HC Deb 29 May 1957 vol 571 cc548-64

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, after "assessment," to insert and subject to the provisions of the next following subsection.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

It would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the next Amendment: in line 27, at end, insert: (2) The liability of an individual to tax shall not by virtue of the last foregoing subsection be reduced further than it would have been reduced, if the excess of the income of the individual over the stated amount referred to in subsection (1) of section two of the said Act (being for the years 1956–57 and 1957–58 the amount of two thousand pounds) had, instead of being assessed at the appropriate rates of tax, been all assessed at the lowest of the higher rates applicable for the year of assessment.

Mr. Mitchison

The question we have to consider—

Mr. Nicholson

Before he starts his speech, will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it is to be more genuine than his last one?

Mr. Mitchison

The hon. Member shows a remarkable pride in his integrity to suppose that what others say is not genuine.

Mr. Nicholson

I naturally believed that after such a fervant oration there would be some effort to display the opinion expressed in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Mitchison

If the hon. Gentleman is inquiring why we did not vote on Clause 10, he is as out of order as I should be in replying to him, but if it were not out of order I should reply that we do not vote against benefits.

In moving the Amendment, I shall, of course, refer to the Amendment in line 27 and the proposed subsection. The proposal we make is a simple one. The Bill proposes that certain reductions shall be made from the income of Surtax payers for the purpose of ultimate assessment. Those reductions will be made in the ordinary course of things and in the absence of any provision to the contrary, so that their income is reduced and they will, therefore, come off the top scale upon which they pay tax.

If, for instance, a taxpayer pays tax on an income of, say, £8,000 and the deductions, for the sake of argument, amount to £400, they will reduce the taxable income to £8,100 and he will benefit by a reduction at the rate applicable to between £8,000 and £8,500. The consequence is that this concession will help quite disproportionately those who get the larger incomes, for they will be relieved of tax at the highest rate at which they pay. The man who pays tax on an income of between £2,000 and £3,000 will get from these concessions a far smaller amount of relief than the man who pays tax on an income of £7,000 a year. I concede that, if we make a concession in this form, that is the obvious result of it and if we want it to have any other result we must make provision for the purpose. The Amendment proposes to make that provision.

We suggest that in dealing with these concessions to Surtax payers we should not give to any particular Surtax payer a higher concession on account of these personal reliefs than he would get if he were taxed at the lowest of the higher rates applicable to Surtax. The result, therefore, will be that in practically all cases the person concerned will get these consessions and he will get exactly the same amount as would, for instance, someone in receipt of a taxable income of £2,500 a year. That, in itself, is simple. Is there good reason for giving the higher Surtax payer bigger relief than the man in the £2,000–£4,000 range? The number of people paying Surtax between £2,000 and £2,500 is about two-sevenths of the whole, from £2,500 to £4,000 there is three-sevenths, and above £4,000 is another two-sevenths. The actual number of Surtax payers is quite small. We are not dealing with Surtax payers at the lowest rate but at the higher rates.

10.45 p.m.

So far as the considerable majority is concerned, this would not be a large deprivation, if it is to be so regarded at all. Assuming that the concession is to be made, is there any reason why personal reliefs should be allowed in this form, with the effect of giving by far the largest reliefs to the higher range of Surtax payers? I doubt whether much administrative difficulty can be involved in this, or any financial principle. It raises a very simple, ordinary moral principle.

We have been dealing with personal reliefs on the standard rate of tax, and they have had the same effects for one person as for another. As soon as they are extended, as proposed by the Chancellor, the inequitable result was bound to follow. We could not have a clearer instance of giving the larger concession to the better off by way of the concession relating to personal reliefs. I fail to understand the reason for it. I cannot see any moral justification for allowing people to benefit by personal reliefs increasing in proportion to the amount of their income. It may be the philosophy of Government supporters that the bigger relief should go to the wealthier man, but it should not be put in quite that form. Even if it were, I should think personal reliefs the most inappropriate vehicle for the purpose.

I fail to see how Government supporters can justify that the man who pays the higher rate of Surtax should get the larger amount out of this concession on personal reliefs. The proper thing to do is to allow the concession in every case at the lowest rate applicable for Surtax, that is to say, to deduct it from the lowest Surtaxed income rather than from the highest. We cannot quite put it in that form because there might, I suppose, be cases—I remember the millionaire with 20 children who cropped up last year—where we might get an amount of personal reliefs in excess of the £500 that represents the range over which the lowest rate is charged.

But the principle is clear enough. Allow it on the assumption that the whole of the Surtax income is taxed at the lowest rate, and by so doing we will equalise the relief given as between the marginal man, who is just paying Surtax, and the privileged few who pay Surtax at the very highest rate. Surely, if what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to do is to benefit the pushing young man who is to make a success of things, or even the man who is beginning to make a success—and sometimes, perhaps, the rather older man who has made a moderate success—they should at least be as kind to that type of taxpayer who will be paying Surtax, if he pays it at all, at one of the low rates, as they propose to be to those fortunate 1,200 or so who pay Surtax on incomes of over £25,000 a year, and who will get out of this a benefit far greater than their humbler brothers, the lower range of Surtax payers.

Mr. Powell

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this is a simple proposal. It is certainly a most peculiar one. I do not know how many hon. Members opposite have taken the trouble to read the Amendment, but those who take that trouble will soon find that its effect is to deny this relief altogether to persons earning between £2,000 and £2,500. That is the simple and sole effect of the Amendment—to deny the value of these allowances only and exclusively to the lowest incomes amongst Surtax payers—

Mr. Mitchison

I am sure the Financial Secretary will explain his somewhat mysterious comment.

Mr. Powell

—because it restricts the relief to the difference between what the Surtax payer is paying and what he would be paying if paying on the lowest Surtax rate. Of course, a person earning between £2,000 and £2,500 is paying only at the lowest Surtax rate, and therefore for him the limit of relief by virtue of the Clause is precisely nil.

Mr. Mitchison

I am sorry to differ from the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he has had very good advice—but I do not understand it to be so. What is proposed is that the liability of a person to tax is not to be reduced further than it would have been if the whole of the income had been taxed at the highest of the Surtax rates. I find it wholly impossible to find how he has succeeded in so misunderstanding the Clause.

Mr. Powell

Possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to put the Amendment in that form. Of course, he has not read it out as it stands in the Order Paper—

Mr. Mitchisonrose—

Mr. Powell

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will sit quiet for a minute and read the Amendment he will find that the effect is exactly as I have said; that it denies all relief by virtue of the Clause to anyone taxable on an income of between £2,000 and £2,500—

Mr. Mitchison


Mr. Powell

I will not waste the time of the Committee further by dissecting what hon. Members opposite obviously did not intend to achieve, and I will take the proposition which they intended to put; that these reliefs should run only against the lowest rate of Surtax.

What we are trying to do in the Clause, and I think that it is something on which both sides of the Committee are agreed, is to secure that as between two taxpayers of the same income, the taxpayer with the family responsibility, if I may so briefly describe it, shall be relieved as compared with the bachelor. The way in which he is relieved is by graduating his tax more favourably. The effect of these allowances is that of the two taxpayers, the family man pays at his highest rate on a narrower band of income.

That is how the personal allowances work at present for Income Tax. Unless we apply the same principle in extending them to Surtax, unless we allow the allowances to have the effect of diminishing the band of income on which a family man pays at the highest rate, the effect will be that we shall leave the bachelor on the higher salary in an advantageous position compared with the family man, because we shall leave the bachelor paying Income Tax at a reduced rate upon a narrower band of income than that on which the family man pays it. Therefore, any attempt to restrict these allowances in their operation to less than the marginal rate of tax of the taxpayer concerned is self-defeating.

If we really want to secure, as I believe both sides of the Committee do want to secure, that as between two taxpayers having the same income the bachelor is more heavily taxed than the family man, it must be done in the way that the Clause proposes and not in the way that the Opposition have proposed or in the way that they intended to propose.

Mr. H. Wilson

I am very disappointed at the speech of the Financial Secretary, not merely because he said "No", as he has been doing steadily for five days, with the one exception of a nicely arranged Amendment from his back benches, but because I had hoped that we could dispose of this Clause very quickly indeed. It had been my hope that a brief debate on this Amendment could have been settled either by the Government accepting it, or accepting it in principle, or, failing that, by a Division, and then we could have had an extremely brief debate on the Question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill.

However, after the speech of the Financial Secretary I should like, through you, Sir Gordon, to ask the Chancellor to think again about this matter and to consider whether he would not do better now to move to report Progress. In the first place, we have had a categorical statement of his conception of the law as applied to this Amendment by the Financial Secretary, and although we would all pay tribute to the great grip which he has got on the intricacies of Income Tax problems in the short time that he has been at the Treasury, we still do not regard him as one of the most highly qualified lawyers in the House.

I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman knows less than the Attorney-General or would be less useful to the Committee in that context, but I do suggest that the Chancellor ought now to bring along some reputable Law Officer; I might suggest the Solicitor-General who was a great help to the Committee last year and whose intervention we appreciated. While I am very doubtful about what the Attorney-General could bring except additional obscurity, the Solicitor-General at any rate could help us.

Failing that, I am bound to say that this debate might degenerate into a legal wrangle between the two sides of the Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who moved the Amendment does not in any way accept the strictures of the Financial Secretary as to the legal interpretation. He does not even understand what the Financial Secretary is talking about. But since it is clear that the Financial Secretary does not know what he is talking about, that is perfectly understandable. He has worked very hard today, and we know how tired he must be. That state of affairs cannot be at all surprising.

I suggest it would save time and would speed up the proceedings if the Chancellor would move to report Progress and if we could have a Law Officer to give us an authoritative ruling in the morning. I now see the Attorney-General himself.

11.0 p.m.

Even apart from the legal aspects of the question, the Financial Secretary, at any rate, understands what we are setting out to achieve. There may be a disagreement about the actual interpretation of our proposal, though we cannot follow his arguments. But apart from that. having admitted that he knows what we are trying to achieve, he then puts up, I should have thought, quite the worst performance of his short Finance Bill career in the reply he has just given. In the first place, he based a great part of his argument on the anomalies which would be created as between family man and bachelor. I am surprised that he has dropped his guard to that extent, because he must realise that we pointed out to the Chancellor, even in the Budget debate a few hours after his Budget speech, that the Chancellor's proposals on this Clause departed in a very important particular from the recommendation of the Royal Commission.

The Royal Commission recommendation proposed that these personal reliefs should be brought into relation, and said that the cost should be self-balanced within the Surtax range by reducing the Surtax starting-point for bachelors. Therefore, for the Financial Secretary to say that the bachelor will get away with it, when the Chancellor has rejected that part of the Royal Commission's recommendation which would have made part of the cost fall on the bachelors, is quite astonishing. If he will now say that his concern about the bachelors is such—particularly since he, to our great satisfaction, himself ceased to be one—that he will look again at this matter between now and Report stage, we should be happy to bring the debate to an early conclusion now.

The Financial Secretary did, of course, draw attention to something which must be in the minds of all hon. Members when considering this kind of problem. There are bound to be anomalies one way or another, whatever one does. Either one will create an anomaly as between the family man and the bachelor at particular levels of tax—the Royal Commission's Report was full of references to such anomalies as compared with prewar—or one will create an anomaly vertically as between different ranges of income. The Financial Secretary was quite correct in talking about different widths of bands of income which carry a particular rate. The Royal Commission pointed out that as between bachelor and family man, in the range of taxation below Surtax, they are paying at the full rate on a much shorter band of income; and, of course, the Chancellor by this Clause, which, on the whole, we welcome, as we said, is making the band of income the same as between bachelor and family man before additional tax starts. That is fair enough.

What we object to is the new anomaly which this creates. As the Committee knows, the marginal rate for Surtax, as agreed in Clause 9, is 2s. in the £ for Surtax payers between £2,000 and £2,500. If we take Surtax payers between £6,000 and £8,000, the marginal rate is 6s. 6d., and between £10,000 and £12,000, the marginal rate is 8s. 6d. When I refer to the marginal rate, I mean the top rate, the rate they would pay on any additional £ of income earned. If we take incomes at £15,000, the marginal rate, the rate on any additional £ of income earned, is 10s.

The result is that the Surtax payer over the £2,000 limit, the kind of man the Chancellor claims he wants to encourage, namely, the young designer, executive or scientist—we have given our reasons for saying that they are probably not in that range of income anyway—if he is a family man will gain in respect of his newly admitted personal reliefs only at the rate of 2s. in the £, whereas the much richer man at £15,000 a year, who is not. one imagines, one of the young executives, will get 10s. in the £ for every £ of relief he gets in respect of his children. We regard that as highly anomalous and, indeed, indefensible. It does not do what the right hon. Gentleman set out to do, namely, to give a special incentive to these key people above £2,000, and it means that the richer a man is not only does he get more from the Chancellor's other concessions in Clause 10, but he is allowed more in respect of each child for every £ of income allowed in respect of each child. I do not want to weary the Committee with details in respect of one, two or three children, but it will be clear that in respect of each child there will be a tax remission of three, four, or five times as much for the rich man as there will be for the lowest Surtax payer.

I am sorry to say that the Financial Secretary has not answered the point, quite apart from his legal arguments which we cannot accept. Now, the Attorney-General has had plenty of time to study the issue I hope that we shall hear from him before we come to a conclusion—for what good that may do us. But I hope that the Financial Secretary, or the Chancellor himself, will have a second go and will explain how, when he cannot accept this Amendment, he will deal with it on Report.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I agree entirely with one thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, and that is that one cannot achieve perfection in these matters; that is to say, if one avoids one difficulty in adjusting the rate of Surtax, one probably runs into other factors which would displease some other section of people seeking a different reform.

Regarding this Amendment, I do not think we need argue the precise interpretation. It is not couched in terms—nor is the Clause—in which the result leaps immediately to the eye. On the interpretation put forward by the Financial Secretary, on our advice it has the meaning which he attributed to it, but it does not seem to be necessary for the purpose of this debate to argue that point, because if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has put forward with absolute clarity what he seeks to achieve, and if that be right, it is after all quite simple—if we arc going to do so—to accept it in principle and then to move an appropriate Amendment. My argument goes not to the interpretation of the words he has on the Order Paper but to the fact that what he intends is something which we do not desire.

Mr. Mitchison

I am grateful for the line which the Chancellor has taken, and I hope he will point out to the Financial Secretary that the substance of this matter is what is intended and not what is written. Having said that, arid without wishing either to overrate the intelligence of the Financial Secretary or to underrate the intelligence of those who advised him, I simply add that I have not the faintest idea what he meant by his comment.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I think that feeling was mutual on both sides. But I do not really feel it is necessary to debate that at this stage. The point which the Opposition wish to make here is that under the Clause as drafted, if one moves the starting point for Surtax on any basis one likes, one is giving rather greater benefits at the top than one does lower down. Indeed, that was axiomatic in the Royal Commission's own proposals, because they faced this particular problem and had a suggestion which the Committee will remember I did not adopt. Nevertheless, it contains what, in the eyes of the Opposition, would be a flaw, for they suggested that one should reduce the starting point for Surtax for bachelors to £1,500. We may have said some harsh things about bachelors in this Committee, but I do not think anyone would be so harsh as to wish to reduce the starting point of Surtax in these matters for anyone, and I was not prepared to do so.

However, the Royal Commission went on to propose that one should raise the starting-point for Surtax by adding certain children's allowances, which it put up at £160. It said in its Report—it had to face the same problem as the right hon. Gentleman was discussing—the following: We do not envisage altering the width of the surtax bands: we envisage the same width of band and the same steps in rate, but applying to different ranges of income according to the difference of starting point. That was its proposal, and I think it was a sensible proposal. It was put forward for the same reason as was clearly put before the Committee by the Financial Secretary, that it is the only way one can give a benefit to the family man in a case of this kind. I realise that it has the effect that the higher up the Surtax range one goes the greater are the benefits drawn, but that is inherent in any raising of the Surtax starting point.

Hon. Members may argue that it ought not to be raised. A great deal of discussion could take place on a matter of that kind. It has not been changed for a long time, and there were those who urged that it ought to have been changed much more dramatically than this. I did not hold that view, not in the context of this Budget. I take the view that the starting-point ought to be changed not for everybody concerned but for those with certain special family responsibilities. Having taken that view, I proposed to the Committee that it should be changed with exactly the same consequences as envisaged by the Royal Commission when it reported. and on those grounds I ask the Committee to accept this recommendation.

Mr. H. Wilson

The right hon. Gentleman's answer is really no more satisfactory than that of the Financial Secretary. We regard this as so important a matter that we should feel thoroughly justified in starting what might turn out to be a lengthy debate. But as we have been discussing the Bill for so long and as we shall be dealing with it again tomorrow, perhaps the best thing I can recommend to the Committee is that we should now come quickly to a decision about the matter.

It is clear that the Chancellor, to quote one of the Liberal hon. Members, is remaining firm, obdurate and stubborn about this, as he has been about everything else brought before the Committee, except the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). We cannot accept or understand the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. We think that his proposals create new and most serious anomalies. We shall have to consider our position about the Amendment, to which we attach a great deal of importance, and see whether we can find an opportunity of raising it again at a later stage of the Bill.

We must give that warning to the Chancellor, because he has completely

failed to deal with the arguments put forward. We hope that he will brief himself more thoroughly next time and approach the matter with a more open mind. My hon. Friends must be as tempted as I am to carry on the debate for another three or four hours, but I advise them now to enable the Committee to come to a decision.

Question put,That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided:Ayes 171, Noes 220.

Division No. 128.] AYES [11.15 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Hale, Leslie Padley, W. E.
Albu, A. H. Hannan, W. Paget, R. T.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hayman, F. H. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Awbery, S. S. Herbison, Miss M. Palmer, A. M. F.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hewitson, Capt. M. Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Baird, J. Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Pargiter, G. A.
Balfour, A. Holmes, Horace Parker, J.
Bellenger, Bt. Hon. F. J. Houghton, Douglas Parkin, B. T.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Pearson, A.
Benson, G. Howell, Denis (All Saints) Pentland, N.
Beswick, Frank Hubbard, T. F. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Blackburn, F. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Probert, A. R.
Blenkinsop, A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Proctor, W. T.
Blyton, W. R. Hunter, A. E. Randall, H. E.
Boardman, H. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Redhead, E. C.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Boyd, T. C. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brookway, A. F. Janner, B. Ross William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T, Royle, C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Burke, W. A. Johnson, James (Rugby) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Skeffington, A. M.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) King, Dr. H. M. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, J. Lawson, G. M. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Champion, A. J. Ledger, R. J. Sorensen, R. W.
Chetwynd, G. R. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Clunie, J. Lewis, Arthur Sparks, J. A.
Coldrick, W. Logan, D. G. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Colliok, P. H. (Birkenhead) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stonehouse, John
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) MacDermot, Niall Stones, W. (Contett)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McGhee, H. G. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Cronin. J. D. McInnes, J. Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Crossman, R. H. S. Mckay, John (Wallsend) Sylvester, G. O.
Cullen, Mrs. A. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Mahon, Simon Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Mainwaring, W. H. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Deer, G. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafd, E.) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Dodds, N. N. Mann, Mrs. Jean Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Usborne, H. C.
Dye, S. Mason, Roy Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mayhew, C. P. West, D. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Mellish, R. J. Wheeldon, W. E.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mikardo, Ian Willey, Frederick
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mitchlson, G. R. Williams, David (Neath)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Monslow, W. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Ferny hough, E. Moody, A. S. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Finch, H. J. Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Fletcher, Eric Mort, D. L. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Forman, J. C. Moyle, A. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mulley, F. W. Winterbottom, Richard
Caitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gibson, C W. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Yates, V, (Ladywood)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oliver, G. H. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Oram, A. E.
Grey, C. F. Orbaoh, M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Owen, W. J. Mr. Wilkins and Mr. J. T. Price.
Agnew, Sir Peter Hall, John (Wycombe) Nairn, D. L. S.
Aitken, W. T. Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Neave, Airey
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Alport, C. J. M. Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Nccolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Amory, Bt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nugent, G. R. H.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Harvie-Watt, Sir George Oakshott, H. D.
Arbuthnot, John Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Armstrong, C. W. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Ashton, H. Hesketh, R. F. Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Atkins, H. E. Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Osborne, C.
Baldwin, A. E. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Page, R. G.
Balniel, Lord Hinohingbrooke, Viscount Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Barber, Anthony Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Partridge, E.
Barter, John Holland-Martin, C. J. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Baxter, Sir Beverley Holt, A. F. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hornby, R. P. Pitman, I. J.
Bennett F. M. (Torquay) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Horobin, Sir Ian Powell, J. Enoch
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)
Bidgood, J. C. Howard, John (Test) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Profumo, J. D.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hurd, A. R. Ramsden, J. E.
Black, C. W. Hyde, Montgomery Rawlinson, Peter
Body, R. F. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Renton, D. L. M.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Iremonger, T. L. Ridsdale, J. E.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rippon, A. G. F.
Brooman-White, R. C. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Roper, Sir Harold
Chichester-Clark, R. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Joseph, Sir Keith Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Cole, Norman Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Sharpies, R. C.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Keegan, D. Shepherd, William
Cooke, Robert C. Kerby, Capt. H. B. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cooper, A. E. Kerr, H. W. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kershaw, J. A. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Kimball, M. Speir, R. M.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Kirk, P. M. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lagden, G. W. Stevens, Geoffrey
Cunningham, Knox Langford-Holt, J. A. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Currie, G. B. H. Leather, E. H. C. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich. W.)
Dance, J. C G. Leavey, J. A. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Leburn, W. G. Studholme, Sir Henry
Deedes, W. F. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Summers, Sir Spencer
Digby, Simon Wingfield Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Doughty, C. J. A. Linstead, Sir H. N. Teeling, W.
Drayson, G. B. Lloyd, Maj Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Temple, John M.
du Cann, E. D. L. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Longden, Gilbert Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Duthie, W. S. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne. N.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)
Errington, Sir Eric Macdonald, Sir Peter Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Farey-Jones, F. W. McKibbin, A. J. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Finlay, Graeme Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Fisher, Nigel McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Fletoher-Cooke, C. McLean, Nell (Inverness) Vane, W. M. F.
Freeth, Denzil MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Vickers, Miss Joan
George, J. C (Pollok) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gibson-Watt, D. Maddan, Martin Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Glover, D. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Wall, Major Patrick
Godber, J. B. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Goodhart Philip Markham, Major Sir Frank Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Gough, C. F. H. Marlowe, A. A. H. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Gower, H. R. Mathew, R. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Graham, Sir Fergus Maude, Angus Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Mawby, R. L. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Green, A. Medlicott, Sir Frank Wood, Hon. R.
Gresham Cooke, R. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Woollam, John Victor
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Morrison, John (Salisbury) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Mr. Bryan and Mr. Hughes-Young.
Curdon, Harold Nabarro, G. D. N.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Mr. H. Wilson

I think that this is the least controversial thing the Chancellor has suggested all day, and I would say at once that we support the Motion. We have had a series of very good debates today. I missed one or two because I went to East Ham, where I was on work of national importance.

I hope that the Chancellor will have noticed how once again this side of the Committee has facilitated the work of the Government in getting through this Bill, especially as today we have been dealing with some of the most controversial parts of the Bill. We have been in some difficulty because certain of the Clauses, Clauses 10 and 12 for instance, contain something very good and at the same time something very bad. While we have moved some Amendments and argued energetically we have, for reasons which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have had experience of being in opposition, will understand, not voted against the Clauses as a whole. I hope that this Motion will be agreed to, and I am sure it will, and I ask my hon. Friends once again to restrain themselves, so that it may.

I wish to ask the Chancellor to say a word about the arrangements for tomorrow. I understand that, unfortunately, the Patronage Secretary has put down a Government Measure for the start of business in the House tomorrow. Most hon. Members are not clear whether it relates to a piece of deserted countryside or to some suffering damsel, but we shall, I gather, be debating it for some little time, even though, no doubt, the members of this Committee would like, without prejudicing the rights of hon. Members of the House, to get on with this Bill. Assuming that we reach it by a reasonable hour, I understand that it is the desire of the Chancellor that we should get to the end of Part III of the Bill and that we should then leave the very arduous task which we have on Part IV for the period when we all hope to be a little more refreshed, namely, after the Whitsun Recess.

If that is the desire of the Chancellor, I can certainly say that we shall do our best to facilitate it, provided that we can start consideration of the Finance Bill at a reasonable hour tomorrow. I am sure that the Chancellor will be the first to realise that there are some very important Amendments down to Clause 16 by a number of my hon. Friends from north of the Border, and I am equally sure that it will be the desire of the whole Committee, though all hon. Members may not wish to be present throughout those arduous debates, to ensure that the debate begins at a reasonable time.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that although it is our desire to facilitate this Part of the Bill, if the resumption of our consideration of the Bill starts too late tomorrow owing to the length of the debate on the Winfrith Heath Bill we should in that case want to start the Scottish Amendments after the Whitsun Recess, although we hope it will be possible to dispose of them, after adequate debate, tomorrow night.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft

I think that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is absolutely fair. We have managed, I think, to debate the various Amendments and Clauses quite thoroughly and, so far, at a reasonable hour. So far as tomorrow is concerned, we must, of course, be somewhat in the hands of what the House does about the earlier business. But on the assumption that it is concluded in a reasonable time, it would, I think, be our desire to complete Part III of the Finance Bill so that we could make a fresh start later on the Clauses dealing with the Overseas Trade Corporations. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman says.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sir again Tomorrow.