say that when I nod it means that I am following what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say and that it cannot always be taken to mean that I agree with them.

The moment I saw this new Clause on the Notice Paper I detected, of course, that it was founded on the minority's reservation to the Millard Tucker Report. I must say that if the right hon. Gentleman had been consistent he would have advised his hon. Friends to vote against the proposals in Part III of the Bill to which the Committee has now agreed, because he will appreciate that the minority reservation was in favour of making provision on these lines and not on the other. What has happened here, however, is that the Committee has agreed, without a Division, to making provision, in a modified form, on the lines recommended by the Majority Report of the Millard Tucker Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman now comes along with a fresh proposal to the effect that, in addition to what that majority has recommended and what this Committee has accepted, those individuals who do not wish to take advantage of Part III of this Bill should have this alternative open to them. So far as I am aware, there was no suggestion of that kind in the minority's original suggestion.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The right hon. Gentleman's point is a fair one, but he will recognise that for reasons of order we could not then move this as an Amendment, much as we should have liked to have done. It is only a debating point that he is making.

Mr. Brooke

I think that it is a little more than a debating point. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to be putting this forward as representing the view taken by the minority, and I was making the point that if this is to be the alternative he should have opposed the Government's proposals in Part III. What we have to do is to examine the Clause as it stands. As I have said, its effect would be to enable a self-employed person to choose between taking the relief that would be available under this new Clause and that available under Clause 18.

The main objection that I can see to the proposal contained in this Clause is that the amount of relief which it would give would in many cases be excessive, particularly when we take into account the fact that the resultant benefit, which would be in lump sum form, would not be taxed. I am not quite sure whether the supporters of this new Clause fully realise that in many cases the life insurance relief of two-thirds of the premiums would be not very much less advantageous than the full expenses relief which will be given to the self-employed under Clause 18.

That happens in this way, if I may go into technicalities for a moment. Expenses relief means that the amount in question is treated as a deduction from gross income in arriving at assessable income, and earned income relief is given only on the assessable income; but life assurance relief does not reduce the amount on which the earned income relief is given. Perhaps I may put that into figures by means of a hypothetical case. In the case of a man who is liable at the standard rate of tax, and who pays a premium of £100, the reduction in his tax bill will be approximately £33 if he is entitled to expenses relief under Part III. It would be approximately £28 if he was entitled to two-thirds of the life assurance premiums as proposed by the new Clause.

The general position, therefore, is that the new Clause would give relief which, in a very large number of cases, would not fall very seriously short of the expenses relief, and I must put it to the Committee that it would be difficult to justify in principle so large a measure of relief when the benefit under this Clause, though not under Part III, would be tax free. This anomalous position that would arise is really aggravated by the fact that by this Clause the lump sum which would be payable when the policy matured could then be used to buy a life annuity and, under Clause 22, only the interest element of the annuity would be taxed.

There is the further point that it would be difficult for people to understand why some could claim two-fifths relief and others two-thirds relief on life assurance premiums. In the general endeavour which the Government are making to put the self-employed people on to broadly the same tax position as those who are in employment and entitled to pension rights of some kind or another one does not want to complicate the matter over much, or to set up questions as to the relative fairness of what one is doing.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) sought also to make the point that this method would be very considerably simpler than what is envisaged in Part III. There again, I am not quite sure whether he realised that that would only be so provided that Part III was in existence. He is, as it were, resting his argument on something which he thinks the Government ought not to have done. Taking the minority recommendation, which is what he is pressing upon the Committee as the preferable course, many of the complications of Part III would have to be introduced into the law, the definition of the kind of person entitled to claim tax relief, and so forth; so that he can claim that this Clause is relatively simple only if he accepts what the Government are doing in bringing forward Part III as their main proposal.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) suggested that the cost would not be very great. I must warn the Committee that the cost might be considerable. Of course, he can reply that nobody can tell what it will be; it all depends upon the free choice of individuals and neither he nor anybody else can speculate with any confidence on the proportion of people who would take advantage of the Clause. However, the Government, in making their financial estimates on the effect of Part III, assume that substantial numbers of people would, for one reason or another, not wish to take advantage of the Part III provisions even though the law would entitled them to do so.

It might well be—I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick would hope that it would be so—that a large proportion of those who did not wish to use Part III would, nevertheless, turn over to this new Clause. If they did, the cost might be very considerable. It cannot be estimated, but we have to take account not only of the extra life assurance relief, but the further consideration, as I said before, that where a person took advantage of this new Clause no tax would be chargeable on the benefits payable under the policy to which the new Clause relates, whereas the annuities to which Clause 18 relates will be chargeable to tax in full.

4.15 p.m.

I would assure the Committee that I have not gone into this with any prejudice against the new Clause. I have not sought simply to shoot it down because it came from the other side of the Committee; but I really do not think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have thought the thing through as far as I have sought to do. I suspect that some of the points which I have put about the very large amount of relief which their Clause will, in fact, afford may have taken them somewhat by surprise.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has measured in his mind how much relief he can afford to give in his Budget under his proposals for pensions for the self-employed. He does not think that he can go any further than is envisaged in Part III. On all those grounds, I must advise the Committee against accepting this new Clause.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford)

Whatever the motives of the right hon. Gentleman in shooting down this Clause, he has certainly returned us an extremely disappointing answer, particularly disappointing after the encouraging nods he gave, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) referred. It is, of course, interesting to note for the future that we are to take nods only as indicating that the right hon. Gentleman is following our argument. I hope that the converse will not apply, that if for a moment his head is still we are to take it that his mind is full of a blank incomprehension of what we are saying.

None of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advanced were particularly convincing. He told us that the Chancellor had measured very accurately exactly how much relief he could afford in this Finance Bill. But, of course, this measurement which has gone on in the Chancellor's mind is a somewhat flexible measurement, as was indicated when we were considering Clause 18 the other night, when a very substantial extension of the concessions proposed was suddenly announced by the right hon. Gentleman in response to an Amendment moved from his own side of the Committee.

I thought that the only strong point which the Financial Secretary did advance was his view that it would be very difficult to afford as much relief as this Clause afforded in view of the fact that the benefits obtained from it would be tax free benefits. One is bound to comment, in passing, that the point which he makes here underlines the view which is being increasingly strongly felt on this side of the Committee, that the rigid distinction between income payments and capital payments which is maintained by the Revenue at present is becoming more and more false and undesirable.

But there may be something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, though it surely could be met by some degree of modified relief, and I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were willing to indicate that he would consider that, we would be very willing to put down such a Clause on Report. There was, however, no indication from him that he would consider something which would bring the degree of relief into line with the difference which arises from the fact that this is a capital concession and the other is an income concession and is, therefore, subject to tax.

In view of the extremely disappointing answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given, basing himself on the rather false suggestion that the Chancellor has measured things out most accurately and is not prepared to make any concession at all—which was falsified by the very substantial concession he made earlier on—and fortified only by very vague references to the cost which might be involved here, without any clear figures of any sort, I find it very difficult for us to accept the Government's reply as being a convincing one, and I hope my right hon. Friend will press his Motion to a Division.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I would like to add my plea to the Chancellor and to the Financial Secretary to think again. This particular Clause seems to be in keeping with the Chancellor's oft-repeated theme that he wants to encourage saving. At the same time, the party opposite—and we agree with its objective—wants to do something to help the self-employed and, as I would remind the Financial Secretary, those employees who do not enjoy pensionable occupations.

Those are objectives towards which the Financial Secretary can go a little further. It may well be that some of the estimates he made of the actual size of the proposed concession, apart from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) about the division between income and capital taxation, might be too high, though we would agree with the hypothetical figure he gave of, I think it was, £28 relief on £100 premium.

I would ask the Financial Secretary to look again at this matter and bring forward proposals on the Report stage, in order to give some opportunity and incentive to those who, for a great number of reasons, may not wish to avail themselves of Part III. He says that in trying to form an assessment of the extent to which Part III would be used, the Government had to take very substantial account of people who would be entitled to take advantage of it but would not be able to do so.

Perhaps I should declare an interest here; I come within the category of persons with a small income who want to make some provision for their families and who are much more concerned with trying to insure against unforeseeable contingencies for the benefit of their widows and children rather than with their own comfort in retirement. It does seem to me that there are very many people of that kind for whom this provision should be made. For that class of person, I think it is only fair that there should be a like encouragement to that which the Government are giving, as has been said, very generously under Clause 18. I ask the Financial Secretary to look at this matter again.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I regarded this new Clause as a good test of what were the Government's real intentions. From time to time, the Committee is livened up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in person blowing in and playing a little organ tune about savings. That, we were told, was the main object of the Budget. That has inspired every concession that he has made and will inspire any concession that he is likely to make. He said that last night, but we will see how we get on today before we hold him too tightly to it. At any rate, that is what we were told.

Here, after all, is a proposal which, for good or for ill, has no other intention and effect than to promote savings. We were going to see what line would be taken about it. I quite agree that it was brought forward by the dissenting couple in the Millard Tucker Report as an alternative to some very complicated proposals, and they took it as an alternative that should be adopted, I agree, to the exclusion of those proposals; but the present position is that Part III of the Bill has been accepted, and all of us know that with the Lobby fodder still tolerably tame it will be carried into effect.

The question that arises under this new Clause is whether an individual should be given this alternative. I cannot see that there is anything very complicated about it. This is a new Clause about life insurance. Part III of the Bill is, primarily at any rate, concerned with something rather different, that is, deferred annuities. I agree that the line is not absolute; but there is a main distinction. The character and limitation of this relief, the percentage, the one-sixth and all the rest of it, have been in the Income Tax code for some considerable time, and all that this Clause does is to extend the relief, broadly speaking, for the same class of person who would benefit, if he so chose, under Part III of the Bill. Of course, it is a different extension, because this relates to life insurance primarily. I agree, again, that the line is not absolute. I shall not misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman if he nods. I shall know that if he is going to agree with me he will just shake his head to explain how thoroughly lucid and consistent are the Government, even in their gestures.

In these circumstances, what the Government are doing by turning down this new Clause is to deny the people the choice of a rather simple and rather different alternative, one on lines already well-tried, should they prefer that to the rather complicated and really completely untried proposals of Part III of the Bill. Of course, it is just like the Treasury to say that anything that it has thought out is bound to work perfectly and that anything proposed by anyone else, even if it is a tolerably simple extension of something that has been tried out in practice, will be much more difficult and uncertain in its operation.

I do not accept that. I simply say that if, in fact, the object of the Government is to promote savings, they should accept this Clause. If it were a question of the insurance companies—and they are very much concerned in this—I do not know whether it would be Parliamentary language to say that I would bet my boots that they would prefer this to the very complicated arrangements that are proposed in Part III, but, of course, they have not to make a choice in the matter. It is not for them. It is for the individual. This is a free society. This is Tory freedom. Cannot the individual be allowed just a little choice as to the form in which he proposes to provide for the future—deferred annuity or life insurance—and as to the kind of relief he will get?

I have a very strong suspicion that a great many people would prefer this form of relief for another reason, that they might find themselves in considerable

difficulties of the type which we were considering on various Amendments to Clauses 18 and 19, if they were tied merely to the Government's proposals. I say, therefore, that it shows a surprising misunderstanding of what can be done to promote savings, paralleled, it is true, by certain refusals of the Government at an earlier stage to accept some very sensible suggestions about co-operative societies, municipal banks and other matters. It shows a surprising misunderstanding of what can be done, and a surprising wish to force the taxpayer in this matter of his insurance, as well as in the matter of his relief, into a kind of Procrustean bed that is really much too tight, and which, unlike the Procrustean one, has not been tried out by previous victims.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 268.

Division No. 236.] AYES [4.26 p.m
Ainsley, J. W. Edelman, M. Johnson, James (Rugby)
Albu, A. H. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Awbery, S. S. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bacon, Miss Alice Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Kenyon, C.
Baird, J. Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Balfour, A. Fernyhough, E. King, Dr. H. M.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Finch, H. J. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Benn, Hon. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Forman, J. C. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Benson, G. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Lewis, Arthur
Beswick, F. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Lindgren, G. S.
Blackburn, F. Gibson, C. W. Lipton, Lt-Col. M.
Blenkinsop, A. Gooch, E. G. Logan, D. G.
Blyton, W. R. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Boardman, H. Greenwood, Anthony MacColl, J. E.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Grey, C. F. McGhee, H. G.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McGovern, J.
Boyd, T. C. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) McInnes, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Griffiths, William (Exchange) McKay, John (Wallsend)
Brockway, A. F. Hale, Leslie McLeavy, Frank
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hamilton, W. W. Mahon, Simon
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hannan, W. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Burke, W. A. Hastings, S. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Burton, Miss F. E. Hayman, F. H. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Healey, Denis Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Mason, Roy
Callaghan, L. J. Herbison, Miss M. Mayhew, C. P.
Clunie, J. Hobson, C. R. Messer, Sir F.
Coldrick, W. Holman, P. Mitchison, G. R.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Holmes, Horace Monslow, W.
Cove, W. G. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Moody, A. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hoy, J. H. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Cronin, J. D. Hubbard, T. F. Mort, D. L.
Crossman, R. H. S. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Moyle, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Mulley, F. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hunter, A. E. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Deer, G. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Irving, S. (Dartford) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Delargy, H. J. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Oliver, G. H.
Dodds, N. N. Janner, B. Orbach, M.
Donnelly, D. L. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Oswald, T.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Jeger, George (Goole) Owen, W. J.
Dye, S. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Padley, W. E.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Paget, R. T. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Warbey, W. N.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Weitzman, D.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Palmer, A. M. F. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Parker, J. Slater, J. (Sedgefield) West, D. G.
Parkin, B. T. Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.) Wheeldon, W. E.
Paton, John Snow, J. W. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Pearson, A. Sorensen, R. W. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Peart, T. F. Sparks, J. A. Wigg, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Steele, T. Williams, David (Neath)
Probert, A. R. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Proctor, W. T. Stones, W. (Consett) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Pryde, D. J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Randall, H. E. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Rankin, John Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Redhead, E. C. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Reeves, J. Swingler, S. T. Winterbottom, Richard
Reid, William Sylvester, G. O. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Woof, R. E.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Zilliacus, K.
Royle, C. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Thornton, E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Short, E. W. Tomney, F. Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.
Shurmer, P. L. E. Usborne, H. C.
Aitken, W. T. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cunningham, Knox Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Alport, C. J. M. Currie, G. B. H. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Dance, J. C. G. Hirst, Geoffrey
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Davidson, Viscountess Holland-Martin, C. J.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery) Hope, Lord John
Arbuthnot, John D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hornby, R. P.
Armstrong, C. W. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ashton, H. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Horobin, Sir Ian
Astor, Hon. J. J. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Atkins, H. E. Doughty, C. J. A. Howard, John (Test)
Baldwin, A. E. du Cann, E. D. L. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Balniel, Lord Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Barber, Anthony Duncan, Capt. J. A, L. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Barlow, Sir John Duthie, W. S. Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Barter, John Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Hulbert, Sir Norman
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn) Hutchison Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Errington, Sir Eric Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Erroll, F. J. Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bidgood, J. C. Farey-Jones, F. W. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Fell, A. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Bishop, F. P. Finlay, Graeme Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Black, C. W. Fisher, Nigel Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Body, R. F. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Joseph, Sir Keith
Boothby, Sir Robert Fletcher-Cooke, C. Keegan, D.
Bossom, Sir A. C. Fort, R. Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Kerr, H. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Freeth, D. F. Kershaw, J. A.
Boyle, Sir Edward Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Kimball, M.
Braine, B. R. Gammans, Sir David Kirk, P. M.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Garner-Evans, E H. Lambert, Hon. G.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. George, J. C. (Pollok) Lambton, Viscount
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Gibson-Watt, D. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Brooman-White, R. C. Glover, D. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Godber, J. B. Leather, E. H. C.
Bryan, P. Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Leavey, J. A.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Graham, Sir Fergus Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Burden, F. F. A. Green, A, Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Gresham Cooke, R. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Grimond, J. Linstead, Sir H. N.
Campbell, Sir David Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Carr, Robert Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Cary, Sir Robert Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Longden, Gilbert
Channon, H. Gurden, Harold Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Chichester-Clark, R. Hall, John (Wycombe) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Cole, Norman Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) McAdden, S. J.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) McCallum, Major Sir Duncan
Cooper-Key, E. M. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Macdonald, Sir Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) McKibbin, A. J.
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Crouch, R. F. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Page, R. G. Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kns'gt'n, S.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale). Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Partridge, E. Stevens, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Peyton, J. W. W. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Macpherson, Niail (Dumfries) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Studholme, Sir Henry
Maddan, Martin Pitman, I. J. Summers, Sir Spencer
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Pitt, Miss E. M. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Powell, J. Enoch Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Markham, Major Sir Frank Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Marlowe, A. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Marshall, Douglas Raikes, Sir Victor Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Mathew, R. Ramsden, J. E. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Maude, Angus Redmayne, M. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Remnant, Hon. P. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Mawby, R. L. Renton, D. L. M. Turner, H. F. L.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Ridsdale, J. E. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Medlicott, Sir Frank Rippon, A. G. F. Vane, W. M. F.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Vickers, Miss J. H.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Robertson, Sir David Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Robson-Brown, W. Wall, Major Patrick
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Nabarro, G. D. N. Roper, Sir Harold Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Nairn, D. L. S. Russell, R. S. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Neave, Airey Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Nicholls, Harmar Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. Webbe, Sir H.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)
Nield, Basil (Chester) Sharples, R. C. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Soames, Capt. C. Wood, Hon. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Spearman, Sir Alexander Woollam, John Victor
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Speir, R. M.
Osborne, C. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills.

Question put and agreed to.