§ (1) Section 9(1) and (2) of the Finance Act 1956 (which provides relief from income tax on certain savings bank interest), shall, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, apply in respect of dividends on shares of a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1893 to 1954, or under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts (Northern Ireland) 1893 to 1955, and in respect of interest on deposits with such a society or with a registered friendly society, as they apply in respect of interest on deposits with the Post Office savings bank.
§ (2) Where by virtue of the last foregoing subsection the amount of surtax payable by an individual would exceed the sum of—
- (a) the amount of surtax which would have been payable by him, if that subsection had not been passed, and
- (b) the amount of relief, if any, to which he is entitled by virtue of that subsection,
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 10.33 p.m.
§ The Chairman
It will also be possible to discuss at the same time the following new Clauses: Clause No. 13:(1) As from the beginning of August 1964, and in relation to any trade or business carried on by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1893 to 1961, or under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts (Northern Ireland) 1893 to 1955, the rate at which the profits tax is to be charged shall be three per cent.(2) This section shall have effect notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary whether in this Act or elsewhere.
Clause No. 14:
(1) Profits tax shall not be chargeable for any period after 31st March, 1964, for the profits arising from the business of any building society.
(2) For the purposes of this section the expression "building society" has the meaning attributed to it in section 445 (building societies) of the Income Tax Act 1952.
Clause No. 26:
(1) Income tax and profits tax shall not be chargeable for any period after the 31st March 1964 upon the profits arising from the business of any building society.
(2) Nothing in this section shall hinder the making of arrangements under section 445
(building societies) of the Income Tax Act 1952; but any such arrangements shall be consonant with and subject to the last foregoing subsection of this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "building society" has the meaning attributed to it in the said section 445.
and Clause No. 28:
(1) Section 9(1) and (2) of the Finance Act 1956 (which provides relief from income tax on certain savings bank interest), shall, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, apply in respect of dividends or interest on shares and deposits of a building society within the meaning of section 445 of the Income Tax Act 1952 as they apply in respect of interest on deposits with the Post Office Savings Bank.
(2) Where by virtue of the last foregoing subsection the amount of surtax payable by an individual would exceed the sum of—
§ Mrs. Slater
I am glad that we shall be able to discuss these other Clauses at the same time, Sir William. Since we are doing so, I find myself in rather strange company. This issue has now become a hardy annual. Each year we raise it and each year we get no response from the Government, just as we get no response on so many other things. Just as last night they denied help to widows and other people, so they have so far denied justice to co-operative societies in this case. One is forced to the conclusion that it is pure political prejudice that compels the Government to go on saying "No".
The first of these new Clauses deals with the small saver. In 1956 Income Tax concessions were made to people who saved money in the Post Office Savings Bank or in a trustee savings bank. The first £15 of interest earned on savings was exempt from tax. The Co-operative movement has always encouraged small savings. The dividends earned by members is very often invested in share capital. The 5s. or 10s.—or in the old days 1s.—invested in the Penny Bank has enabled members to build up nest eggs for rainy days, and, however strange it may sound, when I had saved my first £100 of share capital in the 579 co-operative society, I thought that I had almost reached the millennium; I felt that I was a rich woman. I know that people who have saved money in this way have been able to buy many things which they would not otherwise have been able to do.
The Co-operative movement differs from large companies in many respects. By Statute a person is limited to £1,000 share capital, and to £50 in the Penny Bank, but because a man and wife are taxed separately they are allowed to have more than £1,200 in the Post Office Savings Bank or a trustee savings bank and still be exempt from paying tax on the interest. In the Co-operative movement all the interest on share capital and on money in the Penny Bank is eligible for tax.
The Co-operative movement has about £300 million in savings, of which about £255 million is in share capital. It has always encouraged the small saver. It is a movement of thrift, and I do not think that anyone can deny that it has done a lot of good for its members. In the days of the early strikes, the help that it gave to miners and others saved them from dire poverty and starvation.
The small saver in the Co-operative movement is compelled to pay tax on the interest that he earns on his savings. The result is that some people withdraw their savings and invest them in other forms of saving, such as the Post Office and the trustee savings bank.
There is another way in which the Government discriminate against the small saver in the Co-operative movement. If he replies for a supplementary pension, there is a great difference between the amount that he is allowed to have in savings, and the amount that a person is allowed to have in the Post Office or in the trustee savings bank at the time when he applies for a similar pension. Because of politial prejudice, those poor souls who apply for National Assistance are faced with the difficulty that if they have savings in the Cooperative movement they receive a smaller amount than they would do if they had money in the Post Office.
The Co-operative movement invests much of its shareholding capital in Government, local authority and public 580 body stocks. The latest figures show that about 34 per cent. of its shareholding capital is invested in such securities. More than 13 million people belong to the movement, and between them they have saved a large sum of money.
§ New Clause No. 13 deals with Profits Tax. Its object is to restore the position which existed before the 1958 Act, when the rate of tax on cooperative societies was raised from 3 per cent. to 10 per cent. From 1947 to 1958 the co-operative societies had been assessed for Profits Tax as though they made no distribution of profits to shareholders; in fact, the money they paid to their shareholders took the form of dividends on purchases. Co-operative societies do not distribute their surpluses as limited liability companies distribute theirs. Co-operative societies seek not to maximise the profits for their shareholders but rather to act in the interest of the consumers who purchase from them.
§ Co-operative society shares remain at par and are not subject to fluctuations on the stock exchange, or even to the wangles which go on in some companies, whereby shareholders get three shares for two and four shares for three, and therefore build up their shareholding. The effect of the tax falls on the ordinary shareholders in limited liability companies, whereas in the Co-operative movement the effect of the extra Profits Tax falls on its own co-operative membership, and therefore on the purchasing members. Companies are paying about half the pre-1958 tax whereas, because of this discrimination, co-operative societies are paying five times more then they did pre-1958.
§ I hope that the Government will realise that the people concerned are citizens of this country who, because of their desire to help themselves ever since the Co-operative movement was started, ought to have justice meted out to them.
§ Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)
I want to refer to the two new Clauses, Nos. 26 and 28, which you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, may be discussed with the Clause the Second Reading of which has been moved. Both the new Clauses to which I am referring relate to the taxation of building societies. This is a subject in which 581 the Economic Secretary may have some interest There is not much new to say about the first of the Clauses, but it is none the less important. It provides for the relief of building societies surpluses from Income Tax and Profits Tax. The surplus is the difference between the amount which the building society receives from its borrowers and the amounts it has to pay to investors, and the tax in respect of them.
Some hon Members consider that the tax relief for which I am asking should not apply to the profits on special advances. I would have no objection to the omission of special advances from the provisions of the Clause. The amount of tax involved in special advances is small as compared with the total, and I would have no quarrel with their omission.
Year after year we have discussed the subject of the taxation of building society surpluses. One of the arguments put before us by the Government is that a building society resembles a commercial undertaking rather than a body concerned with savings. I find it difficult to accept that view. I take the view that building societies should be regarded primarily as part of the savings movement. But whatever view one takes as to the category in which building societies should be placed, the practical point is that the amount of tax extracted from them indirectly affects a large number of home buyers. I suggest that the subject should be approached from that angle.
As I have said on previous occasions, the surplus is not profit in the strict sense of the word. There are several provisions which have to be observed in investing these surpluses, and there are, of course, no equity shareholders in a building society and no ordinary shareholders to whom any part of these surpluses could be paid. The only persons who can benefit by the relief of taxation on a building society are those buying their homes through the society.
We are faced with these simple questions. Is home ownership socially desirable? Should it be encouraged? If so, can it be encouraged by any tax reforms which would not create any embarrassing precedents and would not 582 be unfair to those who have rented accommodation? I believe it is in the interests of the country as a whole that home ownership should be extended and encouraged, but mere pious expressions of good will are not enough. We should remember that those who are buying their own homes, or who are anxious to do so, have a great many frustrating experiences to contend with.
Prices are continually going up. I shall read some short passages from the May issue of Building Society Affairs:The upward trend in the price of new houses continues, the provisional figure for the March quarter of 1964 having risen by three points. Since the index was started in 1956 the price of new houses has risen by almost 47 per cent.The index covers the whole of Great Britain. Similar indices for particular regions, e.g., the London area, would therefore show marked variations from the figures quoted.The most marked increases are in the London and south-east area. But it is not only the price of houses which is rising. The cost of travel to and from work is continually going up and in most cases rates are going up also. Any reduction in the interest payable on building society mortgages would therefore provide a welcome relief.
The question is, what can be done? In deciding the amount of interest to charge the; building societies have little room for manœuvre. They are in competition with the National Savings Movement and cannot ignore the comparatively high interest rates which the Government offer in order to obtain National Savings. The rate of interest charged by building societies is therefore very largely determined by Government policy. It would seem that there is no logical reason for adding to these difficulties by taxing building society surpluses. The first of the two new Clauses I am discussing is to grant relief from Profits Tax and Income Tax on the surpluses. I do not think any new precedent would be involved because we would be reverting to a state of affairs which existed about 30 years ago. It might be argued that it would be illogical to discontinue the Profits Tax and to retain Income Tax on these surpluses since the two go together. This Clause provides for the abolition of both forms of tax on the surpluses.
583 The second Clause is a new one. It is intended to provide relief from tax on the first £15 of interest on moneys invested in a building society. This would put building societies in a similar position to the Post Office Savings Bank. There is a certain amount of misunderstanding as to the way in which building societies suffer tax as far as investors are concerned. For the record I point out that those who invest in building societies are not at present relieved from any tax.
They receive their interest free of any deduction of tax—because the tax that would be payable has been accounted for by the building societies to the Treasury by way of composite rate—but account is taken of the fact that some of the investors in building societies have incomes below the level of Income Tax liability. The Treasury does not lose. The composite rate is calculated by reference to the total amount the Exchequer would receive if each individual investor had to pay Income Tax direct.
As I said last year, the Exchequer gets its full pound of flesh and, at the same time, there are considerable administrative savings. Therefore, if relief were granted on the first £15 of interest it would alter the composite rate and reduce the total amount that building societies would have to pay to the Exchequer. This, in turn, would benefit the building society movement, and help both those who invest in building societies and those who borrow from them. The combined effect of these two proposals would be a useful contribution.
This is the last opportunity the Government will have before the General Election to take some practical steps to help home buyers, and I hope that the arguments that have been deployed on the subject year after year will at last bear fruit.
§ Mr. Maurice Macmillan
This is a familiar argument, and we have discussed these matters on many previous occasions. As my predecessor said last year, we have been discussing five separate propositions that have certain common threads running through them. First, let me get one thing clear. The Government and hon. Members on this side of the Committee are in no way prejudiced, as the hon. 584 Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) alleged, against cooperative societies for political or, indeed, for any other reasons. That came out in last year's debate perhaps rather more clearly than it has done on this occasion. I should like to pay my tribute to the work that the co-operative societies do in encouraging small savings and assisting thrift. As the Committee may know, that general proposition has been very dear to me for quite some time.
§ The new Clauses propose to extend to building societies and co-operative societies the provisions of Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1956. That provision was directed very particularly at institutions lending to the Government directly at a statutory 2½per cent., and aimed entirely at the small saver. It was designed with this specific purpose in mind, and it did not include trusts or corporate bodies. It was, as has been recalled from time to time, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. Harold Macmillan), who made that point very clear in 1956, and I think that it has been repeated from this side on several occasions.
§ Perhaps it is that repetition that has led to the charge of a certain rigidity in the point of view of the Government and the Treasury in this matter. I do not think that it is a fair charge, because this is not only a question of helping the small saver, but of maintaining a particular purpose which was, as I have said, direct lending to the Government.
§ These various new Clauses would not cost very much in themselves but they would undoubtedly lead to pressures—as we have had—to exempt from Income Tax the first £15 of all small savers' dividends and interest, which would amount to the considerable sum of something in excess of £40 million.
§ It has been claimed that the co-operative societies and friendly societies are in a position of special need in the sense that they have faced over the years certain difficulties, which I think one must admit is true, but I suggest to the Committee that many of these difficulties come from trading competition rather than from being treated in an unfair way by the Government.
§ As far as the extension of relief under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1956, is 585 concerned, I would point out to the Committee that in the case of friendly societies the total amounts remaining invested at the end of 1952 were some £216 million, which increased at the end of 1962 to some £264 millon, an increase of 22 per cent. The comparable increase in National Savings Certificates, which are privileged in this way, was only 19 per cent., whereas by comparison the amount in the Post Office Savings Bank was minus 3 per cent., so that friendly societies, as compared with the privileged Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificates, have fared rather better over the years. Of course, building societies have fared a great deal better, the amounts remaining invested at the end of 1962 being 162 per cent. more than in 1952.
§ Mr. Oram
I wonder if the Economic Secretary happens to have separate figures in respect of agricultural cooperative societies. Can he say how they have fared in comparison with the categories to which he has referred? I know that they are particularly concerned about the difficulties in respect of savings and Profits Tax, which make it difficult for them to accumulate funds which they need for their operations. Since some of my hon. Friends are among those who are keen supporters of agricultural cooperative societies, I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has that information to give the Committee.
§ Mr. Macmillan
I am afraid that I have not with me tonight the breakdown into the separate categories of cooperative societies. I have only the broad overall figures, but I will certainly look the information up for the hon. Gentleman and get in touch with him.
Concerning the point about extending the relief to the first £15 of dividends, I think that the considerations that obtained in previous debates must be adhered to now. This special relief was designed to apply to institutions lending direct to the Government at the statutory rate of interest. The Committee will remember that this privilege was extended to any body which could meet these conditions, but it was only, in fact, the Birmingham Municipal Bank which found itself able to do so.
§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)
The Economic Secretary promised 586 my hon. Friend some figures, but unless he gets them reasonably quickly they will not influence in any way the deliberations of the Committee tonight. We can, if we desire, keep the debate going until the hon. Gentleman gets the figures and can then have an Adjournment a little later so that the information which he acquires can be of use to us. Could he possibly get the figures in the usual way now?
§ Mr. Macmillan
I could not possibly get the figures tonight. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they do not make the slightest difference to my argument which is that this concession is entirely for the narrow purpose that I have mentioned and is a criterion which the agricultural co-operative societies do not, in fact, meet. I merely gave overall figures to show that, as compared with other institutions, co-operative societies and friendly societies as a whole do not suffer unduly because of not having this privilege extended to them. The details do not in any way affect that argument one way or the other.
The second group of Clauses exempts building societies from Profits Tax and Income Tax. The building society record is undoubtedly magnificent. I do not think that it will be argued that they have suffered over the years, considering that on 31st March this year the combined assets of the societies totalled £4,500 million. The case for continuing Profits Tax on building societies, cooperative societies, and so on, rests on the fact that they earn a surplus which, although it is not distributed, is in the nature of a trading surplus. This was the point made quite clearly by the Royal Commission when it decided in 1958, and the Government accepted the recommendation, that in the case of building societies, share interest as well as loan interest could be deducted in computing profits. These were liable to a flat rate of Profits Tax, although there was a differential between Profits Tax on distributed and undistributed profits.
I do not think that the effect on home ownership of these tax concessions on Income Tax and Profits Tax, or on Profits Tax alone, is as great as all that. The effect on the mortgage rates, according to the Building Societies' Association 587 would be only about ½ per cent. if it was all passed on, but the Association also said that the societies would intend to use half the reduction to increase their reserves. Therefore the overall effect, allowing for tax relief, would be about ¼ per cent., or about 3s. 8d. on a net monthly payment for a £2,000 house over 20 years.
The hon. Member who introduced into his argument the fact that the cost of houses was rising was rather arguing against himself, because clearly the easier terms for mortgage repayments will tend to put up rather than reduce the price of housing. As to his reference to the competition to the building societies of money from Government sources, the gross redemption yields of building societies are now running at about 5.7 per cent., which is only bettered among Government-financed savings institutions by the eleventh issue of Savings Certificates which run at about 6.2 per cent. if they are held full time, and of course they are limited to £600 in all.
The next part of the argument was attached mostly to the relief of Profits Tax on co-operative societies as opposed to building societies. The argument here again is very similar. It is that co-operative societies are trading institutions and that to relieve them from Profits Tax would put them in an unfair competitive position vis-à-vis other traders. It is true that the share dividend is different in kind, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North pointed out, from dividend paid by ordinary companies, but that distinction is already met by Section 26 of the Finance Act, 1958, in that dividends paid by the societies are allowed as a deduction in computing their taxable profits whereas dividends paid by ordinary companies are not. There is a clear distinction which is already recognised by the law.
Whether or not the schemes for relief from Profits Tax in relation to cooperative societies would act as an incentive to increase the rate of dividend on shareholdings, it is certain that the rate of dividend is low and I think it is fair to say that there is no difference in kind between the building societies and co-operative societies in this matter of dividends. They are both in their own 588 way trading, and they are both in then-own way earning a surplus. The fact that their surpluses are applied differently from those of normal trading companies is already recognised by the law, and therefore the surplus on which they are taxed is more in the nature of the reserves of an ordinary trading company than of its distributed profits.
The case is that there is a greater need for encouragement of thrift and saving. I think no one in the Committee would deny this. On the other hand, it is worth reminding the Committee that the growth of savings over the last 10 or 12 years has been very great indeed. Taking separately what one might call the Government saving institutions—National Savings Certificates, Post Office Savings, Defence and Premium Bonds and Trustee Savings Banks, which are lending direct to the Government—in the years 1952–62 deposits went up by some 27 per cent. and all the other thrift institutions lumped together went up by some 66 per cent., including private pensions funds. Total savings are now running at the rate of nearly £2,000 million a year and represent something over 10 per cent. of personal disposable income.
One cannot deny that the policies of this Government have encouraged savings, and I do not think that one can argue that the Government have discriminated unfairly against building societies or co-operative societies in their rôle in encouraging the smaller people in thrift and saving.
§ Mr. Mitchison
It is getting late and one is rather tempted to go further into this matter than perhaps circumstances render suitable.
My quarrel with the Government is not so much that they have not accepted one or other of these proposed Clauses, as that this is indeed a hardy annual, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said in a very clear and forceful speech, and the Government have not really considered what lies behind it and the substantial reasons which exist for some change.
May I start with the sum of £15? There is one unsatisfactory feature about the £15. This is supposed to be an inducement to people to lend their money to institutions which lend direct to the Government. But it is no inducement at 589 all to a tax-exempt man. It is no advantage to him. It is only an inducement to someone who has to pay taxes. If, for instance—and I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the right way of doing it—instead of giving that inducement, the Government were to allow an extra ½ per cent. interest, that would operate much more fairly as between the tax-exempt depositor and the tax-paying depositor. I do not say that that is necessarily the right method, but I am pointing out tht the present situation is not altogether satisfactory.
I have never really understood the reason for this very curious line. It is a very clear line, but what is the reason for it? Surely, what any Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider is the promotion of savings, and, if he is to consider that, he will have to let in other bodies beyond those which lend directly and immediately to the Government. Comparatively few people realise that, if they put money into the Trustee Savings Bank, all they are doing in the ordinary branch of the bank is to lend money to a local branch of the Exchequer, which takes a small commission, I think, under this Bill for doing the job for the Government. One is not lending to anyone else at all.
That is not the position as regards co-operative societies and building societies but they, equally, are a real channel for savings. Incidentally, I do not view an increase of 27 per cent. over 10 years as anything satisfactory. The Economic Secretary is a little bit of a poacher turned gamekeeper. In his poaching career, he used to encourage people to invest in shares. I have not the figures with me, but I imagine he will probably be able to confirm that investments in shares, unit trusts and the rest have gone up a good deal more than that, and, of course, there has been a fair amount of money diverted from one form of saving to another because of the difference.
From that point of view, therefore, and taking, as I believe is right, the encouragement of saving as the important consideration, if one is to deal with the type of depositor we all have in mind in this connection, one ought to consider much more carefully than the Government have ever attempted to do the position of the ordinary channels 590 of saving for such people through the co-operative societies and the building societies.
I recognise at once that what I have been saying about the £15 also applies to building societies, but that is a point which is, perhaps, a little remote today. There is no doubt that, if the right criterion is the encouragement of—I do net particularly like the expression—working-class saving, then the right thing to do is to give these advantages not merely to the direct lenders, as it were, the Trustee Savings Banks and the rest, but also to any group of bodies which are predominantly—I do not say exclusively—used for working-class savings. I do not think that it would cover the case of small depositors in an ordinary joint stock bank because a joint stock bank has many other functions, and one must have regard to the functions of the body in question. It would, however, cover both the cooperative societies and the building societies.
I say again that the more one hears about it the more one is inclined to draw two conclusions about it. One is that this really is rather a difficult question. It is by no means necessarily the case that the particular remedies which we are proposing in these Clauses are the right ones. Moreover, it is a changing question. When we considered, a short time ago, what is now the Protection of Depositors Act, we had to consider numbers of new methods of saving which had cropped up in comparatively recent years and which had their effect one way or another on the type of saving we are considering tonight.
I return to what I said at the beginning. My real quarrel with the Government is that, having had a hardy annual coming up year by year, which has been supported with a great deal of force and clarity by my hon. Friends and which has had some support, at least as regards building societies, from the Government's own supporters, they have never really applied their minds to what it is they want to do and whether their present provisions are the best method of doing it. It is because of that feeling that I hope that the Committee will divide on these Clauses as a matter of principle.
591 To turn to the other two points, I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friends have not put down any Amendments about Income Tax either in relation to building societies or in relation to co-operative societies. However, they have put down Amendments about Profits Tax although, of course, Profits Tax is really rather an absurdity. It is not defended any longer as a tax on profit and, in fact, if one presses the Government on the point one gets the answer that it has become something much wider.
If that is the position, is there a real case for levying a general tax—which it is—on these particular firms and institutions? If one considers the co-operative societies one finds that the Chancellor is always fair, but he must recognise that the co-operative societies do have difficulties in raising capital. That is something, perhaps, inherent in their form and character as trading organisations, but I cannot agree that the difficulty arises from trading difficulties.
I should have thought that they were not the people to pay this tax, and we suggest a compromise. Whereas they used to pay 3 per cent. when two rates existed for distributed and undistributed profits, we always thought that when a change was made which had clearly very little concern with their position, the rate shot up as a consequence. Here again, I do not feel particularly wedded to this or that remedy, but I should like to know what is the right thing to do. I would have hoped that the Government would have taken time over the
§ years which it has had to treat this hardy annual with more respect. I have wondered why it was there year after year.
§ So far as the building societies are concerned, the point is broadly the same. It is true that Profits Tax has changed in relation to them and it would have made a very small difference. Yet in the building society payments, a very small difference might make a very large practical difference to all the people concerned. Those people have had a rough time as a result of the Government's changes in financial policy and the changes in interest rates payable on mortgages. I do not want to develop that point at this hour of the night, but I must say that I find it difficult to see why they should be charged with Profits Tax. I may be told that this matter was before the Royal Commission, but the Royal Commission was considering taxation alone, whereas the Chancellor has a much wider duty including the promotion of savings and he is right to say that on both sides of the Committee we have always taken that view.
§ We are not satisfied with the Government's answer, and it is quite fair to give them one dig in the ribs at the end. We are particularly dissatisfied with the attitude of the Government over this kind of thing and people who get profit from tolls and have not to pay any tax. I hope that the Committee will support the first of these Clauses.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 100, Noes 150.593
|Division No. 107.]||AYES||[11.19 p.m.|
|Ainsley, William||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)||Delargy, Hugh||Herbison, Miss Margaret|
|Barnett, Guy||Diamond, John||Hill, J. (Midlothian)|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Dodds, Norman||Holman, Percy|
|Bence, Cyril||Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)||Holt, Arthur|
|Benn, Anthony Wedgwood||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Hooson, H. E.|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Evans, Albert||Houghton, Douglas|
|Blackburn, F.||Fernyhough, E.||Hoy, James H.|
|Blyton, William||Finch, Harold||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Boston, T.||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Janner, Sir Barnett|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Jeger, George|
|Callaghan, James||George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Gourlay, Harry||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Cronin, John||Grey, Charles||King, Dr. Horace|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||Lawson, George|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Harper, Joseph||Lubbock, Eric|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Pavitt, Laurence||Spriggs, Leslie|
|McBride, N.||Pentland, Norman||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|MacColl, James||Popplewell, Ernest||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|MacDermot, Niall||Probert, Arthur||Wade, Donald|
|Mclnnes, James||Redhead, E. C.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|MacKenzie, J. G.||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Whitlock, William|
|Manuel, Archie||Rhodes, H.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mapp, Charles||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Millan, Bruce||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Milne, Edward||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Ross, William|
|Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Silkin, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morris, John (Aberavon)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)||Mr. Charles A. Howell and|
|O'Malley, B. K.||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)||Dr. Broughton.|
|Oram, A. E.||Small, William|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Green, Alan||Neave, Airey|
|Allason, James||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Anderson, D. C.||Gurden, Harold||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Partridge, E.|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Barter, John||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Percival, Ian|
|Batsford, Brian||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Pounder, Rafton|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Hendry, Forbes||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Biffen, John||Hiley, Joseph||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Pym, Francis|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hirst, Geoffrey||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Bishop, Sir Patrick||Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John||Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Holland, Philip||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hollingworth, John||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Box, Donald||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Shaw, M.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Hopkins, Alan||Shepherd, William|
|Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Hornsby-Smith., Rt. Hon. Dame P.||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Brewis, John||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswlok)|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hughes-Young, Michael||Stainton, Keith|
|Bryan, Paul||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Buck, Antony||Iremonger, T. L.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Bullard, Denys||Irvine, Byrant Godman (Rye)||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Chataway, Christopher||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Talbot, John E.|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Tapsell, Peter|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Kirk, Peter||Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)|
|Cooke, Robert||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Teeling, Sir William|
|Corfield, F. V.||Leavey, J. A.||Temple, John M.|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Curran, Charles||Lilley, F. J. P.||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Doughty, Charles||Longden, Gilbert||Turner, Colin|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec||Loveys, Walter H.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|du Cann, Edward||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||MacArthur, Ian||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||McLaren, Martin||Walder, David|
|Farr, John||McMaster, Stanley R.||Walker, Peter|
|Fisher, Nigel||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Maginnis, John E.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Gammans, Lady||Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)||Whitelaw, William|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan||Maudlins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Mills, Stratton|
|Goodhew, Victor||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gower, Raymond||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Mr. Finlay and Mr. Hugh Rees.|