§ As from the beginning of September, nineteen hundred and sixty, section two of the Finance Act, 1957 (which imposes on television licences television duty at the standard yearly rate of one pound, subject to certain modifications) shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. Redhead.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. E. C. Redhead (Walthamstow, West)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is the abolition of the television licence duty of £1 which is payable on every television licence taken out and which was first imposed in 1957. I want to advance as my primary justification for this proposal the fact that the circumstances which obtained when this duty was first introduced three years ago have changed and that the only reason which was adduced at that time for imposing the duty originally no longer exists. It is, therefore, my submission that in those circumstances this duty should be abolished.
May I remind the House of what those circumstances were? In 1957, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) abolished Entertainments Duty which had been in existence since 1916, in respect of all forms of entertainment with the exception of the cinema. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer seemingly recognised that what he was doing, in leaving this tax applicable only to the cinema, was to apply a degree of discrimination against the cinema, and seemingly he sensed that it was unfair still to burden the cinema alone, particularly in view of the fact that it was engaged in a fierce competition with the television set.
To make abundantly clear what his reasons were for introducing this duty on television licences, I should like to quote, as I did on an earlier occasion, what the 466 then Chancellor said. Speaking of the Entertainments Duty, he said… there have been many changes since the duty was introduced in 1916 and, indeed, since it was last revised in 1954. Some forms of entertainment are expanding. As they expand they affect the profit of the other types. In particular, television has, in recent years, grown to be a powerful competitor with other entertainments, and I have had to consider whether it is bearing a share of taxation comparable with its rivals. I have not overlooked the fact that anyone who buys a television set pays a substantial amount of Purchase Tax upon it. But there is no tax on its use comparable with the tax on the admission price to a cinema. I am satisfied that a fairer balance in the taxation of these competitive entertainments is desirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]I submit that that statement clearly shows that the television licence duty was imposed by way of consolation to the cinema, burdened, as it continued to be, by Entertainments Duty, and to rectify, to use the then Chancellor's own words,the balance in the taxation of these competitive entertainments".As I said earlier, in Committee, this was completely consistent with a fairly well-established principle of taxation of applying a countervailing duty—when a duty was applied to one service or article, to apply similarly a duty to any alternative or competitive service or article. But in Clause 4 of this Bill we have already agreed to the entire repeal of Entertainments Duty. In those circumstances, the ostensible reason for imposing a television licence duty has entirely disappeared. It is my submission that to perpetuate it in these completely changed circumstances is to repeat unjustifiably the history of so many taxes which have been imposed in the past, supposedly for limited reasons or for a limited period, only to be prolonged far beyond their original intention and when the reasons for them have disappeared. In these circumstances, the Chancellor is giving up £7½ million of revenue through the repeal of the Entertainments Duty, but is holding very rigidly to an expected revenue of £11½ million which accrues to him by the television licence duty.
The public, which has derived no benefit whatever from the remission of Entertainments Duty on the cinema—for reasons which we have discussed before—still has to meet this new impost of the television licence duty. I think 467 that it is fair to lay emphasis upon the fact that those who have television sets already contribute quite substantially to the revenue in the substantial levy of Purchase Tax upon television sets and upon some of the component parts.
I suggest that there is no longer any justification for the maintenance of this separate television licence duty. Let no one imagine for a moment that it has any justification on the ground that the revenue derived from it is used in any way for an improvement or expansion of television services. The whole of the proceeds of this duty go to swell the revenue.
I also plead, in aid of my contention that this licence duty has outlived its purpose, the fact that today, in many homes, television can no longer justifiably be regarded as a pure luxury. On the contrary, there are thousands of homes—and I am thinking particularly of the thousands of old people—in which the television set is a boon, a comfort and a relief in their loneliness. I am sure that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who know of many cases in which that is true.
Unfortunately, many old people, particularly with the burden of Purchase Tax upon such sets, are unable in these unhappy days to purchase sets for themselves. I know, as I am sure do other hon. Members, of cases in which, in compassion, friends and relatives, recognising the boon that the television set is to such old people, either buy sets for them, or arrange for some second-hand reconditioned sets to be made available to them.
Then comes the burden of the licence. For the licence in those circumstances to have imposed upon it a licence Excise duty of an additional £1 is, to my mind, to inflict taxation on an act of charity and good will exercised towards these old people. In those circumstances, it is a completely unwarranted additional burden. Nor can it be justified that an Excise licence duty has to be paid in respect of the use of television sets by schools and educational institutions, to which the television service is increasingly becoming an educational asset.
Therefore, on all grounds there is no longer any justification for perpetuating 468 this duty. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not repeat the sad history of Entertainments Duty and other duties. I hope that he is not introducing this Measure with the excuse that it is for a supposedly purely temporary period or to meet particular circumstances, but then, when the circumstances have changed, perpetuate it solely because the revenue derived from it is so attractive that he is unwilling to forgo it.
The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the original reason for this duty has now disappeared. If he nevertheless feels that on other and more general grounds it is justifiable to look in the field of television for additional revenue, I suggest to him that it would be more equitable to seek such revenue not from the users of television in this direct form, but from those who are making large and inordinate profits in this field in the direction of commercial advertising on television.
That is a point on which doubtless some of my hon. Friends better versed in that field than I will probably want to dilate. I contend primarily that the justification for the new Clause lies in the fact that the only reason ever adduced for its introduction no longer obtains, and that, therefore, it is an act of equity that the duty itself should now be abolished.
§ Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) has moved the Clause with such a wealth of explanation and evidence that it does not leave anyone else with very much to say. He was correct in saying that the rational justification for this duty has disappeared. The duties on its competitors—other forms of entertainments—have been repealed, and, therefore, the justification for the introduction of this duty has disappeared.
My hon. Friend was right in saying that the main worry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt be that he cannot afford to forgo the revenue involved. Therefore, I want very briefly to follow my hon. Friend in suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman makes it up from other sources within the television industry. My hon. Friend was right in saying that it is now proper that this tax on the viewer should be transferred and become a tax on the industry.
469 One has only to look at the present state of advertising revenues in commercial television to see how well the industry can afford it. I have not added up this year's profits on Independent Television, but I should be surprised if they are not about £50 million. Even after all the ordinary rate of taxes has been paid on that £50 million, I should be very surprised if the Chancellor could not make up quite fairly from the industry most of the £10 million which he obtains from this duty.
After all, we have now reached the position when the poor viewer pays both ways. First, he has to pay Purchase Tax on his television set. Then he has to sit at home and pay the duty. He has to stand the burden of watching the programmes, which are making profits on an inordinate scale now for the television companies. The duty lies most unfairly on the poor viewer and should be transferred to the pople who put out the advertisements.
There is a further factor which is worth considering. As the Television Act has worked out, there is no doubt whatsoever that what we have done is to set up regional monopolies in various parts of this country. There is no competition whatsoever in the world of Independent Television. In the Television Act we tried to provide that the Authority was to see that there was competition between different programme contractors.
What has happened, in practice, is that the Authority has had to give regional monopolies to particular programme companies. The result is that in the regions they are in the happy position of being able to mount millions upon millions in their profits because of the sheer absence of competition in their own region. The Act has proved unworkable.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Speaker
That must be the absolute limit to Which I am entitled to indulge the hon. Member on this proposition.
§ Mr. Chapman
I will draw what I was saying to a close, Mr. Speaker.
All that I wanted to add to that simple point was that we have now reached a situation where the industry, particularly 470 because of the limited number of programme contractors in it, is proving extremely profitable. It has surplus funds. I hand it to the industry that it is putting some of its funds to use for charitable and educational purposes, but it remains true that any revenue the Chancellor would lose if he accepted this Clause could be made up quite easily by a new television tax on that end of the television industry.
I do not think that the industry would mind paying it now. The companies are so happy with the profits they are making—they are happier still with some of the capital profits that they have made from starting the industry—that they would take it in their stride at the moment and would almost accept it quite freely as a legitimate impost on what has become a monopoly situation in various regions.
For those reasons, my hon. Friend was right in saying that this duty is now misplaced. It ought to be imposed on another part of the industry. I hope that we can persuade the Government to accept the Clause.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) said, the purpose of the Clause is to repeal the television duty of £1 a year on a normal licence costing £3. I should tell the House at the outset that the cost of it in a full year would be £11½ million and in this year £8½ million, because the Clause provides that it shall only become operative on 1st September.
The hon. Member described the television duty as a countervailing duty. He is quite right in saying that one of the reasons for the introduction of the television duty in 1957 was to secure a fairer balance in the taxation of competitive entertainments. But he then went on to say on two occasions that this was the only reason. If he considers the matter again he will realise that Entertainments Duty on the cinema was certainly not the only factor which prompted the introduction of the television duty.
The hon. Member quoted from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member will have 471 noted that one of my right hon. Friend's observations was:Entertainment is not in itself an unreasonable object of taxation …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 989.]What is perhaps more apposite in view of what the hon. Member said in moving the Clause is that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said this:… television viewing forms a suitable subject for the imposition of duty; … and … it is a duty which can very properly replace the revenue remitted on sport and the theatre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 1536.]I mention these matters only because the House would be under an illusion if it considered that the only matter which prompted my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth to introduce this duty in 1957 was its relationship to the Entertainments Duty on the cinema.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West rightly said that circumstances have changed since this duty was first introduced. Whatever differing views we may take about the circumstances of its introduction, what are really relevant to this afternoon's consideration are the circumstances of today. There is a complete contrast between television and the cinema industry. I should like to give the House a few figures which are very relevant in this context.
The television duty was introduced in 1957 and in that year the number of television sets sold on the home market was 1,816,000. Last year—only two years later—that number had risen to 2,754,000. In the fiscal year 1957–58, the first year in which the television duty was operative, the number of licences issued was 8,114,000. Last year, it had risen to 10,576,000. Expansion of the industry is continuing, and the licence sales during this fiscal year are likely to amount to about 11½ million. Contrast that with what has been happening in the cinema industry, which, as every hon. Member knows, has been declining for years. Admissions fell from a peak of 1,600 million in 1946 to 1,200 million in 1955, 915 million in 1957, and 601 million last year. The decline is still continuing.
As the House knows—and I shall not weary it with the figures again, because 472 I have given them before—the rate of closures of cinemas has continued to be heavy, and it was, in the main, for these reasons that my right hon. Friend thought it right this year to abolish the Entertainments Duty on the cinema. I cannot see why that is a reason, in the present circumstances, for selecting television licence holders for a concession. The abolition of the duty on the cinema will, I think, be a real help to the industry, but no one can claim that the abolition of the television duty would be of any significant benefit to the television industry. Indeed, from the figures that I have given, I think that it is quite apparent that the industry does not need it.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West went on, very fairly, to say that television is today a great boon for many old people who are living on their own, and I am sure that he is absolutely right, but I should like the House to consider very briefly the sort of people whom we are considering. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member said, that in some cases television sets are provided by relatives and friends. But the great bulk of the 11 million people who own television sets have paid perhaps £60 or £70 for a set and are also prepared to pay the annual licence fee of £3. I think that it is fair to ask the hon. Member whether it is really too much to expect these people to pay an extra 4½d. a week, which is all that this duty amounts to—in other words, less than the cost of a couple of cigarettes.
The hon. Gentleman quite fairly referred, in his closing observations, to the economic situation. I have said that this duty would, in fact, cost £11½ million in a full year and £8½ million this year. My right hon. Friend has explained why he is not able to propose this year any net reduction in taxation, and I shall not go over that ground again this afternoon, but it follows from his assessment of the situation that if we were to agree to this proposal either he would have to cut out a reduction which he has already made, or he would have to find another source of revenue to make up the £8½ million this year and the £11½ million in a full year.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) thought that it would be a good thing to get the 473 money from some other source connected with the television industry, but I do not think that most hon. Members will disagree with me when I say that we believe that it would be quite wrong to adopt either of these courses. For
§ those reasons, I cannot advise the House to accept the Clause.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 233.475
|Division No. 132.]||AYES||[4.25 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Healey, Denis||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Ainsley, William||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Peart, Frederick|
|Albu, Austen||Hilton, A. V.||Pentland, Norman|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Holman, Percy||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Awbery, Stan||Houghton, Douglas||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Probert, Arthur|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Randall, Harry|
|Benson, Sir George||Hunter, A. E.||Rankin, John|
|Blackburn, F.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Boardman, H.||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Reid, William|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Bowles, Frank||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Ross, William|
|Boyden, James||Janner, Barnett||Royle, Charles (Salford, West)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Short, Edward|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Jones. Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Small, William|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Chapman, Donald||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Snow, Julian|
|Chetwynd, George||Kelley, Richard||Sorensen, R. w.|
|Cliffe, Michael||Kenyon, Clifford||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Steele, Thomas|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||King, Dr. Horace||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Crosland, Anthony||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Stones, William|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lipton, Marcus||Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Logan, David||Swingler, Stephen|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Sylvester, George|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||McCann, James||Taylor, Belnard (Mansfield)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||MacColl, James||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||McInnes, James||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Delargy, Hugh||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Dempsey, James||Mackie, John||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Diamond, John||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thornton, Ernest|
|Dodds, Norman||Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Driberg, Tom||Manuel A. C.||Warbey, William|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Mapp, Charles||Watkins, Tudor|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter||Mason, Roy||Weitzman, David|
|Edelman, Maurice||Mayhew, Christopher||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mellish, R. J.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Millan, Bruce||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Mitchison, G. R.||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Evans, Albert||Monslow, Walter||Whitlock, William|
|Forman, J. C.||Moody, A. S.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Moyle, Arthur||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Neal, Harold||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Ginsburg, David||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Oliver, G. H.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Gourlay, Harry||Oram, A. E.||Woof, Robert|
|Grey, Charles||Owen, Will||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Gunter, Ray||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)|
|Hannan, William||Paton, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hayman, F. H.||Pavitt, Laurence||Mr. Cronin and Mr. Mahon.|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)|
|Allason, James||Beamish, Col. Tufton||Box, Donald|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tlv'tn)||Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Boyle, Sir Edward|
|Arbuthnot, John||Berkeley, Humphry||Brewis, John|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Biggs-Davison, John||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bingham, R. M.||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Barber, Anthony||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Brooman-White, R.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bishop, F. P.||Browne, Percy (Torrington)|
|Barter, John||Bossom, Clive||Bullard, Denys|
|Batsford, Brian||Bourne-Arton, A.||Burden, F. A.|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hopkins, Alan||Peel, John|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hornby, R. P.||Percival, Ian|
|Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Pilkington, Capt. Richard|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hughes-Young, Michael||Pitman, I. J.|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Chataway, Christopher||Iremonger, T. L.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Cole, Norman||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Collard, Richard||Jackson, John||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Cooke, Robert||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Cooper, A. E.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Ramsden, James|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Cordle, John||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Rees, Hugh|
|Corfield, F. V.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Renton, David|
|Costain, A. P.||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Critchley, Julian||Kershaw, Anthony||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Cunningham, Knox||Kimball, Marcus||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Kirk, Peter||Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kitson, Timothy||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Dance, James||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Sharples, Richard|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Leather, E. H. C.||Shepherd, William|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Leavey, J. A.||Simon, Sir Jocelyn|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)|
|Duncan, Sir James||Lilley, F. J. P.||Smithers, Peter|
|Eden, John||Lindsay, Martin||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Elliott, R. W.||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Speir, Rupert|
|Emery, Peter||Litchfield, Capt. John||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)||Stodart, J. A.|
|Farr, John||Longbottom, Charles||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Fell, Anthony||Longden, Gilbert||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Finlay, Graeme||Loveys, Walter H.||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Talbot, John E.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Freeth, Denzil||McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)|
|Gardner, Edward||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Teeling, William|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Temple, John M.|
|Gibson-Watt, David||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||McMaster, Stanley R.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Maddan, Martin||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Maitland, Cdr. Sir John||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hon. Sir R.||Turner, Colin|
|Gower, Raymond||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)||Marlowe Anthony||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Green, Alan||Marshall, Douglas||Wade, Donald|
|Grimond, J.||Marten, Neil||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire,w.)|
|Grimston, Sir Robert||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Wall, Patrick|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Mawby, Ray||Watts, James|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Mills, Stratton||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Montgomery, Fergus||Whitelaw, William|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Moore, Sir Thomas||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Hay, John||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nabarro, Gerald||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Hendry, Forbes||Neave, Airey||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Nicholls, Harmar||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Hiley, Joseph||Noble, Michael||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Hobson, John||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Hocking, Philip N.||Osborne, Cyril (Louth)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Holland, Phillip||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Mr. Bryan and Mr. J. E. B. Hill.|
|Holt, Arthur||Partridge, E.|