HC Deb 29 May 1963 vol 678 cc1447-65

  1. (1) Sections 447 (exemption from tax on rents interest, dividends and annual payments 1448 belonging to charities, etc.), 448 (exemption from tax in respect of lands owned and occupied by charities and of profits of trade carried on by charities) and 450 (procedure for claiming exemption under last three preceding sections) of the Income Tax Act 1952, and section 15 (charities, superannuation funds and other special cases) of the Finance Act 1962, 1449 shall apply to a national voluntary association receiving or eligible to receive a grant under section 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 (which authorises grants towards the, funds of national voluntary organisations having, as objects, the provision of facilities for physical training and recreation) as they apply to a charity.
  2. (2) In this section "national voluntary organisation" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1937 and "charity" has the same meaning as in the said section 448.—[Mr. Redhead.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. E. C. Redhead (Walthamstow, West)

l beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Despite its somewhat involved terminology, this proposed new Clause has the simple and limited purpose of exempting from the payment of Income Tax nonprofit-making bodies which are concerned with the development of amateur sport. I stress "non-profit-making"that is to say, the Clause does not seek to provide concessions for any commercial body connected with sport—and the development of amateur sport.

This proposal is prompted by the Report of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport, which was rather significantly entitled "Sport and the Community", and, in particular, paragraph 162, which in fairness should be quoted in full. It states: We know that the law on income tax is a highly complicated and specialised field and we would only intrude into it with diffidence and hesitation. But even though any amendment to the definition of a legal charity may be impracticable, is there not room for offering exemption from income tax to a new category of non-profit-making national bodies concerned with the development of amateur sport? The reason for this observation and this suggestion of serious consideration to the proposal contained in that paragraph was given in the preceding paragraph which I will take the liberty of quoting, also: Our evidence has also shown us that a number of the Governing Bodies of amateur sport feel bitterly about their liability to pay tax on their annual surplus, in the same way as a trading company. They claim that it places an additional and unnecessary handicap on their work of developing their sport for the general welfare of the community. It does seem unreasonable that Income Tax should be charged on income which, in many instances, is the sole source of revenue enabling an amateur, non-profit-making body to do its work. So far from accepting the justice of their liability to Income Tax, we are recommending that statutory grant aid should be available to enable such bodies to extend their work of coaching and development. Such relief would, in my submission, be justified not only in the interests of the organisations to which the proposal refers and the amateur sports which they are concerned to foster and encourage, but, indeed, on wider, general community grounds.

Again, I would quote from the Report of the Wolfenden Committee—a brief extract from paragraph 3: At the same time, it is a reasonable assumption that if more young people had opportunities for playing games fewer of them would develop criminal habits. But our major thesis is that there is a positive 'play' element in the life of young people, which can be neglected only to the disadvantage of both the individual and society. Paragraph 6 of the Report reads: Again, there are claims that participation in games, especially of a competitive kind, will encourage the development of qualities which are valuable both to the individual and to society. Courage, endurance, self-discipline, determination, self-reliance, are ail qualities which the sportsman, in the broadest sense of the term, has at least the opportunity of developing in the pursuit of his sport. They spring as readily from mountaineering as from rowing, from fencing as from football; and they can be acquired by the 'rabbit' as well as by the international. On this ground alone it is clear that a valuable element in the growth of individuals, especially of young people, would disappear if games and outdoor activities ceased to be practised. I imagine that those sentiments will find a very general acceptance on the part of hon. Members. The importance of amateur sport to the health of the community is today widely recognised, as. indeed, is stressed throughout this very important and significant Report of the Wolfenden Committee, and the importance of sport in the life of the community gained further emphasis only a few days ago in a debate in another place, as recently as 22nd May, when it was stressed that the Government themselves had a responsibility to encourage the development of sport in all reasonable, possible ways.

In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, putting on the appropriate hat for this particular rôle, not only expressly accepted that the Government had a definite responsibility but went to great pains to point out that the Government already, in various ways, rendered assistance to the encouragement of sport, assistance which, he claimed, had been steadily mounting. The noble Lord went on to announce the Government's intention to support it by financial grants in various directions, including grants to national voluntary organisations for their headquarters administration. I expect that in reply to the proposal which I am putting to the Committee we shall hear rather a lot about the Government's assistance in this respect.

10.0 p.m.

I do not decry, nor do I seek to minimise, the amount of financial aid already given from public funds to various aspects of sporting activities. On the contrary, I welcome and approve it, and I also welcome the announcement that there is to be further financial aid, though, even now, spread over the country the figures quoted do not, on average, represent a tremendous increase in the revenues of many of the associations which are concerned with the encouragement of sport.

But surely it is utterly incongruous to give financial grants from public funds with one hand and claim credit for so doing and yet, with the other hand, persist in taking away, by the continued imposition of Income Tax, from the very organisations whose financial need is very widely recognised even in the fact that grants are made available from public funds.

As one official of such an organisation put it to me recently, "In this proposal we are not asking the Government to give us any of their money. We are asking for the privilege to retain a little more of our own." Some of the bodies with which the new Clause is concerned are facing serious financial difficulties and a severe limitation of their ability to expand and develop the sports to which so much importance is attached in general. I would quote one example, and I emphasise that it is only one of many which can be quoted and which others of my hon. Friends will doubtless be able to supplement in the debate.

Hon. Members have been circularised by the Amateur Boxing Association, one of the bodies seriously affected, which, in paragraph 5 of its memorandum, made the submission that It is not putting our case too strongly to say that at the present time amateur boxing is struggling for its existence and that its ultimate survival may depend upon the ability of the Amateur Boxing Association, its Associations and its clubs to draw upon capital during this crucial period. The liability for Income Tax greatly reduces the resistance of the Amateur Boxing Association and its members to this challenge since it is impossible to build up any real reserves. Some indication that the fears expressed in this paragraph are not groundless can be found in the fact that when the London Association was formed, in 1949, there were 262 member clubs, whereas at the end of 1961–62 Season this number had fallen to 176. This decline is due almost completely to the lack of finance. Whatever one may feel about boxing, and I know that there are prejudices on the subject in some quarters, I suggest that if these details are, as I believe them to be, indicative of the plight of various other comparable organisations it is a serious matter and one which the Committee should seek to remedy by any means which lie within its power.

I am not doing any special pleading for one association. This is one of several, and I hasten to emphasise that the new Clause includes all comparable bodies without any differentiation at all. I anticipate two grounds of objection to these proposals. If one is to judge from replies given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or on the Chancellor's behalf, to a number of hon. Members and to honorary secretaries of amateur boxing associations who have written to him on the subject, I anticipate that it will be contended that the cost of such a concession would be prohibitive.

I quote, for example, from the reply given to his representations to the honorary secretary of the A.B.A. It said: Although Mr. Maudling is very sorry to learn of your difficulties he does not think that it would be possible to give amateur boxing tax relief without doing something for all amateur sports He is afraid that such a considerable exemption is out of the question. To my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) the reply was: A concession over the whole field of amateur sport would be a very large extension to which the Government do not feel able to agree. Clearly, the implication of those two statements is that the cost would be heavy, indeed prohibitive. I would not refer to the question of cost of such a concession as in itself being conclusive if it were otherwise demonstrable that the concession was just, right and sensible, as I contend it to be in this instance. Nevertheless, I felt it expedient to probe the question of cost. I accordingly put down a Question to the Chancellor on 2nd May as follows: I asked him …whether he will give an estimate of the cost of implementing the suggestion contained in paragraph 162 of the Report of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport of offering exemption from Income Tax to non-profit-making national bodies concerned with the development of amateur sport. The Economic Secretary replied: I am afraid that the necessary information is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1963; Vol. 676, c. 136.] I must confess that I was bewildered by that reply. As I have stated, the Chancellor has twice said that an exemption of such magnitude could not be contemplated, yet the Economic Secretary says that he has no information about the cost.

The Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income advanced arguments against any substantial extension of exemptions for charities, and, in general, I would not contest that argument. Nor would it be appropriate that I should go into detail on them on this Clause. But my proposal is very closely defined and very strictly limited, and in the special circumstances of the case I believe that it is wholly justified.

I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will be responsive to this plea. I ask that at least he will agree that the lack of adequate information seems to indicate that there has not yet been the careful attention to this which the Wolfenden Committee's standing would justify. I hope that he will agree that the Government's contradictory replies indicate an absence of information, and that in these circumstances he will give an undertaking that this proposal will be seriously examined and the necessary information obtained, in the recognition that here the Government could give a tangible gesture of their desire to foster and encourage amateur sport as a vital factor in the life of the community.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

In the interests of clarity I shall present in detail the difficulties of one organisation, the Amateur Athletic Association, and in the interests of brevity some slight references to the problems of several others. Mr. E. H. L. Clynes, secretary of the Association writes: This is a question we have been pursuing through official quarters for many years without any success apart from the fact that income tax inspectors have always dealt with our Association with every consideration within their powers of discretion and within the existing law. The income tax authorities have refused our plea that our organisation and the work it does is charitable and, therefore, entitled to exemption, although a major part of the Association's work is in teaching teachers and other persons how to become honorary coaches as well as teaching athletes for which work we are grant-aided by the Ministry of Education authorities. They regard our championships and other promotions attended by the public as being liable for tax despite the fact that the net profits from these meetings are necessary to enable the A.A.A. to conduct its work and also the British Amateur Athletic Board to raise sufficient funds to enable them to finance our international commitments such as sending teams to the European championships. These profits are liable for payment of tax before being used for this purpose. We would point out that our profits from these meetings are not sufficient to enable the Association to carry out all the work of development and coaching it feels it should carry out. Although the Association has been in receipt of grants from the Ministry of Education towards the cost of our coaching work this and our income from meetings is still insufficient for the work we ought to do. Of course, there is the anomaly that the money accepted in grants from the Ministry has to be higher than it need be because of the amount of tax to be paid. I am sure that you are aware the sport has been able to scrape along on this small budget because of the tremendous amount of voluntary service given to it in all fields. Officials helping at the public meetings at the White City and at other venues, the profits of which are taxable, do so at their own expense. It, in fact, these officials charged their expenses to the meetings the profits would be much less. The amount of tax paid by the athletics governing organisations has been considerable having regard to the small amount of money we have to run the sport and in the last financial year has amounted to £2,000. We are getting increased income to help the sport from television fees, but this will increase our tax liability. This goes in some detail, for which I do not apologise, into the problems of one of the great organisations. I think that the same could be said of a number of other big organisations which have written to me. In some ways, I am more concerned about the smaller and less formidable organisations than the Amateur Athletic Association. I select the problems of just one of them, the Scottish Bowling Association. The secretary, Mr. John Linning, says this: Many of our clubs find it very difficult to make ends meet, and any such relief would be most welcome…The number of clubs in membership of the Scottish Bowling Association is 779, many of them in rural areas, with small membership but providing a much needed amenity. In the light of Crowther, in the light of Albemarle, and in the light of Wolfenden, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead), and in view of the desire to assist sport which is shared by all political parties and all parts of society, is it not undesirable that we should nevertheless impede its progress in this way?

There is one other aspect on which I will briefly touch—the taxation of sporting equipment. The recommendation is that there should be Purchase Tax relief on equipment bought through the ruling bodies in amateur sports. Just two examples will suffice—the 25 per cent. Purchase Tax on fencing equipment, which causes considerable hardship, and the tax on barbell sets—

The Deputy-Chairman

Order. I am sorry, but equipment is not dealt with in the Clause.

Mr. Dalyell

Finally, the feeling is that the yield from taxation is not of such a magnitude as to be vital to the Treasury, but it has considerable and almost critical importance to many of the sporting organisations, particularly the humbler sporting organisations. It is for that reason that I am glad to support the new Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Barber

I agree entirely with all that the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) said about the desirability of the Government and also people outside the Government doing everything possible to encourage amateur sport in this country. Indeed, while I do not want to go over the ground which was dealt with at some length in the debate in another place the other day, I think it is fair to say that the Government of doing a great deal to help amateur sport.

I also accept, as would anybody with experience of these matters either in his constituency or elsewhere, the fact that there are some amateur associations and sporting activities which could benefit greatly from more financial assistance. The hon. Gentleman gave one example, and his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the difficulties of the Amateur Athletic Association and the Scottish Bowling Association.

In moving the new Clause the hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, and I shall therefore not take up the time of the Committee by going over the background of this very important question. Suffice it to say that this new Clause proposes to extend the exemption from income tax which charities enjoy and to extend the relief to a national voluntary association receiving or eligible to receive a grant under Section 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act. 1937… It is important that the Committee should bear in mind that that Act empowers the Minister of Education to make grants to national or to local voluntary organisations for providing facilities for physical training and recreation, including the training and supply of teachers and leaders. It also empowers local authorities to provide similar facilities, or to assist a local voluntary organisation to do so, and of course considerable direct grants have been made for this purpose.

The real objection to the new Clause is that the promotion of sport, as is admitted by the hon. Gentleman, is not, as the law stands at the moment, a charitable purpose, and however much one approves of the policy of encouraging people to be players rather than spectators, it does not follow that any financial assistance should be by way of taxation relief as distinct from an open subsidy.

We are not, I suggest, here concerned so much with the question whether sport or recreation should be assisted, as with the question of how this should be done. The new Clause would, in effect, extend the definition of a charitable purpose so as to provide taxation relief. The hon. Gentleman fairly referred to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Taxation on this matter, but he did not quote what the Royal Commission said. I think that I should quote what it said because this bears directly on the hon. Gentleman's proposal. The Royal Commission said that the charity exemption does amount in effect to a grant of public moneys towards the furtherance of such causes as come the legal category of charity without Parliamentary control of their individual purposes or of their administration", and it thought that the proposal was open to criticism on this ground. Indeed, its view was that the activities which rank for exemption from Income Tax under the heading of charity ought to be narrowed rather than widened.

No action has been taken to restrict the scope of the charity exemption for tax purposes, but I think that the reasons which the Royal Commission gave are cogent ones for reaching the conclusion that there are serious objections to widening it even further.

Mr. Dalyell

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas there might be considerable force in his argument in respect of the major sports, it hardly applies to minor sports such as fencing and weight-lifting which do nor normally get a subsidy?

Mr. Barber

I doubt it very much. If one takes the view that in principle it is better to provide assistance by means of an open subsidy which can be discussed in the House, and one can discuss the administration and the purposes to which the money is given, rather than by way of taxation relief which would follow if we were to accept the principle behind this Clause, I think there would be serious objections to so doing.

Even if one could ignore the objections in principle to a widening of charity relief, the present proposal would raise very serious difficulties. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, in moving the Second Reading of this Clause, said that it made no discrimination as between one amateur association and another. The Wolfenden Committee mentioned that there were 200 national bodies with a direct or indirect interest in the development of sport represented on the Central Council for Physical Recreation and not many fewer on the Scottish Council for Physical Recreation. It spoke of: national voluntary organisations in great profusion and variety, responsible for the development of individual activities The bodies which gave evidence to the Wolfenden Committee ranged from such organisations as the Amateur Athletic Association and the M.C.C. to the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and the Cambridge University Tiddleywinks Club. As the Report commented: Here indeed is richness. The idea of offering Income Tax exemption to this profusion and variety of organisations is not an attractive one. The test for exemption which the Clause proposes is eligibility to receive a grant under Section 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937. This embraces all non-profit-making organisations and empowers grants to be made to any of them at the discretion of the Minister or of the local authority for specified purposes connected with sport and recreation. I should have thought a definition like that is too wide for the purpose of giving a tax exemption which all could claim as a matter of right. It would be extremely difficult to frame a definition which would satisfactorily pick out national governing bodies of particular games and recreations from the great diversity of bodies to which I have referred.

Mr. Lubbock

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Cambridge University Tiddleywinks Club. I am sure he was being facetious, because that would not be eligible under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937.

Mr. Barber

I was, in fact, making a joke. I hoped that was appreciated.

On the question of cost, on which the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West sought information, perhaps I could say to him something which I hope will go some way to explain the difficulty we are in. I think I have shown, even if I ignore the particular body which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), that there is great difficulty in identifying all the various bodies in question. To make a close estimate of the cost of the proposed exemption would, in fact, involve compiling a list of eligible bodies and inquiring of the local inspector in each case what the income of the body is and what tax it pays. Some of the bodies in question have probably very little income indeed, but others earn large sums from admission charges to important matches and tournaments. The only figure which is available centrally is the aggregate trading profits of all sports clubs. This would include all local clubs, with which the hon. Member is not directly concerned, and exclude national bodies which are not trading. It would also exclude all investment income, so the figure would be of no assistance.

For this reason, it is not possible to give the hon. Member anything approaching an accurate figure of the cost of the Clause unless we went to considerable trouble. All that I can tell him—and this is not inconsistent with what was said by my hon. Friend in answer to the question—is that if we were to grant exemption and if matters proceeded with this new category of charities which he would have us approve as the tax exemption has proceeded in relation to existing charities, not only would the cost be fairly significant, at any rate to start with, but it would tend to rise rapidly like the cost of the charities exemption itself.

We have done a certain amount by way of abolishing Schedule B on amenity land, and the abolition of Schedule A on owner-occupiers is bound to be of some assistance to some of these organisations. The Government are doing a great deal to encourage physical training and recreation. The hon. and learned Member was very fair in the way in which he welcomed what the Government are doing. I remind the Committee of two sets of figures. Over a three-year period, the grant to national voluntary organisations under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, referred to in the new Clause, will have more than doubled. The total capital public expenditure on facilities for sport and recreation has increased from just over £15 million in 1960–61 to £25.9 million last year, and we expect it to rise this year to more than £29 million.

This has been a useful debate in raising the question not of the extent of the financial assistance which should be provided for sport but how best to provide it. But I hope that the Committee will take the view that if it is desirable for Exchequer assistance to be given to any kind of activity it is better to do so by direct financial assistance which is subject to the normal process of Parliamentary control. I am sure that that is the right approach, but if it is not enough, I have pointed out that in any event the form of the Clause is far too wide, and that I cannot advise the Committee to accept it.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

Before the hon. Member sits down, will he say that he will never again mention the sums which the Government give with one hand without mentioning those which they take away with the other?

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I was amazed by the Minister's reply. He said that he could not do something, but had no idea how much it would cost. He said that it would mean a lot of hard work and difficulty. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put down a Question, to which he received a typical Treasury reply.

If we asked how much Surtax had been given back to Surtax payers since the Government have been in power, they could find that easily. Many hundreds of millions of pounds have been given back. But in this case the Minister is not in a position to give the figures. Before we leave the new Clause he should tell us that he will consider the matter again to see how much the new Clause will cost and that if, as I believe to be the case, the cost is negligible, he will see whether he cannot do what we ask, even if not in the Bill. He should promise that if he finds that it does not cost much, he will see whether something can be done about it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever (Manchester, Ardwick)

I must press the Minister on this matter. The proposal from this side of the Committee for taxation remissions to amateur sport is reasonable. When the Minister tells us that the amount that the Government are spending in assistance to amateur sport will rise to £29 million this year, he should remember that it is a very small proportion of a Budget of nearly £6,000 million to be paid as a token of our devotion to the health of the younger generation and as assistance to those clubs which are helping amateur sport.

I feel that we should not allow this matter to be passed over in this formal way. I think that at least we should have an undertaking from the Minister that, although he has not got any figures available now as to what it would cost if he were to remit taxation as proposed in the new Clause, he will inquire into the cost and report to the House at a later stage.

As a beginning, could not some remiss ion of tax be given to those clubs which are already receiving grants or subsidies under Section 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937? At least in regard to those clubs the Government have some information about their activities, otherwise they would not have given them the subsidies.

We cannot dismiss the matter as lightly as that. It is an important matter and affects the youth of the community and the health of the community. I would rather spend money on giving the youth of the nation facilities for participating in amateur sport and promoting good health than spend it on trying to recover its health once it has gone. Prevention is better than cure. I believe that in training our youth in sport we are making a contribution towards building its character from which the nation will benefit.

After all, when we are talking about surpluses—I wish that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would keep quiet while I am speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Front Benches have ample opportunities for airing their views, and I think it quite right that occasionally back benchers should have their say. I propose to have mine now, irrespective of what my right hon. and hon. Friends say.

I think that we should have an undertaking that an inquiry will be made into the cost. If the Minister will give such an undertaking it will, I believe, satisfy us at least for the time being. We must remember that members of these amateur sporting clubs pay subscriptions. Those subscriptions are not paid out of relief of revenue; they are paid out of the taxed incomes of those members.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give us such an undertaking and will not dismiss the subject lightly. Then, perhaps, we can look at it again at some future date.

Mr. Barber

I hope that, apart, perhaps, from one deviation, I did not treat the matter lightly, because I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that this is a very important matter. Indeed, the Government would not be contributing to the extent which they do towards sport unless it were considered to be a very important matter.

Perhaps I can say to the hon. Gentleman that in dealing with the question of cost I was, in courtesy, and as best as I could, answering the point made by the mover of the new Clause. However, I should like to make it clear that although I gave the explanation at the end of what I said, the principal reason why I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Clause is because, quite frankly, I agree with the Royal Commission that whatever the cost might be it is far better that assistance should be provided directly and subject to the normal opportunities of Parliamentary control rather than by way of taxation relief.

The hon. Member made the point that he did not think that enough assistance was being given to sport. I gave some figures and I will not go over them again, but this is an entirely separate matter. It may well be that if the hon. Member had the opportunity and was the Lord President of the Council, he would treble or even quadruple the amount of assistance given to sport, but it does not necessarily follow that it should be given by means of taxation relief.

Mr. L. M. Lever

Will the hon. Gentleman look into how much this would cost if I put down a Question?

Mr. Barber

I would look into it, but the difficulties are very considerable. If, in the morning, the hon. Member reads in HANSARD what I have said, he will appreciate that the difficulties are very real. I doubt that we would be justified in going further.

Mr. Redhead

That answer was entirely unsatisfactory. If the hon. Gentleman had been disposed to say a little more forthrightly that he appreciated our purpose and was prepared to consider it in more detail and with much more care than has been evidenced by the Treasury, we might have been disposed to accept an undertaking of that character, but in all the circumstances and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124, Noes 175.

Division No. 131.] AYES [10.36 p.m.
Ainsley, William Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Pentland, Norman
Allen, Scholefleld (Crewe) Hale, Leslie (Oldham W.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Hamilton, William (West Fife) Probert, Arthur
Beaney, Alan Hannan, William Redhead, E. C.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Harper, Joseph Reynolds, G. W.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blackburn, F. Holman, Percy Robertson, John (Paisley)
Boardman, H. Houghton, Douglas Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics,S.W.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Ross, William
Bowles, Frank Hoy, James H. Silverman, Julius (Alton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Skeffington, Arthur
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hunter, A. E. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, James Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Small, William
Carmichael, Neil Janner, Sir Barnett Sorensen, R. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cronin, John Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Spriggs, Leslie
Crosland, Anthony Jones, Dan (Burnley) Steele, Thomas
Crossman, R. H. S. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Stones, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Dalyell, Tam Kelley, Richard Swain, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lawton, George Swinger, Stephen
Davies, Harold (Leek) Ledger, Ron Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Tomney, Frank
Dempsey, James Lubbock, Eric Wade, Donald
Diamond, John McBride, N. Wainwright, Edwin
Donnelly, Desmond McCann, John Warbey, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacDermot, Niall Watkins, Tudor
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mclnnes, James Whit'ock, William
Fernyhough, E. McKay, John (Wallsend) Wigg, George
Finch, Harold Mapp, Charles Willey, Frederick
Fitch, Alan Mendelson, J. J. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Millan, Bruce Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Forman, J. C. Milne, Edward Williams, W. it. (Openshaw)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G.R. Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Galpern, Sir Myer O'Malley, B. K. Winterbottom, R. E.
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Cram, A. E. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Ginsburg, David Oswald, Thomas
Gourlay, Harry Pavitt, Laurence TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grey, Charles Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Mr.Ifor, Davies
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Corfield, F. V. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Aitken, W. T. Coulson, Michael Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Allason, James Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spetthorne) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Atkins, Humphrey Critchley, Julian Hastings, Stephen
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Crowder, F. P. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Barber, Anthony Currie, G. B. H. Hendry, Forbes
Barter, John Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Batsford, Brian Drayson, G. B. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) du Cann, Edward Hirst, Geoffrey
Berkeley, Humphry Duncan, Sir James Hocking, Philip N.
Biffen, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Holland, Philip
Bingham, R. M. Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hollingworth, John
Bishop, F. P. Emery, Peter Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Black, Sir Cyril Errington, Sir Eric Hughes-Young, Michael
Bossom, Hon. Clive Farr, John Hulbert, Sir Norman
Bourne-Arton, A. Felt, Anthony Hutchison, Michael Clark
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Finlay, Graeme Iremonger, T. L.
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)
Braine, Bernard Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Johnson, Or. Donald (Carlisle)
Brewis, John Gammans, Lady Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Brooman-White, R. Gibson-Watt, David Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Bullard, Denys Glover, Sir Douglas Leavey, J. A.
Chichester-Clark, R. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Leburn, Gilmour
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Goodhew, Victor Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Cower, Raymond Lilley, F. J. P.
Cole, Norman Gresham Cooke, R. Litchfield, Capt. John
Cooke, Robert Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Longbottom, Charles
Cooper, A. E. Gurden, Harold Longden, Gilbert
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Loveys, Walter H
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Pitman, Sir James Studhotme, Sir Henry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pitt, Dame Edith Summers, Sir Spencer
MacArthur, Ian Pott, Percivall Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
McLaren, Martin Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Taylor, Frank (M'ch'et'r, Moss Side)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Price, David (Eastleigh) Tooling, Sir William
McMaster, Stanley R. Prior-Palmer, Brig Sir Otho Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Proudfoot, Wilfred Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank Ramaden, James Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Rawlinson, Sir Peter Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Mawby, Ray Rees, Hugh Turner, Colin
Maxwell-Hyslop, R J. Rees-Davies, W. R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Renton, Rt. Hon. David van Straubenzee, W. P.
Mills, Stratton Ridedale, Julian Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Miscampbell, Norman Roberts, Sir Peter (Heoley) Walder, David
Morgan, William Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.) Walker, Peter
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Osborn, John (Hallam) Russell, Ronald Wail, Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, West) St. Clair, M. Ward, Dame Irene
Page, Graham (Crosby) Seymour, Leslie Webster, David
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Sharpies, Richard Whitelaw, William
Partridge, E. Shaw, M. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Skeet, T H. H. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Peel, John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Percival, Ian Smithers, Peter Woodhouse, C. M.
Peyton, John Spearman, Sir Alexander Woodnutt, Mark
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Pllkington, Sir Richard Storey, Sir Samuel TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Ian Fraser and Mr. Pym.