HC Deb 15 July 1958 vol 591 cc1066-81

At the end of subsection (4) of section two hundred and twelve of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which subsection limits by reference to the child's income the relief allowed in respect of a child), there shall be added the following words: (in this subsection called 'scholarship income') or of any income earned by the child, So however that the amount of earned income not taken into account shall not exceed one hundred pounds less the amount (if any) of income of the child in his own right not being earned income or scholarship income."—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

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

There is a child allowance of the amount of tax at the standard rate of sums varying from £100 to £150, according to the age of the child. In respect of that allowance there is a limiting sub-section which I propose to read. It is: No relief shall be allowed under this Section in respect of any child who is entitled in his own right to an income exceeding £100 a year; provided that in calculating the income of the child for the purpose of this subsection no account shall be taken of any income to which the child is entitled as the holder of a scholarship, bursary or other similar educational endowment. The proposed new Clause would add the following words: (in this subsection called 'scholarship income') or of any income earned by the child, so however that the amount of earned income not taken into account shall not exceed one hundred pounds less the amount (if any) of income of the child in his own right not being earned income or scholarship income". The proposal is to give to the parents of children who have an income in excess of £100 a limited extension of that relief. The limitation is intended for, and is weighted in favour of, the child who has an earned income. Let me illustrate this proposal by one or two simple figures, to make the position clearer.

Suppose that a child has £100 of unearned income and an earned income of £40 or £50. The proposed Clause will not help that child, because the additional £100 cannot be used, having regard to the amount of the unearned income. If the child has an earned income of £140 the child's parents would benefit under the proposed new Clause because the relief would be enlarged by the tax on £40. Then add to that £140 his £60 of unearned income, and the effect of the proposed new Clause is to leave the limit at £100 as it is at present, because the unearned income counterbalances the increase in the form in which it is drafted.

Let me give a final simple example. An earned income of £180 would get the benefit of what is proposed in the Clause. The limit of relief would be the tax on that £180. If, on the other hand, we add to it £100 of unearned income we then come back to the figure of £100. I hope I have made my meaning clear to all hon. Members—[Interruption.]—except to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) on the back bench there.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

The hon. and learned Member should cross-examine me.

Mr. Mitchison

I am not prepared to do that. I do not think that I can carry the matter very much further. I should like to give the reasons why we think that the limitation should be enlarged and why, when putting forward a very limited enlargement, we think that it should be weighted in this way.

The reasons for enlargement are substantially these. At present, there are cases in which apprentices, one of the large and obvious groups concerned in this relief for parents, are earning more under present conditions than the £100. The present effect, as the Royal Commission pointed out, is that where the child may get £98 a year the parent gets the full benefit of the allowance, but simply because the £100 limit is passed, the whole of the benefit disappears. Obviously, that is a jump of a character which one wants to avoid.

We have tried to do it in previous Finance Bills by tapering Clauses, and so on, but they were all open to some objection, though not to so large an objection as is the present Section in the Income Tax Act. What we have done in the proposed new Clause is, to a limited extent, to relieve earned income and to weight it against the children who have unearned incomes by counting scholarship incomes as earned for these purposes, partly with the intention of making this tax in respect of this enlargement progressive, as I think we are entitled to do. We are entitled to say, and we do say, that where there is an unearned income, though it is the child's income, and the whole of it in practice goes to the support of the child in one form or another, there is not the same need for a child allowance.

When we go beyond the present limit it is right and proper to take that into account, and to diminish the addition which we make in respect of earned income by having regard to the amount of the unearned income of the child. I hope I have made myself clear. The illustrations were only illustrations. I feel sorely tempted to make one other effort. I think I will do so. It will be quite short.

There is at present a limit of £100 of income, so that if the income, whatever it is, other than scholarship income, is below that amount, the relief is allowed, and if it is above it by however little there is no relief. We propose to enlarge that limit by £100. In doing so, we would allow against the increase thus afforded the amount of any unearned income of the child. I hope that I have made that clear.

I am bound to say that anyone attempting to make clear a proposition of this kind, after listening to the learned Solicitor-General making much more complicated things clear, always feels himself at a very great disadvantage. At any rate, I do. We feel that we have seen a light, but that ours are flickerings. We believe that the present flickering is soundly based, that the motive is excellent and that something of this kind is overdue because of the rise in the earnings of young men, including apprentices.

If some such concession is not made in respect of the £100 limit, the effect will be not to encourage young men to earn as much as they can, because the family may lose by their doing so. On the other side of the picture, it will encourage employers and employers' associations to keep down apprentices' pay, bearing in mind that the result may be a fiscal benefit and a fiscal advantage to the parents.

The latter result may create an anomaly and a sharp, brusque gap at a certain point. It may have the effect of keeping the pay generally by these means under what otherwise would be the appropriate level and have the effect of doing so in regard to young children who, under present conditions, certainly find things no easier than they did in the past and might well be finding them more difficult.

Mr. Diamond

I beg to second the Motion.

I do so shortly partly because time presses and, more importantly, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has been so clear and precise that it is not necessary to say much more about the Clause. Any further figures I could give would merely confuse what now is a perfectly clear picture. It is another example of the difficulty which arises in regard to allowances for university undergraduates during their vacation times when, apparently, it is the general practice—in some respects a good practice—to go out and get direct experience and some useful cash by taking a job, which is well paid these days. As a result, the undergraduate, without damage to more important work, may earn slightly over £100 during his vacation. He may think that he is earning under £100 and getting some benefits which he thought were tax-free, but which would turn out to be assessable.

It may be that through a pure misunderstanding the undergraduate's earnings were assessed at more than £100, and, as a result, quite an additional tax burden would be carried on the parent's shoulders. That can be quite calamitous because, for the sake of 30s. or 40s., the additional burden may be very substantial, especially at a time when the child is at the university. I ought to declare an interest in this matter, having had three children at university at the same time and knowing that it is burdensome to cope with that situation. Having declared that interest, I nevertheless think it right that this matter should be given a sympathetic hearing.

Mr. Simon

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was quite unduly modest in moving the Second Reading of this new Clause, because, in point of fact, his speech was clarity itself. When I say that, I must not be taken as going on to say that it was cogency itself. The very fact that it was so clear showed all the more clearly the faults in the case he propounded, particularly when, again with great clarity, he described the way the tax worked. On the incidence of the figures concerned, I am sure hon. Members must have felt it was rather like a game of snakes and ladders in which one went up to the total and then came down again.

When we discussed all these allowances in Committee, we were agreed that the proper way to regard them, as I think was made clear by the Royal Commission, is in playing their part in the system of gradation of tax. They are not supposed to reimburse for any disability. They are, however, designed to take their part in the system of gradation of the tax system, and, therefore, designed to take some account of the taxable capacity of the taxpayer.

6.15 p.m.

If one looks at these allowances in that way, one sees that certain results follow. The first is that the child's dependence on the parent for financial support reduces the taxable capacity of the parent on whom the child is dependent. That is the fundamental reason for giving an allowance of this sort. Secondly, I should have thought it would be universally agreed that the child's dependence on its parent for financial support bears upon the amount of his income and not upon its nature. What this new Clause does is to differentiate according to the nature of the income and not according to the total amount.

Surely there is no good reason why the parent's title to a tax allowance for his child should depend on whether any income the child may have is earned or invested income. It is the total income of the child that matters for this purpose, nor its nature. The hon. and learned Member said his aim was to make the tax progressive, but this Clause would not do so. In the first place, it is not a tax; it is an allowance. Secondly, the Clause is not in any way seeking to tilt the tax balance so that it helps those whose income is smaller. On the contrary, the Clause would draw a quite arbitrary distinction according to whether the income is earned or unearned.

Mr. Mitchison

I am sorry if I used the wrong word. What I had in mind was the type of progressiveness in the earned income allowance. Perhaps I should have invented an adjective and said "earned income allowance-ish" instead of "progressive".

Mr. Simon

With great respect, where I thought the hon. and learned Member was at fault, and still is at fault, was in not keeping in mind that this is an allowance to the parent. It is in no sense an allowance to the child, but is a parent's allowance counting against his income. Why should the father of an apprentice earning up to £200 a year get an allowance under this Clause while the father of a school child with an investment income of £101 get no allowance? If one approaches the problem in the way I suggest, looking at the income and allowance to the father and the taxable capacity of the father—

Mr. Mitchison

That father would get an allowance; he would get the £100 allowance. I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Clause he will find that is so.

Mr. Simon

I think I am right in saying that under the Clause as drawn, if there is an investment income of £101 there would be no allowance at all.

Mr. Mitchison

One does not want to be discussing the wrong thing. That is not so. The whole question about deducting unearned income arises only in the excess over £100. We cannot get at the £100 by means of this Clause. The £100 is there as part of the income, whatever it is. It is only the excess which is affected by the Clause.

Mr. Simon

I think I am right in saying that the present limit is £100, whether it is earned or unearned. Therefore, if there is an investment income of £101 there is no allowance. I am comparing that case with the case of a child earning £200. I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member that we all desire to see the system of apprenticeship extended. We all desire to see the apprentice earning a good wage. We certainly do not want to see an abasement of the wages. Nevertheless, the point I made is a valid one, that this is an allowance. Its purpose in the fiscal system is to take part in the system of gradation and it would fail to do so under this new Clause.

The second point I venture to make is that there must come a point at which it would be too generous to give both the parent an allowance for the child and to give the child the ordinary single person's allowance against his own income. The question of where one draws the line is a matter for judgment. This new Clause seeks to draw it in a different place from the present law. Nevertheless, we all agree that there must come a point at which a line of that sort must be drawn. The question of where the line shall be drawn cannot be viewed, so to speak, platonically: it must be drawn in relation to other allowances.

The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) chided me in Committee because of what he thought I had in mind, the repercussions which may be involved in an allowance. Nevertheless, one must have regard to the effect of this tax and this allowance in relation to other allowances, for the reason that if we increase an allowance, that must be paid by somebody else, and it would be wrong to have it paid by another taxpayer who is worse off. It is in regard to the figure of £180 at which a single person begins to pay tax that I ask the House to look at this new Clause.

At present, the child allowance is £100 for a child not over 11 years of age; £125 between the ages of 11 and 16, and £150 over 16. That means that a child over 16 can get from tax up to £250. This Clause proposes to increase it virtually by £100. Yet that figure of £250 is already greatly in excess of the figure of £180 at which a single person ordinarily starts to pay tax. Therefore, from the point of view of repercussions as well, I submit that this Clause cannot be accepted.

The third matter I will put shortly. It is the purely capricious incidence of this Clause so far as concerns the income of the child, according to whether it is investment or earned income. I need not make the point more at large than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the figures perfectly clearly and fairly, but they show how the allowance to the father varies purely in accordance not with the income of the child and therefore the burden of the child, but according to how that income is made up as between earned and unearned income.

Finally, I would point out that the new Clause would cost about £3½ million in a full year. That is not the ultimate reason, but, obviously, it is a matter which would weigh greatly with my right hon. Friend in deciding whether to accept the new Clause which, for the other reasons I have given, is in my submission not acceptable.

Mr. Houghton

We regret that the Financial Secretary has rejected this new Clause and has been so uncompromising in his criticism of it. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not lay too much stress on the cost, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already let dividend strippers get away with more than £3½ million. Had the Chancellor taken what we believe to be reasonable steps to recoup the Revenue, at least the right hon. Gentleman would be in a better financial position to meet the cost of the proposals contained in the Clause.

On the merits of the matter, the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that in paragraphs 182 to 184 of its Second Report, the Royal Commission had some criticisms to make of the existing structure of the child allowance, in certain respects, of the gradation of the allowance. Last year, the former Chancellor introduced three steps in the child allowance in place of the one which previously obtained. He increased the income limit of the child from £85 to £100, which is the new point of income of the child at which the parent is disqualified from the allowance.

The Royal Commission recommended a tapering arrangement, which is quite common in tax reliefs of this kind—a tapering arrangement, or a marginal relief, whatever we like to call it. It is a device which removes the anomaly that £1 over the limit disqualifies for the total allowance, and it moderates the effect of the conditions of the relief where they are just exceeded.

We have a tapering arrangement in connection with age relief and in the case of the allowance for a dependent relative. Marginal problems are dealt with in both those and in other cases. But that is not so regarding the child allowance, and £1 income over the £100 limit disqualifies the parent completely from the tax relief for that Income Tax year. The Royal Commission recommended that something should be done about it and on at least two occasions, on 29th June, 1954, and 29th May, 1957, we made proposals which followed generally the lines of the Royal Commission's recommendations. But on both occasions the proposed changes were rejected, which really means—or so it seems—that the Government have no intention of adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission contained in paragraphs 182–4 of the second Report about a tapering arrangement.

That, I think, is deplorable, because the present allowance is manifestly unfair on many parents. Especially we have brought to the attention of the Committee and of the House in the past the grievance of a parent whose child leaves school in the middle of the financial year and who is getting the allowance because the child was still at school at the beginning of the tax year. He may have received it in his code for July, August, September, October or November in that tax year.

Then, if the child becomes an apprentice, or starts work and earns more than £100, for the remainder of the Income Tax year the allowance is withdrawn from the parent retrospectively. He has to pay additional tax in the following year, because the Inland Revenue in such cases usually disqualifies the parent from the allowance and makes a compensating adjustment in the P.A.Y.E. code for the following year to save the taxpayer from having to pay a lump sum which may bear hardly upon him.

The Financial Secretary made great play with the fact that we had distinguished between earned and unearned income. He advanced the principle that the real test is the dependency of the child on the parent. If the child has income, it matters not whether it is earned or unearned, it is money just the same; £1 of the unearned income is equivalent to £1 of earned income. There is no difference between the two when we come to measure the dependency of the child on the parent.

Time will not permit my taking the House back to the Irishman on the Colwyn Commission of 1919–20 who said that he could see no difference between earned and unearned income when applying the test of ability to pay. If the Income Tax is adjusted on ability to pay, what does it matter, he asked, whether the income is earned or unearned? The taxpayer cannot afford any more because his income is unearned than if it were earned. Yet, traditionally, we have given relief to earned income. I am not making any plea to carry that differential into the case of the child allowance on the same ground as we give earned income relief to taxpayers generally.

6.30 p.m.

Let me point out, however, that a child in possession of unearned income is usually in possession of that income all the time, and not only in the year of leaving school and going to work. It is usually a kind grandmother or aunt or some other member of the family other than the father or mother who has made the settlement on the child, or it has inherited a capital sum which produces investment income.

It is true that under the existing arrangement, and under the new Clause, a child with unearned income of over £100 would disqualify the parent from the allowance. The new Clause makes no alteration there, but I do draw a distinction between a child who is drawing unearned income year by year, of which the parent has the benefit and, subject to its being under £100, the parent is not disqualified from the allowance, and the special position of the child when it begins to earn in the year of leaving school and going to work.

Many parents in my constituency have told me that that is the most expensive year of the child's life, more expensive than when it went to school, because in that same year they had to change over from the requirements of a school child to the requirements of a young person entering on working life—

Mr. Simon

I need not point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is noticed now, and recognised by the increase in the allowance which has obtained since last year. As against the former £85, I think that it is now £150.

Mr. Houghton

Yes, I acknowledge that and, of course, it had not escaped me. I merely comment on it by saying that an increase of only £15, from £85 to £100, is very small recognition of the significant change in a child's life in that year of leaving school and starting work.

Mr. Simon

I was referring not only to the increase from £85 to £100 in the child's maximum earnings to attract the allowance, but also to the increase in the allowance itself in the year that the child leaves school.

Mr. Houghton

I agree there, but the allowance that the parent loses in the year in which the child leaves school and starts work is greater than it was before. The hon. and learned Gentleman may say that I have an inverted sense of justice, but it remains the truth that the higher the allowance in the last year of going to school the higher the allowance that has to be lost when the child goes to work. The tax penalty is thereby greater. I am sorry to put it in terms unacceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but that is how parents see it, if I may say so, when the allowance is cut off in the year the child leaves school and goes to work—

Mr. Chapman

Does it not bear even more heavily in the case of the child's last year at university, when it starts to work in the following October? The expenses of a parent in that last year at the university are even greater than those in the last year at school.

Mr. Houghton

I accept that, on my reasoning, my hon. Friend has there a greater grievance still. I follow his argument, and fully support it. This problem of the child starting work, at whatever age it begins, undoubtedly puts heavier expense on the parent.

This new Clause is also designed to cover the case of students and undergraduates who are putting their vacations to gainful employment of one kind or another. We are sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been more forthcoming. It seems that we are up against a blank wall in trying to pursue a reform recommended by the Royal Commission, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 250.

Division No. 198.] AYES [6.35 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Hastings, S. Palmer, A. M. F.
Albu, A. H. Hayman, F. H. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Healey, Denis Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) Parker, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Herbison, Miss M. Parkin, B. T.
Bacon, Miss Alice Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Paton, John
Baird, J. Holman, P. Pearson, A.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Holmes, Horace Peart, T. F.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Holt, A. F. Pentland, N.
Benson, Sir George Houghton, Douglas Popplewell, E.
Beswick, Frank Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Prentice, R. E.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Howell, Denis (All Saints) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Blackburn, F. Hoy, J. H. Probert, A. R.
Blenkinsop, A. Hubbard, T. F. Proctor, W. T.
Blyton, W. R. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Boardman, H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Bonham Carter, Mark Hunter, A. E. Redhead, E. C.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Reeves, J.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rhodes, H.
Boyd, T. C. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brockway, A. P. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Ross, William
Burke, W. A. Johnson, James (Rugby) Royle, C.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Shurmer, P. L. E.
Chapman, W. D. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Chetwynd, G. R. Kenyon, C. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Clunie, J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Coldrick, W. King, Dr. H. M. Skeffington, A. M.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Lawson, G. M. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Collins, V. J. (shoreditch & Finsbury) Ledger, R. J. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cronin, J. D. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Snow, J. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Sorensen, R. W.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lindgren, G. S. Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Lipton, Marcus Steele, T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Logan, D. G. Stonehouse, John
Delargy, H. J. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, W. (Consett)
Diamond, John McAlister, Mrs. Mary Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Dodds, N. N. McCann, J. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Donnelly, D. L. MacColl, J. E. Sylvester, G. O.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) MacDermot, Niall Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dye, S. McInnes, J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) McLeavy, Frank Thornton, E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Tomney, F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mahon, Simon Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Usborne, H. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd. E.) Viant, S. P.
Fernyhough, E. Mann, Mrs. Jean Wade, D. W.
Finch, H. J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Warbey, W. N.
Fitch, Alan Mason, Roy Weitzman, D.
Fletcher, Eric Mayhew, C. P. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mellish, R. J. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Messer, Sir F. Wheeldon, W. E.
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) Mitchison, G. R. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Gibson, C. W. Monslow, W. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Gooch, E. G. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Wilkins, W. A.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.) Willey, Frederick
Greenwood, Anthony Mort, D. L. Williams, David (Neath)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Moss, R. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (A'b'tillery)
Grey, C. F. Moyle, A. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mulley, F. W. Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Griffiths, Rt Hon. James (Llanelly) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Grimond, J. Oliver, G. H. Winterbottom, Richard
Hale, Leslie Orbach, M. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oswald, T. Woof, R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. Owen, W. J. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Hannan, W. Padley, W. E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Paget, R. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.
Agnew, Sir Peter Graham, Sir Fergus Markham, Major Sir Frank
Aitken, W. T. Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Alport, C. J. M. Green, A. Marshall, Douglas
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Gresham Cooke, R. Mathew, R.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Mawby, R. L.
Arbuthnot, John Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Armstrong, C. W. Gurden, Harold Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ashton, H. Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Atkins, H. E. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M. Harris, Reader (Heston) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Baldwin, Sir Archer Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Nairn, D. L. S.
Balniel, Lord Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Neave, Airey
Barber, Anthony Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Barlow, Sir John Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Barter, John Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Batsford, Brian Hesketh, R. F. Noble, Michael (Argyil)
Baxter, Sir Beverley Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Oakshott, H. D.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Page, R. G.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Hope, Lord John Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Hornby, R. P. Partridge, E.
Bidgood, J. C. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Peel, W. J.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Horobin, Sir Ian Peyton, J. W. W.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bishop, F. P. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Black, C. W. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Body, R. F. Howard, John (Test) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bossom, Sir Alfred Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Powell, J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Braine, B. R. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hulbert, Sir Norman Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Brooman-White, R. C. Hurd, A. R. Ramsden, J. E.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.) Rawlinson, Peter
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Hyde, Montgomery Redmayne, M.
Burden, F. F. A. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Rees-Davies, W. R.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Waiden) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Renton, D. L. M.
Carr, Robert Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Ridsdale, J. E.
Chichester-Clark, R. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Cole, Norman Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Robertson, Sir David
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Roper, Sir Harold
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Joseph, Sir Keith Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Kaberry, D. Russell, R. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Keegan, D. Sharples, R. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Shepherd, William
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cunningham, Knox Kershaw, J. A. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Currie, G. B. H. Kimball, M. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Dance, J. C. G. Kirk, P. M. Speir, R. M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lagden, G. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Deedes, W. F. Lambton, Viscount Stevens, Geoffrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield Langford-Holt, J. A. Steward Harold (Stockport, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Leather, E. H. C. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A. Leavey, J. A. Storey, S.
Drayson, G. B. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Studholme, Sir Henry
du Cann, E. D. L. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Summers, Sir Spencer
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Duncan, Sir James Linstead, Sir H. N. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Teeling, W.
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Longden, Gilbert Temple, John M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Errington, Sir Eric Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Fell, A. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Finlay, Graeme McAdden, S. J. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Fisher, Nigel Macdonald, Sir Peter Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Tilney, John (Wavertrea)
Fort, R. Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Gammans, Lady MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Vickers, Miss Joan
Garner-Evans, E. H. Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley) Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
George, J. C. (Pollok) Maddan, Martin Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Glover, D. Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Wall, Patrick
Godber, J. B. Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Gower, H. R. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Webster, David
Whitelaw, W. S. I. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) Woollam, John Victor
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) Wood, Hon. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.