HC Deb 15 July 1958 vol 591 cc1119-33

(1) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may by notice in writing require any person to furnish them within such time as they may direct (not being less than twenty-eight days), in respect of any dividend declared paid or received and any claim to repayment of income tax made by that or any other person at any time during the period specified in the notice, such particulars as they consider necessary for the purposes of sections eighteen and nineteen of this Act and of the enactments mentioned in those sections.

(2) The Treasury may by order direct that the power conferred by the foregoing subsection may be used not only for the purposes mentioned in that subsection, but also for such other purposes as may be specified in the order, being purposes conducive in the opinion of the Treasury to discovering whether the person on whom the notice is served was during the said period engaged by himself or in concert with others in acts, transactions or arrangements, the object of which was, by devices intended to circumvent the effect of the said sections or enactments or any of them, to avoid liability to income tax or to secure the repayment of income tax paid or deemed to have been paid:

Provided that no order shall be made under this subsection until a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.

(3) If any person on whom a notice is served under this section fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the notice, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds and after judgment has been given for that penalty to a further penalty of the like amount during every day on which the failure continues.—[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Houghton

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

I am sure that the Chancellor must be sick of the subject of dividend stripping by now and so is the whole House, because this is one of the less agreeable chapters of our discussions on the Finance Bill. This new Clause is divided into three parts. Subsection (1) I would call the intelligence service; subsection (2) the detective service, and subsection (3) is the one imposing penalties for those who fail to satisfy the requirements of subsections (1) and (2).

Subsection (1) gives a standing power to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to find out what is going on. The subsection would give to the Inland Revenue powers to ask for information regarding any dividend declared paid or received and any claim to repayment of income tax made by that or any other person at any time during the period specified in the notice, such particulars as they consider necessary for the purposes of sections eighteen and nineteen of the present Bill and for other enactments mentioned in those provisions. The purpose of this is to give the Inland Revenue greater powers than we believe it to possess to delve into activities which may assist it in coming to conclusions about the nature and extent of dividend stripping operations.

Subsection (2) is of a different kind. That would give to the Treasury special powers of investigation, but only under the affirmative Resolution of this House.

These powers would enable the authorities to go even deeper into transactions which it might be thought were undertaken mainly for the purpose of getting round the elaborate provisions now made against dividend stripping in Section 4 of the Finance Act (No. 2) Act, 1955, and in Clauses 18 and 19 of this Bill. There, the Treasury, once it was given the necessary authority by order of this House, would be able to seek information from persons, whether acting alone …or in concert with others in acts transactions or arrangements, the object of which was, by devices intended to circumvent the effect of the said sections or enactments or any of them, to avoid liability to income tax or to secure the repayment of income tax paid or deemed to have been paid. It will be noted that the new Clause does not confer on the Inland Revenue any remedies for what it may discover. That would be possible only by the normal procedure of this House, but, at least, it would enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—permanently in the case of the information they could require under subsection (1), and exceptionally in respect of information which, by order, the Treasury might be empowered to seek under subsection (2)—to have all the information necessary to advise the Chancellor on what was happening to the dividend-stripping legislation.

I know that this is unorthodox—it is not the sort of thing we usually put in Finance Bills—but, surely, when dealing with this underworld, this labyrinth of dividend strippers, the ingenious people who are erecting highly-artificial structures of company transactions and arrangements solely for the purpose of tax avoidance, we must take exceptional steps. We hope, therefore, that in this new Clause the Chancellor will see a desire to reinforce his efforts to stop these malpractices.

We feel that this is one respect in which he has probably failed the demands of the Committee and the House in his anti-avoidance proposals. We cannot offer any more in this than that the Chancellor will, perhaps, be better informed at the end of it than he would be without this machinery. There is evidence, surely, to the satisfaction of the House that the Chancellor has not been well informed. This is no reflection upon him, or indeed, upon the Inland Revenue.

The fact remains that in the autumn of 1955, the then Chancellor and the then Financial Secretary confidently recommended what is now Section 4 of the Finance Act (No. 2) Act, 1955, as the end of the dividend stripper, and now that we see in Clauses 18 and 19 that he is not only not dead but alive and kicking and developing new fields of activity, surely the House will realise that something quite exceptional should be provided to enable this scandal to be brought speedily to an end.

I sincerely hope that the Chancellor will regard this as a proposal, made in a friendly spirit, designed to fortify his efforts, in which we join, to check the dividend strippers. Let us hear no more about the end of dividend stripping until the Chancellor can satisfy us that he has all the facilities available to deal with further malpractices and can convince us that he can dispense with the additional powers that this new Clause seeks to give him. We hope that he will accept our proposal as a genuine attempt to enable him to deal effectively with the difficulties that have taken so much time on this Finance Bill.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

I beg to second the Motion.

The first and third of its subsections come, of course, from the bond-washing provisions. The penalties are the same, the procedure is the same and the only difference is that the scope of subsection (1) of this Clause is rather more restricted than the corresponding one in the bond-washing Clause.

I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the principle of these two subsections, whatever he says about the second subsection to which I shall come in a moment. It seems to me that it is quite clear from the history of dividend stripping that the dividend strippers have always been one step ahead of the Treasury and the Treasury has been chronically short of information as to what they are doing.

I would regard subsection (1) as an aid to collecting information purely for the purposes of these two dividend stripping subsections, if I may so call them, and, of course, the enactments mentioned in them, which are really part of the same picture. I cannot imagine that the Treasury can say that it does not need these two subsections in the light of the history of the matter. The Treasury has three times at least declared that it can cope with dividend stripping and then not done it. The first time was in 1955, the second time was when this Bill was introduced, which was going to complete the picture at any rate as at the present day, and the third time was when we reached the Report stage of the Bill and found some additional provisions for a similar purpose.

All that can only come from one of two things, either lack of information or lack of meditation. I should not like to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having meditated enough on the matter, and I am driven to the conclusion that his information must have been too scanty. In those circumstances, I cannot imagine him refusing these two subsections.

Subsection (2) is another matter because it has no parallel in the Income Tax Acts; but then dividend stripping has reached a stage when one is a bit short of parallels for it. Given that history, which I will not repeat, is the Treasury prepared to say that we have now, at long last, not only dealt with whatever practices there are at the time, not only dealt with whatever practices the Treasury can foresee, but have also dealt with any other possible variety of dividend stripping which the ingenious tribe of dividend strippers and their professional advisers may devise from time to time? The Treasury cannot say that on the history of the matter.

One notices the aversion to retrospective legislation in this matter, and therefore one is forced to see if one can deal with this struggle against this Proteus in some other way. What is suggested here is that the Treasury be given powers to ask for information—and the powers, I agree, are in pretty wide terms—but, at the end of the day, it is only information and no one is going to be oppressed by giving it.

One has to remember that if through lack of information some new device is concocted by the dividend strippers and the Treasury does not become aware of it for a considerable period, then the loss to the Revenue may amount to very large sums indeed. The trouble about the business is that, so far at any rate, there appears to be quite a long gap between the date when a device was thought up and put into operation and the time when action was taken.

If the Treasury has the power to collect the information, then, attributing to it due intelligence in dealing with the matter, as, of course, we do, it would then become possible to inquire from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to introduce any orders under the Clause, for, of course, he can do nothing under it except on an affirmative Resolution of the House. It exposes him, I admit at once, to a certain amount of Parliamentary responsibility and, therefore, Parliamentary attack in the intervals between one Finance Bill and another.

What strikes me about this kind of matter is that hon. Members of the House who are interested in these things very often seem to know quite a lot about what is going on. Whether we know or whether we suspect, it is, at any rate, not inconceivable that we might, by reading the contributions of Mr. Westropp to the Sunday Express or otherwise, discover things which we thought merited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The object of the Clause, therefore, is not merely to give him powers but to put him in a position where he can be questioned and, to some extent, be urged to take action between one Finance Bill and another.

What is the present position? Here is this changing dividend stripper, moving from one variety to another, changing his shape continually, devising first one thing and then another, and doing rather well out of it. What is the Chancellor's position? As I see it, he cannot know anything about a new device until it comes up in some form or another on the question of liability to tax. That, of course, might take some time, particularly if it is in the interests of those concerned that he should not know until they have done as much as they can without his knowing. Then, when it does happen, he is still hamstrung between one Finance Bill and another, unless he is prepared to introduce some special legislation, and no Chancellor has ever introduced a single fiscal Measure with the object of saving the Revenue millions of pounds by stopping some kind of device. There is always that handicap on the right hon. Gentleman, a handicap which may last up to one year, and, on a simple average, would appear to last for six months or so, during which time the dividend strippers, even if he already knows of their devices, have a clear run.

It is to stop that kind of thing that we suggest that, at least, he should collect the necessary information. As an Opposition, we cannot do more. If we could see a way of imposing further liability on dividend strippers or other such persons, we could not introduce the necessary provisions into a money Bill. All we can do is to suggest that the Chancellor should be informed and avoid the sad history of this matter recurring again and again. Otherwise, it seems tolerably clear that it will.

Mr. Maudling

My right hon. Friend appreciates the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to fortify his powers, but he does not feel that the new Clause would have that result, for reasons which I shall endeavour to explain.

I should make it clear, in view of one or two things which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has just said, that this is not really the matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had in mind on Second Reading when he spoke about the possibility of action in the meantime.

Mr. Mitchison

indicated assent.

Mr. Maudling

That other suggestion, an interesting one, will no doubt be pursued on other occasions. We are here concerned with obtaining information. The impression we have is that the new Clause would not be effective for that purpose.

The hon. and learned Member alluded to the fact that this proposal is based upon the bond washing section. He will not be surprised to know that that point has been pointed out to us as well. It comes under Section 203 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. However, the circumstances are entirely different, because in bond washing the taxpayer did not show the sacrificed dividend on his return of income. He did not receive that dividend. With a stripped dividend it is different, because he receives the dividend. He must include it in his return of income, since the whole purpose of the operation is to put forward the dividend in support of a repayment claim. Dividend stripping cannot take place until the dividend is brought to the notice of the Inland Revenue.

The Inland Revenue already has considerable powers which seem adequate to obtain information. A company paying a dividend is bound by statute to give the recipient a certificate regarding the gross amount and the tax deducted. The recipient can be called upon to produce this for inspection and appropriate inquiries about the paying company's circumstances can then be made. An inspector of taxes who is not satisfied as to the validity of the claim in any particular respect can withhold repayment and leave it to the claimant to establish his title by a formal appeal. In that case, all the details would be put forward and the onus would be on the claimant to establish his case by adequate evidence.

We therefore feel that the case here is not in line with that in bond washing. The dividend will have to be brought to the notice of the Inland Revenue for the purposes of the dividend stripping operation itself, and in those circumstances the Revenue's existing powers are entirely adequate to enable them to obtain all the information that they are likely to wish to have. Therefore, we feel that the first subsection of the proposed new Clause is unnecessary and that the Revenue is already sufficiently armed.

I come now to the second subsection, which is a more novel and ingenious suggestion. Once again, I suggest to the House that it will not achieve the purpose that the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. As the Clause is drafted, inquiries under any order extending the Revenue's powers could only relate to transactions already carried out. Obviously, inquiries about transactions merely in contemplation would not be a fruitful field of inquiry. Even if the subsection of the new Clause is used, in view of the fact that it refers only to past transactions, it would not enable the Revenue to learn of new devices any more quickly than it does in present circumstances, when the transactions culminate, as they must, in the repayment claims. Our belief is that in fact this device, although we recognise the idea behind it, would not enable the Revenue to get on to dividend stripping devices any quicker than it can at the moment.

There is this positive disadvantage about the proposal. An order of this kind brought before the House would have to give a fairly clear idea of the sort of device that the Revenue had in mind. Once that appeared, the people who are engaged in these practices would be put on notice that this sort of thing was attracting the attention of the Revenue. There might be a little time left to take advantage of the situation, and possibly a number of people who operate in this way but who had not thought of this device might have some undesirable ideas put into their minds. It is important that the Inland Revenue should not expose its hand in advance of taking action. There is clearly a danger of premature exposure of what the Revenue is searching for, thereby putting people on notice and giving an opportunity to complete transactions in advance of the door being closed upon them.

For the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, we feel that the new Clause would not in any way add to the ability of the Inland Revenue to deal with the problem of dividend stripping. With regard to the second suggestion, we feel that there is a danger that it might in practice actually hamper the Inland Revenue. Therefore, for both reasons I must advise the House not to accept the proposed new Clause.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Wilson

We should be a great deal more impressed by the argument of the Paymaster-General if we could feel that the Inland Revenue was pursuing this problem with the energy that is required, or, perhaps, to put it more fairly, if the Revenue was put by the Treasury in a position in which it could deal with this practice.

I do not think that the blame rests upon the Revenue. It rests upon successive Chancellors over the past two or three years. It is plain that the Board of Inland Revenue pressed the then Chancellor in 1955 for action, action which was long delayed and which cost the Revenue millions of pounds. It is clear, again, that there was a long delay before the present Chancellor took action. We all know the sorry and miserable story of his failure to deal with this question adequately this year, a story which, in view of the hour, I do not propose to repeat tonight, as we are trying to set an example to hon. Members opposite in the speed with which our Amendments are dealt with. This is only the second Amendment or new Clause which we have moved all day. We promised the Chancellor that we hoped to get it through much more quickly than would his hon. Friends behind him, who, in the particular circumstances of today, have taken far too long.

I will not go into all the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). The plain fact is that we would like to see the Treasury armed with powers which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it would have been out of order for us to put on the Notice Paper today, and which it would be out of order for me to state at any length now. This proposal of ours is complementary to what we would have liked to propose. We would like power to seek information and to take immediate action. We cannot propose the immediate action. We can at least propose the seeking of information.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, who is always too kind to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, suggested that the Government's failure to act so far was due either to lack of information or to lack of meditation. We know that it is neither of those two reasons. It is, in fact, a lack of determination. We believe that the Government have the information that is required—they have had it for many years. Everybody in the accountancy profession knows what is going on. Hon. Members, on both sides, could give the Chancellor a full resumé.

Indeed, when this debate is over, I propose to hand to him a full statement on measures of dividend stripping which he has not even begun to deal with. I should be out of order to deal with them now or say how they should be dealt with. I hope, however, that the Chancellor, if he is still in office, will not wait another year before this problem is dealt with. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to supplement this information and to make it available to the House by the kind of powers that we have proposed.

Bond washing was never fully killed by Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1937. It was not until last year that some of the major evils of it were dealt with by the Stock Exchange Council in August. We feel that it will be necessary to have a sustained drive on a much wider front. The information is needed. Powers are needed to take action between Finance Bills. These proposals we cannot move.

The Paymaster-General advanced one or two plausible arguments towards the end of his speech about putting these gentlemen on warning. That is only an admission that the Government refuse

to take power to hit them as soon as they can and, if necessary, retrospectively. Despite the plausible nature of that rather inadequate part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, it is because we feel that the Government have no determination about this matter, except when something is really forced upon them, that we intend to take this matter into the Division Lobby.

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

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 245.

Division No. 199.] AYES [9.5 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then) Mahon, Simon
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Gibson, C. W. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gooch, E. G. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Awbery, S. S. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mann, Mrs. Jean
Bacon, Miss Alice Greenwood, Anthony Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Baird, J. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mason, Roy
Balfour, A. Grey, C. F. Mayhew, C. P.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mellish, R. J.
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mitchison, G. R.
Benson, Sir George Griffiths, William (Exchange) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Beswick, Frank Hale, Leslie Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mort, D. L.
Blackburn, F. Hamilton, W. W. Moss, R.
Blenkinsop, A. Hannan, W. Moyle, A.
Blyton, W. R. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Mulley, F. W.
Boardman, H. Hastings, S. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hayman, F. H. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.) Herbison, Miss M. Oliver, G. H.
Boyd, T. C. Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Oswald, T.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Holman, P. Owen, W. J.
Brockway, A. F. Holmes, Horace Padley, W. E.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Houghton, Douglas Paget, R. T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Palmer, A. M. F.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Howell, Denis (All Saints) Pargiter, G. A.
Burke, W. A. Hoy, J. H. Parker, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hubbard, T. F. Parkin, B. T.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Paton, John
Champion, A. J. Hunter, A. E. Peart, T. F.
Chapman, W. D. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pentland, N.
Chetwynd, G. R. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Popplewell, E.
Clunie, J. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Prentice, R. E.
Coldrick, W. Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.) Proctor, W. T.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Cove, W. G. Johnson, James (Rugby) Rankin, John
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield) Redhead, E. C.
Cronin, J. D. Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Rhodes, H.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Kenyon, C. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Deer, G. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Ross, William
de Freitas, Geoffrey King, Dr. H. M. Royle, C.
Delargy, H. J. Lawson, G. M. Short, E. W.
Diamond, John Ledger, R. J. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Dodds, N. N. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dye, S. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Skeffington, A. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Lindgren, G. S. Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Logan, D. G. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sorensen, R. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McAlister, Mrs. Mary Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) McCann, J. Sparks, J. A.
Fernyhough, E. MacColl, J. E. Spriggs, Leslie
Finch, H. J. MacDermot, Niall Steele, T.
Fitch, Alan McInnes, J. Stonehouse, John
Fletcher, Eric McKay, John (Wallsend) Stones, W. (Consett)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McLeavy, Frank Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) Usborne, H. C. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Warbey, W. N. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Sylvester, G. O. Weitzman, D. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Wheeldon, W. E. Winterbottom, Richard
Taylor, John (West Lothian) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) Woof, R. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wilkins, W. A. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) Willey, Frederick
Thornton, E. Williams, David (Neath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Tomney, F. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Fort, R. Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Aitken, W. T. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale) Linstead, Sir H. N.
Alport, C. J. M. Gammans, Lady Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Garner-Evans, E. H. Longden, Gilbert
Arbuthnot, John George, J. C. (Pollok) Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Armstrong, C. W. Glover, D. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ashton, H. Godber, J. B. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Atkins, H. E. Goodhart, Philip Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Gower, H. R. Macdonald, Sir Peter
Baldwin, Sir Archer Graham, Sir Fergus Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Balniel, Lord Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Barber, Anthony Green, A. McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Barlow, Sir John Gresham Cooke, R. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Barter, John Grimond, J. Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Batsford, Brian Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maddan, Martin
Baxter, Sir Beveley Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Beamish, Col. Tufton Gurden, Harold Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Harris, Reader (Heston) Marlowe, A. A. H.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) Marshall, Douglas
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Mathew, R.
Bidgood, J. C. Hay, John Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Mawby, R. L.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Bishop, F. P. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Black, C. W. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Body, R. F. Hesketh, R. F. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Bonham Carter, Mark Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Neave, Airey
Boothby, Sir Robert Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Braine, B. R. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Brooman-White, R. C. Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n) Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Holland-Martin, C. J. Oakshott, H. D.
Bryan, P. Holt, A. F. O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim. N.)
Burden, F. F. A. Hope, Lord John Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Hornby, R. P. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Carr, Robert Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Page, R. G.
Cary, Sir Robert Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Chichester-Clark, R. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Partridge, E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Peel, W. J.
Cole, Norman Howard, John (Test) Peyton, J. W. W.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hurd, A. R. Pitman, I. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Hyde, Montgomery Powell, J. Enoch
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cunningham, Knox Iremonger, T. L. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Dance, J. C. G. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Ramsden, J. E.
Davidson, Viscountess Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Redmayne, M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Deedes, W. F. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Renton, D. L. M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Ridsdale, J. E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Doughty, C. J. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Drayson, G. B. Joseph, Sir Keith Roper, Sir Harold
du Cann, E. D. L. Keegan, D. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Kerby, Capt. H. B. Sharples, R. C.
Duncan, Sir James Kerr, Sir Hamilton Shepherd, William
Duthie, W. S. Kershaw, J. A. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Kimball, M. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.) Kirk, P. M. Speir, R. M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lagden, G. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Errington, Sir Eric Lambton, Viscount Stevens, Geoffrey
Farey-Jones, F. W. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Fell, A. Leather, E. H. C. Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Finlay, Graeme Leavey, J. A. Storey, S.
Fisher, Nigel Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Studholme, Sir Henry Tilney, John (Wavertree) Webster, David
Summers, Sir Spencer Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) Tweedsmuir, Lady Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) Vane, W. M. F. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Teeling, W. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Temple, John M. Vickers, Miss Joan Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F. Wood, Hon. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway) Wade, D. W. Woollam, John Victor
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Wall, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Mr. Gibson-Watt.