§ [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
§ Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
§ [Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray in the Chair]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or any other Government Department, incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act relating to the payment of surcharges by employers, including any increase in the sums payable by the said Minister out of such moneys under section nineteen of the Post Office Act, 1961, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)We had hoped that, following the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would at least have explained how this Money Resolution will work. We thought that the Chancellor's proposal was to be used, following the lines of the Prime Minister's speech today, in times of "booming Britain". I understand that this is what the Prime Minister has told the Tory Women's Conference. This evening, the Chancellor said that it would be used only if, or when, Britain in fact began to boom. It is a little disconcerting to wonder whether the Money Resolution will ever become effective or not. The idea behind the Resolution is that the cost of collecting the surcharge, the printing and the selling of stamps, would fall mainly on the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, and 1526 we understand that it is necessary to provide in the Resolution for such expenses voted by the House.
For our part, we object in principle to the tax which the Chancellor has told us he proposes to impose in the form of a payroll tax on industry. We understand that the amount covered by the Money Resolution is about £50,000. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) suggested that the Government, obviously, would tax themselves as employers of labour and they probably would present Supplementary Estimates to meet the tax. We are almost beginning that process tonight.
We object to the Money Resolution for several reasons. In the first place, we believe that the Government have been stampeded into bringing in a payroll tax because the increase, about which the Economic Secretary told us yesterday, of 395,000 people in the labour force during 1960 has not brought any overall increase in production and, indeed, there has been a decrease in productivity. Secondly, all the efforts which the Government made to squeeze people, especially skilled labour, out of the car industry failed rather dismally at a time when the capital goods industries were quite unable to keep their delivery dates because of a shortage of skilled labour.
Introducing his payroll tax, the Chancellor used some extraordinary words. He said:
I propose to ask for power this year as a temporary expedient to collect such a surcharge, should it be needed, by attaching it to the employers' share of the National Insurance stamp.Why were those words used by the Chancellor in presenting his Budget? I suggest that the introduction of them was the only condition on which the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance could be induced to withdraw his resignation. The right hon. Gentleman, rightly, objected to his Department being used to collect taxation of this type.The book written by Sir Geoffrey King on the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance sets out the basis on which the Department functions. He says:
The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is concerned almost exclusively with the administration in Great Britain of four schemes that provide cash allowances designed 1527 to meet a wide variety of circumstances—war pensions, National Insurance pensions and benefits, industrial injury benefits and family allowances".I and my hon. Friends object to the use of a Department such as the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for the purpose of collecting taxation of this type. We believe that the work of the Ministry will not be enhanced by it and that if it is to be utilised in this way much of the good work which it has done will be dissipated. I very much agree with the Minister's objection to the use of his Ministry in this way. We wish that he had had the courage to go further in his objection and to resign his office rather than agree to allow his Department to be used in this manner.In the debates on the Budget questions were asked about the position of the Government as employers. Remploy in particular was mentioned. We know that public money is being, and has been, spent to very good purpose on Remploy in enabling otherwise unemployable persons to produce in covered employment goods which otherwise could not have been produced. We know this from the answers given by the Economic Secretary.
Not long ago the Government were complaining that the costs of production in Remploy were too uneconomic even for that type of organisation. Now they propose to make those costs of production even more uneconomic. Those private employers who now employ above their own quota of disabled people will suffer a great disadvantage through their generosity in continuing to employ people above the quota required in order to assist in this great problem of finding employment for disabled people.
One of the objections which the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance rightly made was that the men employed in industry will probably argue that, if employer can afford to pay a further 4s. on the National Insurance stamp, why should not the employee's contribution be reduced by that amount? This is an argument of some substance. We are concerned with the effect of this tax. The Chancellor said:
…when we are faced with a chronic shortage of labour it would act as an incentive to…economy in the use of manpower and to investment in labour saving equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April; Vol. 638, c. 808.]1528 We are much in favour of creating a high-investment economy. That is why we favour higher taxation of distributed dividends than taxation on profits which are ploughed back into industry, but to impose this kind of gimmick on an economy which encourages a high rate of distribution of industrial earnings merely results in employers increasing the selling price of their own products. This is not a good recommendation for increasing our exports.We know from the speech of the Economic Secretary that there will be no differential rate in this tax as between areas where there is unemployment and those which have little or no unemployment. The hon. Gentleman told us that in Northern Ireland, for example, the proceeds of the surcharge will 50 to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. I was left wondering what possible difference the hon. Gentleman supposes that this will make. There is already a considerable number of factories built by the Northern Ireland Government which are either completely unused or certainly underused. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman believes that the retention by the Northern Ireland Government of the tax collected in Northern Ireland will make the slightest difference in the way of the provision of further employment in Northern Ireland. If the Financial Secretary can explain how this comes about, we shall be grateful.
We now know that the tax will be applied to areas of unemployment, such as Scotland, in precisely the same way as it will be applied in areas where there is no great problem. One can only imagine that in those conditions, instead of 3½ per cent. unemployment in Scotland, we may well soon see the figure back to the region of 6 per cent. According to yesterday's Report on the shipbuilding industry, the future of the North-East Coast and other shipbuilding areas is fairly bleak. In such areas, we seem to be inviting some of those who are employed to join those who are not, because the Chancellor apparently believes that we are suffering from a chronic shortage of labour. In other words, it seems to me that we are reaching a position in which we spend large sums of public money under the Local Employment Act to bring work to special areas or development districts, and 1529 tonight we are asked to agree to more public expenditure to minimise the effect in such areas of the public money which we spend under the Local Employment Act, which is hardly a good way of planning the economy.
I ask hon. Members to consider the effects upon different types of labour. The argument used by the Chancellor is that modernisation or automation will be encouraged at a faster pace. These modern techniques, however—not wholly, but in the main—displace unskilled and semi-skilled labour. The shortage from which we are suffering is of skilled labour. By displacing, for example, a semi-skilled assembler in the motor-car industry, we do not fill a vacancy for a skilled man in the heavy electrical engineering industry.
In the case of industries which do not exactly lend themselves to mechanisation—for example, the building trade—the Chancellor is now trying to make it too expensive for employers to retain the services of some of the bricklayers and people of that sort whom they at present employ. As, however, all the employers in that industry will have to pay the same type of tax, it will not divert labour from one employer to another, but will result in a number of people who are now employed—say, skilled bricklayers—not being able to find employment in that industry. Therefore, the only alternative is for those people to look for unskilled work. As I have said already, our problem is that we are short of skilled, and not unskilled, labour.
Does the Chancellor really think that we are suffering from a chronic shortage of elderly or disabled workers? Looking at the returns of the Ministry of Labour, we find that a large proportion of the 52 per cent. of people who have been unemployed for over eight weeks are middle-aged. If the Chancellor were a private employer making the choice between, say, a man of 30 and one of 50, obviously he would choose to render redundant the older man. If, however, he were the Minister of Labour, I wonder for which of the two he would rather try to find employment.
In other words, we are helping to create an unemployment problem among older people who would then have to remain on unemployment benefit for 1530 much longer than would the younger man, and in that way I believe the moneys that we are being asked to spend tonight are merely to enhance the amount of public money which we shall be spending when this payroll tax comes into being.
I believe that the real object of this exercise is that the Government are attempting to cover up an overall shortage of skilled labour. It is a problem which has worried many of us for a long time. Indeed, we warned them a long while ago that if they refused to accept the need for active Government intervention in order to train skilled labour we should reach the position that we are in tonight. I have warned them on many occasions that a continuation of that attitude would result in substantial unemployment among unskilled labour and an equally substantial demand for non-existent technicians and skilled manpower.
We have already reached a position in which there is an overall shortage of skilled labour, and if tonight the Committee agrees to this Money Resolution it could be the beginning of the squeezing out of industry of unskilled and semiskilled people, which would eventually mean a pretty heavy unemployment problem.
Because we object to the use of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for this purpose, a purpose for which it was never created, and because we believe that it is not in the interests of the nation that public moneys should be spent on a gimmick which has not been shown to be in any way advantageous to the nation as a whole, I invite my hon. Friends to vote against this Motion.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)We are now dealing with this Money Resolution which would seem to indicate that the Government are a little worried about what the economic circumstances and the position of trade and export of this country are likely to be in a few months' time. We are also dealing with the possible levying of a tax which, for some reason or another, is to be put off till after the borough council elections next month.
1531 The main objection that I have to the Money Resolution and to the whole proposal is that it will to my mind completely distort—in fact, prostitute—the whole of the aims and ideas of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It will have the effect of turning the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance primarily into a pettifogging tax collector jumping about on the end of a piece of string held by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to be pulled up when the Chancellor wants to do so and to be let down again when the Chancellor thinks the Minister has done his job and needs a rest before performing again on the piece of string later.
This is not what the Ministry of National Insurance was created for. The Ministry was created in 1944 when we were beginning to set in motion some preparations for the social legislation which was proposed to be brought in when the war was over. One finds that in the Act of 17th November, 1944, to establish a Ministry of National Insurance, the Minister was given three main functions. He had transferred to him all the functions of the Minister of Health with regard to national health insurance, old-age pensions, widows and orphans, old-age contributory pensions and supplementary pensions. In addition, he took over from the Minister of Labour and National Service unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance, and from the Secretary of State all functions dealing with workmen's compensation.
To the best of my knowledge, the functions of the Ministry have only been altered once since that date. That was in 1953, when the functions of the Ministry of Pensions were transferred to the Minister of National Insurance. That, I think, is the only alteration to be made in the functions of the Minister, and at present he is, as Minister, solely concerned with administering certain social service provisions for the people of the country as a whole, and, in particular, with the functions that he took over from the Ministry of Pensions in relation to war pensioners.
Admittedly, one of these functions taken over right from the beginning from the Ministry of Health and re-emphasised in the National Insurance 1532 Act, 1946, was that the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance would collect a small amount of money—and I stress the word "small"—from the National Insurance contributions to be paid over to the Ministry of Health for the National Health Service. One can see now that, with the increase in the National Health Service contribution, this tax-gathering side of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is perhaps being recorded as a precedent for using the Ministry for other tax-gathering purposes. At any rate, up to now the money that the Ministry has been collecting from the National Insurance contribution and, more recently, the National Health contributions has always been designated for use in one of the other social services fairly closely associated with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance itself.
Now we are having a completely new departure which may lead to a complete change in the nature of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. It may be possible that the Minister will be responsible for collecting up to £200 million a year on behalf of Her Majesty's Government which has nothing whatsoever to do with the social services and the function which the Minister is really responsible for carrying out. He will just collect the £200 million and hand it over to the Chancellor, and it will be used for any purpose the Government then desire, which may have nothing to do with the social services for which the Minister is himself responsible. We are asked to add £50,000 towards the cost of the machinery of National Insurance to carry out this odious function.
I am not surprised that that there is not on the Treasury Bench any one of the Ministers the future of whose Ministries we are now discussing. We are asked to pay money out of the Consolidated Fund for the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and there is not a single Minister from that Ministry here to listen to what must be regarded as an important debate affecting the whole future development of that Ministry.
There is present only one Minister and he is the Minister who is responsible for moving the Money Resolution. Normally, if there is a Money Resolution which affects a particular Ministry we expect to see someone from that Ministry 1533 sitting opposite in addition to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. But none of the Ministers responsible for the Department whose future we are discussing is silting opposite to show his obvious support for the Money Resolution. This must lend colour to the suggestions that have been going round in the last few weeks about the hurried scramble together of Ministers, and the calling of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to a Cabinet meeting discussing the Budget. It must lend colour to rumours of disputes in the Government over this, leading almost to the resignation of Ministers from the Department responsible for these social services. Otherwise, surely they would be here to see the birth of this great new idea for the future of their Department. Their absence speaks for itself and it will be remembered in future debates on the Finance Bill.
As has been said already, this tax is completely indiscriminate. It will undoubtedly lead to Supplementary Estimates for the various spending Departments. It will also bear heavily on industries which have a large reliance on manpower and, in particular, on local authorities, where a large proportion of their expenditure is on the employment of staff and labour of all kinds. It would not surprise me in the least, if this tax were introduced at lull level, that the local authorities would have to find between £20 million and £25 million from local rates to meet the levy at the maximum level which has been suggested.
The last time that we had a change in local government finance the local authorities were supposed to benefit by £30 million, but the Chancellor took two-thirds of it away. Now that the Chancellor is taking £20 million away from the local authorities, can we hope that two-thirds of it will be handed back by an addition to the block grant to make up for what was taken away last time? Perhaps I am being too hopeful.
§ Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)Can my hon. Friend say whether this £25 million includes what Scottish local authorities will have to pay?
§ Mr. ReynoldsI suggested a figure of £20 million to £25 million, but it is not possible to give an exact figure. I intended, it to cover local authorities in 1534 Scotland as well as in England and Wales. This extra expenditure will have to be met by the ratepayers.
Then there is the agricultural industry which, though not so much as in the past, is still a fairly large employer of labour. Presumably, if this tax is introduced, higher agricultural subsidies will be called for. No doubt the National Farmers' Union and others concerned will quickly add the extra cost to the cost of production and rush to the Minister of Agriculture for increased subsidies.
This will also call for increased defence expenditure, because the Armed Forces are so dependent upon manpower. Presumably, they will pay their 4s. a week each for every soldier, sailor and airman, and that will have to be found by the taxpayer.
This tax is indiscriminate, as apparently the same amount is to be paid by every industry, irrespective of its financial soundness. If there is to be such a tax, I insist that there should be two conditions: the money raised from it should go to the social services, and it should be levied on a percentage basis.
In the past, we have always maintained that contributions paid by employers, employees and the Government into the National Insurance Fund are used for the social services. That policy should be maintained. This money should be paid into the National Insurance Fund for investment to help to provide future benefits from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
Instead of there being a flat rate for all industries, the tax should be levied on a percentage basis, so that employers in industries where there are low wages—depressed industries—will not be forced to pay the same amount per worker as the more profitable industries. If more profitable industries can afford to pay higher wages than the others, then they should also pay a higher payroll tax as well.
My main concern, however, is that this will alter the character of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. That is wrong. Tax collecting should be carried out by the Inland Revenue and other departments of the Treasury, and not by a Minister whose 1535 prime responsibility is to provide the social services which our people need so much.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. R. E. Prentice (East Ham, North)I have risen with some hesitation, because I had hoped to hear something from Members opposite, many of whom are present and taking an interest in this debate.
We heard from the Press on Tuesday morning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a rough reception at a meeting of Conservative back benchers on Monday night about his proposal for a payroll tax. The report leaked to the Press, much as we are accustomed to reports of our party meetings leaking to the Press. It appears that no one had very much to say in favour of this proposal, and some came to the conclusion that he did not intend it seriously. During the debate on the Budget, there was criticism of the proposal from both sides of the Committee, and a very poor defence was put up for it. This Motion specifically refers to the way in which the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is to be used in collecting this tax.
Earlier today, the Chancellor said that the operation of this tax, this regulator, as contrasted with his other regulator, would involve a delay of several weeks. That is something on which we are entitled to much more detailed information, because our experience of changes in the National Insurance system is that there is a delay of several months before the changes can operate. I am not sure what the delay in this case would be, because it involves only a flat-rate change for all employers in respect of each of their employees and does not involve any contribution from the employees, or any benefits.
Nevertheless, the Chancellor said that there would be a considerable delay, and in that case I cannot see what value this regulator would have in an inflationary situation. The whole point of the Chancellor's case is that at a moment of crisis he should be able quickly to mop up a certain amount of purchasing power. If there is to be a delay of weeks, or even months, before 1536 this machinery can become effective, much of its value will be lost.
In addition to that, there are the other objections—the increase of inflationary pressure on the economy, the way in which local government would be affected, the effect on the costs of the hospital services. The Government's excuse for imposing the new National Health Service charges was that that was a way of keeping the Health Service costs in check, but this proposal will increase those costs by putting on an extra labour charge.
There is also the effect on public transport undertakings, which throughout the country are in great difficulties and having to close down routes and are unable to meet the legitimate wage claims of their workers. There is inflationary pressure in that sense.
I am also deeply concerned about the effect which this new tax may have in the next few years on the employment prospects of young workers. In the next few years, there will be an especially large number of school leavers. The number increased this year over last year by 20 per cent. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is here, because he has some responsibility in this matter, and I hope that he shares my view that the Government's proposals will increase his difficulties.
The number of school leavers will increase still more next year, when it will be 30 per cent. more than it was last year. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Labour are going round the country urging employers to provide greater training opportunities for the extra school leavers this year and next year and the following year. I hope they realise that their task has been made more difficult by this proposal. If an employer is faced with extra labour costs, his first reaction will be to stop taking on new staff. Before he makes anyone redundant, he will stop recruitment, and the first victims of that are likely to be the school leavers.
What is more, even if the tax is never imposed, its threat may make employers hesitate before they plan to take on more apprentices, for example, because they will know what they will have to take on an apprentice for a five-year liability and at any time in that five-year period 1537 the Government may introduce this tax. They will not know for what duration or what amount the tax will be introduced, but they will appreciate that there is a danger of their costs being increased. Employers will therefore be less likely to plan to increase the number of their apprentices.
For those and many other reasons, this is a bad proposal, and I am sorry that our objections to it have not been supported by hon. Members opposite.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) commented on the fact that there was no one from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance present. It is recognised that this special surcharge on employers is put forward as a fiscal regulation. It is therefore definitely the responsibility of the Treasury, just as the National Health Service Contribution Bill which we debated some time ago was quite avowedly and frankly the responsibility of the Treasury. For that reason only, no representative of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance is present. Although the Financial Resolution which we are discussing refers to the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, this is definitely something for which the Treasury is responsible.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He said that surely this was asking the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to come into some economic operation for which it was never designed. I have two answers to that. First, if he looks at my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech he will see that this point was made there. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
I propose to ask for power this year as a temporary expedient to collect such a surcharge, should it be needed, by attaching it to the employers' share of the National Insurance Stamp.Later he said:I recognise that the method of collection with the National Insurance contribution presents difficulties, particularly the risk of confusion between this surcharge and the contribution. Any such confusion might undermine the very important contributory principle on which 1538 National Insurance is based. However, it is the only machinery readily available…In other words, my right hon. and learned Friend recognised the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say:I will, however, continue to examine other methods of levying such a surcharge. Should Parliament be asked to grant this power again next year, I would put forward fresh proposals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April 1961; Vol. 638, c. 808–9.]In view of those remarks, I do not think it is fair to talk about the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and his relation to the Treasury in quite the terms used by the hon. Gentleman.There is the further point which I mentioned when speaking during the Budget debate earlier today. I pointed out that there was nothing altogether new in this regulator. Indeed, if one looks back to the 1944 White Paper on Government policy, one sees that it was envisaged that the rate of National Insurance contributions might be varied for economic purposes, and many economists of varying political schools of thought have thought that the National Insurance contributions might be used, not for insurance purposes, but for economic purposes. This is not a completely new idea. All that we are considering tonight is an entirely new approach to an element in the contributions, the proceeds of which would be available directly to the Exchequer.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)Can the Financial Secretary say whether this surcharge would be embodied in a stamp on the National Insurance card, or would be paid by cash by the employer to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance?
§ Sir E. BoyleIt would be a stamp.
I come back to the speech of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). He made the speech which he was not able to make during the Budget debate, and I very much enjoyed listening to it, but I can only say to him what I said earlier when he was not present, understandably enough. The special surcharge on employers is proposed by the Government as an economic regulator, and not as a tax on employment. I also said earlier, and I repeat it now, that I understand the fears which have been expressed by many hon. Members, including a number of my hon. Friends, about the 1539 adverse effects which they feel this proposal might have on those areas with local employment problems. The surcharge at its maximum rate would add only £10 a year to the cost of employing a man. I do not believe that a tax at that level would materially affect the problem of local employment, or nullify—and this is the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newton—the positive measures which the Government are taking to solve this problem. I put it to the Committee—as I put it earlier today—that I just do not believe that we can possibly regulate the British economy without some general controls as part of the Chancellor's armoury.
§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)Come over here.
§ Sir E. BoyleI am talking about general controls. [Laughter.] Hon. Members must come up to date a little about this matter. It is extraordinary how furious they get when anything new is proposed from this side of the House. We have never denied, as a party—we have always believed—that there must be an active policy by the Government and the financial authorities to secure a balance between our productive resources and the claims made upon them. We have said ever since the war that monetary policy and budgetary policy and policy for the location of industry must remain in the permanent armoury of any Government.
The only difference between the two sides concerns the use not of general
§ controls but selective controls, to stop people spending their own money on specific goods or projects. The hon. Member for Newton is an able and persistent advocate of economic planning, in the sense in which it was carried out by the Labour Government after the war, and he has always made it clear that he is a supporter of selective controls. I do not believe that any Government, whatever its economic policy, could dispense with some general economic controls, which operated on demand right across the board. No Labour Government could dispense with general controls. It is a matter of deciding what those controls should be.
§ All forms of economic regulation have their disadvantages. I pointed out some of the disadvantages—which we fully recognise on this side of the Committee—of general monetary control and also of hire-purchase control. It is clear from our economic history since the war that any Chancellor of the Exchequer, whatever his political colour, needs rather more weapons in his armoury than he has had in recent years. It is in this context that we put forward the special surcharge on employers as a reasonable contribution to the economic weapons at the disposal of the Chancellor. Despite the criticism that we have had in the Budget debate nothing will make me believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was wrong or unjustified in putting forward this proposal.
§ Question put:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 254, Noes 172.
1543| Division No. 141.] | AYES | [10.58 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Box, Donald | Cooke, Robert |
| Aitken, W. T. | Boyle, Sir Edward | Cooper, A. E. |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Brewis, John | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill |
| Allason, James | Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.) | Brooman-White, R. | Cordle, John |
| Arbuthnot, John | Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Corfield, F. V. |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Browne, Percy, (Torrington) | Costain, A. P. |
| Barber, Anthony | Bryan, Paul | Coulson, J. M. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Buck, Antony | Courtney, Cdr. Anthony |
| Barter, John | Bullard, Denys | Craddock, Sir Beresford |
| Batsford, Brian | Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Butcher, Sir Herbert | Crowder, F. P. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Cunningham, Knox |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) | Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Curran, Charles |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) | Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Dance, James |
| Bidgood, John C. | Channon, H. P. G. | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Chataway, Christopher | de Ferranti, Basil |
| Bingham, R. M. | Chichester-Clark, R. | Digby, Simon Wingfield |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Doughty, Charles |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Drayson, G. B. |
| Bossom, Clive | Cleaver, Leonard | du Cann, Edward |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Cole, Norman | Eden, John |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Kirk, Peter | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Langford-Holt, J. | Pym, Francis |
| Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Leather, E. H. C. | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Leavey, J. A. | Ramsden, James |
| Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Lilley, F. J. P. | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Farr, John | Lindsay, Martin | Rees, Hugh |
| Finlay, Graeme | Linstead, Sir Hugh | Renton, David |
| Fisher, Nigel | Litchfield, Capt. John | Ridley, Hon. Nicholas |
| Foster, John | Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) | Rippon, Geoffrey |
| Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) | Longden, Gilbert | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Loveys, Walter H. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Freeth, Denzil | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Roots, William |
| Gammans, Lady | MacArthur, Ian | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) |
| Gardner, Edward | McLaren Martin | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Gibson-Watt, David | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia | Sharples, Richard |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John | Shaw, M. |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) | Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | McLean, Neil (Inverness) | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) |
| Goodhart, Philip | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) | Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) |
| Goodhew, Victor | McMaster, Stanley R. | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Gower, Raymond | Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley) | Stanley, Hon. Richard |
| Grant, Rt. Hon. William | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Stevens, Geoffrey |
| Green, Alan | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) |
| Gresham Cooke, R. | Maddan, Martin | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Gurden, Harold | Maginnis, John E. | Storey, Sir Samuel |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Sir John | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. | Sumner, Donald (Orpington) |
| Hare, Rt. Hon. John | Markham, Major Sir Frank | Tapsell, Peter |
| Harris, Reader (Heston) | Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Marten, Neil | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) | Teeling, William |
| Hastings, Stephen | Mawby, Ray | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Hay, John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) |
| Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L C. | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Hendry, Forbes | Mills, Stratton | Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Hicks Beach, Maj. W. | Montgomery, Fergus | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter |
| Hiley, Joseph | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) | Morgan, William | Turner, Colin |
| Hocking, Philip N. | Morrison, John | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Hollingworth, John | Nabarro, Gerald | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Hopkins, Alan | Neave, Airey | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Hornby, R. P. | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) |
| Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John | Oakshott, Sir Hendrie | Walder, David |
| Hughes-Young, Michael | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Walker, Peter |
| Hulbert, Sir Norman | Page, John (Harrow, West) | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Hurd, Sir Anthony | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Wetts, John (Maidstone) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Whitelaw, William |
| Iremonger, T. L. | Partridge, E. | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Peel, John | William, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Jackson, John | Percival, Ian | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| James, David | Peyton, John | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Pilkington, Sir Richard | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Pitman, I. J. | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Pitt, Miss Edith | Worsley, Marcus |
| Joseph, Sir Keith | Pott, Percivall | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch | |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Kimball, Marcus | Mr. Noble and Mr. Frank Pearson. | |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Finch, Harold |
| Ainsley, William | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Crossman, R. H. S. | Forman, J. C. |
| Awbery, Stan | Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Ginsburg, David |
| Benson, Sir George | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Gooch, E. G. |
| Blackburn, F. | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. |
| Blyton, William | Deer, George | Courlay, Harry |
| Boardman, H. | de Freitas, Geoffrey | Greenwood, Anthony |
| Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) | Delargy, Hugh | Grey, Charles |
| Bowles, Frank | Dempsey, James | Gunter, Ray |
| Boyden, James | Diamond, John | Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Dodds, Norman | Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Driberg, Tom | Hamilton, William (West Fife) |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John | Hannan, William |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | Hart, Mrs. Judith |
| Callaghan, James | Edwards, Robert (Bliston) | Hayman, F. H. |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis) |
| Chetwynd, George | Evans, Albert | Herbison, Miss Margaret |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Marsh, Richard | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Hilton, A. V. | Mason, Roy | Snow, Julian |
| Holman, Percy | Mellish, R. J. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Holt, Arthur | Mendelson, J. J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Houghton, Douglas | Millan, Bruce | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath) | Milne, Edward J. | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Hoy, James H. | Mitchison, G. R. | Stonehouse, John |
| Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Moody, A. S. | Stones, William |
| Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Moyle, Arthur | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Mulley, Frederick | Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Hunter, A. E. | Neal, Harold | Swain, Thomas |
| Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Oliver, G. H. | Swingler, Stephen |
| Janner, Sir Barnett | Oswald, Thomas | Sylvester, George |
| Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Jeger, George | Pargiter, G. A. | Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Parker, John | Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Parkin, B. T. | Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) | Pavitt, Laurence | Timmons, John |
| Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Tomney, Frank |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Peart, Frederick | Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn |
| Kelley, Richard | Pentland, Norman | Wainwright, Edwin |
| King, Dr. Horace | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Warbey, William |
| Lawson, George | Prentice, R. E. | Weitzman, David |
| Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Probert, Arthur | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Proctor, W. T. | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Randall, Harry | Whitlock, William |
| Loughlin, Charles | Rankin, John | Wigg, George |
| Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Redhead, E. C. | Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B. |
| McCann, John | Reynolds, G. W. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| MacColl, James | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Willey, Frederick |
| McInnes, James | Roberts, Goromwy (Caernarvon) | Williams, Ll. (Abertillery) |
| McKay, John (Wallsend) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) | Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Ross, William | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Manuel, A. C. | Skeffington, Arthur | Woof, Robert |
| Mapp, Charles | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) | |
| Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Small, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Irving and Mr. Charles A. Howell. |
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, or any other Government Department, incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act relating to the payment of surcharges by employers, including any increase in the sums payable by the said Minister out of such moneys under section nineteen of the Post Office Act, 1961, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund—
§ Resolution to be reported.
§ Report to be received Tomorrow.