|(1) If an individual who has attained the age of sixty years—|
|(a) disposes by way of sale or gift of the whole or part of a business which he has owned throughout the period of ten years ending with the disposal, or|
|5||(b) disposes by way of sale or gift of shares or securities of a company which has been a trading company and his family company during the period of ten years ending with the disposal, and of which he has been a full time working director throughout that period,|
|then relief shall be given under this section in respect of gains accruing to him on the disposal and the amount available for that relief shall be—|
|10||(i) if he has attained the age of sixty-five years, ten thousand pounds,|
|(ii) if he has not attained the age of sixty-five years, two thousand pounds for every year by which his age exceeds sixty, plus, for any odd part of a year, a corresponding part of two thousand pounds.|
|15||(2) Where subsection (1) (a) above applies the gains accruing to the individual on the disposal of chargeable business assets comprised in the disposal by way of sale or gift shall be aggregated, and only so much of that aggregate as exceeds the amount available for relief under this section shall be chargeable gains (but not so as to affect liability in respect of gains accruing on the disposal of assets other than chargeable business assets).|
|20||(3) Where subsection (1) (b) above applies—|
|(a) the gains which accrue to the individual on the disposal of the shares or securities shall be aggregated, and|
|25||(b) of a proportion of that aggregate sum which is equal to the proportion which the part of the value of the company's assets (including cash) at the time of the disposal which is attributable to the value of the company's chargeable business assets bears to the whole of that value, only so much as exceeds the amounts available for relief under this section shall constitute chargeable gains (but not so as to affect liability in respect of gains representing the balance of the said aggregate sum).|
§ trust was the appropriate thing. Now, he is saying that unit trusts are.
§ Mr. Diamond
The problem here is exactly the same as the hon. Member suffered from when speaking a moment earlier and using investment trusts at one stage as being a category which included unit trusts, as most people do. The general category is investment trusts, and that category includes unit trusts. One of the difficulties of our discussions time and time again is that the term "investment trusts" is often used to include both categories, investment trusts and unit trusts. That is why, when one is talking sometimes about unit trusts, one refers to them in the general form which includes both categories.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Sutton Coldfield)
We agree that investment trusts are different bodies, but I cannot let pass the right hon. Gentleman's remark that the purpose of an investment trust is to make capital gains. Its main purpose is to maximise its income in the interests of its shareholders, and that is quite different.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.1275
|30||(4) So far as the amount available for relief under subsection (1) above is applied in giving relief to an individual as respects a disposal within that subsection it shall not be applied in giving relief to that individual as respects any other disposal (and the relief shall be applied in the order in which any disposals take place), and—|
|35||(a) if the total amount of relief given to an individual under this section exceeds five thousand pounds section 23 (2) of this Act shall apply on the death of the individual as if the five thousand pounds there mentioned were reduced by the amount of the excess, and|
|40||(b) if the total amount of relief given to an individual under this section is ten thousand pounds, no relief shall be given under the said section 23 (2) on the death of that individual.|
|(5) In arriving at the aggregate under subsection (2) or subsection (3) above—|
|(a) the respective amounts of the gains shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act (other than this section) fixing the amount of chargeable gains, and|
|45||(b) any allowable loss which accrues on the disposal shall be deducted,|
|and the provisions of this section shall not affect the computation of the amount of any allowable loss.|
|(6) In this section—|
|50||"chargeable business asset" means an asset (including goodwill but not including shares or securities or other assets held as investments) which is, or is an interest in, an asset used for the purposes of a trade, profession, vocation, office or employment carried on by the individual, or as the case may be by the individual's family company, other than an asset on the disposal of which no chargeable gain accrues or (where the disposal is of shares or securities in the family company) on the disposal of which no chargeable gain would accrue if the family company disposed of the asset at the time of the disposal of the shares or securities;|
|"family company" means, in relation to an individual, a company the voting rights in which are,—|
|60||(a) as to not less than twenty-five per cent., exercisable by the individual, or|
|(b) as to not less than seventy-five per cent., exercisable by the individual or a member of his family, and, as to not less than ten per cent., exercisable by the individual himself, and|
|65||"family" means, in relation to an individual, the husband or wife of the individual, and a relative of the individual or the individual's husband or wife, and "relative" means brother, sister, ancestor or lineal descendant;|
|70||"full time working director" means a director who is required to devote substantially the whole of his time to the service of the company in a managerial or technical capacity;|
|"trade", "profession", "vocation", "office" and "employment" have the same meanings as in the Income Tax Acts;|
|"trading company" has the meaning given by paragraph 8 of Schedule 17 to this Act,|
|75||and in this section references to the disposal of the whole or part of a business include references to the disposal of the whole or part of the assets provided or held for the purposes of an office or employment by the person exercising that office or employment.—[Mr. MacDermot.]|
§ Brough up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
With the new Clause, it is proposed that we should take the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), in line 7, at end insert:or disposes of the liquidated assets of such a company",and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), in line 13, at end insert: 1276(2) If an individual who, having attained the age of fifty years, but not having attained the age of sixty years,—
then relief shall be given under this section in respect of gains accruing to him on the disposal and the amount available for that relief shall be ten thousand pounds.
- (a) satisfies the Inspector of Taxes that he is obliged through ill-health or physical disability to dispose by way of sale or gift of the whole or part of a business which he has owned throughout the period of ten years ending with the disposal, or
- (b) satisfies the Inspector of Taxes that he is obliged through ill-health or physical disability to dispose by way of sale or gift of shares or securities of a company which has been a trading company and his family
1277 company during the period of ten years ending with the disposal and of which he has been a full-time working director throughout that period,
§ Mr. MacDermot
Being a little more prepared, perhaps I can move the new Clause a little more fully. This is another Clause which, in Committee, we undertook to introduce. It covers a number of points which were raised in debate. It primarily owes its origin to an Opposition new Clause which was moved in Committee and upon which our new Clause is closely modelled. I paid tribute on that occasion to the draftsmanship of the Opposition Clause and I am happy to do so again. It contained a number of ideas which have been helpful in finding a solution to the problem with which it deals.
Essentially, the new Clause is to assist the person who wants to provide on retirement for his old age and to grant a limited, qualified exemption from liability to capital gains when he transfers his business on retirement. Perhaps it would assist the House if I were to indicate the salient points of the relief which is proposed in the new Clause.
The normal case with which it deals will, of course, be one where the individual concerned who is retiring sells his business, but we have not confined the new Clause to the case of sale but have extended it also to disposal by way of gift. This, in particular, was to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who pointed out that it is a common practice in his part of Northern Ireland for a farmer at the time of retirement to hand over his farm to his son or whoever is taking it over; and the farmer continues to live on the farm, although he may live off the farm as well. This is, as it were, his provision for his retirement. There is no cash transaction involved, but that is the way he provides for his retirement. We thought it right to frame the new Clause in such a way that it would cover that kind of case.
The sort of exemption we propose is that it should exempt gains up to £10,000. This may mean a realisation 1278 of business assets of considerably more than that amount. All that the exemption deals with is the capital gain and there will be an opportunity for exemption up to £10,000. When we compare that with the death exemption of £5,000, we feel that that is a generous but reasonable sum. It is less than the sum proposed in the Opposition proposal, which was £15,000, but I suggested then that that might seem rather high and out of proportion with the death exemption.
There is a relationship between these two exemptions because the new Clause provides for the second £5,000 of the £10,000 to be set off, as it were, against the death exemption. In other words, if a person claims an exemption for more than £5,000, anything over £5,000 that he claims successfully will go in reduction of the exemption which will be available to his estate on his death.
The full relief as we have proposed it would be available at the age of 65, but we have, again in accordance with a matter which we discussed in Committee, written in a tapering provision to enable the relief to begin at the age of 60; and then it will be graduated evenly throughout the five-year period. It will not rise in £2,000 jumps but gradually throughout the five years to the full amount of £10,000 to the age of 65.
The assets which will be available for this relief on their disposal are what may generally be classed as "business assets". This is intended to be a provision particularly to help what were described in Committee as small businessmen—and included in that term would be a farmer, using the word "business" in the very widest sense. We propose that all truly business assets should be included as being available for the exemption. It will, therefore, include goodwill, but it will not include assets which, although held in the ownership of a business, are held purely as investments.
Hon. Members may have noticed that there is, in the closing lines of the new Clause, a reference to persons holding an office or employment. The effect of these words is to extend the benefit of the exemption to persons such as insurance agents, who were discussed on a number of occasions in Committee, in particular in relation to their problem when they come to dispose of their insurance book. This exemption will also be available to 1279 insurance agents on retirement after the appropriate age.
How is it achieved that this is confined only to retirement? Where a business is a company, the individual concerned must for the last 10 years before the disposal have been a full-time working director of the company, and must also either have himself held not less than 25 per cent. of the voting rights in the company or must have held 10 per cent. and his family must have held a total of 75 per cent. We hope that the House will find this to be a satisfactory way of confining the scope of relief to the kind of family business which, I think, we all had in mind during our discussion.
Where the business has not been incorporated, and is owned by the man either alone or in partnership with others, the relief will still be available but, again, he must have owned the business either alone or jointly with his fellow partners for the last ten years before the time of the disposal. This 10-year period, I think, is a necessary provision in order to ensure that the scope of the exemption is of the kind we had in mind when framing the provision.
I do not think that it would be helpful to the House if, at this stage, I were to seek to comment on the Amendments which we are to discuss with the Clause.
§ Sir Martin Redmayne (Rushcliffe)
I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are to debate broadly the Amendments to the proposed new Clause, and I hope that we may be able to divide on them if we so wish.
The new Clause is similar to our Amendment that was debated in Committee very briefly, for the convenience of hon. Members. As it was then debated only briefly, we did not quite rub in one or two points as much as we should have wished. But the Chancellor has met a very great number of points, and I would not quarrel with those with which the Financial Secretary has dealt, although one can always say that what is done is not enough. However, I think that probably it is fair.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that when instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen, the Financial Secre- 1280 tary missed one very important point which would have come out had he followed our earlier Amendment more closely. In the earlier part of that Amendment we referred to the individual who, in connection with his retirement, disposed before his death of all of his interest in assets used, and used only, for the purpose of the trade. Towards the end of that Amendment we provided that in the case of a company the interest in the shares of that company should be the equivalent of an interest in the assets of a partnership.
The drafting of the new Clause has removed one of the virtues of our Amendment, in that it covered the case where a man retiring from private business might prefer, or, indeed, might find it very much to his advantage, or might have no other alternative than to wind up the business rather than sell it as a going concern. That is the point of the first of the Amendments we are debating.
I will give one example which illustrates clearly the situation that ought to be covered, and it is one that happens often in private business. One can have a prosperous trader, a man who has been in trade for much longer than the 10 years which the Financial Secretary has specified, and, in the course of that trade, carrying a large and valuable stock and, equally, having year by year, as a matter of good business, a very solid figure of sundry debtors—both of which are realisable assets.
But combined with this in the course of his trade, having had a long lease on the property in which he trades, he decides that the time has come for him to retire when that lease might expire very shortly. Private businesses of this sort are best sold on the record of profits and not on the asset value. A profit record has no value to a purchaser, unless there is to be continuity both of the premises in which the trade is carried on and the management.
In a case of this sort the man has been in the trade for a long time and wants to retire. If he were a younger man, seeing that the lease is about to expire, he would tackle the problem himself. He would either renew it, as one has to nowadays, at three or four times present rent and cope with that and its effect on the business until such time as it can be absorbed, or remove the business elsewhere.
1281 Both courses are considerable tasks for a small business. Both are perfectly practicable to a man who considers that he has health and strength to carry on, or if he has someone to follow him in tackling these problems, but it is certain that for a business of that sort with that problem ahead and the management of the business not assured because the man intends to retire as he is not fit or able to carry on the business, it is very difficult to find a buyer.
In such circumstances, which are real and do happen, the business is best sold for its asset value, because there is no probable continuity of the profit record. Therefore, this man seeking to retire, should liquidate his assets, sell the fag-end of the lease if he can for what it is worth, and make the best of the situation. He is not covered by the Government's new Clause, although he would be covered by our Amendment. This is a very cogent and real case and I ask the Financial Secretary to give this Amendment very special consideration.
My special interest is farming, although I have no financial interest in this matter. In farming, liquidation of the assets of a business of this sort is more common than not. There are few buyers for a going concern of the type we are considering. If the Amendment is not accepted, the Government will have left a wide gap in what they intend to do on the lines of the Amendment we moved in Committee. It would be a great pity if that gap were left and I doubt very much if the Government intend that it should be so.
If I may, I will now refer to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). If he had not put it forward, others of my hon. Friends and I would have done so. We all know that 50 to 60 is a dangerous age. I am rising 55.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Cheer up!"] A man of my age, afflicted by any sort of disability which makes him incapable of carrying on his business—I do not regard myself, fortunately, as in that class—may yet live for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I worked up to that, but it was unintentional. For an active man, when he is 55, to be 1282 incapable of carrying on the business in which he has been all his working life, is worse than a living death.
I think it very hard that the new Clause should not consider such a man because it is certain that no one else will. That is the penalty of independence. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Barry will put the case much better than I and in more detail, but I remind the Financial Secretary that in Committee, moving an Amendment concerning this matter, I said that I believed that 60 to 65 was too old and that a little latitude should be shown so that a man who had to give up his business because of ill-health before the age of 60 could enjoy the same provision. I hope that the Government will consider it.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Gower
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), I welcome the new Clause. I feel that it will go some way to lessening the fears and anxieties of many thousands of smaller family businessmen and those who look after the destinies of many of our smaller companies.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Financial Secretary will not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and I are lacking in gratitude because we now press him to incorporate our Amendment in the Clause. While, as the hon. and learned Gentleman correctly said, the Clause is designed to assist the person who wishes to provide on retirement for his old age, I submit that a person who is providing for retirement and old age, and who sells or disposes of his business at the age of 60 or 65, can claim that, to some extent, his affairs have gone according to plan. He does not fare nearly as badly as a person who is in the category described in my Amendment.
Such a person may wish to have provided for his old age in retirement, but, unfortunately, before reaching the age prescribed in the Clause is prevented by ill-health or physical disability from carrying on his business or pursuing his directorship in which he has been working full time for 10 years. To that extent, his position is much worse than that of someone who has managed to remain well until retiring age.
1283 We have, therefore, designed this Amendment so that, provided such a person can satisfy the inspector of taxes that he is obliged—and the obligation has to be established—through ill-health or physical disability to dispose of his business or interest, and provided that he can also establish, as in the Clause, that he has been associated with the business for 10 years, he should be entitled to some comparable benefit.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may object to the wording… satisfies the Inspector of Taxes …but repeatedly, during our debates on the Bill, some discretion has been pleaded as a virtue by the Treasury. Here, indeed, the onus is placed upon the taxpayer and surely the Treasury would not object to that. He would have to satisfy the inspector of taxes with medical evidence, and so on. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to say that the Government will gladly incorporate this deserving, group in the benefits of the Clause.
Mr. J. T. Price
When we debated this matter in Committee on 31st May, I took the opportunity to make a few critical observations of a restrained character to point out the great injustice which would be caused to many insurance agents if the goodwill in their books were to be subjected to Capital Gains Tax. I am, therefore, bound to acknowledge my gratitude, limited though it may be, for the concessions which are embodied in the new Clause and which will adequately cover retiring insurance agents, whom I had chiefly in mind.
It is already well known that there are probably no fewer than 80,000 insurance agents collecting weekly business for their respective companies and that probably 15,000 to 20,000 of them are subject to the Clause. The limit of £10,000 free of Capital Gains Tax would more than cover those whose case I was pleading a few weeks ago.
However, there is another aspect of the matter which only my Christian sympathy for suffering humanity prevents me from expounding at this time of night at the length which I would find necessary at some other time, because I am still not sure that the Treasury Ministers and their 1284 advisers understand the matter properly. For instance, only the agents of certain companies enjoy an interest in the goodwill of their own books—The Co-operative Insurance Society and the Liverpool Victoria are two which come readily to mind. I am not briefed on this matter and I am speaking purely from personal knowledge. For other companies, such as the Prudential, which is probably the largest, this factor will not arise, because they do not recognise their agents' interest in their books.
The Clause will relieve agents from liability to Capital Gains Tax if those gains are applied to providing for the agent's retirement. I understand that the amount in question may be reserved by a sort of delayed action effect under Clause 31, but no doubt that is something which will be explained.
The point which I want to make, shortly in view of the hour, is that a company which does not recognise the agent's interest in his book will not have this capital gains equation applied to its agents. In any year in which such a company does £10 million worth of new business, not an uncommon sum, and that is retained even for some years, there will be no question of capital gains on the new business because the gains will not be designated to particular agents. However, if another company achieving the same record of business does split up the sum among its agents, there will be a liability on the assessed amount of the increase.
This is something difficult to explain in simple terms in a short time, but the great distinction is that while the new Clause will benefit those using the capital gain to retire, it will not have the same effect on agents who, for one reason or another, leave the insurance industry at 45 or 55, or some other age short of the full retirement age.
I think that it would be very difficult, in logic and equity, to sustain the taxation of these amounts, because a man may pay a nominal sum of say, £250 for a small book, which is producing income in commission at the approved rate for his company. He keeps the book for 10 years, by which time, when he relinquishes it or comes to sell it, it is worth £500.
1285 Can any Minister tell me how it will be assessed as to how much of that £500 is represented by the original investment of £200? Nearly all the clients in the original book will have gone and the new business is not a capital gain on what existed before. The difference of £250 and £500 need not be a capital gain on the original investment at all. It can be something quite different. I know that at this stage of the Bill we cannot expect any Government to go on fiddling about with it and make minor adjustments. I thought that my gratitude, which I have freely expressed, for what has been done, must be tempered by the consideration that there still remains an injustice which I regard it as my duty to raise, in restrained and proper terms, because I do no think it can be defended in this House.
§ Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I think that we all agree that he has raised an important point on the question of insurance accounts. He may well have enunciated a general principle which can be extended to other activities besides insurance. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail into that territory.
We all welcome the Government's Clause, tabled in response to the assurance given in Committee, when the Financial Secretary said he was "attracted" to the idea which our Amendment embodied. I think it important that people who are faced with retirement should be given the kind of relief which the Government are now proposing to give.
On the other hand, it should be stressed that while there is much in the present amendment concerning shares and directorships, and so on, the fact remains that the Clause also extends to a great many people who have their own businesses, such as small shopkeepers. Numerically, this is an important group for which we all believe something ought to be done when it comes to the question of retirement. Another reason we welcome it is because it will give help to the small businessmen who have been efficient, and built up goodwill over the years, by ensuring that they will not be taxed on the fruits of their efforts when they come to retire.
1286 My right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) pointed out in Committee thatunder the Bill, if any trader retires, instead of dying in harness, when he would get the advantages set out in the Bill, he is offered the roughest of treatment. He is liable to Capital Gains Tax in full without any relief on the disposal of his assets. His retirement automatically deprives him of the 45 per cent. reduction in Estate Duty, which he would have got had he died in harness.I think that we are all agreed that that was an extremely cogent argument and that relief should be given.
In summing up, my right hon. Friend pointed out thatwhere the choice is between retirement alive and retirement dead, it is death which gives the best bargain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 1200.]We are now in a situation in which we have covered the case of the person who retires at 60 or 65; he will get relief. But the person who is forced to retire by ill health, who does not have an option to retire or to go on until he dies, is treated less favourably than either of the other two groups.
It should be clear to all hon. Members that if we accept the new Clause, which we welcome, we should also accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I hope that the Financial Secretary will not find it necessary to oppose that Amendment. He can turn round and say that we in the Opposition are like Oliver Twist, always asking for more; we have been given one concession and we are asking for another. But it is clear that this additional concession is reasonable and equitable, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will have no hesitation in accepting it.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has spoken of men who run small businesses. Presumably there are also women who run small businesses. Would they not be included by the Amendment?
§ Mrs. Freda Corbet (Peckham)
It is a great pleasure for me to be able to welcome the concession made by my right hon. Friend, because I was instrumental 1287 in some small way in helping the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) to suggest that my right hon. Friend should give further consideration to the problem.
I now add my plea to that of hon. Members opposite to the Chancellor in respect of people suffering from ill-health. The House, I think, recognises that I have some practical experience in the matter. At this very moment I am concerned with the ill-health of someone I know very well. It is not a question of a disease occurring when the person is approaching retirement age. It is a question of one of those serious diseases which completely incapacitates in the middle years of one's life. When a person's livelihood depends on the business, and it becomes necessary to sell the business at an even earlier age than is suggested in the Amendment, and provision is needed for years of ill-health, I feel that we can safely appeal to the Chancellor's sense of humanity.
I add my voice—although perhaps if it came to a vote, not my vote—to those of hon. Members who have pleaded to the Chancellor to look very carefully at this problem. I hope that he will go even further than the Amendment suggests and will look at the possibility of including people who are suffering from incurable diseases which may yet allow them to live for quite a number of years. It is a simple plea, easily understood. It may not be so easy to administer, but I hope that it will be possible to overcome such difficulties as there are.
§ Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)
I am sure that the Financial Secretary's heart will be moved by the plea of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), and we look forward to hearing him say in a moment that he accepts the Amendment. I hope that he will do so.
But before he does so, may I put a further argument to him? The new Clause will be welcomed. He will recall that in Committee I made a particular plea on behalf of the small owner-farmer, of whom we have a great number in Northern Ireland. Our farming there is done almost entirely by owner-farmers rather than by tenants. It will also be welcomed by the crofters in Scotland. It will go a long way towards relieving their anxiety.
1288 If I may make one further point, I would say that it is a very great pity that this sort of anxiety was ever raised, a great pity that these people were left in this state of uncertainty and trouble for so long. It is a pity that this matter was not properly thought out before it was brought to the House. However, let us not be grudging. Let us acknowledge the concession which has been made and say that it will be very welcome.
At the same time, I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider the Amendment tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I ask this because the lot of these small farmers and crofters is particularly hard. It entails very long hours of work among their families, because, it is a rare thing for these men to employ labour other than that provided by members of their families, and they all work these long hours, and it is often the case that, because of ill-health they want to retire earlier than at the age of 65.
I plead with the Minister to consider whether, if not by way of this Amendment then by way of something of his o.wn, he could meet the point which has been so ably made.—[HON. MEMBERS: "He cannot."] If he cannot, then perhaps he would devise the means by which it could be done next year if there is no possibility at all of help being given now. Could he put it right next year? I ask him to consider the matter seriously, because it is one which we regard as of very great importance.
§ Sir Richard Thompson (Croydon, South)
When he spoke to this Amendment, the Financial Secretary, in most moving terms, said that it was to assist that person who wanted to provide for his retirement in old age. That seems to be a most proper aim, but from the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman put it one would have thought that he was making a novel concession; but this is not something which everybody wants to do. People who have spent their entire working lives building up small businesses for retirement, or for those who will follow after them, are as important as those who, on the other hand, are wage or salary earners and who have a pension when they reach retirement age.
1289 Although this concession has received general approbation from the House, I suggest that it is not the big thing which it is written up to be. For one thing, the Financial Secretary has written in an exemption up to £10,000; but rarely today, in times of absolutely roaring inflation, does it seem to be appreciated what this kind of numerical limit can mean. It might sound a big figure today, but in a few years' time it will be very small indeed. I, personally, would wish that he had acceded to the earlier Amendment, moved during the Committee stage, where the figure was £15,000.
When he replies, would the Financial Secretary give a bit more information about subsection (6), where it is stated that:'chargeable business asset' means an asset (including goodwill but not including shares or securities or other assets held as investments) which is, or is an interest in, an asset used for the purposes of a trade, profession,…"?Does that mean that if a man has a small business earning reasonable profits over the years and if, in an effort to keep those profits in the business he has invested some in, for example, Government securities or National Savings Certificates or something of that kind, thereby carrying out the Chancellor's wishes as enshrined in this whole Bill, and has devoted some part of those profits to reinvestment in the business, that man is then to find that the money put by is exempted when it comes to calculating what his benefit under this Clause will be? If that is the right construction to put on subsection (6) it seems to me to be very wrong indeed, that a small man who has not freely spent or squandered some profit he has made but tried to retain it in his business should be penalised in this way.
I take the view that we in this House do not do nearly enough for people who try to stand on their own feet and be a little bit independent in their old age. They get caught in the same net as the big speculator, of whom we are always hearing. As so often in the Bill, this is a Measure which, originally, I suppose, was aimed at the big man, but falls most hardly and unjustly on the small man.
I cannot join in the general applause for a concession which, I think, does much less than justice to some of the staunchest and most self-reliant people 1290 we have, who are not relying on the State or the public services to maintain them in their old age but have tried to do something to make sure that at the end of their lives they are still a little proud and a little independent.
I hope that when the hon. and learned Gentleman replies to the debate he will see the wisdom of widening the scale of his concession by accepting the Amendment to the new Clause.
§ Mr. MacDermot
By leave of the House and by your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. Members, up to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson), for the warm welcome they have given to the Clause and express modified gratitude to the hon. Member for Croydon, South for his modified welcome to the Clause.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the small points first. The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the question of assets in the form of investments. If they are purely investments and not connected with the trade or business, then there is no reason why they should be entitled to exemption, any more than a wage earner who saves and invests, and who, in due course, if he realises his investments, may be liable to a capital gain.
But if the money he has saved from his business is ploughed back for the purpose of the business—it might be that at the time of retirement some of this was invested in securities because he had been accumulating a fund for some genuine purpose of acquiring new machinery say, in the business—if he could establish this to the satisfaction of the inspector, then this would be treated, properly, as a business asset. The test is whether the asset is a business one or not.
§ Sir R. Thompson
Let us take, for example, the case of a greengrocery shop. A man who saved some money on that could not really invest it in such things as stocks which are perishable. If he chose to plough it back in the form of investing in National Savings Certificates, instead of investing in the business, what would be the difference?
§ Mr. MacDermot
I cannot understand how that is the same as ploughing it back in the business. It is not. It is something entirely different.
1291 My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), whom I thank for his welcoming remarks, raised two specific points. First, he asked whether this would be related to the provisions in Clause 31. I cannot anticipate the Amendments which are on the Notice Paper in relation to that, but it is intended that the provisions of that Clause shall also extend to insurance agents.
My hon. Friend also asked me why this should not apply to the man who retires at 40 or 45. I think that the answer is quite simple. It is that it is outside the scope of the purpose of the Clause, which is one designed to provide a special relief for a man who is making provision at the time of his retirement for his retirement.
My hon. Friend asked how, on the disposal of an insurance agent's book, one would ascertain how much of the goodwill attaching to the book at the time of the disposal was related to the customers who were customers when the book was acquired. This is of the nature of goodwill. It is an asset which relates to a shifting population of customers as it were, but it is the value of the goodwill of the asset which is the subject matter of the charge.
I turn now to the two Amendments. The first, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne), deals with liquidated assets. Until the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I was not sure exactly what it was that he had in mind, and I fear that he has not achieved it by the wording of the Amendment. "Liquidated assets" is not a term of art known to the law, but it must, I think, on any construction, refer to assets which result after a liquidation has taken place, and therefore the Amendment would apply only to any gain accruing on the subsequent disposal of assets after they had been distributed at the time of the liquidation.
Unless a considerable period of time had elapsed between the liquidation and the subsequent disposal, it is unlikely that there would be any appreciable gain attaching to the assets. Thus, as drafted, I do not think that the Amendment would have the effect that is intended, or indeed, could have any real effect which was related to the purpose of the Clause.
1292 I think that it is apparent from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that what he really has in mind is extending the exemption not merely to the disposal of a business, but to the gains accruing to a shareholder on the distribution of a company's assets in liquidation. This is not a proposal that we could accept. A capital distribution takes place under the provisions of the Bill when a liquidation takes place, but that distribution is really nothing to do with the retirement provisions at which the new Clause is directed.
I am not saying that there could not be a case—and the right hon. Gentleman illustrates a possible one—where someone might, at the time of retirement, liquidate his business, but this is not the normal case, or the normal provision at all, and in our view it would be wrong to reduce what is intended to be a general charge on capital distributions by extending this special relief to the case of the liquidation of a company.
The right hon. Gentleman envisaged the trader who had the lease of premises where the life of the lease was shortly coming to an end. If that trader wanted to claim this exemption and provide for his retirement through it, he would take the same kind of action which the right hon. Gentleman envisaged a younger man might take to secure the value of his business for the future, and indeed perhaps to enhance its value for the purposes of disposal. I must, therefore, advise the House to reject the Amendment.
The second Amendment, that in the name of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has, naturally, excited great sympathy from both sides of the House. It was movingly and eloquently supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). The hon. Gentleman proposes to extend the relief to a person who, between the ages of 50 and 60, disposes of his business and satisfies the inspector of taxes that he is obliged, through ill-health or physical disability, to dispose of the business in whole or in part.
We have to be very careful, when we create an exemption of this kind, this special exemption for retirement, to be wary of proposals for its extension, or we will rapidly find ourselves in the position where we are whittling away in 1293 a very wide sense the basis of this tax. What would be the consequences of this proposal? Inevitably, it would, if we were to accept it, lead to similar pressures for exemptions to be given wherever a business was disposed of in an involuntary way. This is a particular type of involuntary disposal, singled out in this Amendment, namely, one that is provoked by ill-health or disability.
There are, of course, other ways in which involuntary disposal can take place and where, again, people would feel, if this relief were granted, that it would be an injustice that they could not have it, too. There are considerable practical difficulties in enforcing provisions of this kind. Presumably, if it were accepted, it would have to be a condition of that relief that the person disposing of the business was permanently retired and was discontinuing his activities in the business. But one has to envisage a situation in which the person makes an unexpected recovery from his illness and wants to start up in business again.
Then, presumably, the relief would have to be clawed back at a later stage and that would create obvious problems. Perhaps the greatest administrative problem of any provision relating to relief of this kind is that the ordinary inspector of taxes is not really in a position himself to judge what is a medical question. The hon. Member referred rather vaguely, as if it was an easy matter, to medical opinion. It is difficult to relate a tax exemption involving sums of about £10,000 merely to the granting of a medical certificate.
Hon. Members know that there is a great difference between the readiness of different medical practitioners to attribute a particular cause of retirement or disability to certain medical conditions.
§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)
Is it not a fact that when pensions for disability are granted to Service men and others this is done as a result of medical evidence? Why, in these cases, could not medical evidence of a similar character be provided?
§ Mr. MacDermot
I was just coming to that. It illustrates precisely my point that the tax inspector is not a suitable person to reach a decision. That is why, for pensions purposes, we have to have an elaborate machinery with a system of 1294 medical examination. In those cases, one is dealing with a definite disability which, under the regulations, has to have specific characteristics. When one is dealing with something as vague as ill-health or disability, to lay down and decide—particularly in cases of various kinds of mental or psychological illness—to what extent it is proper to attribute a man's retirement from business to the strain that he has been suffering from in connection with his business, is very difficult. One can see problems that would be far greater than the problems that exist already with medical examinations for pensions.
§ Mr. Higgins
Would the Financial Secretary not agree that the objection he is now raising would be overcome were he to introduce an understanding that the retirement must be permanent? We on this side would, I am sure, agree that, if that were the test, it would be better occasionally for someone who had relief, and later went back to work, to have to return it, rather than that no one should be given relief at all.
§ Mr. MacDermot
I do not see the purpose of the hon. Member's intervention. I had just referred to that point myself. When this point was first raised in Committee it was specifically referred to in connection with the man who did retire due to ill-health and then recovered and wanted to return to his business.
Quite apart from the administrative problems, serious problems of equity would arise if the Amendment were accepted. The Amendment provides that if a person retires from ill-health between the ages of 50 and 60 he shall receive the full relief, up to £10,000. Compare his position with that of someone who does not retire, but struggles on, although undergoing a period of bad health, and then retires at the age of 61. He is then entitled only to £2,000 relief. He would feel it a great injustice that the man who had given up the struggle much sooner than he had was entitled to a much greater exemption.
I hope that I have said enough to show the House that there are serious problems involved in trying to give relief of this kind. I am willing to give an assurance that I will look further at the problem and see whether there is any way in which it can be overcome, without holding out 1295 any hope. It is not a matter which can be dealt with in this Finance Bill. For the reasons that I have given, I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Cornwall, North)
I am sorry that the Financial Secretary's second speech was not so attractive to this side of the House as was his first. His rejection of the two Amendments was most disappointing—in particular, the argument he adduced for the rejection of the second Amendment concerning those who retire on the ground of ill-health. It was difficult to follow, and completely unacceptable to us.
I want to deal briefly with the first Amendment. It seems that the Financial Secretary has completely failed to grasp the point made by my right hon. Friend. He made no distinction between the business, as such, and its assets. My right hon. Friend explained clearly that we are trying to deal with the case where there is no business worth speaking of to dispose of, because the lease is running out and because of a variety of other factors, and all that remains to dispose of are the purely physical assets. There is no business to dispose of, and there can be no relief accruing.
As the new Clause is drafted those assets would not rank for relief, because it refers tothe whole or part of a business".I understand that this cannot refer to assets. Therefore, it seems that the Financial Secretary has completely misunderstood the point, and I hope that, on reflection, he and the Government will see the rightness of our argument and will be able to accept the Amendment.
I cannot help echoing the words of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who seems again to have left the Chamber, that the Treasury does not seem to understand this situation.
This question also arises on the second Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and so movingly supported by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). It could be that a person who wishes to retire through ill-health would wish to dispose of the liquidated assets of his business. 1296 The acceptance of the first Amendment would help such a man in retirement.
I cannot accept the Financial Secretary's argument for rejecting the Amendment. I do not see why a person who has ill-health and can produce medical evidence to that effect should not be allowed to have the exemption up to £10,000. The Financial Secretary said that there would be inequity between the person who retired at 61 and was allowed £2,000 and the person who retired earlier and, under the words of the Amendment, was allowed £10,000. The point is that the person who is forced to retire through ill-health is compelled to stop through no fault of his own, whereas the person who retires between the ages of 60 and 65 can make his own decision about whether to continue after 65 and thereby get the full benefit. There is no difficulty here.
The Financial Secretary's main argument seems to be that administratively this is too difficult. He must have accepted the fact that hardship could be caused, and that—after the moving speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham about those people with an incurable disease—there is a very strong case here. But the Financial Secretary fell back on the argument that it was administratively impossible. I cannot see why. If the person concerned can produce medical evidence that his retirement is due to no fault of his own—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
I wanted to say, "Like the lawyer who gets his last year tax-free". It can easily be done.
§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
That is not the same point. We are talking about someone who is gravely ill and forced to retire. In that sense, it is an involuntary decision. If he can produce medical evidence which can be accepted by the Inland Revenue, there is no reason why he should not have some form—
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I was saying that if it can be done in the simple case of a lawyer getting his last year tax-free, it can be done in this case.
§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
It is so unusual to have the hon. Member's support that for a moment I could not believe he was giving it. I am delighted to have it.
1297 This can be done. The drafting of paragraph (b) of the second Amendment says only that the inspector of taxes should be satisfied. If it is so desired, there is no reason that the Government should not set up the machinery of a board which the Financial Secretary talked about, with evidence being given to the board. There is no reason—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) said in an intervention after his excellent speech in support of the Amendment—if, after a person has retired after producing medical evidence that the cause is ill-health, if the advance of medical science makes it possible for him to enter businessess again, why should he not voluntarily make payment of the sum of Capital Gains Tax which would have accrued if he had retired normally and not through illness.
I found the Financial Secretary's reply most disappointing. I hope that the House will support these Amendments and agree that they should be added to
§ the new Clause. The Clause goes a long way, I admit, to meeting the points which we raised in Committee, but in my view and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends, it does not go far enough and will not do so unless the Amendments are accepted.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Does the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) wish to move his Amendment?
§ Sir M. Redmayne
Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 7, at the end to insert:or disposes of the liquidated assets of such a company".
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 286.1301
|Division No. 230.]||AYES||[11.49 p.m.|
|Agnew, Commander Sir Peter||Cary, Sir Robert||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Channon, H. P. G.||Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Chataway, Christopher||Gammans, Lady|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Chichester-Clark, R.||Gardner, Edward|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.||Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan|
|Astor, John||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Cole, Norman||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Cooke, Robert||Glover, Sir Douglas|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Cooper, A. E.||Glyn, Sir Richard|
|Balniel, Lord||Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Cordle, John||Goodhart, Philip|
|Barlow, Sir John||Corfield, F. V.||Goodhew, Victor|
|Batsford, Brian||Costain, A. P.||Gower, Raymond|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Grant, Anthony|
|Bell, Ronald||Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Grant-Ferris, R.|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Crawley, Aidan||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Grieve, Percy|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Crowder, F. P.||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Cunningham, Sir Knox||Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Curran, Charles||Gurden, Harold|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Currie, G. B. H.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Blaker, Peter||Dance, James||Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)|
|Bossom, Hn. Clive||Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)||Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)|
|Box, Donald||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.||Dean, Paul||Harris, Reader (Heston)|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Braine, Bernard||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Brewis, John||Doughty, Charles||Harvie Anderson, Miss|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Hastings, Stephen|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Drayson, G. B.||Hawkins, Paul|
|Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Eden, Sir John||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hendry, Forbes|
|Bryan, Paul||Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Emery, Peter||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Buck, Antony||Eyre, Reginald||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Farr, John||Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Burden, F. A.||Fell, Anthony||Hopkins, Alan|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Fisher, Nigel||Hordern, Peter|
|Buxton, Ronald||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)||Hornby, Richard|
|Campbell, Gordon||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.|
|Carlisle, Mark||Foster, Sir John||Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Miscampbell, Norman||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Mitchell, David||Speir, Sir Rupert|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Monro, Hector||Stainton, Keith|
|Jennings, J. C.||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Stanley, Hn. Richard|
|Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)||Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles||Stodart, Anthony|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Jopling, Michael||Murton, Oscar||Talbot, John E.|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Neave, Airey||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Kerby, Capt. Henry||Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)||Onslow, Cranley||Teeling, Sir William|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Temple, John M.|
|Kilfedder, James A.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Thatcher Mrs. Margaret|
|Kimball, Marcus||Osborn, John (Hallam)||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Kirk, Peter||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Kitson, Timothy||Page, R. Graham (Crosby)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Lagden, Godfrey||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Lambton, Viscount||Peel, John||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Percival, Ian||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Peyton, John||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Walder, David (High Peak)|
|Litchfield, Capt. John||Pitt, Dame Edith||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Pounder, Rafton||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Wall, Patrick|
|Longden, Gilbert||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Walters, Dennis|
|Loveys, Walter H.||Prior, J. M. L.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Weatherill, Bernard|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Webster, David|
|MacArthur, Ian||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|McLaren, Martin||Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin||Whitelaw, William|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|McMaster, Stanley||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick||Ridsdale, Julian||Wise, A. R.|
|Maginnis, John E.||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Maitland, Sir John||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Marten, Neil||Roots, William||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Mathew, Robert||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Maude, Angus||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.||Wylie, N. R.|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Scott-Hopkins, James||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Mawby, Ray||Sharples, Richard||Younger, Hn. George|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Shepherd, William|
|Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Sinclair, Sir George||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)||Mr. Francis Pym and|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John||Mr. Jasper More.|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher|
|Abse, Leo||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Fernyhough, E.|
|Alldritt, Walter||Chapman, Donald||Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Coleman, Donald||Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Conlan, Bernard||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)|
|Barnett, Joel||Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank||Floud, Bernard|
|Baxter, William||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.||Crawshaw, Richard||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Bence, Cyril||Cronin, John||Ford, Ben|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Freeson, Reginald|
|Binns, John||Dalyell, Tam||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Bishop, E. S.||Darling, George||Garrett, W. E.|
|Blackburn, F.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Garrow, A.|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||George, Lady Megan Lloyd|
|Boardman, H.||de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Ginsburg, David|
|Boston, T. G.||Delargy, Hugh||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Dell, Edmund||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)||Dempsey, James||Gregory, Arnold|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Grey, Charles|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Dodds, Norman||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Bradley, Tom||Doig, Peter||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Driberg, Tom||Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.||Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Dunn, James A.||Hale, Leslie|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Dunnett, Jack||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)||Edelman, Maurice||Hamilton, William (West Fife)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||English, Michael||Hannah, William|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Ennals, David||Harper, Joseph|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Ensor, David||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Hart, Mrs. Judith|
|Hazell, Bert||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Rowland, Christopher|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Manuel, Archie||Sheldon, Robert|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Mapp, Charles||Shore, Peter (Stepney)|
|Harbison, Rt. Hn, Margaret||Marsh, Richard||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)|
|Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town.)||Mason, Roy||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)|
|Holman, Percy||Maxwell, Robert||Silkin, John (Deptford)|
|Horner, John||Mayhew, Christopher||Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Mellish, Robert||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Mendelson, J. J.||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)||Mikardo, Ian||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Millan, Bruce||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Howie, W.||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Small, William|
|Hoy, James||Molloy, William||Snow, Julian|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Monslow, Walter||Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)||Stonehouse, John|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Murray, Albert||Stones, William|
|Jackson, Colin||Neal, Harold||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Newens, Stan||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Swain, Thomas|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Norwood, Christopher||Symonds, J. B.|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Oakes, Gordon||Taverne, Dick|
|Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Ogden, Eric||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||O'Malley, Brian||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Orbach, Maurice||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Orme, Stanley||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Oswald, Thomas||Thornton, Ernest|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Owen, Will||Tinn, James|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Tomney, Frank|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Paget, R. T.||Tuck, Raphael|
|Kelley, Richard||Palmer, Arthur||Urwin, T. W.|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Varley, Eric G.|
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Pargiter, G. A.||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)||Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lawson, George||Parker, John||Wallace, George|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Parkin, B. T.||Warbey, William|
|Ledger, Ron||Pavitt, Laurence||Watkins, Tudor|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Weitzman, David|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Pentland, Norman||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Perry, Ernest G.||Whitlock, William|
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Popplewell, Ernest||Wigg, Rt. Hn. George|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Prentice, R. E.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lipton, Marcus||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Probert, Arthur||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Loughlin, Charles||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Lubbock, Eric||Randall, Harry||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Rankin, John||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|McBride, Neil||Redhead, Edward||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|McCann, J.||Rees, Merlyn||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|MacColl, James||Reynolds, G. W.||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|MacDermot, Niall||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|McGuire, Michael||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|McInnes, James||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Woof, Robert|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Zilliacus, K.|
|McLeavy, Frank||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||Rose, Paul B.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Ifor Davies.|
Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, In line 13, at end insert:
(2) If an individual who, having attained the age of fifty years, but not having attained the age of sixty years,—
§ —[Mr. Gower.]1303
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Clause:—1304
§ The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 282.1307
|Division No. 231.]||AYES||[12.2 a.m.|
|Agnew, Commander Sir Peter||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Eden, Sir John||Langford-Holt, Sir John|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Emery, Peter||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.||Eyre, Reginald||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)|
|Astor, John||Farr, John||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Fell, Anthony||Longden, Gilbert|
|Awdry, Daniel||Fisher, Nigel||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)||Lubbock, Eric|
|Balniel, Lord||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Foster, Sir John||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Barlow, Sir John||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||MacArthur, Ian|
|Batsford, Brian||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||McLaren, Martin|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Bell, Ronald||Gammons, Lady||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain|
|Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)||Gardner, Edward||McMaster, Stanley|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Gibson-Watt, David||McNair-Wilson, Patrick|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan||Maginnis, John E.|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Maitland, Sir John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Marten, Neil|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Glover, Sir Douglas||Mathew, Robert|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Glyn, Sir Richard||Maude, Angus|
|Blaker, Peter||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Bossom, Hn. Clive||Goodhart, Philip||Mawby, Ray|
|Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)||Goodhew, Victor||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Box, Donald||Gower, Raymond||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.||Grant, Anthony||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Grant-Ferris, R.||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Braine, Bernard||Gresham Cooke, R.||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Brewis, John||Grieve, Percy||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Mitchell, David|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter||Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)||Monro, Hector|
|Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry||Gurden, Harold||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Bryan, Paul||Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)||Murton, Oscar|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)||Neave, Airey|
|Buck, Antony||Harris, Frederic (Groydon, N. W.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard|
|Burden, F. A.||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Buxton, Ronald||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian|
|Campbell, Gordon||Hastings, Stephen||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hawkins, Paul||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Heald Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Page, R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hendry, Forbes||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Chataway, Christopher||Higgins, Terence L.||Peel, John|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Percival, Ian|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Peyton, John|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hopkins, Alan||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Cole, Norman||Hordern, Peter||Pitt, Dame Edith|
|Cooke, Robert||Hornby, Richard||Pounder, Rafton|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Howard, Hn. G. R. ((St. Ives)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Cordle, John||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Corfield, F. V.||Iremonger, T. L.||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Costain, A. P.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Jennings, J. C.||Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin|
|Crawley, Aidan||Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Crowder, F. P.||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Cunningham, Sir Knox||Jopling, Michael||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Curran, Charles||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Roots, William|
|Dance, James||Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)||Kershaw, Anthony||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kilfedder, James A.||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Dean, Paul||Kimball, Marcus||Sharples, Richard|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Shepherd, William|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kirk, Peter||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Doughty, Charles||Kitson, Timothy||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Lagden, Godfrey||Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lambton, Viscount||Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher|
|Spearman, Sir Alexander||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)||Whitelaw, William|
|Speir, Sir Rupert||Tilney, John (Wavertree)||Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)|
|Stainton, Keith||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Stanley, Hn. Richard||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Steel, David (Roxburgh)||van Straubenzee, W. R.||Wise, A. R.|
|Stodart, Anthony||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Studholme, Sir Henry||Vickers, Dame Joan||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Talbot, John E.||Walder, David (High Peak)||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Walker, Peter (Worcester)||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Wylie, N. R.|
|Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)||Wall, Patrick||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Teeling, Sir William||Walters, Dennis||Younger, Hn. George|
|Temple, John M.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret||Weatherill, Bernard||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)||Webster, David||Mr. Francis Pym and|
|Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)||Wells, John (Maidstone)||Mr. Jasper More.|
|Abse, Leo||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)|
|Alldritt, Walter||Fernyhough, E.||Kelley, Richard|
|Atkinson, Norman||Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)|
|Barnett, Joel||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lawson, George|
|Baxter, William||Floud, Bernard||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.||Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Ledger, Ron|
|Bence, Cyril||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Ford, Ben||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Binns, John||Freeson, Reginald||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Galpern, Sir Myer||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Garrett, W. E.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Garrow, A.||Lipton, Marcus|
|Boardman, H.||George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Boston, T. G.||Ginsburg, David||Loughlin, Charles|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Gourlay, Harry||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||McBride, Neil|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Gregory, Arnold||McCann, J.|
|Bradley, Tom||Grey, Charles||MacColl, James|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||MacDermot, Niall|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)||McGuire, Michael|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)||Mclnnes, James|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Gunter, Rt. Hn. H. J.||McKay, Mrs. Margaret|
|Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)||Hale, Leslie||Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)|
|Butier, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||McLeavy, Frank|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Hannan, William||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Harper, Joseph||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Manuel, Archie|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Mapp, Charles|
|Chapman, Donald||Hazell, Bert||Marsh, Richard|
|Coleman, Donald||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mason, Roy|
|Conlan, Bernard||Heffer, Eric S.||Maxwell, Robert|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Mayhew, Christopher|
|Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret||Mellish, Robert|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Holman, Percy||Mikardo, Ian|
|Cronin, John||Horner, John||Millan, Bruce|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Molloy, William|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)||Monslow, Walter|
|Dalyell, Tam||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Darling, George||Howie, W.||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hoy, James||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)|
|de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Murray, Albert|
|Delargy, Hugh||Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)||Neal, Harold|
|Dell, Edmund||Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)||Newens, Stan|
|Dempsey, James||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)|
|Dodds, Norman||Jackson, Colin||Norwood, Christopher|
|Doig, Peter||Janner, Sir Barnett||Oakes, Gordon|
|Driberg, Tom||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Ogden, Eric|
|Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.||Jeger, George (Goole)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Dunn, James A.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Dunnett, Jack||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Orme, Stanley|
|Edelman, Maurice||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Owen, Will|
|English, Michael||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)|
|Ennals, David||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Paget, R. T.|
|Ensor, David||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Sheldon, Robert||Tuck, Raphael|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Shore, Peter (Stepney)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)||Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Parker, John||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Parkin, B. T.||Silkin, John (Deptford)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Pavitt, Laurence||Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)||Wallace, George|
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Warbey, William|
|Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Skeffington, Arthur||Watkins, Tudor|
|Pentland, Norman||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)||Weitzman, David|
|Perry, Ernest G.||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Popplewell, Ernest||Small, William||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Prentice, R. E.||Snow, Julian||Whitlock, William|
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank||Wigg, Rt. Hn. George|
|Probert, Arthur||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Randall, Harry||Stonehouse, John||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Rankin, John||Stones, William||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Redhead, Edward||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Rees, Merlyn||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Reynolds, G. W.||Swain, Thomas||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Rhodes, Geoffrey||Swingler, Stephen||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Symonds, J. B.||Wilson, William (Coventry, S)|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Taverne, Dick||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Robertson, John (Paisley)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Woof, Robert|
|Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Rose, Paul B.||Thornton, Ernest|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Tinn, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Rowland, Christopher||Tomney, Frank||Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Ifor Davies|
§ Clause added to the Bill.