§ Income tax and profits tax shall not be charged in respect of income or profits arising to a local authority from parking places designated 1242 on highways under the Road Traffic Act, 1956.—[Mr. Gresham Cooke.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
1243 The object of the Clause is to exempt from Income Tax and Profits Tax the surplus that is derived from parking meters.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
May we discuss at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the new Clause (Parking places: surpluses of local authorities)?
§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has two new Clauses, the first of which (Parking places: surpluses or deficits of local authorities) is out of order, because it might impose a charge. There is, however, no reason why we should not discuss now the other new Clause to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.
§ Mr. Gresham Cooke
When the Road Traffic Bill was before the two Houses of Parliament, it took a long time to go through. In fact, an abortive Bill was presented earlier in the other place before the Bill reached this House. One of the reasons for that long period of gestation was that there was considerable dispute about whether parking meters should be introduced into this country. The end of that dispute was that a compromise acceptable to all the parties was reached, namely, that the surplus moneys derived from parking meters should be spent only on the provision of new off-street parking spaces.
That compromise was embodied in Section 23 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, which states thatany surplus shall be applied for all or any of the purposes specified in the next following subsection, and in so far as not so applied shall be appropriated to the carrying out of some specific project falling within those purposes and carried forward until applied to the carrying out thereof".Under Section 23, the three purposes are, first,the making good to the general rate fund of any amounts charged to that fund under the last foregoing subsection in the four years immediately preceding the financial year in question"—that is, to cover the capital expenditure or the losses that might be incurred in putting up the parking meters. The second purpose wasmeeting all or any part of the cost of the provision and maintenance by the local 1244 authority of parking accommodation for vehicles ".The third purpose wasthe making to other local authorities, to any county council, or, with the consent of the Minister, to other persons, of contributions towards the cost of the provision and maintenance … of parking accommodationin adjoining areas.
During the lengthy discussions of the Bill in Committee the question was frequently asked whether there were any other purposes to which this money could be applied and whether it could be taken by the central Government for any other purpose. The then Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, said in answer to that question:One or two hon. Members have raised questions about the use of the moneys. I have, I hope, in the drafting of the Bill tied them up securely to be used for that purpose, and that purpose only. I really think, though I am subject to correction at any stage, that the provisions of the Bill are as clear and as emphatic as possible and that the moneys can be used only for that purpose. An hon. Member may say that it will always be possible for another Government to come along with another Bill to divert the revenue. I think that would be extremely difficult from a practical point of view. First, the revenue is going to local authorities and not to the central Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 1st November, 1955; c. 241.]The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, now the Minister of Works, said on the same subject:It has, I think, done a great deal to disarm criticism of these proposals that the whole of the profits made from parking meters are obliged, under the provisions of the Bill, to be used for the provision of off-the-street parking accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 291.]The Earl of Selkirk, in another place, said:We think that we have drawn this clause pretty tightly, and if any noble Lord can show me how the local authority can dispose of their funds otherwise than in maintaining and providing parking meters or providing for off-street parking, I shall be interested to know. It means that all the proceeds of parking meters are quite certain to be dedicated to the provision of off-street parking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd July, 1956; Vol. 198, c. 341.]I quote all that to show that if Ministers at that time knew that tax was to be levied on the surpluses from parking meters they did not divulge it. I think that the reason that they did not is 1245 that they did not know, because it was never contemplated at that stage that tax would be levied on the surpluses of these meters. That is why tonight that I think the House is entitled to an explanation of how it comes about that tax should be levied on these surpluses.
In Westminster City Council's area already parking meters have been put up, in Mayfair and elsewhere. I understand that the surplus on those meters last year was about £3,800.
§ Mr. Gresham Cooke
Not a full year. The surplus in the current year is expected to be about £8,950. If this is to be subject to tax, Profits Tax and Income Tax, it will be reduced by nearly 50 per cent.
That would be very disappointing because Westminster City Council requires every penny it can get to put up these expensive off-street parking places, which it is proposing to put up, and it has been told by the Inland Revenue that these surpluses are liable to tax. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that in reply to a Question, when he said that they were liable to Income Tax.
Presumably what is true of Westminster will be true of the other ten boroughs in various parts of the country which have just received authority to set up parking meters. The Chancellor in his reply to this point said that such profits might be set off against loan interest or losses which might be incurred on other trading activities.
To my mind what that really means is that a local authority is only in the same position as any other trader, who can set off losses against his profits, but I do not think that these surpluses are in that category at all. There may be local authorities who have no losses to set off against the surpluses and the whole of their surpluses would be liable to tax. In truth, I believe that the money set aside for the provision of off-street parking places under Section 23 is really held in trust for public purposes and is not the result of a trading activity. For instance, the surplus could not be applied to appropriations for the relief of rates in a general way, as other surpluses from other trading activities can be. This seems to me to differentiate 1246 these surpluses from those of trading profits.
The real question on which we want an explanation is whether it is right that a tax should be charged on surpluses from parking meters which are going up all over the country. Personally, being a member of the Road Traffic Committee at that time, and hearing the explanation of the Ministers at that time, I am at present of the view that it would be wrong to levy Income Tax and Profits Tax on surpluses from parking meters.
§ Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)
I beg to second the Motion.
The purpose of this Clause is both to clarify the position even more than was done by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in the debate on the parking regulations on 30th June and also to provide that the income from this source shall not be subject to taxation. It is a matter which is of special importance to Manchester, which has just acquired the power to provide parking meter schemes under the new regulations and has extensive schemes for providing off-street parking facilities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) pointed out, it has always been assumed that the whole of the revenue from this source would be available for local authorities to use for the providing of off-street parking facilities because that was quite clearly the intention of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to which my hon. Friend has referred. There is no need for me to repeat what he said on the subect of the Act.
It seems to me that if the provisions of that Act are carried out as they are meant to be, there can be no profit from parking meters to tax until off-street parking facilities have been provided by the local authorities, which have been given the power to do so, for an ever-increasing number of cars.
One other small point which I should like to make is that parking meters of themselves are of no value at all. They depend for their use on the highways assigned on which the parked vehicles can stand. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest that if there is any surplus remaining from the takings of the parking meters that should be made 1247 available to the local authorities for the very great cost which they incur in keeping up the highways—a matter in which they certainly make no profit but, indeed, make a very large loss
It was neither envisaged nor intended when the 1956 Act was being discussed in this House that profits on parking meters should be taxed. It would seem to be clearly quite wrong to separate one part of a local authority's activities in connection with highways on which it may make a profit, namely, parking meters, from the much larger part of its activities on which it makes a very substantial loss. I believe that the new Clause would put matters beyond any doubt and I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept it.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)
There is also a new Clause on the Notice Paper (Parking places: surpluses of local authorities) in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), which reads:Any surplus in the account of income and expenditure kept by a local authority under subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Road Traffic Act, 1956 (which makes financial provisions in relation to parking places designated under that Act), shall be disregarded for all purposes of the Income Tax Acts.This Clause has the same intention as the Clause which we are now discussing. When the Financial Secretary informs the House that he intends to accept this proposal in principle, I trust that he will find that the wording of that Clause is more suitable to the Treasury and fits in better with the Finance Bill than that of the Clause which has just been moved.
The intention is exactly the same—to exempt revenue from parking meters from Income Tax. I think that most hon. Members have come to accept that parking meters combined with off-street parking is the best way in which to regulate the parking of vehicles in congested areas. Certainly, in Lonodn the trial scheme in Westminster has worked out well, inasumch as traffic is flowing far more freely through the areas where meters operate. The scheme is now to be extended not only to other areas in the centre of London, but to ten cities outside.
The importance of parking meters is that they regulate short-time parking to 1248 provide revenue which can be devoted to the provision of off-street parking. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) pointed out, every assurance was given by Government spokesmen during the debates on the Road Traffic Act, 1956, that there could be no diversion of funds from the purposes for which the Act provided, but, of course, those spokesmen forgot about the Treasury. They did not intentionally mislead the House, or lead hon. Members in the then Committee up the garden, but they had clean forgotten that the Treasury would do its utmost to see that money which was raised by local councils was not diverted to a useful purpose, but went to the Treasury itself.
Unfortunately, there is danger of that happening now. We have asked Questions in the House concerning this and it has been made clear by spokesmen for the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport that, as the Income Tax statutes are interpreted by the Treasury, the income raised from parking meters will be subject to tax. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it is not good enough to say that the tax claimed can be set off against deficits on the provision of off-street parking. It is true that large numbers of garages may not make a profit on the letting of space for long-term parking, and it has been argued that as the provision of off-street parking is bound to result in a deficit the Income Tax liability does not matter.
In a debate on the Parking Places (Extension outside London No. 1) Order, 1959, on 30th June, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation said:If the meter revenues were used in combination with the financing of off-street garages, those revenues would very rapidly be swallowed up by the losses made in operating the garages, so there would be no question of tax liability arising."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 412.]That may be so if the councils themselves provide the garages and operate them at a loss, but if they are successful in operating them at a profit practically half the money arising from parking meters will go to the Treasury.
I can also think of circumstances in which the revenue would attract tax before it was devoted to this purpose. For instance, the Act provides that councils which operate parking-meter 1249 schemes can finance private garages. The money can be used to assist or subsidise private enterprise garages. What is the position if a private enterprise garage is operating at a profit, but the local authority decides to contribute something towards that garage in order to be sure that off-street parking is provided, or because it has given that undertaking over a period of years? Does it mean, then, that this money will be taxed before it makes its contribution to the private enterprise garage? Surely if that garage is operating at a profit the Treasury will say that, although the money has been devoted to that purpose, it must be subject to tax
There is another circumstance in which the suggestion of the Financial Secretary will not apply, because it was provided that the money from the meters could accumulate over a period of four years, that the money could go to a fund and not be allocated to the provision of off-street parking for four years. I cannot see the Treasury standing idly by during that four-year period while the money is accumulating and saying that because, in four years, the council may be subsidising a private enterprise garage, or even considering building a garage for itself, the money will not be taxed in the meantime. If the Treasury did say that, it would mean that it was changing its nature.
There is no protection in the claim that this does not matter since losses can be set off against tax liability. I suggest that the Treasury should be honest about this for once and should take account of the assurances repeatedly given in Standing Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place. The assurances were definite and they were to the effect that if we granted the right to charge for parking on the highway, that money could be used for no purpose other than providing off-street parking facilities.
As has been said, there is no point in having parking meters and reducing the amount of parking space on the highway unless there is provision for the vehicles which cannot find parking space to be stored elsewhere. I suggest that the Financial Secretary should consider the statements made by his colleagues and should try to make an honest man of the Treasury.
Mr. G. Wilson
I want very briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has said. I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and I confirm that the prolonged argument in that Committee turned on whether parking meters were to be regarded as a trading activity. The compromise eventually reached definitely gave members of the Committee the impression that the one thing which parking meters were not to be was a trading activity on the part of the council.
If they are not a trading activity, the argument that profits can be set off against losses does not arise. To use that argument implies that Parliament has given local councils authority to trade, and that was certainly not the intention of the Committee. We intended that all surplus moneys over the cost of providing parking meters should be used for off-street parking.
Although the practical effect of accepting this Clause might be very small, because in most cases the councils can avoid tax by setting off any profit made against any loss, psychologically it is important that there should be some provision of this nature, since we may otherwise revive the arguments about parking meters, an argument which was settled only on the assumption that a parking meter was not an opportunity for a council to trade, but was something which would assist off-street parking.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Simon
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) went so far as to say that instead of the fund in question being used for a useful purpose half was devoted to the Treasury itself. He will forgive me for saying that that seemed to me to be a false antithesis. I understand that the parking meter scheme has been a very great success—indeed, it would be fair to say that it has been an unqualified success—and I can quite understand the speeches that have been made today expressing anxiety as to how the revenues from parking meters are to be used.
I have read carefully the debates that took place on the Bill, and I must say that I do not think there was anything said as to whether the Committee or the Minister was talking about net proceeds or gross proceeds. I think it was made 1251 abundantly clear that the revenues from the parking meters would not be diverted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) said, to such extraneous purposes as, for example, the general relief of rates, but would be used for the specific purposes laid down in the three paragraphs which were set out in the Clause. But that left it entirely at large and to be governed by the general fiscal law as to whether those revenues which were being talked about were the net revenues or the gross revenues, and it still remains today that the only purpose for which the net revenues can be used are the purposes set out in those paragraphs.
However, it is a fundamental fiscal principle in this country, one which has been reiterated and relied upon by successive Governments, that all income, whether it is the income of an individual, a local authority or a company, is liable to tax. Nor does it matter for that purpose for what reason the income is to be diverted. That was laid down by the House of Lords a considerable time ago in a case affecting a local authority, and it has been accepted by successive Governments. That is the law that covers this case, and it is right that it should do so, because it is surely inequitable to isolate particularly a trading activity which is being carried on in the middle of the economy from its fair contribution to the general expenses of government.
Having said that, I consider that the local authorities are in a very favourable position in relation to their trading activities. It is true that they are liable to pay tax on the profits of their trading activities, but, like a private individual, they can set off those profits against any loan interest they may have to pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) said that that puts them in no more favourable a position than a private individual carrying on a trade. That is not right. The private individual carrying on a trade normally trades at a profit, and normally his profits exceed the loan interest that he has to pay. That is not so with a local authority. With a local authority, ordinarily speaking, the loan interest that it has far exceeds any profit which it makes on its trading activities. So the fact that the local authority will have to 1252 pay tax on the gross revenues of its parking meters activities will not increase in any way its liability to tax unless and until its income exceeds the sum that it has to pay by way of loan interest.
That covers the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East when he referred to the four years' acccumulation period, but once a local authority starts to build a garage or other off-street parking facilities, clearly it will make a loss on that activity and that, again, can be set off against the revenue on its trading activities in relation to the parking meter scheme.
Those are the general principles which cover this case, and there is no argument at all for taking this particular trading activity of a local authority out of the general fiscal law. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham said that Westminster City Council needs every penny it gets from the scheme in order to be able to have off-street parking facilities. If I am right in saying that no local authority will have to pay more tax than it did before unless the unlikely and exceptional event comes about that its income exceeds its total loan interest, Westminster City Council will have every penny available. Any local authority, unless it has a greater income than its loan interest, will have every penny available to provide the off-street parking facilities.
§ Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)
The point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to turn on these words, "trading interest". May I put this to him? After all, there was no possibility of the corporation carrying on a trade, if that is the suitable word in this case, until Parliament created it. It is not a question of there being an ordinary trading interest; it is a special circumstance created by Parliament, and, in those special circumstances, why cannot Parliament make special provision about the income that comes to it, namely, that it should not be taxed?
§ Mr. Simon
Of course Parliament could do that—I think a great constitutional lawyer once said that Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman or a woman a man—but that is not what Parliament has done in respect of any other activity of a local authority. The 1253 railways carried on their activities by virtue of an Act of Parliament, but that did not prevent their having to pay Income Tax and other taxes on their revenue. So, with great respect to the hon. Member, it is no answer to say that this particular activity was the creation of Parliament. That does not take it out of the general principle that income, from whatever source and to whatever purpose it is devoted pays tax, or is liable prima facie to pay tax, although it is set off by other activities.
§ Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)
There is another point here. In ascertaining the net profit from the business, are local authorities entitled to set off the cost of maintaining the services of the roads, which, after all, is part of the business for keeping the cars?
§ Mr. Simon
I should not have thought so, but it does not work in that way. The local authority presumably raises the loan which it uses for its road maintenance activities. It is the interest on that loan which is in effect set off against its trading profit. I hope that answers my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
I desire to say only this in conclusion. I realise that this to some extent is a debating point, because I realise that the first new Clause is necessarily out of order as no new Clause or Amendment can be moved, except from this bench, which would impose a charge. Nevertheless, it is the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham on which we shall be voting or, at any, on which we have to take a decision.
The same point arises on the new Clause in the name of the hon. Member opposite, which we are discussing, namely, that although the new Clause would exonerate the local authority from paying tax on the income from a parking meter, it would not impose any restriction on its setting-off any loss from the scheme. In other words, on the actual new Clause that we are debating, what the local authorities are seeking to do is to have the best of both worlds. I realise that that necessarily arises out of the rules of order, but it does mean that the new Clause is, in that respect, quite unacceptable.
Mr. H. Wilson
May I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He has based the whole of his arguments on the trading services of a local authority. Would it not be possible for him to look at it in an entirely different way, and I would suggest there are two ways in which he might do so, in order to answer this debate? Could he not regard this either as a method of regulating traffic, which it is—regulating parking—a deterrent, the revenue from which is purely incidental, or, alternatively, could he not regard it as a tax on parking given by Parliament to the local authority. Does he think it right for the Treasury to tax the profits of a local tax given to the local authority by Parliament?
§ Mr. Simon
I think it would be straining language to regard this as a local tax granted to local authorities by Parliament. The fact remains that this does not depend, so far as Income Tax is concerned, on it being trading income. What it is is the income of the local authority. It would be exactly the same if the local authority had income from investments; it is taxable. It does not depend on it being trading income. The law says that the income, from whatever source it arises and to whatever object it is devoted, is taxable, and it must make its fair contribution.
§ Mr. Mitchison
What we want to do, by means of this new Clause, is to put some sense into the law. Everybody on that Committee assumed that this money would not be treated as trading profit or taxed by the Treasury. That is perfectly clear. I was on that Committee myself, and no one ever thought that the Treasury was quite like the Moloch it has proved to be.
To put the matter very shortly, whatever the law may be on the matter, no ordinary person regards as income that which he cannot spend, but which he has to put back into the same job from which he got it.
The second point is that these parking places are a public service. They cannot exist at all unless a Minister of the Crown has designated them. Is he trading when he is designating them, I wonder? What about the local authorities themselves? Can they spend the money? Can they do anything with it? 1255 Surely, if the Treasury, for a change, would recognise what was said to the Committee by Ministers of the Crown and what was understood by everybody in the Committee, and would apply a little horse sense to this, it would realise that it is not trading at all but the provision of a public service. It has to be ordered by a Minister, and the profits, so-called, cannot be used for any other purpose than providing more parking facilities. Whatever the law may be, if it is not in the sense of this new Clause, it jolly well ought to be.
§ Mr. Philip Bell (Bolton, East)
I do not think the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend will stand even a moment's examination. Let us look at the great principle involved here. Let us take the case of a charity which carries on a profit-making concern or business. That charity cannot spend the money as it likes, but can only spend it for charitable purposes. The charity will pay Income Tax if it earns profits by trading or by any gainful occupation.
The question whether one should pay tax does not turn on what is done with the money when one gets it. The question is whether one is, in fact, carrying
§ on a business, or something in the nature of a business. If we once determined that by what people did with their profits when they got them it seems to me that very few people would be paying tax at all, for everybody would find a good reason, such as looking after an old relative, for saying that they were not making a profit.
§ Mr. Gresham Cooke
I was about to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion in the hope that the Treasury would read my speech and accept the proposition next year. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 181.1257
|Division No. 164.]||AYES||[10.15 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Fletcher, Eric||MacDermot, Niall|
|Albu, A. H.||Forman, J. C.||McInnes, J.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mahon, Simon|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Grey, C. F.||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mason, Roy|
|Benson, Sir George||Grimond, J.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Hale, Leslie||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Monslow, W.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hannan, W.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hayman, F. H.||Mulley, F. W.|
|Boardman, H,||Herbison, Miss M.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Holman, P,||O'Brien, Sir Thomas|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Holt, A. F.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Houghton, Douglas||Oram, A. E.|
|Bowies, F. G.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Orbach, M.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hoy, J. H.||Oswald, T.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Padley, W. E.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hunter, A. E.||Pearson, A.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Peart, T. F.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Pentland, N.|
|Burke, W. A.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Popplewell, E.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Janner, B.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Champion, A. J.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Probert, A. R.|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Cronin, J. D.||King, Dr. H. M.||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lawson, G. M||Rhodes, H.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Deer, G.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Ross, William|
|Diamond, John||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Fernyhough, E.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||MacColl, J. E.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Sparks, J. A.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Usborne, H. C.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Steele, T.||Wade, D. W.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Stonehouse, John||Watkins, T. E.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Stones, W. (Consett)||Weitzman, D.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Symonds, J. B.||Wheeldon, W. E.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Woof, R. E.|
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Willey, Frederick||Zilliacus, K.|
|Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Thornton, E.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Simmons|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Glyn, Col. Richard H.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Goodhart, Philip||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Cower, H. R.||Osborne, C.|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Graham, Sir Fergus||Page, R. G.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Green, A.||Partridge, E.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Gresham Cooke, R.||Peel, W. J.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Grosvenor Lt.-Col. R. G.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Gurden, Harold||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Barter, John||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Batsford, Brian||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Pott, H. P.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hesketh, R. F.||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Bingham, R. M,||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hirst, Geoffrey||Redmayne, M.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Body, R. F.||Hornby, R. P.||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Brewis, John||Horobin, Sir Ian||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Bryan, P.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Russell, R. S.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Howard, John (Test)||Shepherd, William|
|Carr, Robert||Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Chichester-Clarke, R.||Hutchison, MichaelClark (E'b'gh, S.)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Iremonger, T. L.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Cooke, Robert||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Cooper, A. E.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Storey, S.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Kaberry, D.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Kimball, M.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Teeling, W.|
|Cunningham, Knox||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Deedes, W. F.||Longden, Gilbert||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Loveys, Walter H.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Wall, Patrick|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Drayson, G. B.||McMaster, Stanley||Webbe, Sir H.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Webster, David|
|Duncan, Sir James||Maddan, Martin||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Erroll, F. J.||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Wilson, Ceoffrey (Truro)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Mawby, R. L.||Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick|
|Fisher, Nigel||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Woollam, John Victor|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Forrest, G.||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Freeth, Denzil||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gammans, Lady||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Mr. Brooman-White and|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Mr. Gibson-Watt|
|Glover, D.||Nugent, Richard|