§ Again considered in Committee.
§ [Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]
§ Question again proposed, That "£320" stand part of the Clause.
§ Mr. DigbyI was endeavouring to show that, if the earned Income Tax allowance was extended yet further for people over 65, it would not cost the Exchequer very much. I do not know exactly what the total would be, but since the cost in a full year of extending it from £800 to £900 is £1½ million, presumably extending it from £900 to £1,000 would not entail very much more than that.
I was also endeavouring to show that the benefit to the class of people concerned would be very considerable, in that they would pay considerably less taxation at a time when they are in difficulties because of the increased rate burden placed on them, particularly in areas like my own in Dorsetshire, where the rates for private householders has risen very much more than it has in the country as a whole. Yet it is the very county where more retired people are said to live than anywhere else.
6.15 p.m.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend will look sympathetically at this and try to extend the concession a little further but that if he cannot do it this year it will be high on the list for next year. This is one of the best ways in which retired people, who are in some anxiety these days about the cost of living, could be helped, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give a sympathetic reply.
§ Mr. HoughtonI want particularly to refer to the Opposition Amendment in 1378 my name and the names of several of my hon. Friends, in page 9, line 37, to leave out "£320" and to insert "£350".
The Liberal Amendments propose to lift the single person's relief and the married person's relief quite substantially. We feel that the Chancellor's proposals are, for this year, reasonable. Last year, the Committee will remember, we stressed that it was time that the personal allowances were improved. They had not been changed since 1955, whereas the standard rate of tax was reduced in 1959. We thought that Income Tax was levied rather too low down the scale in present circumstances, and the Chancellor no doubt heeded what we said.
The Chancellor's proposals this year moved in the right direction. Later in discussion on this Bill, we shall have a good deal to say about indirect taxation and, in particular, the present levels of Purchase Tax. We shall discuss all this in relation to the economic purpose of the Budget and in relation to the burden of taxation generally. So at this moment we are not asking the Chancellor to go further in general with personal allowances.
Yet it rather looks as if the way in which the Question may be put to the Committee will be such that we shall find ourselves in the Lobby with the Liberal Party. If that is so, we shall have to put up with it. If the Question is put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause", then we shall have to vote with the Liberal Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] All of them, even if it is only the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
The point behind our Amendment is merely, so to speak, to subtract a proportionate sum. I am sure that it did not escape the Chancellor and other hon. Members that a Mr. Sherwood wrote a letter to The Times on 13th April and drew attention—as he did also in a personal letter to the Chancellor—to the difference between the percentage increases in the reliefs of single and married persons respectively. He pointed out that the single person's allowance had been increased by 43 per cent. and married person's allowance by only 33 per cent. He suggested that the present weighting of £40 against matrimony had been increased to £80. I do not want to pursue 1379 this point too far, but I think that it would help the Committee if the Financial Secretary would explain just how his right hon. Friend came to look at £320 for a married couple and £200 for a single person. There must be a reason for these figures.
We have heard many times that personal allowances are not kept exactly in proportion, that they do not necessarily rise with the fall in the value of money, that the Chancellor has to look at revenue yield and bear in mind many considerations when deciding on a change in the level of personal allowances for Income Tax. So we shall be quite prepared to hear that various factors weighed with the Chancellor when he made his decision.
I know that it is sometimes said that there is something anomalous in the total of personal allowances to two single persons who may be living together in contrast with the personal relief given to a married couple. The present allowance to two single persons of £140 each totals £280, whereas the personal allowance for a married man is £240. It is sometimes suggested, I am sure without foundation, that this puts a premium on living in sin. I cannot believe that, but the new personal reliefs undoubtedly widen that gap.
In fairness, it should be said that in the case of a married couple when the wife is working the personal reliefs are not £240 but £380 and that under the new proposals they will be not £320 but £520, so that there is a heavy bias in favour of getting married and sending the wife out to work. The maximum personal allowances under the Bill are such that two single persons living together both going to work do not get more than the single person's allowance each—a total of £400—against the total of £520 in the case of the married couple with the wife working.
I now come to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). We wish to see age relief taken as far up the scale as possible and we shall be discussing age exemption, which is an allied relief to some extent, later. But although we desire to see these reliefs improved as far as possible, we have to bear in mind that we cannot carry too far the difference 1380 between the amount of tax paid when a person is 64 years of age and the amount of tax which he will pay when he is 65 on exactly the same income. That is the extent of relief which is given for attaining the age of 65.
A married couple without children with an investment income of £1,000 a year will pay tax of £217, but if age relief were given to a person over 65 receiving the same investment income, the tax would be not £217 but £132. That is £85 tax relief under the age relief provisions for a person passing from age 64 to age 65 on an investment income of £1,000 a year, the figure proposed by the hon. Member.
It is a matter of judgment whether that is carrying it too far or whether it is about right. A balance must be struck between the person under 65 who is paying the normal tax and the person attaining the age of 65 and who gets the benefit of either age relief or age exemption. I say that entirely without prejudice to an Amendment which we shall consider later. I have now risen only to give blessing to the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends while preserving an attitude of agnosticism towards the Liberal Amendment and that of hon. Members opposite.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)I am very glad to be able to support the Amendments from both sides of the House. I am delighted to think that all parties feel that more should be done for those living on small fixed incomes. It is very heartening and warming.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be sorry that the concessions which have been made, valuable though they are, are not felt by all of us to be sufficient. It always takes a long time to get the Treasury to make a move forward. For instance, for several years the age relief has been put up. Many years ago we started at £600 and we gradually got it up to £800 and now it is to be made £900. The Treasury seems to have decided every year that we could move only by £100 a time. It has never regarded the whole problem. What worries me about the Treasury is that it deals so much in thousands of millions of pounds that there is nobody who gets down to considering the justice and fairness of the case of those who live on small fixed incomes.
1381 The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) mentioned the disparity between the tax paid by someone of 64 and that paid by someone of 65 on the same income. That problem will always remain. If the age were made 64, it would then apply to those of 63. But it is only fair to point out that many people retire at 65. I should not mind if we got the age limit down to 60 or even 55, but the fact remains that 65 is the retiring age for many people and it therefore seems a reasonable age at which the concessions should operate.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will not use the argument which he has used on so many occasions—that to agree to the concessions suggested in the Amendments would mean asking other taxpayers to pay more. That argument can be taken too far. I know that we shall be told how many people are taken out of the Income Tax range altogether by the Bill, and that in itself reflects on those who are left to pay Income Tax. Among those who are left are those on small fixed incomes who perhaps cannot so easily afford to pay for these concessions.
One of the reasons for accepting the Amendments is the tremendous problem of the rate burden, which is the angle from which we should attack this matter. People have always had to pay rates, but to maintain our national economy and our competitive ability in the world the amount of money which has had to be spent on education has gone up by leaps and bounds.
No one would complain about that, because we know it is essential, but all these new scientific developments, all these new immense schools, all this tremendously powerful equipment that has to be put in to keep us in what I might call the space age, is increasing the educational burden out of all proportion to the other rates which have to be paid by the community. These things are imposing a tremendous burden on those living on small fixed incomes who had to save for their old age at a different period of life and in quite different circumstances.
6.30 p.m.
I noticed the other day—I think it was in my constituency—that 11s. of the rates went towards education. Going down the scale, the next level was at 1s. for many services which had to be maintained 1382 by the local authority. When we are judging what is fair in relation to the rates which have to be paid, I think that we are giving an undue proportion of them to the development in education which is really going to satisfy the young people who are coming on and who no doubt—
The Temporary ChairmanOrder. I think that the hon. Lady is straying a little from the Amendment which is before the Committee.
§ Dame Irene WardRates have been mentioned, Mr. Thomas, and I do not see why, in those circumstances, I cannot give a description of the rates.
The Temporary ChairmanOrder. The hon. Lady will realise that to mention a subject is one thing, but to go into detail is another, and I think that the hon. Lady knows the rules well enough to come back to the point.
§ Dame Irene WardI naturally bow to your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, but you will appreciate that it is very much easier for the Treasury to refuse to accept an Amendment if all the ancillary arguments surrounding it are not put before the responsible Minister. It is easy to say that rates are required for this, that or the other, but if a case is made out for an Amendment it makes it all the more difficult for the Treasury Minister to refuse to accept it. Nevertheless, I have made my point, and I am grateful to you for having let me run on for so long.
Much as I appreciate the concessions which have flowed from the Treasury in this direction, I do not think that the Treasury has been over-generous, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that these people really have nobody to speak for them. They have served their country well. They did a great deal in the old days to build up the wealth and stability of the country, but now they have nobody to speak for them. They are not represented by employers' federations. They are not represented by the trades unions. They are not represented by powerful bodies whose voice can always be heard. That is why I am glad that today some of us have had the opportunity of drawing my hon. Friend's attention to the various Amendments, and I hope that he will give us a favourable reply.
§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)I have not worked out the concessions percentage-wise to be given to the single person as opposed to the married couple. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Sowerby referred to this and argued that we should give more help to married couples. According to the figures which have been published it is estimated that in future people will marry at a younger age than they do now and will have larger families.
It is built-in to our taxation system, and I suppose that very few hon. Members would think of approaching it in any other way, that tax concessions which are given in the most part go to assist married people with families—of whom I am one—as opposed to single people. It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to me that sooner or later this country will have to face the question of deciding exactly what population we can support. One would not expect the Treasury inadvertently to make a change like this and give a concession which assists the single person to a greater extent than the married couple and I hope my hon. Friend will tell us whether the considerations which I have mentioned are beginning to enter into the Treasury thinking on this matter.
§ Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)I support this group of Amendments. Ever since I have represented Bournemouth, West in this House I have been made aware of the straitened circumstances in which people whose incomes are limited have been forced to live as a result of the natural inflation which has been taking place over the years. Other groups of people have been able virtually to contract out of the consequences of inflation and the declining value of money, but not these people.
They have seen the value of their savings eroded over the years. The little nest eggs they have set aside, planned originally to provide adequately for their needs in the days of their retirement, now prove to be insufficient to meet the barest necessities of life, and, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the imposition of the rate increases—some of them perhaps small sums in themselves—means a further addition to a burden which is already impossible for many of them to meet.
1384 I know that in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, it is not possible to discuss rates. I therefore say, in passing, that, recognising the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has authorised an inquiry into the effect of the rate increases on people of limited means, this seems to be a good moment to anticipate the result of that inquiry, many of the details of which are known to me and to other hon. Members by virtue of the information that we have been given by our constituents, and pinpoint such relief as it is in our power to give so that it brings the maximum amount of benefit for these people who have been hardest hit over the past years.
Knowing the sympathy with which my hon. Friend approaches these matters, I urge him to look most carefully at this again and to consider this not from the standpoint of our immediate income or money value position, but from the point of anticipating over the next twelve months or two years what may well be the course of events, and what, not to bring in too controversial a point, will certainly be the course of events if the Labour Party gets into office again.
Faced with a heavy inflationary programme, these are the people who have suffered in the past and who will doubtless suffer the consequences in the future. We should be doing our duty well not only by calling attention to their needs, but by urging my right hon. Friend to give them even more generous assistance than he has been able to do in the Budget.
§ Mr. BarberAll the Amendments with which we have been dealing propose improvements in personal allowances. Those in the names of hon. Members of the Liberal Party propose increases in the single allowances, the maximum wife's earned income relief and the married man's allowance. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has tabled one Amendment, which is a little more restrained than those put down by the Liberal Party. His is concerned solely with the married man's allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) has put down an even more restrained one, and I shall deal with that later on.
1385 Before I come to the details of the Amendments I ought to remind the Committee, on this first debate on Clause 12, that my right hon. Friend has already proposed improvements in all these allowances, and some idea of the extent of the changes in personal allowances and reliefs generally can be gauged by the fact that their cost, coupled with the new scale of reduced rates, will be no less than £211 million in a full year.
It might be convenient to deal first with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sowerby. Before the Budget the married man's allowance was £240. My right hon. Friend proposes to increase it to £320. The hon. Member would go further. He suggests that it should be £350. As I understand it, he does not contend merely that the proposed new married allowance is too low; he also claims that it is out of line with the proposed new single allowance which my right hon. Friend has put forward. Indeed, the same point was made, in a rather different way, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). It would be as well if I dealt with that point first.
At present the married allowance is £240, as compared with the single allowance of £140. Two single people, therefore, receive total allowances of £280, when the allowance for husband and wife is £240. It is argued, as I understand it, that the married man's position is worsened by my right hon. Friend's changes, because the allowances for two single people will now be £400, whereas the allowance for the married couple will be no more than £320—a difference of £80, as compared with the existing difference of £40. Another way of putting the point is to say that to raise the married man's allowance by only £80 a year, from £240 to £320, when the single person's allowance rises by £60, from £140 to £200, gives only one-third as much for a wife as for a single person. That was the way in which the hon. Member for Sowerby put the matter.
6.45 p.m.
If my right hon. Friend's proposals had amounted simply to an increase in the personal allowances there would be some force in the contention that the married man's increase, proportionately, had been 1386 inadequate. But this is the wrong way to look at it. What is being done is to free all taxpayers from tax on the first £60 of their present taxable incomes, by absorbing the first reduced rate band in an improved personal allowance. On top of this the married man is given an extra £20 on his personal allowance. The important consequence of this series of changes is that in terms of reductions in tax payable, married men above a certain level of income will do more than twice as well as single men out of the changes as a whole. In considering all these allowances, while it is quite proper to consider the matter in isolation—and I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Sowerby in asking us to do so—we must ascertain what the total effect of all the allowances to which a person would be entitled is likely to be on the tax which he will have to pay.
If I am right in thinking that the proposed relationship between the married allowance and the single allowance is not unreasonable, there remains the question whether, considered by itself, the married allowance should be increased. Personally, I should be delighted if it were, but I remind the Committee that the cost of the hon. Member's proposal would be no less than £97 million in a full year. I want to keep the temperature down. I do not want to go through the experience I had a few minutes ago, when the hon. Member spoke, but I would remind him that the Leader of the Opposition described the Budget as a glorious financial bonanza. What he would think of the hon. Member's profligate proposal to add another £80 million to this year's tax relief, I do not know, but the answer to the hon. Member, as to the hon. Member for Hudersfield, West, depends on one's judgment of the needs of the economy. Taking into account the various actions taken by my right hon. Friend before the Budget, including the substantial reductions in Purchase Tax—mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—he did not think that it would be in the general interest to go further, and certainly not to the extent proposed by the hon. Member.
What about the proposals contained in the Amendments put down by the Liberal Party? The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, 1387 West proposes to increase the married man's allowance to £390, which is £70 more than the £320 proposed by my Tight bon. Friend. The Amendment in line 39 proposes to increase the single man's allowance to £235, which is £35 more than the £200 proposed by my right hon. Friend, and the Amendment in line 42 proposes a corresponding increase of £35 in the maximum wife's earned income relief.
These proposals involve nothing so modest as that of the hon. Member for Soweby, which would cost a mere £97 million in a full year. Several hon. Members have asked what would be the cost of the Liberal Party's proposals. The additional cost of the reliefs proposed by that party would be no less than £315 million in a full year, and £252 million this year. To accept all the Amendments would bring the total cost of Budgetary concessions this year to no less than £520 million. That is quite a reduction in taxation.
I am not sure to what extent a Liberal Government would be bound by the annual Liberal Assembly, but at its last Assembly a Resolution was passed stating that it was
unrealistic to offer to reduce substantially the general level of taxation.There was an Amendment, stating thatthe reduction of taxation is essential to national prosperity,but that Amendment was overwhelmingly defeated.
§ Mr. WadeLast week I tabled a Question for a Written Answer in which I asked for figures. When I was speaking earlier this afternoon I did not know that the Answer had been sent to me. It has not reached me. But I think it fair to acknowledge the fact that the Answer has been sent. As I said in my speech, one has to consider the overall picture and one cannot consider a proposal such as this by itself. I should be out of order were I to give other facts and figures now which would have an effect on the overall total of reduced taxation.
§ Mr. BarberIt may well be that in the light of the figures which I have given, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that these are not Amendments which ought to be pressed at this time. However, we shall see. Having pointed that out, 1388 I cannot believe that they should be taken seriously.
I should like, finally, to come to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West which is concerned with age relief and which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). I agree with practically every word said by my hon. Friends, and anyone who knows of the category of persons about which my hon. Friends were speaking will have great sympathy with them. I find considerable attraction in the proposal set out in my hon. Friend's Amendment, namely, that the income limit for age relief should be £1,000 instead of £900 as proposed by my right hon. Friend.
As some hon. Members will know, the age relief gives the equivalent of the two-ninths earned income relief on investment income to a taxpayer—if he has a wife living with him—who is 65 or over, provided that his total income does not exceed £800. That is the present position and the relief is meant to equate the liability of the taxpayer who, on retirement, has to live on a modest income from past savings, with that of the taxpayer who lives on a pension ranking for Income Tax purposes as earned income.
When the relief was introduced in 1925 the qualifying income limit was £500. The limit was raised to £600 in 1953, to £700 in 1957, to £800 in 1958 and it is now to be raised, according to my right hon. Friend's proposal, to £900. I mention that because I think it right that the Committee should bear in mind that this relief which was not raised for twenty-five years has, during the past ten years, been raised four times. I think that shows pretty conclusively—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth who is very fair in these matters will agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, when talking of these people my hon. Friend is always fair, and I do not think that hon. Members opposite should jeer. I think that what I have said shows pretty conclusively that successive Conservative Chancellors, including my right hon. Friend, are alive to the benefit which this type of relief gives to old people. Of course—I should stress this—all those entitled to age relief 1389 will, in any event, and quite apart from my right hon. Friend's proposal to increase the age relief from £800 to £900, benefit from the new general improvements in personal allowances. I am told that about 55,000 taxpayers will get the full relief as a result of the extension of the income limit proposed by my right hon. Friend and a further 80,000 will benefit from marginal relief.
As I have said, I think it important that taxpayers entitled to age relief will, along with all the others, benefit from the major changes in personal allowances. The benefit from the other changes and the increased income limit to a person entitled only to the single allowance will be no less than £28 17s. 2d. a year, that is to say, where he has income, drawn entirely from investment, of £900 a year. To a person with such an income entitled only to the married man's allowance, the
§ benefit will be £36 12s. 2d. I thought it right to give these two specific examples of maximum benefits because they show, I think, that considerable improvements for just these people will result when one takes into account not only the new limit for age relief but also the other personal allowances.
§ My right hon. Friend could not be present in the Chamber all the time because he was obliged to attend another meeting, but no doubt he will read what was said by my hon. Friend and bear in mind all that has been said on these matters today. In the light of the improvements already proposed in the Budget, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment this year.
§ Question put: That "£320" stand part of the Clause:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 166.
1393| Division No. 110.] | AYES | [6.57 p.m. |
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Critchley, Julian | Hobson, Sir John |
| Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) | Crosthwaklte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver | Hocking, Philip N. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Cunningham, Knox | Holland, Philip |
| Ashton, Sir Hubert | Currie, G. B. H. | Hollingworth, John |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Dalkeith, Earl of | Hopkins, Alan |
| Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) | Dance, James | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. |
| Balniel, Lord | d' Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry | Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) |
| Barber, Anthony | Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. | Howard, John (Southampton, Test) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Dlgby, Simon Wingfield | Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John |
| Barter, John | Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. | Hughes-Young, Michael |
| Batsford, Brian | Doughty, Charles | Hurd, Sir Anthony |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) | Drayson, C. B. | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Bell, Ronald | du Cann, Edward | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Duncan, Sir James | James, David |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Eden, Sir John | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Jennings, J. C. |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn | Johnson Smith, Geoffrey |
| Bingham, R. M. | Errington, Sir Eric | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Felt, Anthony | Kaberry, Sir Donald |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Finlay, Graeme | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. |
| Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Kerby, Capt. Henry |
| Braine, Bernard | Freeth, Denzil | Kimball, Marcus |
| Brewis, John | Gammons, Lady | Kirk, Peter |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Gardner, Edward | Kitson, Timothy |
| Brooman-White, R. | George, Sir John (Pollok) | Lambton, Viscount |
| Brown, Alan (Tottenham) | Gibson-Watt, David | Leburn, Gilmour |
| Browne, Percy (Torrington) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Buck, Antony | Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) |
| Bullard, Denys | Glover, Sir Douglas | Linstead, Sir Hugh |
| Burden, F. A. | Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) | Litchfield, Capt. John |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) | Longbottom, Charles |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Goodhart, Philip | Longden, Gilbert |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Gower, Raymond | Loveys, Walter H. |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Gresham Cooke, R. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | McAdden, Sir Stephen |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | McLaren, Martin |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.) | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Maclay, Rt. Hon. John |
| Cooper, A. E. | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs) |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Maccleaf'd) | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) |
| Cordle, John | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) |
| Corfield, F. V. | Harvie Anderson, Miss | McMaster, Stanley R. |
| Costain, A. P. | Hay, John | Maddan, Martin |
| Coulson, Michael | Henderson, John (Cathcart) | Maginnis, John E. |
| Courtney, Cdr. Anthony | Hendry, Forbes | Maitland, Sir John |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenehawe) | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Crawley, Aidan | Hirst, Geoffrey | Marshall, Douglas |
| Marten, Nell | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Pym, Francis | Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) |
| Mawby, Ray | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Teeling, Sir William |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Ramaden, James | Temple, John M. |
| Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Rawlinson, Sir Peter | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Mlecampbell, Norman | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin | Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Rees, Hugh | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin |
| Morgan, William | Renton, Rt. Hon. David | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Neave, Airey | Ridsdale, Julian | Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) | Turner, Colin |
| Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Tweedsmuir, Lady |
| Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael | Roots, William | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Oakehott, Sir Hendrie | Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) | Wakefield, Sir wavell |
| Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Russell, Ronald | Walder, David |
| Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan | Walker, Peter |
| Page, Graham (Crosby) | Sharples, Richard | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) | Shaw, M. | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) | Skeet, T. H. H. | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Peel, John | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) | Williams, Dudley (Exeter) |
| Percival, Ian | Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth | Speir, Rupert | Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Pilkington, Sir Richard | Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Pitman, Sir James | Stodart, J. A. | Woollam, John |
| Pitt, Dame Edith | Storey, Sir Samuel | |
| Pott, Percivall | Studholme, Sir Henry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Prior, J. M. L. | Summers, Sir Spencer | Mr. J. E. B. Hill and |
| Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho | Tapsell, Peter | Mr. MacArthur. |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Hamilton, William (West Fife) | Dram, A. E. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Hannan, William | Oswald, Thomas |
| Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) | Harper, Joseph | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hart, Mrs. Judith | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Beaney, Alan | Hayman, F. H. | Parkin, B. T. |
| Bellengor, Rt. Hon. F. J. | Healey, Denis | Paton, John |
| Benson, Sir George | Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) |
| Blackburn, F. | Herbison, Miss Margaret | Peart, Frederick |
| Blyton, William | Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Pentland, Norman |
| Boardman, H. | Hilton, A. V. | Prentice, R. E. |
| Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs, S.W.) | Holman, Perey | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) | Houghton, Douglas | Probert, Arthur |
| Boyden, James | Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Hoy, James H. | Rankin, John |
| Bradley, Tom | Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Bray, Or. Jeremy | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Rhodes, H. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Hunter, A. E. | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Brown, At. Hon. George (Belper) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) | Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) |
| Carmichael, Nell | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.) |
| Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Jeger, George | Ross, William |
| Chapman, Donald | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Royle, Charles (Salford, West) |
| Cliffs, Michael | Jones, nt. Hn. A. Creech(Waketield) | Short, Edward |
| Collick, Percy | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Kelley, Richard | Slater, Joseph (Sedgefieid) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Small, William |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | King, Dr. Horace | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Snow, Julian |
| Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Deer, George | Loughlin, Charles | Steele, Thomas |
| Dempsey, James | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Diamond, John | McInnes, James | Stones, William |
| Dodds, Norman | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.) |
| Donnelly, Desmond | Mackie, John (Enfield, East) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. C. | McLeavy, Frank | Symonds, J. B. |
| Edelman, Maurice | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Taverns, D. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Hess (Caerphilly) | Manuel, Archie | Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mapp, Charles | Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.) |
| Edwards, Walter (Stepney) | Marsh, Richard | Thornton, Ernest |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mason, Roy | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Fitch, Alan | Millan, Bruce | Timmons, John |
| Fletcher, Eric | Milne, Edward | Tomney, Frank |
| Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) | Mitchison, G. R. | Wade, Donald |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Monslow, Walter | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Forman, J. C. | Moody, A. S. | Warbey, William |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Morris, John | Watkins, Tudor |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Moyle, Arthur | Weitzman, David |
| George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn) | Neal, Harold | Wells, Percy (Faversham) |
| Ginsburg, David | Oliver, G. H. | Whitlock, William |
| Griffiths, W. (Exchange) | O'Malley, B. K. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Williams, D. J. (Neath) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Williams, LI. (Abertillery) | Winterbottom, R. E. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Williams, W. T. (Warrington) | Woof, Robert | |
| Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) | Wyatt, Woodrow | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead. |
§ It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House standing over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance.)
§ Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.