§ (1) Where, after 6th April 1965, an individual incurs expenditure for the purposes of his education in salesmanship or business managemeent or in both at any institution which may for the time being be approved for 1988 the purposes of this section by the appropriate Minister, the expenditure shall be deducted as an expense in computing the emoluments of his office or employment assessable under Schedule E for the year of assessment in which the expenditure was incurred if and to the extent that it does not exceed whichever is the lesser of—
- (a) one hundred and fifty pounds, and
- (b) one tenth of the income on which he would be chargeable to income tax under Schedule E for that year of assessment if no deduction were made by virtue of this section.
§ (2) Where the course of studies to which the expenditure relates does not extend over a period exceeding one year the expenditure shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if it had been incurred wholly in the year of assessment in which the course cornmenced.—[Mr. Charles Morrison.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I move the Clause with every confidence that it will be acceptable to the Government, for at some time or another almost every Government spokesman, not to mention numbers of my hon. and right hon. Friends, have stressed the need for better management in business and industry and better salesmanship of British products, especially abroad. The Clause has been tabled with the objective of providing yet one more incentive and form of assistance to those concerned to enable them to make use of the opportunities which are becoming increasingly available for education in salesmanship or business management.
In the words of the Labour Party's 1964 General Election manifesto:Skill, talent and brain power are our most important national resources.It is the task of management to ensure that these resources are used to the fullest extent and organised to the best advantage, and it is the task of salesmanship then to sell the products of industry. Yet for many years these most demanding tasks were considered to be almost amateur arts. The great advances in technology in recent years have made it obvious that there is a growing need for specialised training, and that it is no longer enough to leave the manager or salesman haphazardly to learn his job within the narrow confines of the experience of one firm.
If this view is acceptable to the Committee it will agree that the new Clause will provide yet one more means of assisting and encouraging individuals to make use of the facilities for management training which are now available. Only this afternoon, at Question Time, the Secretary of State for Education and Science told us of the progress which is being 1990 made with business schools for those in the top flight of business training, but at all levels throughout the country an increasing number of courses are becoming available for management training.
The United States has always taken the lead in this matter. Until recent years Britain has lagged far behind, but now successful efforts are being made to make up lost ground. The need for management and salesmanship training has been realised, and the opportunity has been provided. It must now be the aim of government to ensure that the opportunity is used to the fullest extent and to best advantage.
The new Clause will help towards this end. It has even more relevance than might be thought at first sight, because it is generally agreed that management training is not a once-and-for-all-time experience. It can be divided into three separate but main stages—a post-graduate course of one type or another; a course of general management, perhaps ten years later, and a further course, some years after that, when an individual is entering the flights of top management. At each of these stages expense will be incurred and will have to be borne by the indivdual or his employer, whether it be an individual employer or a company.
In many cases the bigger and more progressive companies will make arrangements either to train their staff themselves or to finance their mangement training. But this will not always occur. Some companies—perhaps the small ones—will be unwilling to undertake such an expense and other companies, of which there are still quite a few, regrettably, do not yet appreciate the need for training. In these cases the individual has to take the initiative himself, and if he desires to improve his knowledge he must bear the cost.
At all three stages of training this can bear harshly upon him. The demand upon his pocket can even be so great as to dissuade him from his intention. This is particularly so at the stage of middle management training, because there is more likelihood of this occurring at about the age of 30, just when an individual may be classified as a young man, and when he is already bearing the high expenses involved in setting up house or in rearing a young family. He may be prepared to make short-term sacrifices for 1991 his future good, but the pressures and demands upon him and upon his pocket may be such as to remove any possibility of making such sacrifices.
The new Clause could be just enough of an aid to tip the balance in favour of a decision to carry on with his training. I sincerely hope so, because if a man should decide against involving himself in the cost of training not only will he be doing himself a disservice; his potential will be lost. Not only will his ability at middle management level be severely curtailed; the likelihood of his having any chance of reaching the top flight of management may be rendered impossible.
The acceptance of the Clause could be of lasting and significant benefit to industry. Its direct cost cannot be very great, but in any case the advantages would far outweigh any tax loss. The best management and salesmanship in this country compare favourably with those of any other country, but there is far too big a gap between the best and the average, and anything which can be done to decrease that gap should be encouraged as an essential part of Government policy.
The Clause may go some way towards doing this, and if it is successful in encouraging the better use of the opportunities and facilities which are now available it may be considered a very important addition to the Bill.
§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)
I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to accept the Clause. It will undoubtedly encourage people to carry out this training. They are largely young people, many of whom do this work mainly in the evening. It is extremely hard work and, therefore, encouragement is all the more necessary. I know that it is hard work, because I have done it myself.
I do not want to bore the Committee with stories of what I have done, but I should like to describe what is entailed. The mention in the Clause of the period of one year, I must confess, causes me to give a hollow laugh. In my case, it took three years, working in the evenings. It may surprise the Committee, but I pride myself on being one of the most recent graduates in the House, if not the most recent. I took an economics degree 1992 and, for three years, I attended in the evenings. I was considerably the oldest, but there was a small bunch of young men who attended night after night. Some fell by the wayside, but I always said that if ever I could do anything to encourage those young people to train themselves I would do so.
I assure the Financial Secretary that this entails grinding hard work, which should have all the encouragement possible. I should like to extend the Clause to cover other facets of higher training. It cannot possibly cover my new Clause, but, perhaps, business administration means such things as economics. Perhaps that could be considered. In any case, anyone willing to spend his time in preparing himself for advancement at this time in our economic life ought to be encouraged. Too small a proportion of those available do this. Many people are prepared to soldier on in a set job without doing anything to prepare themselves for higher positions.
I believe that we should do all we can to push those who are willing. I hope that we shall not get from the Treasury any of the dreary arguments which we have had in the past—for example, that, after taxation, it is up to the individual to decide what he does with the money which is left. I believe that, as a principle, that has been exploded. It should not be applied to education and training. I hope that the Financial Secretary will give this suggestion the most sympathetic consideration. From my own experiences, I know how necessary it is, and how valuable this concession will be to those young people who are prepared to make the effort to get themselves trained.
§ Mr. Dennis Walters (Westbury)
I should like to support the Clause. It is a very mild Clause, because of the relatively small amount of money involved, but, on the other hand, I believe that the advantages which would result from the inducement proposed would be considerably greater that the sum of £150 might lead one to expect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) pointed out, this would apply basically to people in full time employment who are anxious to improve their business education in their own time. There would be no abuse, because the Clause provides that Ministerial approval 1993 must be given and that the expenditure must be incurred on goods and services which are relevant to a particular institution.
It is generally agreed that education in business should be encouraged and helped. This Clause is a way to provide such help, which could be important but which would not cost a great deal of money. Education in business needs to be promoted much more specifically. There have been reports—for instance, from the Institute of Personnel Management and the British Institute of Management—which have pointed to deficiencies in our management training and to the fact that it may have proceeded at times in too haphazard a fashion. They have also drawn attention to the extent to which other countries have gone ahead of us. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the United States, which is an example which we all know, but it applies also to European countries, particularly Germany.
Good salesmanship is important to exports. This has been proved time and time again. Better training is extremely important to industry. The Clause could help both of these and would cost very little. I think that it should be accepted.
§ Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Langstone)
I endorse the plea made to the Financial Secretary on behalf of this new Clause. It is all too easy for us—preoccupied as we are with the great magnitude of national economic problems—to reach the conclusion that the solution to these problems lies in this Chamber. Needless to say, the decisions which we take and the lead which we give are of over-riding importance, but we should not forget that there are between 150,000 and 200,000 important centres of decision elsewhere in the country. The decisions made there by British industry, whether private or public, are vital to our future. It is the quality of these decisions which has to be considerably improved if we are to rise out of our national economic malaise.
We must do everything we can here to encourage business education and the training of management. We must encourage people to take advantage of opportunities which they might not have had before, whether by financial means or otherwise. I had the privilege in 1947 of visiting the Harvard Business 1994 School in the United States, which is now regarded as the most important business school in the world. There are about nine other such schools in the United States which they regard as being in the top class. We have made great progress by establishing two such schools in Britain which will be coming into operation shortly. The Administrative Staff College, which I attended some years ago, has been setting a lead in this way.
We have a great deal more to do and there is no limit to the encouragement which we can give. Last July, I visited a number of Japanese shipyards. One of the things which struck me most forcibly was the number of young men on the receiving teams in those shipyards who had had an American education from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They spoke fine English, they were on the ball, they knew what they were talking about and they were familiar with modern industrial problems. I should like to see in Britain a similar obvious ratio of highly trained people.
All political parties nowadays are on the side of the angels. We all proclaim, in our election manifestoes and party literature, that we are for modernisation. But today the acid test is not whether a party or a Government is "for" modernisation, which it is all too easy to proclaim, but whether a Government or party achieves modernisation. This Clause is small in terms of cost, but considerable in terms of importance. The Government could accept it to prove their sincerity of purpose in this matter.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)
Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have supported the new Clause have said that its acceptance would help the cause to which we are all dedicated; to improve the standard of our management and salesmanship as part of the whole process of modernisation.
When one is asking for a special favour from the tax law it is not sufficient to establish that the cause one is arguing has, in itself, a laudable purpose. There are many other laudable purposes which will ask for the same kind of concession—that is, unless there is something exceptional about the one being sought.
1995 I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) on having obtained a degree in economics. I am envious of him. He based his argument on the wide principle that because this money is being spent for education and training it should qualify for tax relief. That would be a wide principle, if accepted, with very wide implications, including, presumably, the payment of all school fees at private schools. That is not something which we could accept.
When one is considering the kind of courses which are in existence in management and salesmanship at business schools of one kind and another it is fair to point out that the majority of people who take those courses do so because they are sent there by the firm or business which employs them. It is that business which pays the fees and expenses of the course. In the usual case the firm itself will be able to treat that as an expense for tax purposes, so that would not fall within the provision of the new Clause.
The new Clause deals with the individual who holds an office or employment whereby he is taxable under Schedule E and who would himself be paying for the course he is attending. He would, under the new Clause, be allowed to make a deduction for the expense involved. It is provided in the new Clause that the course should be approved by the "appropriate Minister"—and I suppose that that would be the Minister of Education—although there might be some difficulty in drawing the dividing line between which courses should or should not be approved.
The real difficulty in accepting the new Clause is this. How is one to distinguish between a host of other types of training for which at least as good a case could be made out? All those who study science and technology could say that they make as great, if not greater, a contribution to the cause of modernisation as those who are doing courses in salesmanship. Teachers who wish to attend refresher courses could surely put forward at least as strong a case. There are many other spheres in which people attend either post-graduate or refresher courses at later stages in their careers. It occurs in accountancy, electronics, law and 1996 many branches of engineering. Many professional men, such as surgeons and physicians, do the same.
If we were to accept the principle of the new Clause it would be bound to lead to a general tax relief for the cost of training courses which were voluntarily undertaken by employees. Apart from this difficulty, it would make a major breach in our tax principles. The whole basis of the expenses law in relation to Schedule E—the expenses rule—is that they must be incurred in the performance of the duties of the office or employment. There is a whole line of cases establishing clearly that expenses of this kind, where an employee is training himself or undertaking further training to improve his ability to do his work, are expenses incurred in preparing himself to be able to perform his duties rather than being in performance of his duties.
This may sound legalistic, but there is a clear distinction underlying it. It may be a distinction which does not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we could not change it without making a major change in our tax law. One cannot make an exception in one narrow sphere like this if one is to keep that structure of principle which, as I have argued to the Committee a number of times, is essential to any proper system of taxation. If the principle is wrong, let that be argued and let us consider how we should change it.
What we are concerned with here is whether a particular case which has been made out is so important that it justifies an exception from our accepted principles of taxation and whether, if we made it, we should be able to follow the line without extending it to a much wider area. That is apart from the fact that the cost of such a wide change could not be contemplated at present. Without detracting from the importance of these courses, I must advise the Committee that it would not be proper, in the circumstances, to accept the new Clause.
§ Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)
I was rather disappointed with the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply and later in my remarks I will deal with the principles he mentioned.
When he said at the start that he felt unable to accept a proposal that the cost 1997 of private education should rank for tax relief, I was a little reminded by that understatement of the remark in one of Swift's works describing a woman who had been run over by a carriage—"You would hardly believe how much it changed her appearance for the worse." Likewise, the hon. and learned Gentleman's comment must be one of the best understatements during our proceedings.
The new Clause recognises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) pointed out, the very great importance of courses in business management and salesmanship and the fact that there is a notable difference at present between the treatment of business firms and the individual. As the Financial Secretary confirmed, business firms can get allowances if their employees attend these courses at their expense. The new Clause would ensure that those who wish to take such courses at their own expense would not be penalised.
It may not always be realised just how wide today is the range of courses available for management training. There has been a considerable expansion in recent years and while I will not weary the Committee by dealing at great length with the progress which has been made, it should bear this in mind. In management studies alone, at the apex, as it were, there is the new diploma in management studies which was launched in the autumn of 1961 and which already has over 3,000 students enrolled and studying for the diploma. This is a post-graduate or post-qualification diploma, because students must possess a university degree, a Dip. Tech., a professional qualification or a higher national certificate.
Apart from management studies, the technical colleges now offer a wide range of management courses at other levels, ranging from courses leading to recognised qualifications in foremanship and supervision, to those for the more specialised qualifications, in works, personnel, or office management. The latest figures I have, for 1963–64, show that there are about 12,500 students following courses of this kind and that, in addition, there are a large number of ad hoc courses, including many for senior managers, which are attended by many thousands of students each session.
1998 Besides these courses which are available in management training there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) pointed out, courses leading to qualifications in business studies. He mentioned, at the apex again, the two new business schools which are being set up. But we also have the Dip. Tech. course and other technological courses at the technical colleges, all of which include the preliminary study of industrial organisation. And there is an expanding provision for general business education in England and Wales, leading to Higher National Certificates and Diplomas in Business Studies. So whether one looks at business studies or management studies, undoubtedly today the total number of courses available is very much greater than it was some years ago.
§ Mr. MacDermot
I am sure the right hon. Member would be the first to agree that all these courses to which he has referred are very heavily subsidised out of public funds. Although payment may be made, it is nothing like the full economic cost.
§ Sir E. Boyle
There is this very much wider provision of courses today. It seems to me that on economic grounds, from the point of view of making the maximum use of this provision as well as from that of the gain to the country, it is clearly important to have our fiscal system such that it encourages the full utilisation of these courses for which provision is made.
Regrettably, one cannot deny that the support from industry for quite a number of these courses is still not so high as it should be. There is no doubt at all that today, whereas industry certainly gives better support than it did before in many aspects of technical education, none the less, I am sure—this was something I was always told when I was in the Department of Education and Science—that support from industry for these courses is still relatively limited. That is why it is extremely important to encourage and assist young executives to take the initiative even if their companies will not or cannot help in this way.
In his objections to this proposal the Financial Secretary made three points. First, he said that there would be difficulties in trying to define which courses 1999 should qualify. One recognises that, but it is a point which constantly arises even now where technical education is concerned. We have 1¾ million students in technical colleges. Sorting out the various courses and deciding which qualify under which head, is a problem which is already familiar.
Secondly, in regard to Schedule E I was interested to hear the Financial Secretary make the point that expenses can be claimed only if the course is in pursuance of one's work and not as a means of training and qualifying for a particular occupation. Looking ahead I am quite certain that, sooner or later, this sharp distinction will not go on proving tenable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, management is not something which one can study once and for all. There is the question of middle management training as well. Also when visiting a technical college of standing I am always impressed by those I meet who are not merely doing a job in industry but having all the time to keep in touch with developments in the technical college at which they did their training. To an increasing extent training and qualifying are not things which one can do once for all at the start of one's career.
The third difficulty mentioned by the Financial Secretary was that of deciding where one should draw the line and make
§ a distinction as compared with other types of training. But this is another point to which the Committee and the Government will sooner or later have to address themselves more. Our present distinction between the treatment of a company and of an individual cannot be maintained indefinitely, bearing in mind the very great importance of these training courses to the nation and the fact that we still have not as much direct encouragement and help given by industry as we could wish.
§ For all these reasons my hon. Friends who have supported this Clause have clearly been concerned with a point of real substance. While we recognise the difficulties which the Financial Secretary pointed out, this matter is of such importance that it will have to be considered seriously in future. I think that my hon. Friends would be fully justified in voting for this new Clause in order to draw attention to the importance which we attach to it. We attach great importance both of the issue of management studies itself and to certain principles which we believe will have to be examined much more seriously by the Government for the future.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 143.2001
|Division No. 202.]||AYES||[5.55 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Curran, Charles||Hawkins, Paul|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hay, John|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.||Doughty, Charles||Hendry, Forbes|
|Awdry, Daniel||Drayson, G. B.||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Eden, Sir John||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Balniel, Lord||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hooson, H. E.|
|Batsford, Brian||Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Hordern, Peter|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Emery, Peter||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.|
|Bessell, Peter||Errington, Sir Eric||Hunt, John (Bromley)|
|Biffen, John||Fell, Anthony||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fisher, Nigel||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)||Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)|
|Blaker, Peter||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.||Glover, Sir Douglas||Kimball, Marcus|
|Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward||Goodhew, Victor||Lagden, Godfrey|
|Braine, Bernard||Grant, Anthony||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Grant-Ferris, R.||Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry||Gresham Cooke, R.||Longden, Gilbert|
|Burden, F. A.||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Lubbock, Eric|
|Buxton, Ronald||Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)||Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.||McLaren, Martin|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Gurden, Harold||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest|
|Cooke, Robert||Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)||Mathew, Robert|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Maude, Angus|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Mawby, Ray|
|Crawley, Aidan||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Royle, Anthony||Walters, Dennis|
|More, Jasper||Sharples, Richard||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Sinclair, Sir George||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Speir, Sir Rupert||Whitelaw, William|
|Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Steel, David (Roxburgh)||Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)|
|Onslow, Cranley||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Studholme, Sir Henry||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Osborn, John (Hallam)||Summers, Sir Spencer||Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher|
|Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Wylie, N. R.|
|Page, R. Graham (Crosby)||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Peel, John||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Prior, J. M. L.||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Pym, Francis||Tilney, John (Wavertree)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin||van Straubenzee, W. R.||Mr. MacArthur and|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Vickers, Dame Joan||Mr. Dudley Smith.|
|Albu, Austen||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Orbach, Maurice|
|Atkinson, Norman||Holman, Percy||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Horner, John||Paget, R. T.|
|Bishop, E. S.||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||Parker, John|
|Boston, T. G.||Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. W. (Leics S. W.)||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Bradley, Tom||Howie, W.||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pursey, Cmdr. Harry|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)||Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)||Redhead, Edward|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury)||Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)||Rees, Merlyn|
|Buchanan, Richard||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Janner, Sir Barnett||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Robinson, Rt. Hn.K.(St. Pancras, N.)|
|Chapman, Donald||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stetchford)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Shore, Peter (Stepney)|
|Darling, George||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Kelley, Richard||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Silkin, John (Deptford)|
|de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lawson, George||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Dell, Edmund||Leadbitter, Ted||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Ledger, Ron||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Dodds, Norman||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Snow, Julian|
|Driberg, Tom||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Stonehouse, John|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lipton, Marcus||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|English, Michael||Loughlin, Charles||Swain, Thomas|
|Ennals, David||McCann, J.||Symonds, J. B.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||MacDermot, Niall||Taverne, Dick|
|Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)||McInnes, James||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)||McLeavy, Frank||Tomney, Frank|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Floud, Bernard||Marsh, Richard||Urwin, T. W.|
|Foley, Maurice||Mason, Roy||Varley, Eric G.|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Mayhew, Christopher||Wallace, George|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mikardo, Ian||Warbey, William|
|Garrow, A.||Molloy, William||Weitzman, David|
|Gourlay, Harry||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Grey, Charles||Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Whitlock, William|
|Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)||Murray, Albert||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.||Newens, Stan||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Harper, Joseph||Norwood, Christopher||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hazell, Bert||Ogden, Eric||Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Grey.|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)|