§ 3.33 p.m.
§ Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)
I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, after "pounds to insert:or duty of threepence for every pound's worth of purchases of intoxicating liquor whichever is the less".The object of this very small Amendment is to ensure that small clubs, whose members number many thousands throughout the country, do not pay more in Excise Duty or in licence fee under the proposals of this Finance Bill than they are doing under the existing rates. The wording of the Amendment may not be entirely right and it may, perhaps, not meet with full acceptance by my right hon. Friend, but I would be quite willing to have the wording adjusted in any way he thought fit to give effect to the object I have in mind.
I was moved to put down the Amendment by receiving a cri de coeur from a number of small clubs in Buckinghamshire about the effect which this apparently small imposition would have on them. One very typical letter from a cricket club about the size, of many throughout my own constituency says this:In order to be able to offer visitors a drink after our home games we have had a club licence for a number of years, and all it has cost has been 5s. per year registration fee plus 3d. in the pound Excise duty. Last year … our total purchases only amounted to just over £21, so all we had to pay was 5s. licence registration and 5s. 3d. duty. By the terms of the Budget it seems that if we have a licence next year it may cost us £5 as compared to the total of 10s. 3d. for last year.That is just one letter out of many which I have received from my own constituency. I do not know whether other hon. Members have received similar representations from the many thousands 862 of small sports and social clubs which there are throughout the country.
Most clubs have a bar only as a facility for their members; not to provide facilities for drinking, but merely as a part of the ordinary amenities of a club devoted primarily to sports or social purposes. To have to pay £3 when they have had to pay only 10s. or £1 may not, perhaps, seem very much, but many of the small clubs exist on the very fine margin of difference between just making ends meet and being "in the red". Everyone who has had sent to him, as most hon. Members have, balance sheets typical of those of these small clubs in their constituencies will know that the margin between solvency and insolvency is very small indeed, and this £2 or £3 could make all the difference to them.
I will not labour the point. It has been expressed very fully already in some correspondence in The Times, and even reached the dignity, I noticed the other day, of a third leader in The Times. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced the Clause, intended to penalise small clubs in this way. 1 am quite certain that it is possible for him, as I hope he will, to find a way to give effect to this Amendment so that small clubs will not pay any more than they have been paying up to the present.
It may be argued that this Amendment would give some help to those clubs which are formed purely as drinking clubs, of which there are large numbers, but I very much doubt whether small clubs formed as drinking clubs can exist if their turnover in terms of purchases is less than £400 a year, which is what it would have to be to equal a £5 licence fee. I know that some small drinking clubs are set up in seaside towns only during the season, but there again, the amount of turnover they would have would be in excess of that amount, I think.
I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will give this Amendment sympathetic consideration, and that he will be prepared to accept it.
§ Colonel Richard H. Glyn (Dorset, North)
There is a great number of small social clubs, and I know of a great number in my own constituency and throughout the West Country which are not run in any way for a profit but which 863 are run purely for sporting or social purposes, cricket clubs, tennis clubs, golf clubs, and other similar clubs, which are accustomed to provide alcoholic refreshment for their members and can do so only by means of a club licence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has pointed out, the turnover of most of them is very much less than £400 a year, and clubs with a turnover of less than that sum, if my arithmetic is correct, will lose by the proposed Excise Duty of £5. I can appreciate the administrative facility which the proposal in the Bill gives. It makes the whole thing much simpler and easier to run, but I would put in a word for some of these small clubs.
Particularly I would mention the Territorial Army, with which I have long been associated. I think that the Committee will know that it is customary for the Territorial Army to run a club of this nature in conjunction with each drill hall. Territorials are, of course, extremely abstemious people, but after a spell in the drill hall they sometimes like to have a pint of beer. The only way in which this can be legally provided is by the drill hall being registered as a club.
Some regiments are responsible for a substantial number of drill halls and, therefore, of clubs. When I was colonel of one regiment we had six drill halls and six clubs and we paid a total in Customs and Excise Duty of £10 a year on the six clubs. I have, for my sins, been promoted out of this regiment, but I have no doubt that my successor is still in that position. If the Clause becomes law, my successor will be called upon to find a total in duty of £30 instead of £10. That is a substantial sum for the regimental funds to produce, and will substantially reduce the amount available for amenities for the rank and file of each unit. An alternative would be to close down, which would be unfortunate. The other alternative would be to encourage members to drink three times as much alcohol, a course which would not commend itself.
§ Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)
It would commend itself to the Chancellor. He wants his 2d. back on the beer.
§ Colonel Glyn
In this case, I hope that it will not commend itself.
I think that, for all these reasons, there is a strong case for making an allowance to the small clubs which exist not to make a profit but merely to provide an amenity. I hope that it will be found possible to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I should like to support the Amendment for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset, North (Colonel R. H. Glyn). The reason given by the Financial Secretary on Second Reading for opposing this proposal was that he thought that club secretaries would welcome the new arrangement. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that they will not welcome it when they have to pay £5 in future as against the considerably smaller amount which they paid in the past. This will be popular neither with club secretaries nor with the clubs.
The Clause is designed to simplify the present arrangements for the payment of club licence duty. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to preserve the existing position in respect of small clubs which have never paid a total duty during the year of as much as £5. As hon. Members have said, there are a number of very deserving social clubs. I have in mind, particularly, those associated with small tennis clubs and similar organisations in London. They exist, of course, throughout the country. They must have a licence, but they do not exist primarily to provide facilities for the consumption of alcohol. Those are quite incidental amenities provided by the clubs.
It would be a great hardship to these clubs, which, in the past, have paid perhaps only £1 by way of duty, if they now find that they are the victims of this measure of simplification and that in the interest merely of simplification they have to pay as much as £5. I hope, therefore, that the Economic Secretary will realise that the Amendment will not in any way run counter to his general objective of simplification. He can still obtain his £5 from the other clubs. In the interests of equity and of the social values which these clubs serve, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
§ Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)
I do not know how it will be possible to discriminate between one club and another. A very good argument has been put forward on behalf of the genuine social clubs, but it must not be forgotten that, during the term of office of the Conservative Party, Regulation 25C has been abolished and all kinds of unsavoury and undesirable clubs have sprung up in all parts of the country. They are a menace to the morals of London and other places. I should not like to vote for, or in silence acquiesce in, anything which would encourage the further development of these unsavoury clubs where they have strip-tease acts and things of that kind.
I should be glad if the Minister would make it clear whether it is possible to discriminate between the various kinds of clubs if this concession is made.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll)
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates and sympathises with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Col. R. H. Glyn) and hon. Members opposite on the position of small clubs, but the revision of the liquor licence duties and the club licence duties represents a big operation of administrative reform and simplification. It is a matter of changing the system from one in which the duties were aimed at raising some revenue to a much simpler system of registration and payment of small fees to cover the licence which enables, in this case, a club to sell all forms of intoxicating liquor.
The reason for fixing a sum of £5 was to make it possible for a club to sell any form of liquor and to make sure that the club paid the same amount as the on-licensee, in other words the publican, with the result that there would be no longer any discrimination in favour of the club as opposed to the publican. It would not be practicable to differentiate between a club selling only a few pints of beer after cricket or tennis and a club which wanted to sell spirits and wines as well, because the Customs and Excise have no power—and we do not wish to ask for the power—to enter club premises and see what types of liquor are being sold.
866 It is more satisfactory, therefore, to have a single licence and a single fee of £5. The administrative complexities of the old system were considerable. Club secretaries had to provide returns of intoxicating liquor sold during the year by the January or February of the year following, upon which assessment was made of the amount of duty to be paid. Under the new system all that club secretaries will have to do will be to apply in December for a licence to cover the whole of the year following.
The operation is very substantial, because there are 23,674 clubs on the registers, and the average payment of duty has amounted to about £43 per club. Therefore, the vast majority of clubs will benefit substantially both from the cash point of view and from the point of view of simplification of administration as compared with the old arrangements. Nevertheless, this means that some clubs, particularly those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and the territorial drill halls referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, North, unfortunately, will have to pay a little more than they have paid in the past.
But we must look at the scale of this. First, no clubs have been paying nothing. All have been paying something. If they have been paying as little as £2 a year, the new duty of £5 will represent an increase of only £3 every year. With a minimum membership of 25, this can represent a matter of only a shilling or two per member for facilities to buy any form of intoxicating liquor while on club premises. We are, therefore, dealing with a matter of a very small increase to a number of small clubs and I am sure that club secretaries, in particular, will not be unappreciative of the administrative saving which the new arrangements represent.
I would compare the £5 duty with the cost of obtaining a television licence at £4, which some clubs may wish to have as a desirable addition to their amenities. There is no question of that licence being reduced according to the number of fine days when people can play cricket and do not have to stay indoors to watch television. A licence duty of £4 for a television set is accepted as reasonable, so in the circumstances a duty of £5, to be able to sell any form of intoxicating 867 liquor on club premises, is on a reasonable scale.
Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend appreciates that in the case of small clubs an increase in the amount payable, though small, may have a marginal effect upon finances, and he will look into the matter again. He has asked me, however, particularly to stress that, in view of the formidable administrative difficulties, it does not seem likely that it will be possible to make arrangements in the form suggested by the Amendment. However, if my hon. Friend would care to withdraw the Amendment, we will see if we can do anything, although I must re-emphasise that it is unlikely that we shall be able to do so.
§ Mr. E. C. Redhead (Walthamstow, West)
Coming to this unaccustomed place on the Front Opposition bench for the first time, I am conscious of the fact that, however brief my stay may be, I am badly miscast for the role of talking on all possible aspects of the subject of liquor. Indeed, I feel as miscast, if I may say so, as I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury appeared to be when, on the occasion of the Second Reading, he stood opposite and extolled the virtue of beer with such gusto that I thought at one stage he would burst into the song, "Beer, beer, glorious beer."
The Clause we are considering is one which forms part of the general proposal of the Chancellor for simplification of the existing complicated schedule of liquor licence duties. That general process of simplification is, clearly, one that can be welcomed when one bears in mind the existing scheme concerning 20 different categories of liquor licence, all requiring various bases of assessment.
As regards the club duty, I must say that what we have just heard by way of answer to the Amendment does not seem to be one that is tenable in the case of the small clubs. It is suggested that there are formidable administrative problems involved in doing what the Amendment asks. In fact, there is no problem about discrimination. The discrimination would be a simple, automatic one of relating to the existing small clubs the existing system of paying licence duty on the basis of their annual purchases. It is over-stating the case to say that it is a formidable 868 administrative problem when, on the figures just given to us, only a small minority of the clubs will be affected and brought within the ambit of the Amendment.
I, too, have seen representations from some of the small clubs, which ought not to be lightly dismissed on the basis that they are of a minimal character and that only a few shillings is involved for each member. One such communication, which was handed to me by an hon. Friend, came from a small rowing club, In the course of the secretary's letter he said what I believe to be typical of clubs of this character:In the case of many, if not most clubs, in particular those with large memberships, the proposal will no doubt operate to effect a considerable saving. In the case of small clubs, however, such as our own, we shall be faced with a considerable increase. For instance last year our total purchases of beer and cider were only £50. Club duty on this figure will be 13s. 9d. The result is that as we are not in business to make a profit out of the sale of intoxicating liquor, but merely to stock beer and cider for the refreshment of our members after their rowing, we shall have to increase the prices which we charge to our members.In fact, they will have to do precisely the opposite of what the Chancellor is seeking to do by recasting the general duty on alcohol and the reduction in the beer duty. The letter continues:On our small turnover such increases will more than cancel the savings as a result of the reduction in beer duty, also included in the Finance Bill.I have no means of knowing how many small registered clubs will come within the ambit of this Amendment, but, however small, it is invidious that they, and they alone, as the result of recasting the system should be faced not with a benefit but with a loss. It is no use trying to minimise this by saying that it will amount to only a few shillings a member. It is extremely unfair to impose this on the small social and sports club, which is not engaged in the sale of liquor on a big business scale but is only providing facilities of an incidental character for the amenities of its members.
I agree that the form of the Amendment, which seeks to preserve for small clubs the existing basis of licence duty, would not by itself effect the purpose, because attention would have to be paid to subsection (9) as well, which, in the process of this Bill, wipes out the existing 869 machinery by which licence duty is now collected. Yet there would not be any insuperable difficulty, and whilst I am glad that we have had an assurance that the Chancellor will look at this again, I would be grateful if he would reinforce that assurance at a later stage by saying that he will come forward with a proposal which would not be very different from the Amendment, and which would effectively protect the small clubs from what otherwise will be a completely invidious discrimination against them.
§ Mr. John Hall
Naturally, I am disappointed that the Chancellor cannot accept what I thought was a small but reasonable Amendment. Nevertheless, I appreciate some of the difficulties to which he has drawn the attention of the Committee, and in view of the assurance that this point will be considered again to see whether it is possible to arrive at sonic proposal whereby the small clubs will not find themselves paying more under this proposal that they were doing before, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
I have never heard a weaker promise of what looking at the Amendment "would mean. We were told in advance that it was so difficult that, while the Government will look at it, we must not expect that they will be able to do anything. I thought at one time that the Economic Secretary, robbed of every other argument, was going to ask us to discuss the relative pernicious effect of liquor and television. I imagine that for most people it is about even.
I cannot understand why this proposal should be so administratively difficult. Nothing more will be required than, when the time comes to pay the £5 licence, for the secretary of the club to prepare a statement which, if necessary, could be signed before a justice of the peace or in some other way, making it a penal offence if a false statement is made that the receipts from the sale of liquor of all kinds in that club have been less than £400 during the previous year.
That should be a sufficient safeguard for the Chancellor, who knows as well as I do that any club which breaks the rules is very soon reported upon to the police or some other authority by pub- 870 licans who think that their income is being impaired by illegal happenings in clubs. There is no doubt that this imposition will cause considerable difficulty among people who will lose by this amendment. It is all very well for Ministers on the Treasury Bench to talk about an increase of £3 or £4 as something which does not matter. Those of us who have been connected with clubs of this kind know that increases of any kind are always a matter of grave concern to the secretary and treasurer, and that they should not be brushed aside in the way that they were brushed aside by the Economic Secretary.
§ 4.0 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory)
I want merely to confirm what my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said. When we were proposing the flat rate we thought that we were doing something which would be appreciated by clubs because so many of them had emphasised to us their difficulties in keeping the detailed records which were required for the payment of the duty on the old basis.
I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, because in days gone by I was a Territorial and also a member of a rowing club. I have been trying to recollect whether I ever drank a glass of beer in either of those capacities, and I am inclined to think I did.
We do not want to be hard-hearted about this, and we certainly do not want to exaggerate the administrative difficulties. We thought that we were doing something which would be welcomed by small clubs. As my hon. Friend has said, we will look into the matter, giving weight to everything that has been said, including what was said by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall); and if we can find a solution acceptable to the Committee we will bring it forward.
§ Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is very easily satisfied. He made a most persuasive and convincing case which was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead), whose arguments 871 have not really been answered by the Chancellor.
We have had in response a most timid, tentative, negative and unconvincing undertaking from the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary that perhaps in some way, though it is all very difficult and they do not now know how to do it, they will find a means of bringing about what the Committee wishes to achieve. I do not find this at all convincing. There have been occasions on Finance Bills in the last few years when we have had promises of
§ this sort in Committee but nothing has been done on Report to implement them, which puts us in a very difficult position.
§ Therefore, I hope that, to support the hon. Member for Wycombe and to encourage and assist the Government in what they profess to be their intentions, the Amendment will not be withdrawn and that my hon. Friends will support it in the Division Lobby.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 174, Noes 210.873
|Division No. 103.]||AYES||[4.3 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Grey, C. F.||Padley, W. E.|
|Albu, A. H.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Paget, R. T.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Parker, J.|
|Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)||Grimond, J.||Parkin, B. T.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hale, Leslie||Paton, John|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pearson, A.|
|Balfour, A.||Hamilton, W. W.||Peart, T. F.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Hannan, W.||Pentland, N.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Hastings, S.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Beswick, Frank||Hayman, F. H.||Popplewell. E.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regia)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Blackburn, F.||Herbison, Miss M.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hilton, A. V.||Rankin, John|
|Blyton, W. R.||Holman, P.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Bonham Carter, Mark||Houghton, Douglas||Reeves, J.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Reid, William|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hunter, A. E.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Ross, William|
|Carmichael, J.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Short, E. W.|
|Champion, A. J.||Janner, B.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Skeffington. A. M.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Clilfe, Michael||Jenkins, Roy (Stetchford)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Coflick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||King, Dr. H. M.||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Cronin, J. D.||Lawson, G. M.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Ledger, R. J.||Stonehouse, John|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Lipton, Marcus||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Logan, D. G.||Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||McCann, J.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Mclnnes, J.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Deer, G.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Diamond, John||McLeavey, Frank||Timmons, J.|
|Dodds, N. N.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Ungoed-Thomas. Sir Lynn|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Viant, S. P.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Edelman, M.||Malialieu, J. P. W. (Hudderstd, E.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Edwards, Robert (Bliston)||Mason, Roy||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mayhew, C. P.||White. Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Messer, Sir F.||Willey, Frederick|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Mitchison, G. R.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Monslow, W.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)||Moody, A. S.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Moss, R.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Moyle, A.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Forman, J. C.||Mulley, F. W.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Woof, R. E.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Oram, A. E.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Gooch, E. G.||Orbach, M.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Oswald, T.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Owen, W. J.||Mr. Holmes and Mr. Simmons.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Green, A.||Neave, Alrey|
|Aitken, W. T.||Gresham Cooke, R.||Nicholson Sir Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'mth, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathooat (Tiverton)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan|
|Anstruther Gray, Major Sir William||Gurden, Harold||Noble, Michael (Argyll)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Balniel, Lord||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Barber, Anthony||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Barter, John||Hay, John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.|
|Batsford, Brian||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Hesketh, R. F.||Page, R. G.|
|Beamish, Col. Tufton||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Partridge, E.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Peel, W. J.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hornby, R. P.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Horobin, Sir Ian||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Body, R. F.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Braine, B. R.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Howard, John (Test)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Brewis, John||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Redmayne, M.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hurd, Sir Anthony||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)||Ridedale, J. E.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Robertson, Sir David|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Iremonger, T. L.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(SaffronWalden)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Campbell, Sir David||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Sharples, R. C.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Shepherd, William|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Cole, Norman||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Keegan, D.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Cooper, A. E.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Speir, R. M.|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Kershaw, J. A.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Kimball, M.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Lagden, G. W.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Cunningham, Knox||Lambton, Viscount||Storey, S.|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Teeling, W.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Duncan, Sir James||Loveys, Walter H.||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||McLean, Nell (Inverness)||Vaughan-Morgan. J. K.|
|Erroll, F. J.||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||McMaster, Stanley||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Fell, A.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)||Wall, Patrick|
|Finlay Graeme||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Forrest, G.||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Webster, David|
|Foster, John||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Freeth, Denzil||Marshall, Douglas||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Mathew, R.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Gammans, Lady||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Mawby, R. L.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Glover, D.||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Woollam, John Victor|
|Godber, J. B.||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Gough, C. F. H.||Nabarro, G. D. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gower, H. R.||Nairn, D. L. S.||Colonel J. H. Harrison and|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.