HC Deb 24 June 1965 vol 714 cc2021-35

Stamp duties on policies of life insurance relating to death only shall be chargeable at the same rate as the duties applicable to policies relating to personal accidents in those cases where the period in which the specified contingency is to happen does not exceed five years.—[Mr. A. Royle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Anthony Royle (Richmond, Surrey)

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

I should, first declare an interest. I have been a marine insurance broker at Lloyd's for more than 15 years. I would add that at no time did I ever become an expert on short-term life insurance, and that I know little about it. I therefore hope to be forgiven by hon. Members if I do not appear to be as skilled in this matter as my experience might lead them to believe.

Unlike the previous new Clause, moved so ably by my hon Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), this Clause has no emotional undertone at all. That being so, and because there has been a change in the Treasury spokesman, I hope that the Chief Secretary, who is very knowledgeable on this subject, will feel able to help the export trade by accepting a Clause which is designed to assist it. If the right hon. Gentleman does so, it will be the first time this afternoon that the Government have felt able to accept a new Clause.

The Clause deals only with short-term life insurance, for a period of five years or less. I seek to put right a very grave anomaly in the Stamp Act as it affects this type of insurance. There is no question of any party issue here; the sole issue is an anomaly which I think is affecting the invisible export trade, and one that I and many of my hon. Friends feel should be put right quickly.

This short-term life business has grown tremendously over the past few years; there is a much greater volume of it now than there was even 10 years ago. It provides cover against death resulting from accident, illness or natural causes. The present stamp duty on life policies is 1s. per cent. up to £500, followed by 10s. in full on the next £500–£1,000, followed by 10s. in full for each additional £1,000 or part thereof. The duty has greatly handicapped this type of business at Lloyd's and in the life market—particularly foreign business.

Why is this the case? The foreign client wishing to take out short-term life policy in the London market would not only have to pay duty in his own country of origin, but also the United Kingdom duty. That applies, not only to reinsurance business, but to direct business. This is the first very real disadvantage that the stamp duty puts on the London market. If the same business were placed abroad—in, say, France or Italy—the client would pay only a small local tax.

The present situation, therefore, has a very obvious detrimental effect on invisable exports—and we know, and we welcome the fact, that the Government and the Chief Secretary have been pressing very hard for an increase in our export trade. All hon. Members are 100 per cent. behind them in that aim.

On the other hand, the Stamp Duty does not greatly benefit the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pocket. It is very difficult to find out exactly what revenue it produces in one year—I have tried to find out, and I have failed; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the answer. Nevertheless, it is certain that the revenue produced must be minimal as compared with the loss of business on the London market that the duty causes.

I should like to give an example of the type of temporary life business placed in the London market which is badly damaged by this duty. If a foreigner wishes to place insurance in the London market on his life for one year, and is aged, say, 30 or less, he will pay a premium of 4s. 2d. per cent. Of that 4s. 2d. per cent., 1s. per cent. is Stamp Duty—nearly 33⅓ per cent. of that premium. Without the duty, the rate would be 3s. 2d. per cent. Therefore, competing with the Continent, the British insurer has a loaded rate by 1s. per cent. Stamp Duty, thereby having to reduce the actual net premium charged for the risk to be covered in order to obtain the business. That is the very had situation that has developed. It means that a skilful overseas insurance company can beat us, in this market, even though we have prided ourselves for 200 or 300 years on being the world's greatest insurance experts.

Let us take the case of a salesman—a young man going overseas to sell motor cars, and so help our export trade. If he has a wife and children, his company will have to take out short-term life insurance cover for him. He may be killed abroad. The policy may have been for £10,000 for one month. The premium would have been 1s. per cent., and the stamp duty would have been 6d. flat—just a 6d. stamp bought from the Post Office, because that cover would be classed as an accident policy. If, on the other hand, he goes abroad and dies in his bed from natural causes and the cover which he had taken out had been a short-term life policy of the type I have been describing, the premium which he would have paid would have been 2s. 9d. per cent. of which 1s. per cent. would have been for the stamp.

So we reach the position that on a £10,000 policy, if he is killed the stamp for the cover he is carrying would be 6d. in full: while if he dies in his bed, with a cover of the type I have described, the stamp would have cost £5. The difference in the risk carried by the underwriters is the difference between the net 1s. 9d. and 1s., that is, the difference between the 1s. per cent. for the one policy and the net 1s. 9d. per cent. for the other, so that to the underwriter 9d. represents the difference in risk between the insured dying in his bed and being killed in an accident, while to the Revenue the difference is between 6d. and £5. I am sure that the Chief Secretary will agree with me that this is something very wrong and damaging to the insurance market.

Let me, finally, quote another type of case, a combined type of policy which is being written at Lloyd's and which is an important type of cover has two sections, one section for life cover, for death from any cause, a period of one month, for instance, which for a man aged 30 would have a premium of 2s. 9d. per cent., of which 1s. per cent. is the stamp; the other section is cover for death from accident and which, as it would be an accident policy for one month, would have a rate of 3s. taking only a 6d. policy stamp and not the 1s. per cent. stamp.

Those are typical anomalies. I could go on for hours giving other similar ex- amples which, to put it vulgarly, are making a monkey out of the Stamp Act. I hope that it will be possible for the Chief Secretary to be very generous in a purely non-political sense and accept my Clause. All the Clause does is to bring short-term life assurance on to the same level for Stamp Duty, making the duty 6d. as with an ordinary accident policy. This gesture would have great benefit for the whole life market in this country and would certainly encourage the export drive and make it easier to attract foreign business. There would be another advantage in that it is important to help salesmen going overseas selling goods for us to be able to bring down their overheads and the cost of their insurance cover.

The Clause is widely welcomed throughout the insurance world, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will be able to accept it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Diamond

The hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) said that he would not allow any emotional content to affect the logic of his argument. I do not think that his argument has suffered on that account. He has put forward a perfectly valid case which, on the face of it, would seem to show that not everything we would like to do has been done to make one part of our economy as fully competitive as we would like it to be. I would, therefore, like to examine the matter and to discuss it, as the hon. Gentleman did, with a completely non-party approach to see whether the difficulties are insuperable or can be overcome.

I begin by demonstrating that there is no partisan approach. I remind the Committee of previous exchanges on this topic. On 20th December, 1962, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the matter and the then Chief Secretary answered: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1962; Vol. 669, c. 211.] However, when it came to 19th January, 1965, and we had had a change of Government, the same hon. Gentleman put the same Question and the Chief Secretary answered: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 15.] That demonstrates that both Governments have adopted the same "carefully noting" attitude on this matter.

The problem derives from the fact that foreign countries generally charge stamp duty on insurance policies by reference to the premium, whereas we charge by reference to the sum assured. When there is this class of insurance, when the rate is very small—and I gather that there can be a rate for one month short-term life policies as low as 3s. per cent., 3s. per £100, there is a duty of 1s. in relation to the 3s., which, admittedly, makes the stamp duty high, 25 per cent. of the total, or 33⅓ per cent. of the premium charged. Normally, one would not want a Stamp Duty of 33⅓ per cent. If a person selling a house had to pay Stamp Duty of 33⅓ per cent., some hon. Members would be writing some letters to some Chancellors of the Exchequer about it.

I recognise the problem, but there are many difficulties about complying with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. First, it would be entirely unsuitable for the standard form of Lloyd's policy, because that provides for extension without limit. The suggestion is that there should be a special category of short-term policy in those cases where the period in which the specified contingency is to happen does not exceed five years. However, if there is a policy which provides for extension without limit, even though the first date may be within the five years, the duty in effect would be avoided—

Mr. Peter Walker

The right hon. Gentleman will find that Lloyd's itself is unable to write life insurance for a period of more than five years.

Mr. Diamond

That is something to be considered. If that is the case, it is surprising that Lloyd's lawyers, who are as competent as may be, none more competent, would find it necessary to write a policy providing for an extension without limit.

Mr. Walker

Under its general charter, Lloyd's is unable to do life assurance. It can do only temporary life assurance. The definition which has been accepted is five years. Within that five years, within the policy, Lloyd's allow extension without limit.

Mr. Diamond

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that he is accurate, as usual, but it is not inconceivable that the two things are not inconsistent and I would, therefore, like to look into it.

It is not inconceivable that it is possible to write a policy which is not for a period of longer than five years, but at the end of the five years to have another period, also not longer than five years, still not going outside the undertaking not to underwrite insurance for a period of longer than five years because the extension might be held to be not different from a new policy. I am saying only that that is something to be considered. It is one of the problems. I am advised that there is the possibility of avoidance by the issue of separate policies each for a specified period, but which, together, would give cover for a longer period. This is an obvious way of avoidance and so far no method has been discovered of preventing it.

There would be a very serious discrepancy between a duty of 6d. on a policy for the full specified period and the duty on a policy for a slightly longer period at the rate of 1s. per cent. One goes in this case from what would be a very small Stamp Duty to a very high Stamp Duty as one goes from four years, eleven months to five years, one month. The way to deal with this is to have some kind of tapering provision which would make it extremely difficult and hardly worth while. These are some of the difficulties which have been in the minds of Governments.

There is something more constructive I can say in drawing attention to the extra statutory concessions relating to group life policies. These extra statutory concessions are published so that every taxpayer knows about them and knows what the procedure is. This one is published in Appendix 9 to the 103rd Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Cmnd. 1258. It applies where a company insures a group consisting of its directors and executives when abroad on business. This is one kind of business which is done and it is relevant to the question which is under consideration in this Clause. It does that provided that the names of the persons covered are not endorsed on the policy.

The effect of that is that the duty is charged on the total risk in one sum instead of separately on the individual amounts and irrespective of changes in the persons covered so that one can get proportionately a much lower Stamp Duty by covering a large group of persons without identifying the person too closely. However, the cover is still valid and adequate.

That takes care of a good deal of the difficulty, but not all of the difficulty. I have been asked about the cost and I am advised it would be quite negligible. All I can suggest is that the Committee should allow me to look carefully into these difficulties. I do not think that it will be possible for me, with the best will in the world, to undertake to bring anything back on report. There is not the time. It is not an enormous difficulty, but it is one which has been with us some time. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asks me to look at this and see whether we can overcome these difficulties. If it could be dealt with on extra-statutory concessions then it is something which could be conceded between now and next year's Finance Bill. If it is something which would have to wait for a Clause in a Bill then it would have to wait until next year's Bill at least.

I cannot say that we would find the answer, because I have not been able to find the answer hitherto; nor has my predecessor. The Government are most anxious that we should be fully competitive and that we should not be denied our full competitive power because of administrative inconvenience in one way or another. It is far better that we should establish and maintain our ascendancy as underwriters, both in this country and the world as a whole, and I would suggest to the Committee they should allow me to look at it in this sympathetic way.

Mr. Peter Walker

The point that the Chief Secretary has missed is that whereas we would not argue against the imposition of Stamp Duty based upon the sum insured, in what is normally known to be life assurance, we do argue on the subject of temporary life assurance because it is much nearer to being an accident policy in which a Stamp Duty is imposed which is not linked with the sum assured. There is a fiat Stamp Duty upon the existence of a policy and the arguments contained within this new Clause deal with the temporary life assurance which is a fairly new feature of the insurance industry.

In previous years people who travelled abroad or decided to obtain, for a limited period, an insurance against death took out an accident policy because they considered it the right form of cover against the aeroplane crashing or some incident happening while they were abroad. In recent years people have recognised that while travelling abroad, and for other purposes, full life cover is a much better form of cover and this has become accepted in the national practice.

The tragedy of the present imposition of Stamp Duty is that this is the one aspect of the international insurance market, and it is an expanding one, from which London is completely cut out. It is quite impossible for London to compete on a cover where the rate of premium is 2s. per cent. and the Stamp Duty is 1s. per cent. so that there is a 50 per cent. taxation upon the premium. In persisting with this form of Stamp Duty, even for another year, in this developing market, the Government are ensuring that the British insurance industry shall not be able to participate internationally in this form of assurance.

I assure the Chief Secretary that this is a fast developing form of assurance and that he should recognise that if London is unable to go in for this form of contract for a further 12 months various re-insurers and insurers abroad will become accustomed to dealing with this form of insurance either on the Continent or in the United States. During that period they will establish further connections and links with these two other developing markets.

Even if, after a year, the Government decided that it would have been wise to have done this a great deal of goodwill would have been lost. The Chief Secretary mentioned the Lloyd's policy being drawn to have its extension Clause. I think if he looks into my intervention on this he will find the point is covered. The Chief Secretary also mentioned the possibility of avoidance by a series of policies. I must point out that if one has a life policy for a longer period the importance of the Stamp Duty is minute. On the normal life contract the payment of the Stamp Duty is of no importance at all. If one is taking out a £10,000 policy one pays at the beginning of that policy £5 Stamp Duty. Compared with the total of the benefits at the end of the period it is of minute importance and people are not going to go into complicated procedures to avoid it.

I can therefore assure the Chief Secretary that if he re-examines this point he will find that no one will be so concerned about the relatively small proportion of the premium and that the Stamp Duty for a 10 or 15 years' policy is such that people will not go into various methods of evasion. That is of little importance. It is of importance where the policy covers travel for one, two, or three weeks, or a month or perhaps even six months.

7.30 p.m.

This dismisses the right hon. Gentleman's fourth argument, that if the Clause were accepted the position would be that at four years and eleven months there would be a low Stamp Duty, and that at five years and one month there would be a high one. Even at five years and one month the Stamp Duty, compared with the five-year policy, becomes of little or less importance, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the insurance industry and those concerned would not be anxious to continue the existing level of Stamp Duty on policies for more than five years.

This period, as opposed to any other limit, was chosen because the one sphere where this is likely to develop internationally is the sphere of the Lloyd's market and the surrounding companies, and this would enable them, with their considerable international collections, to bring a considerable volume of premium income to this country.

The Government have said, and quite rightly, that their endeavour is to encourage exports. They have said that they will do all that is possible within our international agreements to encourage them. This is a form of assistance which they could give to exports. It will cost nothing, but it will bring premiums into this country. In addition, it will save premiums from going out of the country. Thus, the Government would save, not only by increasing exports, but by cutting down outgoings from, for example, international companies with their head offices in London, who, quite rightly, arrange their short-term temporary life assurance abroad because it is so much more reasonable in cost there than it is in this country because of this ridiculous imposition of the Stamp Duty.

The right hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance that he will consider this during the next 12 months, and I would not press the matter to a Division were it not for the fact that, knowing the technical aspects of the problem—as the right hon. Gentleman knows I am interested in Lloyd's broking, though my firm is unconnected with this form of assurance—I consider that it is in the interests of the country to do something about it to enable us to obtain the international premiums that are available. For this reason, I urge my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. Diamond

Can the hon. Gentleman go further and explain what happened after 20th December, 1962, when he asked the then Chief Secretary about this important matter which he said would brook of no delay?

Mr. Walker

I tabled a new Clause to the Finance Bill of the following year, but, alas, it was not selected, so it was not possible to debate it. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are many items within our Stamp Duty and taxation systems in respect of which one finds anomalies such as this. I make no complaint that the Chancellor did not include this in the Bill. There are many other anomalies which could have been dealt with, but have not been. On this occasion, my hon. Friend has tabled this Clause and has been fortunate enough to have it selected for debate. We have discussed it, and taken up the time of the Committee in doing so.

Having taken up the Committee's time, I think that the Committee should come to a decision on it.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would by now have come to the conclusion that this matter needed to be reviewed before the Report stage. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), I have an interest in this in that I am a Lloyd's underwriter. I believe that in the past I have had the honour of seeing the Chief Secretary engaged in the insurance world.

I would have thought that the Government would have been searching for ways in which to see that the premiums placed on the international market in London were increased. That being so, I would have thought that if this was a matter which required legislation, the Chief Secretary would say, "This is a matter to which the Government must give urgent consideration at once, because we do not see why the London market in this growing business should be prejudiced, while Paris, New York, Munich, and other centres are taking the sort of business which we, and the City, know how to run".

It astounds me that the Chief Secretary feels that he cannot give us an answer now. I realise that the Government have had a long and difficult Session, and a very tiring one. Perhaps they thought that this was one of the new Clauses which was interesting and rather technical, but nothing more. However technical it is, if it means that more insurance premiums will be paid into London to help the balance of payments position, it is the Government's duty to bring forward legislation to deal with the matter and not merely undertake to consider it during the next two or three months. If the matter were dealt with in the Bill, the Government would be able to say that they had done their duty.

If someone is competing in the international insurance markets of the world, his position should not be prejudiced by the imposition of some old-fashioned stamp tax which the right hon. Gentleman has admitted is of little value to the Treasury. I am astounded that at this stage of the Bill we have not been given a better answer than we have had from the right hon. Gentleman. If insurance means helping the balance of payments by bringing more premiums into London, and by providing more insurance for the London market, whether we have an interest in it or not.

I think that it is right to divide the Committee on the direct and clear issue of whether we intend to expand the life insurance markets in London, or to prejudice our position.

Mr. Diamond

I do not wish to deny the Committee the opportunity of dividing as a matter of principle if hon. Gentlemen wish to do so. It goes without saying that, whether they divide or not, I shall look into this to see how quickly it can be dealt with.

When sitting on the benches opposite, which I wore out for a long time, it is one's duty to put the case with one's best foot forward, but there are more technicalities in this matter than were brought to light during the debate. I did not undertake to do anything before Report, because of the complexities of this matter. I did not think that it would be possible to do anything about it in view of the variety of things which remain to be done before Report.

I realise that this is a matter which ought to be looked at with the full understanding that I have indicated. If I can do anything before Report, I shall, of course, do so. I shall look at it as soon as I can. I do not want to deceive the Committee into thinking that there is nothing left to do, and that we are all going to play golf between now and that stage of the Bill, because that would not be absolutely accurate. I do not want to affect the decision to divide the Committee. I shall look at the matter again, and if anything can be done before Report it will be done, but if it cannot be done by then, it will be done as soon as may be.

Mr. Peter Walker

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's reason for being hesitant about committing himself. I recognise that he was provided with a brief on this subject in which there appeared to be a series of technical arguments. As I said earlier, I would not urge my hon. Friend to press this matter to a Division were it not for the fact that I was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not stand up to examination.

I recognise the urgency of this matter in terms of exports. Both sides of the Committee recognise that, because of the balance of payments situation, there is a need to increase exports, and to stress our feelings on this matter, I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

Mr. William Yates rose

Hon. Members


Mr. William Yates

I agree that the Committee should divide on this matter. I did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to examine this and report back on Report, with or without recommendations. I did not quite understand that he would do that. Can he make that clear?

Mr. Diamond

I shall do what every Minister speaking from this Box will do—look into the matter sympathetically and carefully and undertake precisely nothing.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 108, Noes 125.

Division No. 204.] AYES [7.40 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Gurden, Harold Onslow, Cranley
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Baker, W. H. K. Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) Peel, John
Batsford, Brian Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Prior, J. M. L.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Harris, Reader (Heston) Pym, Francis
Black, Sir Cyril Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Blaker, Peter Hastings, Stephen Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. Hawkins, Paul Royle, Anthony
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hay, John Sharples, Richard
Braine, Bernard Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Shepherd, William
Brinton, Sir Tatton Higgins, Terence L. Sinclair, Sir George
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Burden, F. A. Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Speir, Sir Rupert
Buxton, Ronald Hooson, H. E. Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Carlisle, Mark Hordern, Peter Studholme, Sir Henry
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P. Summers, Sir Spencer
Crawley, Aidan Hunt, John (Bromley) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Iremonger, T. L. Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcarf)
Currie, G. B. H. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnston, Russell (Inverness) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Vickers, Dame Joan
Doughty, Charles Kershaw, Anthony Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Ede[...], Sir John Kimball, Marcus Walters, Dennis
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lagden, Godfrey Ward, Dame Irene
Emery, Peter Lubbock, Eric Weatherill, Bernard
Errington, Sir Eric MacArthur, Ian Whitelaw, William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mathew, Robert Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Gardner, Edward Mawby, Ray Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Glover, Sir Douglas Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wylie, N. R.
Goodhew, Victor Meyer, Sir Anthony Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Grant, Anthony Mills, Peter (Torrington) Younger, Hn. George
Gresham Cooke, R. Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) More, Jasper TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Mr. G. Johnson Smith.
Albu, Austen Edelman, Maurice Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) English, Michael Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Atkinson, Norman Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Bacon, Miss Alice Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley) Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Bishop, E. S. Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Janner, Sir Barnett
Boston, T. G. Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Bradley, Tom Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stetchford)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Floud, Bernard Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Foley, Maurice Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) Freeson, Reginald Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Buchanan, Richard Garrow, A. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Grey, Charles Kelley, Richard
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange) Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) Lawson, George
Chapman, Donald Hannan, William Ledger, Ron
Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank Harper, Joseph Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Crawshaw, Richard Hazell, Bert Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Cronin, John Heffer, Eric S. Loughlin, Charles
Davies, Harold (Leek) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur McCann, J.
Delargy, Hugh Holman, Percy MacDermot, Niall
Dell, Edmund Horner, John McInnes, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) McLeavy, Frank
Dodds, Norman Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Mallalleu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Driberg, Tom Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mason, Roy
Dunnett, Jack Howie, W. Molloy, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Rees, Merlyn Swain, Thomas
Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Reynolds, G. W. Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Murray, Albert Rhodes, Geoffrey Tomney, Frank
Newens, Stan Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Tuck, Raphael
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Robinson, Rt. Hn.K.(St. Pancras, N.) Urwin, T. W.
Norwood, Christopher Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Varley, Eric G.
Ogden, Eric Rose, Paul B. Wallace, George
O'Malley, Brian Shore, Peter (Stepney) Warbey, William
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.) Weitzman, David
Orbach, Maurice Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Silkin, John (Deptford) Whitlock, William
Parker, John Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Parkin, B. T. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Zilliacus, K.
Pavitt, Laurence Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Popplewell, Ernest Skeffington, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Prentice, R. E. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Mr. Ifor Dayies and Mr. Gourlay.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Snow, Julian