§ Section two hundred and sixteen (dependent relatives) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall apply to a wife living with a husband incapacitated by old age or infirmity from maintaining himself as it applies to a claimant who proves that he maintains at his own expense a relative so incapacitated.—[Mr. H. Wilson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. H. Wilson
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I apologise for inflicting my voice again on the Committee, but in the very long hours which I spent here yesterday I spoke very little—but at least with some effect, I hope. I shall speak much more briefly than when I introduced the previous new Clause.
This is a short and simple point, and I appeal to the Chancellor to accept it. As the Committee will be aware, there is provision under the Income Tax Acts for a son or a daughter or other relative to make comparatively small sums available to dependent relatives and to claim tax remission upon them. For obvious reasons, because of possible abuse, the Inland Revenue and the Acts passed by the House of Commons have always been very restrictive. They have limited severely the amount of money that can be so charged against income.
They have also provided that if an allowance to a dependent relative raises the total income of the recipient beyond a certain very low figure, then the benefits 1540 cease to apply. In Clause 12 of this Bill there is a slight increase in both figures, because, of course, the increase in the retirement pensions makes that necessary. I am not sure if the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is trying to intervene. He seems to be murmuring away. Perhaps he wants to intervene. I am afraid that his new Clause—"Relief for industrial use of light oils"—has been passed by.
§ Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has referred to me, no doubt in an effort to provoke me into an intervention, thereby keeping the debate going. I do not wish to intervene. With the courtesy which I try to practise on all occasions—and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman tries to emulate—I was trying to give some information to one of my hon. Friends who had asked me for it. Furthermore, the information was accurate—and accuracy is another quality which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. My record in the proceedings of this Bill has not been one of delay.
I was not trying to get the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his feet with the object of delaying the Committee, but his whispering was a little louder than is usually the case and made it somewhat difficult for me to concentrate on a difficult point, and even more difficult for hon. Members to follow.
§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
I should have done so before, but I express my regret if my whispering was so loud.
The Committee has always been restrictive in its legislation about the amount available to dependent relatives and the total amount of income that relative could receive, including this allowance, without having consequential effects on the amount allowed for tax relief.
A considerable number of hon. Members will have personal experience, not only from their constituencies but probably from their own family life, of the 1541 operation of Section 216 of the 1952 Act. It is a familiar thing in this country—and a good thing—that so many men and women who are working make allowances to their parents when their parents have retired and have not enough to live on. The usual thing is that if one has parents who are regarded as incapacitated by old age one usually allows an equal amount to the father and to the mother, the total making up a contribution to the family income for paying rent and other requirements.
There is a problem where the incapacity arises not from age but from serious illness, very often illness meaning that the individual concerned may not work for a long time, and perhaps may never work again. In this case no allowance is available for the mother in the kind of case I am contemplating, except where she is over 60. Let me give an example.
If any one of us had parents aged 75 and was making the full allowance under this Clause, that would be allowed. One could make an allowance to one's father, and an allowance to one's mother. Many of us have done that, and we have experience of how it works. One can do that because, in the terms of the Act, they are both incapacitated by old age. Perhaps many people would quarrel with the phrase "incapacitated", because to suggest that parents or anyone else of a particular age are incapacitated is rather a legal fiction. On the other hand, it means that they are not currently able to earn a full wage or salary.
Consider the other example where perhaps one's father is aged 57 or 58 suffers some disablement. Perhaps he has a stroke or a coronary. One can think of a number of things that might happen to him—perhaps chronic rheumatism—so that he cannot go on working. In that case one can make an allowance only to him. One cannot make an allowance to one's mother in those circumstances unless she is over 60, and then she counts as being incapacitated on grounds of old age.
There must be many cases of this kind. Let us assume in the case that I have taken that the mother is 57 or 58. The need of that household for a grant from the son or daughter is the same as if both parents were over the age limit and both incapacitated on grounds of age. 1542 There is no question of the mother going out to work to earn enough money to supplement the family income, and what the son or daughter wants to do is to make a grant to cover the household needs.
The present discrimination under the Act means that in one case one can make a grant of £150 to the father and mother, and in the second case a grant of only £75. That seems to me unfair. I think I know what the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary may have in mind as the objection to the new Clause, that one has to draw the line somewhere, and that the incapacitated man's wife may be quite young and able to go to work. That may be so, but, equally, if the man is incapacitated—and I mean wholly incapacitated and able to qualify for the dependent relative's allowance—it is more than likely that his wife will have to stay at home to look after him. It therefore seems unreasonable that she should not get a grant of this kind.
I am not suggesting that we should throw this wide open. I am not saying that in every case where the parents are under 60 there may be arguments for help from sons and daughters. I do not want that. I am not throwing on to the Inland Revenue any difficult problem of checking incapacity or the marital relationship to someone who is incapacitated. The Revenue already accepts the payment of £75 to the incapacitated man. It has no discretionary problem of deciding to whom it might be paid. All we are saying is that where it is granted the son or daughter should be able to make an allowance to the wife of the incapacitated man in the same way as it can be done if both the recipients are over the statutory age laid down in the Act. I hope that the Financial Secretary will look at this with some humanity. The cost will be negligible. I am sure that neither the Chancellor nor the Financial Secretary will stand on the ground of costs. The only argument will be the old one about precedents and that sort of thing.
We have gone right through the Finance Bill. We have debated many new Clauses late into the night. We have debated dozens of Amendments to the Bill. Traditionally the Chancellor is always supposed to have something up his sleeve to offer during the Committee stage of the Bill. I should like to look up that sleeve. I am not taking 1543 the Chancellor's word for this. The Chancellor during the Committee stage is looked on in the same way as someone who comes to present prizes at school. We know that it is never possible to ask for a holiday, but if someone came to present prizes and went away without giving a holiday something would be wrong.
I understand that that has been discussed through the usual channels. Equally, it is true that the Chancellor is expected to have a little bonus to offer at some stage. His mind is not so made up on Budget day that he is not able to consider anything.
Apart from one or two promises to consider certain things, all that the Chancellor has done so far is to yield to the argument, which many of us supported, of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East about horticulture. What we are proposing in this new Clause is a very small concession in terms of money. I hope therefore that at this late stage the Chancellor will tell us that he will not go away with his sleeve bulging with unused largesse, and that he will accept the new Clause. Apart from the other arguments that I have used, it will make a real difference to a lot of families. It is within the power of the Chancellor and the Committee to make this help available, and I hope that he will do it.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friends I support this new Clause which is in the same terms as the new Clause, "Dependent relatives" which I understand we may discuss at the same time. I was very glad to see that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) phrased his new Clause in these terms, and I am glad that he and his colleagues followed the lead given by Government supporters who tabled their new Clause first. The constitutional procedure of the House is very peculiar. It is interesting to note that the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Gentleman appears to have taken priority over the new Clause which my hon. Friends and I tabled. Nevertheless, it does not 1544 in any way detract from both sides of the Committee joining forces to press my right hon. and learned Friend for this small concession. We are nearing the end of the Committee stage of the Bill. For humanitarian reasons, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give us this small concession.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing that practically no administrative difficulties will arise. I get terribly bored with Government Departments advising their Ministers about administrative difficulties. If one has never been in a Government Department, it is difficult to know whether the criticisms put forward by a Department are genuine.
The only concession given by my right hon. Friend was in relation to horticulture. I noticed with great interest that immediately my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) rose and moved in eloquent terms the Amendment dealing with horticulture, he was surrounded and applauded, and the Government gave way in the twinkling of an eye. All I say about that is that it struck me as most odd that it should be necessary for my right hon. and learned Friend to have to move that Amendment. It meant that the Treasury could not have considered all the implications of the Finance Bill.
I have no objection to anything being given to the horticulturists—
§ The Chairman
I hope that the hon. Lady will not pursue this point too far. She must deal with the new Clauses that we are discussing.
§ Dame Irene Ward
I will not pursue it too far, Sir Gordon, but right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches make very eloquent speeches embracing the whole scene, and it is difficult for back benchers if they also cannot embrace the whole scene. It may be that I am a little more descriptive than some of my right hon. Friends.
§ Dame Irene Ward
I certainly will not embrace too much. When the Chancellor presents a Finance Bill he is easily able to make a mistake. All I am trying to argue is that if it can be said that an 1545 omission occurred in respect of horticulture it is competent for me to argue that there has been an omission in respect of this matter, and that a case for the concession for which we are asking him also arises, because the Chancellor has not given sufficient consideration to this kind of humanity Clause—which is how I describe it.
Many hard things have been said about the Chancellor on many occasions, not least by me, but I do not think that he is as hard-hearted as all that. I have noticed that on most occasions when I have been speaking at 5.30 a.m. he has not been here to listen to me. I cannot resist telling him how delighted I am to see him on the Front Bench now, listening to the arguments for these important new Clauses. It is much more difficult for him, when he is here in person, to reject a new Clause, than it is if the matter is left entirely to the Financial Secretary, whose only interest in recent Finance Bills seems to have been in widows and widowers. He is not in the least interested in any other section of the community. This is a very good opportunity for him to take some interest in other matters.
Most of us recognise what a difficult era we are living in, and what a great strain can be put upon our economy. At the same time, too great a strain can be put on certain individuals. I cannot think of a more difficult domestic situation for any individual to have to face than that of a woman who finds that her husband is incapacitated and feels obliged to take on a great extra burden in order to keep the home going. As the right hon. Member for Huyton said, many families would receive great encouragement, and feel that Parliament really cared about their difficulties, if my right hon. and learned Friend accepted either of the new Clauses.
I end by expressing the hope that if the Financial Secretary replies he will do so in a more humane manner than usual. I cannot understand why we should always have to have the Financial Secretary replying when we are dealing with humanities. I am tired of the situation where big busness draws the Chancellor into an argument but where the Financial Secretary always deals with the humanities. The Financial Secretary is a little too young to know as much about the humanities as 1546 my right hon. and learned Friend. It is not right that we should always have the Financial Secretary dealing with the humanities. I suppose that I must accept an answer from him on this occasion, but I hope that he will give us a proper explanation. I do not expect him to accept either of the new Clauses, but I hope that he will give them a proper humanitarian and detailed consideration. I see that he is getting a little fussy about my remarks, but we have reached a pitch where hon. Members on both sides are entitled to ask for something for those who carry a very great burden, and for whom nothing has been done in the Budget.
I expect that my hon. Friend will say that these people will be helped by the economic stability of the country. That is no argument. Everybody—Surtax payers and horticulturists included—will be helped by the country's financial stability. We are asking for something a little more for people whose personal lives, through no fault of their own, have got into a very difficult and sad state. I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up a Finance Bill which has not given much to anybody he will give some thought to incapacitated husbands and their wives who look after them so gallantly, generously and fairly.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle)
Experience has taught me always to be slightly nervous when my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) says that she hopes that I will forgive her for what she is about to say. I was relieved on this occasion to hear that it was nothing worse than a fear that I did not quite know the facts of life.
I understand that we are discussing with this new Clause the new Clause—(Dependent relatives)—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has put her name. They overlap, although the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) raised one or two considerations that do not strictly apply to the new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth, which I shall deal with at the end of my remarks.
The new Clauses raise the fundamental question of the place of Income Tax allowances in our society, in that some of 1547 the needs that they were designed to recognise are nowadays met more directly by the Welfare State. As is well known, my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently refused to accept the idea of a disability allowance, principally on the ground that the right way to help the disabled is through the social services rather than by a tax relief.
The right hon. Member's new Clause would provide a tax relief of £75 in respect of severe disability, but available only to married men. Even if we were to accept the principle of a disability allowance, it would seem to me highly doubtful whether we should single out married men in this way. I appreciate the fact that the wife of a bedridden husband will often want to go out to work in order to supplement the household resources, and may be unable to do so unless she can secure what may be expensive paid help to look after the husband while she is absent. But we have to remember that under existing law the wife may be able to earn a considerable amount before her earnings attract any tax liability.
If the taxable income of the disabled husband is small—and this may well be the case if his resources take the form of a disablement pension which is, of course, tax free—any unused balance of the £240 personal allowance due to him as a married man can be set against her earnings in addition to the wife's earned income allowance of up to £140. In an extreme case where the husband had no chargeable income of his own, the two allowances, totalling £380, with the two-ninths earned income allowance would raise the starting point of liability for tax in respect of the wife's earnings to approximately £9 8s. a week.
It appears to me that these figures compare favourably with the earnings figure of £309 which is the starting point of tax liability for a married couple where the man is working and the wife is at home. So I must advise the Committee that in my view, even were we to accept the principle of disablement allowances, there is little case in equity for a proposal which would give relief for disability on a selective basis in that only married men would qualify.
§ Dame Irene Ward
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot fail to ask 1548 why he selected widows and widowers for housekeeping allowances. What he is saying about selection is absolute nonsense. The selection has already been made.
§ Sir E. Boyle
We have not discussed that matter on this occasion, but on other occasions we have discussed the point again and again. I am bound to agree that the present system of allowances is not absolutely symmetrical, as was recognised also by Lord Amory and successive Chancellors. But I do not think that, even were we to adopt the principle of disablement allowances, which we have always considered distasteful, it would be a good argument to adopt it on a discriminatory basis.
I listened to the cases which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had in mind and I understand entirely the point which he raised. But surely the point in the cases to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring is that the wife is not incapacitated, although the husband is. It does not seem right to give an extra allowance because a husband is incapacitated and his wife has to look after him. The right hon. Gentleman, in his very fair speech, conceded that while there could be some hard cases where the husband was approaching retirement age, the wife might be considerably younger and in a good position to contribute to the wealth of the home.
Mr. H. Wilson
I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Here we are talking of a case where the wage earner is unable to bring in any family income apart from retirement pension, exactly as happens when the wage earner reaches retirement age and his wife also reaches the statutory age limit for these purposes.
The hon. Gentleman would agree that if his parents, or the parents of anyone else, were in the position that the family income was no longer coming in because the wage earner was incapacitated, the situation would be exactly the same as in the case of retirement; and any son or daughter worth their salt would want to contribute to the family income. The family income might have dropped £4, £5 or £6 a week, and a son or daughter would want to make a 1549 contribution. It is not enough to be content with the individual allowance which might be made for one person. An effort is being made to make up some part of the loss of the household income because the wage earner is in capacitated. I suggest that that cannot be done on the basis of the limit set for one person and, as in the case of two older people, a double allowance has to be given to make life tolerable at all.
In the case of an incapacitated man, particularly the case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned where there is a younger wife going out to work, someone has to look after the incapacitated husband, and in that case I should have thought that the argument succeeded on grounds of sheer common humanity.
§ Sir E. Boyle
That was the point I was endeavouring to cover in my reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I see the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but I regret that I cannot this afternoon go beyond what I said earlier. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject this Motion.
§ Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)
The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is always telling the Financial Secretary that he is too young. People said that William Pitt was too young to be Prime Minister, when he was much younger than the Financial Secretary. But Pitt said that it was a disability which, by the grace of God, he hoped to grow out of in due time. That applied also to the Finance Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is not, however, too young to give things away. He has not give way on this Motion and we are very disappointed.
The hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, has unnecessarily complicated this matter. Dependent relative allowance is given not to the recipient of help from a relative but to the donor of the assistance to an aged or incapacitated relative. The case which was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was a simple one. It related to a husband incapacitated by illness and a wife not incapacitated either by age or illness. In such a case, where the son makes an allowance to 1550 his father and mother, he may claim dependent relative allowance, subject to the conditions of qualification, in respect only of the father, because he is the person who is totally incapacitated, and not the mother. The rule for dependent relatives applies separately. Each has to pass the test of qualification of old-age, infirmity or incapacity. In the case of a disabled husband, assistance given to both father and mother cannot be allowed to a donor who might otherwise be able to claim dependent relative allowance for the two.
The sophisticated taxpayer does not rely on a dependent relative allowance at all. He makes a covenant and is able to get total relief on both Income Tax and Surtax, if he is a Surtax payer, on the allowance paid to his parents. It is, of course, true that money so given to parents is assessable in their hands as income, and is treated according to the rest of their circumstances for Income Tax purposes. The dependent relative allowance is an allowance claimed mostly by people who do not feel able to commit themselves for a seven-year period ahead or for whom there are other difficulties in the way of making a covenant.
Is there any real difficulty in dealing with this simple point, that where a husband is totally incapacitated and qualifies for dependent relative allowance to the donor, the mother should also qualify, even though she is not incapacitated? She is dependent on the husband. She has to pass the test of income in any case, and there is no suggestion that she should not do so. If the wife went out to work and earned more than the sum which would enable the donor to qualify for the allowance, it would not be granted.
We are most disappointed that we should end on this unhappy note and find that such a minor change in the dependent relative relief is resisted by the Financial Secretary. In the circumstances, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee. This is a small change in the relief which we fully believe could be given by the Chancellor without unnecessary complication and certainly without difficulty.
§ Questions put:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 244.1553
|Division No. 216.]||AYES||[7.0 p.m.|
|Ainsley, William||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Albu, Austen||Hilton, A. V.||Prentice, R. E.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Holman, Percy||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Holt, Arthur||Probert, Arthur|
|Awbery, Stan||Houghton, Douglas||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Baoon, Miss Alice||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Randall, Harry|
|Benson, Sir George||Hoy, James H.||Rankin, John|
|Blyton, William||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Rhodes, H.|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Lelcs, S.W.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Bowles, Frank||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Boyden, James||Janner, Sir Barnett||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Ross, William|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Jeger, George||Royle, Charles (Salford, West)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Short, Edward|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyoe (Wood Green)||Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Callaghan, James||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Chetwynd, George||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Small, William|
|Cronin, John||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Crosland, Anthony||Kenyon, Clifford||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Croasman, R. H. S.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Lawson, George||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Darling, George||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Steele, Thomas|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Logan, David||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||McCann, John||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||MacColl, James||Swingler, Stephen|
|Delargy, Hugh||McInnes, James||Sylvester, George|
|Diamond, John||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Dodds, Norman||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Donnelly, Desmond||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Driberg, Tom||Manuel, A. C.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John||Mapp, Charles||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermlins)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Marsh, Richard||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Mason, Roy||Thornton, Ernest|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mellish, R. J.||Timmons, John|
|Edwards, Robert (Billiton)||Mendelson, J. J.||Tomney, Frank|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Millan, Bruce||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Evans, Albert||Milne, Edward J.||Wade, Donald|
|Finch, Harold||Mitchison, G. R.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fitch, Alan||Monslow, Walter||Warbey, William|
|Fletcher, Eric||Moody, A. S.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Morris, John||Watkins, Tudor|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mort, D. L.||Weitzman, David|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Moyle, Arthur||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Ginsburg, David||Mulley, Frederick||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Neal, Harold||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Grey, Charles||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Willey, Frederick|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Griffithe, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Oliver, G. H.||Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)|
|Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||Orem, A. E.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Grimond, J.||Owen, Will||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W)||Paget, R. T.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Parker, John||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Hannan, William||Parkin, B. T.||Woof, Robert|
|Hart, Mrs. Judith||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Hayman, F. H.||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Pentland, Norman||Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Berkeley, Humphry||Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Brooman-White, R.|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Biggs-Davison, John||Brown, Alan (Tottenham)|
|Allason, James||Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Browne, Percy (Torrington)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bishop, F. P.||Bryan, Paul|
|Balniel, Lord||Black, Sir Cyril||Buck, Antony|
|Barber, Anthony||Bossosm, Clive||Bullard, Denys|
|Barlow, Sir John||Bourne-Arton, A.||Bullus, Wing Commander Eric|
|Barter, John||Box, Donald||Burden, F. A.|
|Batsford, Brian||Boyle, Sir Edward||Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Brains, Bernard||Carr, Compton (Barons Court)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Brewis, John||Cary, Sir Robert|
|Bell, Ronald||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Channon, H. P. G.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hornby, R. P.||Pym, Francis|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Clarke, Brig Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Ramsden, James|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hughes Hallett, Vim-Admiral John||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Cole, Norman||Hughes-Young, Michael||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Cooke, Robert||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Rees, Hugh|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Iremonger, T. L.||Renton, David|
|Cordle, John||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Corfield, F. V.||Jackson, John||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Costain, A. P.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Coulson, J. M.||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Roots, William|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Joseph, Sir Keith||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Critchley, Julian||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan|
|Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Seymour, Leslie|
|Cunningham, Knox||Kitson, Timothy||Sharples, Richard|
|Curran, Charles||Lambton, Viscount||Shaw, M.|
|Dance, James||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Langford-Holt, J.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|de Fee-anti, Basil||Leather, E. H. C.||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Leavey, J. A.||Smithers, Peter|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Doughty, Charles||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Speir, Rupert|
|du Cann, Edward||Lindsay, Martin||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|Duncan, Sir James||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Eden, John||Litchfield, Capt. John||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Stoddart-Scott, Col Sir Malcolm|
|Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Longbottom, Charles||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Emery, Peter||Longden, Gilbert||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Loveys, Walter H.||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)|
|Farr, John||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Sumner, Donald (Orpington)|
|Finlay, Graeme Fisher, Nigel||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||McAdden, Stephen||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Freeth, Denzil||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)|
|Gardner, Edward||McLaren, Martin||Teeling, William|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)||Temple, John M.|
|Godber, J. B.||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Goodhart, Philip||McMaster, Stanley R.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Macpherson. Niall (Dumfries)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Cough, Frederick||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Gower, Raymond||Marshall, Douglas||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir John|
|Grant, Rt. Hon. William||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.||Mawby, Ray||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Green, Alan||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Grimston, Sir Robert||Mills, Stratton||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Gurden, Harold||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Vesper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Morgan, William||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Morrison, John||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Nabarro, Gerald||Walter, David|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Nugent, Sir Richard||Wall, Patrick|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Webster, David|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Whitelaw, William|
|Hastings, Stephen||Page, John (Harrow, West)||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Partridge, E.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hiley, Joseph||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Peel, John||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Peyton, John||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Pitt, Miss Edith||Woollam, John|
|Hocking, Philip N.||Pott, Percivall||Worsley, Marcus|
|Holland, Philip||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Hollingworth, John||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hopkins, Alan||Proudtoot, Wilfred||Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble,|