§ (1) Where money passes or is deemed to pass on the death of a person dying after the commencement of this Act to a body to which this section applies, that money shall not be taken into account for the purpose of estimating the principal value of the estate passing on the death or the rate at which estate duty is chargeable thereon and that money shall be exempt from estate duty.
§ (2) The bodies to which this section applies are the National Gallery, British Museum or any other similar national institution, the National Art Collections Fund, the society known as "the Friends of the National Libraries "or any other fund or society formed for the purpose of contributions to public museums, galleries or libraries and accepted by the Treasury as of public importance for that purpose.—[Mrs. White.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As the Financial Secretary is no doubt aware, this new Clause is based on a recent recommendation of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries. One of the duties laid upon that Commission is to stimulate the generosity and direct the efforts of those who aspire to become public benefactors. In pursuance of that duty, the Commission has been considering what could be done by way of alteration to the taxation law to stimulate the generosity of potential benefactors.
On page 10 of its latest Report, the Commission sets out a reasoned argument for making some changes in the incidence of Estate Duty which the Commission believes would be of very great value to our national and other public collections. The Commission also makes suggestions about Income Tax and Surtax.
1183 Naturally, we considered both sets of suggestions, but we considered that the suggestion for possible remission of Income Tax or Surtax, which is common practice in the United States of America and has done a great deal to bring the collections in the United States to their present very high standard, might lead to certain abuses. We believe that we should not follow that line without further reflection. However, we feel that a very strong case has been made out for some alteration in Estate Duty law.
As the House is no doubt very well aware, there is a long and respectable history in this matter. It goes back to the Finance Act, 1894, when it was decided that articles of historic or aesthetic importance should be exempt from Estate Duty, by kind permission of the Treasury, on certain conditions. That principle has been developed down the years by one Chancellor after another, until we have the present situation in which, in many different circumstances, books, pictures, manuscripts, scientific instruments and other objects may be exempted from being aggregated in the value of an estate for the purposes of Estate Duty, usually with the sanction of the Treasury and on certain conditions as to where the objects should remain. They may also be given free of duty to our great national collections.
I could go into considerable detail on this matter. I have armed myself with Green's "Death Duties", Fourth Edition, but I refrain from doing so because I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak and I hope that some hon. Members opposite will also take part. However, I will make the point that there is an anomaly that whereas gifts in kind are exempt, gifts in cash to the national institutions are not exempt but are taxed in the ordinary way. Even that is not universally true, because if land or a building is given to the National Trust, money for the maintenance thereof, or for chattels, may be exempted from duty. However, so far as I am aware, and I am supported in this by the Report of the Standing Commission, gifts in cash to the national collections or other public collections are not so exempt.
Thus we have this rather absurd situation that if one gives a picture which is valued at, say, £10,000—and perhaps 1184 we should now raise our sights and put it at nearer £250,000—the picture itself can be given to the National Gallery or the Wallace Collection or any other national collection without ranking for Estate Duty, while if the generous benefactor gives the money with which to purchase the picture, his estate has to bear the duty. That is a foolish anomaly, particularly as many institutions which may be beneficiaries under our proposals are themselves in receipt of public funds.
I remind hon. Members that the national institutions, which have to be approved by the Treasury before any exemption can hold good, include many which appear in Class IV of our Civil Estimates. It seems a pity, to say the least, that our taxation policy should be such as to deter possible benefactors from making cash benefactions to the British Museum, the Natural History Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Science Museum, the Royal Scottish Museum, and the other establishments concerned.
Quite deliberately, we have not extended our proposals to some of the other bodies to which gifts in kind can be given free of duty and which have been mentioned in previous legislation. They include municipal corporations, universities, and so on. At this stage at any rate it seems desirable to limit our proposals to the great national collections or other public museums, galleries or libraries which are accepted by the Treasury as being of public importance.
§ Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
This proposal would not prevent the Treasury adding to the list—for example, suggesting that a regional body concerned with the welfare of museums in the provinces should be added to the list at a later date and thus benefiting.
No. So far as I am aware, the Treasury would not need this new Clause, as under previous legislation it has complete discretion about which bodies it accepts as being of public importance.
I do not wish to labour the argument because it seems self-evident that there is an anomaly if one can give something in kind duty-free, but is precluded from giving the cash equivalent. No one wishes 1185 to penalise his heirs, which is the result of the present state of the law. I think that we are fully justified in asking the House to consider this recommendation from a learned and experienced body, I hope that the Chancellor will agree that one further step should now be taken in supporting these institutions.
It is true that they have been granted a little extra from the Treasury in the last few months, but that little is far too small to enable our great national institutions to fulfill their functions. This is a relatively painless way of inducing private benefactors to support the arts and learning in this country.
The party opposite usually lays very great stress on the virtues and merits not merely of private enterprise but of private benefactions, and I suppose that this suggestion is completely consonant with Conservative philosophy and that hon. Members opposite agree that these institutions should depend rather more on private benefactors than they do now. This would be an extremely effective way of drawing out from the larger estates, which are subject to the highest rates of Estate Duty, money which might otherwise not reach these institutions.
§ Dr. Stross
I beg to second the Motion.
I feel that the Clause is so modest in its request and so narrowly framed that it should meet with complete sympathy and understanding from the Treasury. If it went as far as the recommendations of the Standing Commission, I think we should all have some doubts. Having studied these full recommendations, we realise that if the Treasury were to accept them as they stand in the Report of the Standing Commission we should be competing with American patrons who are benefactors to their own institutions.
The prices of works of art would continue to soar more sharply than they have done up to the present, and many of us are very doubtful whether we could deny what was said in 1955, when the whole matter was looked at by the Royal Commission, namely, that it would be a dubious method of bringing about widespread patronage of the arts. None the less, it is, I think, impossible for anyone to deny that, as it stands, we have a completely illogical situation 1186 when one can give a gift worth £x, but not give the sum of money instead of the gift. Therefore, neither in logic nor in equity does it seem that a defence of the present situation can be made.
To show how narrow the Clause is, one has only to realise that in America any would-be patron can, if his income be large, make a declaration that in eight of the previous ten years 90 per cent. of his income has consisted of the tax that he pays plus the bequests that he makes. There is no limit whatsoever after that to what he may purchase for himself and keep for himself throughout his lifetime on condition that he bequeaths it to an appropriate institution. This is not something for which we are pleading. I mention it only to show how narrow and very modest the Clause is.
I am not sure whether I was on good ground when I intervened a little earlier, but we know that the Museums Association in trying to help museums and art galleries throughout the country has set up a regional organisation in the Southwest, and it may be that it would be possible if the Clause were accepted for such a regional organisation to be added to the list so that gifts of money could be made to it. Again, this could be very welcome to the Treasury, which must be aware, I hope, by now that there is considerable public opinion pressing upon the Chancellor the view that the situation in the provinces is not good.
It is not only the Standing Commission that has made this clear. In a report by Lord Bridges and his colleagues entitled "Help for the Arts", a report to the Gulbenkian Foundation published recently, the same problem is offered to us and very strong advice and exhortation given that we should not fall between two stools. If we are to have private patronage, we must make it possible. If we are to have public patronage, then the Government will have to be very much more generous.
The Daily Telegraph the other day gave us all some advice which I find reasonable. This was on 20th June. It referred, again, to the serious plight of the provincial museums service. It pointed out that there are two rival theories in the world. Some countries feel that they must rely entirely upon public patronage; that is to say, the 1187 Government must find all the money. That is the case in the Soviet Union. In the United States the exact opposite is the case; private patronage finds all the help that is needed, and the private patron is, therefore, encouraged by means of tax remission.
We do not do either of those things very well, it seems. At least, that is what the Daily Telegraph suggests. Whereas the Soviet Union this year is finding £1¼ million for the purchase of paintings by living artists alone, we know that the purchase grants to our national institutions, although considerably greater this year than they were, are still small in comparison with £1¼ million in respect only of living artists. Therefore, we should not make the mistake of failing to do the one thing or the other.
I notice that recently advice has been given to the country by the Bow Group. I have in my hand a report in the Manchester Guardian of 1st July, and one of the recommendations is apparently that there should be Income Tax remission on the purchase price of paintings where these are accepted by a museum or gallery as a gift to be made on the owner's death. This advice goes very much further than the Clause. So far, as I said earlier, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, we are dubious as to whether it might not allow abuse, but the Bow Group's proposals were printed and brought before us by the Conservative Political Centre. I wonder whether the Financial Secretary, if he is not influenced by what I am saying, is prepared to be influenced by his own colleagues and the organisation that he supports.
It is not likely that our proposal would cost the Treasury a great deal, but whatever was given in this way to assist museums and galleries throughout the country—in the first place, the national collections, and later on, perhaps, others if the list is enlarged—would ultimately save the Treasury having to find money. We know that a certain amount of money must be found if we are not to have the general museum service breaking down, and it must be accepted that it is in a parlous plight throughout the provinces. This gives real point to our plea that our narrow and modest Clause should receive the assent of the Treasury.
§ Sir Hamilton Kerr (Cambridge)
I listened with interest to the arguments outlined by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) in support of the Clause, the purpose of which is to exempt from Estate Duty moneys bequeathed to certain specified galleries. It seems to me a logical extension of the existing law which permits works of art where given to national collections to be exempted from Estate Duty. Someone once said—I cannot remember who it was; it might have been Louis XIV—that the trumpet of art sounds louder through space and time than any other trumpet. That certainly seems to be true today. We read in the newspapers of sales at Christies and Sotheby's where about £750,000 is obtained by the auctioneer in about seven minutes, or roughly £100,000 a minute.
I believe that the situation arises from two causes which we should consider. The first is that this country, in spite of losses, is still an Aladdin's cave of treasure. In the past we have obtained many great treasures, but it is equally true that unfortunately we have allowed many great treasures to be sent overseas. I suppose it is true that the collection of Charles I was the finest Royal collection ever made and, under the Commonwealth, it was sold at ridiculous prices—prices which even the Venetian Ambassador described as "prezzi vilissimi"; which we might translate as "the lowest possible price". It obtained—if my calculation is correct—the huge sum of £1,080,000 10s. 2d. Sir Robert Walpole's collection from Houghton provided the foundation for the collection of Catherine the Great at the Hermitage. If the Waverley Committee had existed in those days, perhaps those losses might have been avoided.
We read in the Gulbenkian Report that the United States citizen, if he spends up to 20 per cent. of his annual income, can obtain exemption from taxes to that amount. Furthermore, as was quoted by the hon. Member opposite, if in any one year of assessment the citizen can prove that in that year and in eight of the ten preceding years he has spent up to 90 per cent. of his income he can obtain exemption from Income Tax altogether. Nor do the advantages stop there, because he can enjoy the use of those works of 1189 art in his own home for his lifetime, provided they go at his death to one of the national museums. Many people in this country believe that we should follow the American example. The Gulbenkian Committee seems sympathetic to that point of view, but, on the other hand, we must frankly recognise that others oppose it.
The Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income was opposed to the idea, and the Waverley Committee was hostile. The more modest proposal advanced in the new Clause is only to increase the facilities for giving works of art to galleries in cash by exempting them from duty. It seems to me it would have one great practical result, that the Treasury might in future be spared giving ever-increasing sums to the national galleries from the donations of private collectors.
I should like to support the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that if we consider this policy we must likewise consider the provincial galleries which, as we know, are in a very bad way. The Chancellor was so generous to us on 23rd January and we know he is sympathetic to the cause of art that he will realise the salient factors of the situation, which are: the enormous price of works of art at present, that this country is a treasure cave, although a dwindling treasure cave, and the purchases by American buyers send up the prices. I am sure my right hon. Friend's ingenuity will find a solution.
§ Mr. Simon
This new Clause was proposed in a very agreeable speech, if she will allow me to say so, by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), supported by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). We have had a particularly felicitous contribution, such as we enjoy on these occasions, from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr).
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was sure that the Clause would meet with our sympathy and understanding. I can assure him that it does, but I am afraid I cannot go on to assure him that it meets with our assent. It seems to me that there is a fundamental fallacy underlying the Clause and the speeches which have been made in support of it.
1190 The hon. Lady said that this is a relatively painless way of supporting the arts, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that it would spare the Treasury from having to find the money. But the Treasury has not got any money; the money is the taxpayer's, and it makes no difference from the point of view of the taxpayer whether the money is found by a direct grant borne on a Vote, or found by forgoing some revenue that otherwise would be available. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the two methods. As long as it is a grant in aid it is subject to the control of Parliament, whereas if it is a matter of forgoing revenue it is a matter of fiscal remission. Whether it is Income Tax, Surtax or Estate Duty, Parliament has not got the same control—indeed, Parliament has not got any control.
In the case of Estate Duty running at the very high rate that it does at the moment, this proposal would mean that it would depend on the particular taxpayer—the particular testator—whether the State might have to contribute itself up to 80 per cent. in any particular year in supplement of a gift, or towards a gift. Therefore, it seems that when one is considering a fiscal remission or a direct vote there are overwhelming arguments in favour of a direct vote.
I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend pay a tribute to the interest of my right hon. Friend in this matter. On 23rd January this year we made a big step forward. I am bound to point out to the House that in our Estimates for this year we are providing for almost double the sum spent in 1951–52. That shows that we are prepared to take a step forward here. We have in fact taken a big step forward, which I believe is in consonance with the general wishes of the country, in support of the arts; but it seems to me the right way to do it is the way of a direct vote of Parliament in support of the purchasing powers, the staffing, maintenance and so on, rather than by these fiscal incentives.
The hon. Lady and various other hon. Members say that we already give a fiscal incentive in the case of specific objects bequeathed to the various museums and galleries going beyond the beneficiaries under this Clause. That is true. There is already complete exemption from duty in their case, but it seems 1191 that there is a fundamental difference—indeed, more than one fundamental difference—between the case of a specific object and a fund of money such as we are concerned with in this new Clause. In the first place, in the case of a specific object there is no fund out of which duty could be paid by the beneficiary, whereas in the case of a fund, by definition, there is the means of paying the duty that is exigible.
Secondly, the object of the legislation which has gone before as to specific objects was designed to keep collections together and to channel works of art, works of historical and scientific performance and so on, as they came into the market, towards the public galleries. That, of course, does not apply to a fund of money. It seems to us that there is no reason why there should be a deliberate encouragement to people to leave their estates for this particular purpose rather than for any other national purpose or for any charity, and, as I ventured to point out, partly in some cases largely at the expense of the Exchequer.
Thirdly, in the case of specific objects, there is control by the Treasury. As the hon. Lady pointed out, it is subject to Treasury consent. Treasury Ministers are therefore responsible to Parliament, and there is the possibility, in the case of specific objects, of Treasury control, also, the exemption is limited to objects of national importance, or scientific or national historical interest and so on.
In the end, it comes to this. There is already a benefit under the Estate Duty code in favour of these various galleries and all other charities in the case of gifts inter vivos, but in the case of anybody other than a charitable body the duty will be levied if the testator does not survive for five years after the making of the gift. In the case of a charity, he has to survive only one year, so that there is already a great incentive. The proposal here is that there shall nevertheless be an Estate Duty exemption even if he goes on enjoying his monetary property up to the moment of his death.
Are we justified in operating our Estate Duty exemption in favour of this particular type of benefit and leaving out all the other types of charitable bodies? The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the 1192 Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about anomalies, but surely it would be quite anomalous to say that we will give exemption if money is left to the Victoria and Albert Museum but not if it is left to the British Empire Cancer Campaign, that there should be exemption if it is left to the British Museum but not if it is left to Dr. Barnardo's Homes—for the Science Museum but not for the Churchill College, for the Friends of the National Libraries but not for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the National Gallery but not missionary activity for a leper colony, and so on.
One could multiply the examples. Although we pride ourselves on being dilettante in many ways, I do not believe that any such distinction would commend itself to the House; and therefore I could not recommend acceptance of this new Clause.
§ Mr. Mitchison
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury laid down a rule to which there are so many exceptions that he spent the rest of his speech explaining them away. That raises one's doubts about the rule. Let us see what, in fact, we are doing.
The present position, as I understand it, is that gifts of objects of special aesthetic national importance, to use the language of Section 40 of the" Finance Act, 1930, quite roughly, are exempt from Estate Duty and are not therefore exigible, subject to certain provisions in a subsequent Statute about allowing the public to have a look at them from time to time. That is the present position
The result of that is that this particular exception applies in relation to gifts of any sort and not merely where the property passes to one of these institutions. They come in in relation to sale afterwards. Consequently, there already is a pretty large hole in this type of matter in our Estate Duty provisions, but, of course, it is not the only hole. The present position is that, in certain circumstances, gifts not merely of land but of chattels to all other national bodies may be exempt from the duty; for instance, the land given to the National Trust and chattels of historic value in a property which passes to a public institution, or, again, if we turn to money, the funds to maintain one thing or another.
1193 I therefore find it hard, in the middle of these exceptions, to believe that the rule is as absolute or the reasons for it as cogent as the hon. and learned Gentleman would have us believe. I agree with him that, at the end of the day, one has to look at the broad reasons for this kind of exception. It is quite definitely in favour of objects which are, very broadly, of outstanding aesthetic or historical importance and in favour of certain national institutions, but the two things may go quite considerably together. This Clause has no relation to what is given. It relates solely to these institutions.
It is said that there is a difference between leaving a valuable picture to the National Gallery and leaving a sum of money. There is a difference, but I should have thought that if one is looking at the sense of the matter, the difference is a much more practical one than any which has been indicated already. I agree that increases have been made in the public contributions to these bodies. I do not agree that these increases make the contributions at present either generous or sufficient.
I believe that we ought to do a great deal more than we are doing at present if we are to keep our national heritage in these matters, whether those at present are in public or private hands, more or less intact. After all, it is a heritage which we have acquired not only from native artists and workers, but also from purchases made in the past by the galleries and by private individuals in this country from abroad. It is only lately that we have had to accept any need to limit exports. We used to be an importing country for this kind of thing.
Even accepting the narrower definition, I believe that anybody who reads the interesting document of the Standing Commission or looks at the facts must agree that our present contributions, even increased, are still insufficient. Perhaps the best instance is that, even with the standing amount of money given to these institutions year by year, when any particularly notable picture or collection became available, and it was desired to make the acquisition, even as recently as in the case of the Ucello painting, "St. George and the 1194 Dragon "and the Dyson Perrins Manuscripts, they had to have a special supplement from the Treasury for the purchase, because the standing contributions were insufficient.
The effect of this will be to put a bequest on the same footing as a gift inter vivos made at any period more than a year before death. That is the only effect, and all the discussion about Parliamentary control and the rest of it seems to me to take on rather a different aspect when one considers that there is no reason at present why a man should pay any Estate Duty if he makes gifts to the National Gallery more than a year before his death. We recognise the particular case, because we make a distinction, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, of one-year gifts of this kind inter vivos and five-year gifts in ordinary cases.
What is to be the result? There are few people who are in a position to bequeath outstanding works of art to our national galleries. Some of them may do so and some may not, but comparatively few are in a position to do it. There will be many people who will be in a position and willing to make gifts of this kind, and to whom this kind of provision would act as a real incentive.
There is this difference between the gift of a picture worth, let us say, £100,000 and a gift of £100,000 in cash. In the first place, the £100,000 in cash may come from a considerable number of people, none of whom is in the position to give a single picture. In the second case, the £100,000, when it gets there, will be applied by way of purchases by people who are experts, not only in the aesthetic merit of particular works of art but also in the particular shortages of the public galleries. They all have their own individual shortages and if we give them enough money they can use it in that way.
I do not for a moment suggest that the acceptance of such a provision as this would be an excuse for the Government lowering their grants. I do not think it would be, and my reason is that I do not think that the grants are sufficient. If, however, the Chancellor of the day takes the opposite view, the matter is not so free from control as the hon. and learned Member suggests, for if he feels that contributions from private 1195 sources have been more than sufficient, he will no doubt take that fact into consideration when dealing with the public money.
What is the objection to this kind of provision? It seems to me to have every advantage and to follow a line which, whether logical or not, is at any rate well established. I cannot appreciate the Government's reason for refusing something which would always mean some gain to the national institutions. I agree that the loss of death duties is a material factor, but at the end of the day there will be some gain. If there is a question between that and public funds, it can be adjusted by taking the full tax into consideration, but my view and. I believe, that of my hon. Friends is that the contributions made out of public funds to our museums and galleries are not sufficient and are not creditable to a nation of our wealth and with our tradition of appreciation of works of this kind.
I therefore hope that the House will give the Clause its approval, notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member has said. I feel that his objections were too technical and that the practical and moral reasons for the acceptance of the Clause far outweigh anything that he said.
§ Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)
Before we conclude what has been a wholly admirable debate, I want to say that I support very strongly the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend on behalf of the Chancellor. They are absolutely right for two reasons. However much I support them, I do not think that the galleries and museums can be expected to receive their benefit in the form of a general fiscal favour along the lines which have been suggested. I agree with everything said both by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir H. Kerr) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about the necessity to improve the grants for galleries and the position of the museums. I speak as a dilettante in this matter. I have no objection to dilettantism, but I have objections to dilettantism when it is at the expense of other equally deserving causes in this country.
1196 It seems to me that the right way to deal with this problem is not only by direct vote, for I think that the people as a whole must make their contribution to what they wish to achieve. I think that it is high time that the people did this, because I believe that they are only too ready to make a contribution to secure that our museums and galleries are the finest in the world. In this connection, I think that it is more than time that the galleries sought to implement their power to ensure that the public makes a contribution. I hope that the Tate Gallery, as a great leader, will seek to do so.
In the galleries throughout Europe everybody makes a contribution towards their purchases by the amount he pays for admission. I believe that a sum of money should be paid to secure admission into our galleries and museums and that when this is done we are entitled to ask the Chancellor to match £ for £. If the public are willing to pay money to enjoy visiting our national galleries, I believe that the Chancellor should dip into his purse readily to ensure that this money is matched. I therefore believe that the system should not be one of general fiscal favour of this nature. It should not be only a direct vote, but a direct vote together with contributions such as I have described.
Heirlooms are another matter. Death duties are too high, and I believe that a special fiscal favour may be right to an estate, because it is not much use having historic houses without historic personality, furniture, jewellery, pictures, and objets de vertu. I believe that we need an heirloom policy to ensure protection not only of the house, but of the treasures that go into it, but I do not think that that is a matter for this debate. That is a matter for another time and another place.
For those reasons, I greatly hope that everyone will feel that, having had this debate, we need not press it to a Division, because it is essentially a matter in which all hon. Members are trying to find a way to ensure what is to the benefit of the country in the future.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 227.1199
|Division No. 161.]||AYES||[7.26 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Hannan, W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Hastings, S.||Probert, A. R.|
|Albu, A. H.||Hayman, F. H.||Proctor, W. T.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Healey, Denis||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Henderson Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Rankin, John|
|Baird, J.||Herbison, Miss M.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Balfour, A.||Hewitson, Capt. M||Reeves, J.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Rhodes, H.|
|Benson, Sir George||Holman, P.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Beswick, Frank||Houghton, Douglas||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hoy, J. H.||Ross, William|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Royle, C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Short, E. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hunter, A. E.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Janner, B.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D, D.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Snow, J. W.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Burke, W. A.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||King, Dr. H, M.||Steele, T.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Lawson, G. M.||Stonehouse, John|
|Carmichael, J.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Champion A. J.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Lewis, Arthur||Swingler, S. T.|
|Cliffe, Michael||Lindgren, G. S.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Clunie, J.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Symonds, J. B.|
|Coldrick, W.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||McCann, J.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||MacColl, J. E.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Cronin, J. D.||MacDermot, Niall||Thornton, E.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||McInnes, J.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||McLeavy, Frank||Tomney, F.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)||Mahon, Simon||Viant, S. P.|
|Deer, G.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Warbey, W. N.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Watkins, T. E.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Mason, Roy||Weitzman, D.|
|Diamond, John||Mayhew, C. P.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Mikardo, Ian||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Edelman, M.||Mitchison, G. R.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Monslow, W.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)||Willey, Frederick|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Moyle, A.||Williams, Rev. Llywelvn (Ab'tillery)|
|Foot, D. M.||Mulley, F. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Forman, J. c.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||O'Brien, Sir Thomas||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Oliver, G. H.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Oram, A. E.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Orbach, M.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Oswald, T.||Woof, R. E.|
|Grey, C. F.||Padley, W. E.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Hale, Leslie||Pearson, A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pentland, N.||Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Popplewell, E.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Baxter, Sir Beverley||Bossom, Sir Alfred|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.|
|Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William||Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Boyle, Sir Edward|
|Arbuthnot, John||Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Brewis, John|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Bryan, P.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Bingham, R. M.||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Burden, F. F. A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Bishop, F. P.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Barber, Anthony||Black, Sir Cyril||Carr, Robert|
|Barter, John||Body, R. F.||Cary, Sir Robert|
|Batsford, Brian||Bonham Carter, Mark||Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Horobin, Sir Ian||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Cooke, Robert||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Pitman, I. J,|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Howard, John (Test)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Pott, H. P.|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Iremonger, T. L.||Profumo, J. D.|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Cunningham, Knox||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Redmayne, M.|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Joseph, Sir Keith||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kimball, M.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Lambton, Viscount||Robson Brown, Sir William|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Russell, R. S.|
|Duncan, Sir James||Leavey, J. A.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Duthie, Sir William||Leburn, W. G.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Legge-Bourke, Maj, E. A. H.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Erroll, F. J.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Storey, S.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Longden, Gilbert||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Forrest, G.||Loveys, Walter H.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Gammans, Lady||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Teeling, W.|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Glover, D.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Goodhart, Philip||McMaster, Stanley||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Gower, H. R.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Maddan, Martin||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Green, A.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Grimond, J.||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wade, D. W.|
|Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Marshall, Douglas||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Gurden, Harold||Mawby, R. L.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Wall, Patrick|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Nairn, D. L. S.||Webster, David|
|Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Nicolson, N- (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Hesketh, R. F.||Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Sir Allan||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Nugent, Richard||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)|
|Holland-Martin, C. J.||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Holt, A. F.||Page, R. G.|
|Hope, Lord John||Partridge, E.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hornby, R. P.||Peel, W. J.||Mr. Brooman-White and|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Chichester-Clark.|