§ Subject to regulations to be made by the Minister and approved by both Houses of Parliament there shall be payable as from the appointed day earnings-related supplement for sickness and widows' benefit as provided by this Act for those self-employed who elect to pay one half per cent. of the excess up to £21 per week of their reckonable earnings over £9 per week or the equivalent amount for earnings not receivable weekly.—[Mr. Tiley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First Time.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. TileyI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
As the right hon. Lady says, we are discussing some very interesting subjects. The purpose of this Clause is to bring into the Bill the whole army of the self-employed and to extend the scheme to cover them. I hope, therefore, that she will acquit me of the charge of the profit motive, because I am engaged now in 1572 extending her scheme and not making it less. I do so because it is essential to differentiate between the sickness, accident and widows' benefits and unemployment benefit in the case of the self-employed. We understand the case for the exclusion of the self-employed from unemployment payment. It would be difficult to check their claims and to prevent fraud. That is an unfortunate difficulty in respect of legitimate claimers, however.
We understand their position because we Members of Parliament are self-employed and I have no doubt that there are quite a few Members who would, especially at this moment, like to become members of a scheme of wage-related benefits for unemployment. It is a pity, therefore, that the legitimate classes who might otherwise have been included even for unemployment benefit have to be excluded because of those who would fall by the wayside.
Whatever one's job, things do not always go right and this is through no fault of one's own. Happily for us, as hon. Members and as self-employed persons, we do not have cause to suffer any financial loss from absence due to sickness or accident. Because we are aware of the problems ourselves, we should be the better able to understand the needs of the other self-employed who are not in the same fortunate position.
During her Second reading speech, the right hon. Lady entirely forgot the self-employed. She made no reference to them. Nor is there a word in the Government Actuary's Report about the self-employed. Nor does the White Paper refer to them. They are the forgotten people, left alone in the cold—all 3 million of them.
It was only because, on Second reading, some of my hon. Friends raised the matter that consideration was given to this very great problem and the Government made to realise that this body of people exists. Replying to the debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
It has been asked why supplements do not apply to certain cases, and the question of the self-employed person has been raised by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has been suggested that the self-employed person should be brought within the scope of the new scheme. Self-employed people cannot be covered for unemployment benefit and therefore could not be brought into this part of the 1573 scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 136.]That may be so when referring to their unemployment benefit, but in our view there is no reason why the self-employed should not be brouhgt into the sickness, accident and widows' portions of the wage-related benefits. We do not accept that it is too difficult to bring them in. They are already in the scheme for flat-rate benefits and they purchase their stamps. In our view, it is unjust to leave them out with nothing.The simplest way to deal with the problem would be a tax concession—say, 1 per cent. of gross earnings—for the self-employed to deal with the problem privately. We cannot make such a provision in this Bill for that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have had to search for a way to deal with the problem and that is why we have put down this new Clause.
If we accept that mass contributions from everyone in the country bring in these great benefits for all, then there is no argument for leaving a certain section out of the mass benefits which the mass contributions provide. It would be no excuse to say that the self-employed were left outside the graduated pension scheme. They were left outside deliberately because previous provision had been made, following the Tucker Report, for the self-employed to provide pensions for themselves through separate arrangements under the 1956 Act.
We do not want the self-employed left in the cold. We need not think of the wealthy ones—those with money and influence who will make their own provision both for illness and accident and for their widows. They are not beset by worries of unemployment. We are thinking particularly of the small shopkeepers, the small businessmen and the small farmers.
There is one other aspect of the mass collection of the contributions—it allows the hazardous risks, as the right hon. Lady pointed out earlier, to be taken in with the better risks. If this Clause were accepted, people in hazardous trades, like window cleaners—thousands of them are self-employed—who find it difficult to make provision for their own coverage against accident or illness would be brought into the scheme. Risks may be 1574 involved, but we should take the bad as well as the good in this case.
We believe in our Clause and apologise if the wording is not correct. We would be happy to see it suitably amended to become workable and we do not want this item to cost any of the taxpayers' money. We are prepared that the cost of providing these benefits to the self-employed should be borne by them. If the ½ per cent. which we ask for as a contribution from the excess up to £21 a week of reckonable earnings over £9 a week would not be sufficient to meet the benefits, we hope that the right hon. Lady will make an appropriate amendment to the Clause to bring the contribution in line with the cost.
We hope that the difficulty of collecting contributions will not be used as an objection to the Clause. We already trust self-employed people to buy their own stamps, and we believe that the contribution could be collected quarterly on the basis of the previous complete year's tax accounts. We know the year's earning of a self-employed person in the same way that we know the total annual earnings of an employed person.
We therefore have the method and the amount. There would be no difficulty about collection of the contributions, because if the contributions were not paid, the person would not be in benefit. The position could be protected further by having a waiting period of three months before benefits were payable, which would cut out those who periodically took time off because they thought that they were about to be ill.
We hope that the Minister will regard the new Clause sympathetically and will support it and, if necessary, amend it. If the wording is wrong, we hope that she will tell us where it is wrong, and, if the percentage is wrong, we shall be glad to alter it.
§ Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)Whatever the right hon. Lady's misconceptions about the merits of profit are, we all know that she has a very profound feeling for the elderly and the sick, and I am sure that she will agree with me when I say that age is a form of sickness in that there is a drop of efficiency. It seems quite wrong that if a person cannot do a full-time job as when young, the alternative is to do nothing.
1575 We know that many self-employed are elderly and for that reason are more likely to go sick. There are various reasons why such people want to go on working, often financial so that they can supplement their savings or pensions, or to keep themselves occupied. In these days, when our labour force is at such stretch, it is a very good thing that elderly people like that should go on working. They may be only in the service industries, but by working in those industries they release labour for the productive or manufacturing industries.
Many other self-employed people are in the prime of life. They are self-employed perhaps because they prefer to work for themselves, because they are energetic and ambitious. This, too, is something to be encouraged. Many of our great industries were built up by such people starting in a backyard. I am sure that many are doing so today and it is on their efforts that we shall have to rely in future.
Whatever the moral issue is, I would like to know why the self-employed should be excluded from the Bill. Is it for administrative reasons? I know that it is customary to leave them out of the social services, but I would like to know whether there is an orientation of our social services towards those who work only in the large industries or businesses as a cog in the organisation. I am well aware that the self-employed are difficult to organise. They are often very awkward and cantankerous, but it is a very good thing for the country to have awkward people to keep things going.
We should bear in mind that when one is self-employed, whether elderly or not, one's position is likely to become very difficult on going sick. It is not just a matter of staying off from work in a big oganisation. The business may have to be closed down, and the effect on the person concerned can be very serious.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady will give these matters careful consideration. Not all self-employed people are wealthy by a long chalk. Some are the most humble people in the land, and if we can possibly help them we should do so.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Harold Davies)At this juncture perhaps, I can say that the Opposition are not knocking at a completely closed door. I have listened with intense interest to the case of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and I am sure that both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that some self-employed people carry on their job when they should be resting or recuperating from an illness, having to do so because they run one-man businesses.
I must eradicate the impression that we are in any way prejudiced. In the National Insurance Scheme, in 1948, we discovered a means by which to include the self-employed, and the Opposition continued the system when in power. But the problem in this case is not so easy. Far be it for me to make cheap jokes about the wording of the new Clause, for I know the difficulty. However, giving an option to self-employed people to enter the scheme would create terrific administrative and other difficulties.
A concrete example was that of Germany, where people could elect to join the German State insurance system. The result is that there is a tendency for those who have private cover and who feel themselves to be immortal—and we all feel ourselves to be immortal when we are in our 'twenties—to opt out. But the chronic sick cannot opt out. That is one of the difficulties of imbalance which any Government, of whatever political calibre, would have to face in dealing with this problem.
I know that there will be smiles when I say that we are bearing this in mind—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may join in the joke if they like, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—is working on it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not use the argument of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who used to be in the Department. He sailed into harbour with his ship in full sail with this new philosophy. I would be out of 1577 order to deal with the new philosophy of the social services and social security which has been advanced by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his Birmingham speech. They were marvellous speeches. The sails were full blown and they were looking to the social security of the future, but I must say that I do not yet know what it is to be.
Wednesday will be a chance for the Opposition to explain to the country clearly what this new philosophy—
§ The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele)I am not sure that this is the opportunity for the Opposition to do this and I think that we ought to confine ourselves to the new Clause.
§ Mr. DaviesI thought that I would not get away with that. One of our difficulties is that this has been left in the form of persons electing whether they are to come in. It was asked whether my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to this. He did give quite a full answer on the Second Reading, and that argument still stands.
If we take the arithmetic of this it would mean that about ½ per cent. earnings-related contribution would have to be paid, considerably in arrears. It is doubtful whether this would be acceptable to many self-employed persons, particularly if contributions on high earnings have to be paid at a time of low earnings. We believe that it would be difficult to determine in good time the rate of benefit payable to a self-employed person, or his widow, on his earnings for a particular tax year. While the Clause appears to recognise some of the special problems attached to the self-employed, by making the provisions subject to regulations, and by providing an option, the Clause is rendered inoperative.
This is an interim scheme, effected not only for social but for economic purposes. Take the costs proposed under the Clause, which envisages a contribution of ½ per cent. of earnings in the £9 to £30 range. We believe that if this were to be taken up, and even if all self-employed persons opted in, a ½ per cent. contribution would produce about £3 million a year, whereas supplements to sickness benefit and widows allowances would cost £3¼ million. These are the facts.
1578 The Government feel that they cannot accept the Clause because it is not feasible to fit the self-employed into the structure of these contributions and benefits, which are based on P.A.Y.E. tax assessment, and this is needed to get this scheme started in good time. This is a problem faced by the Opposition when they were in office in 1959. The Government are sympathetic and accept the provisos and the arguments put forward on behalf of the self-employed. We regret that we shall have to resist the Motion. We do assure the Committee that this is being given consideration and we hope one day to be able to find a formula to be able to answer this problem.
§ Dame Irene WardThe hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary always has a very attractive way of talking. It is very simple. He makes us all feel that he is behind what we are trying to do, and, indeed, what the Government are trying to do. When it comes to be assimilated, however, the answer is "No".
I do not think that we shall accept that, because if it is so difficult to do anything for the self-employed, how far have the Government looked at the position of the self-employed in the overall review which is being carried out by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? The self-employed are a very important section of the community. Their trouble is—and I say this quite advisedly, because I know enough about parliamentary and political pressures—that they have not got powerful appeals and pressures behind them to shift any Government.
They apparently cannot shift the present Government and I doubt whether they would have shifted my party when it was the Government. It is an absolutely monstrous way to treat a section of the community, which pays taxes, helping to sponsor a great many of the new schemes put forward. It is not apparently within the capacity of the Government to find a way of giving them in the Bill what is their due. I call that a monstrous repudiation of a section of the community to whom the country owes a very great deal. I have listened to broadcasts on behalf of the Government and seen their television appearances and I do not think that any 1579 self-employed person who has done so would ever have imagined that the Government would have rejected this Clause on the ground that "they really cannot include the self-employed in the Bill".
I know the Parliamentary techniques of all Front Benches. Sometimes they make me sick, and the hon. Gentleman's contribution today has made me sick. First of all, he talks about the Clause being badly drafted. It may be. But what does that matter?
§ Mr. T. W. Urwin (Houghton-le-Spring)Is the hon. Lady really serious in her latter remarks, after being so complimentary in her earlier remarks, and particularly after saying that her own party, if in office, would not be persuaded to introduce this new Clause?
§ Dame Irene WardThat does not make any difference to me. You see, I am a free woman. I do not always subscribe to party Whips. I do not always subscribe to the views of the party to which I belong. If the Conservative Party had paid a little more attention to what I have said in the past, you would not be sitting there today.
§ The Temporary ChairmanThat does not entirely follow. I hope that the hon. Lady will apply herself to the Clause.
§ Dame Irene WardCertainly, Mr. Steele, but when someone bursts in and attacks my comments I am sure that I can say what I think. I listened to some of the Labour Left wing last night, on the Order on Rhodesia, saying what they thought about their Front Bench.
5.30 p.m.
This is a matter which affects hundreds of thousands of the best people in this country. It is no good talking, as the hon. Gentleman talked, although not very much, I agree, about the tax return difficulties. Many self-employed people do not pay taxes. The Conservative Administration relieved self-employed people in the lower income groups from paying taxes. It is no good talking about people who pay Income Tax. I am talking about those who do not pay Income Tax.
The hon. Gentleman in his charming way—I never mix charm up with speeches—says that the Clause is badly drafted. What does that matter? If 1580 he liked, he could say, "We do not like the way in which the Clause has been drafted, but on the Report stage"—this would help my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis)—"we will introduce a new Clause which is properly drafted". If he were to say that, I would say "Hear, hear". The hon. Gentleman spent most of his time talking about bad drafting. Then he spoke about the cost—£3 million—if the new Clause were put in the Bill. He went on to say that there would be £250,000 over. That is a very small amount in this context.
My objection is that the Government always think about the masses of industrial and professional workers who are employed. But there are many self-employed people who, by way of inventions or bravery in action, have given something to the country, the cost of which, can never be counted. That is why I think that this is a monstrous way of dealing with this matter.
I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on the Clause because I am sick of all the promises, pledges, talk and build-up. Unfortunately, I did not hear the opening speeches; I was engaged in another Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I have a lot to do; much more than many other hon. Members. Where are they? For a long time there was not one member of the Liberal Party present, or an hon. Member opposite, except on the Government Front Bench and the Minister's P.P.S.
The Government cannot face the repudiation of the self-employed. The Minister, for whom I have a great admiration, has plenty of character to tell her civil servants to draft the new Clause properly. The Conservative Government used to say that they could not tell how many people did not apply for National Assistance, although I knew that many did not apply for it. But in a White Paper—there are so many White Papers that I cannot remember them all—they have put a figure to the number of people who do not apply for National Assistance. How did they manage to do that? That is much more difficult than discovering the number of self-employed people.
As I say, I hope that we will divide on the Clause. I look forward, with my 1581 right hon. and hon. Friends, to doing what we can for that section of the community which deserves just as well of this country as any other section.
§ Mr. TileyI am sure that I voice the opinion of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that we have had a very pleasant answer from a very pleasant Minister but not a convincing one. If nothing is forthcoming in answer to the points made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the free lady from Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), we shall have to divide the House.
I want to deal with one or two points which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made. The self-employed are used to dealing with payments in arrears. I say that advisedly, because they are independent people. In addition to paying for things in arrears, they create reserves to deal with that situation. They are among the most thrifty and best payers in the country. They will not, therefore, be put out of balance in their economic affairs by having these small contributions payable in arrears.
The self-employed were deliberately left out of the Conservative Government's graduated pensions Measure not because they had been forgotten but because they had been dealt with earlier. The Tucker Commission was set up to deal not with greengrocers, grocers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers, but with the pensions for the great body of professional men. But following the Tucker Report in 1956 the Government implemented a scheme for the self-employed to purchase their own pensions with a certain tax rebate.
§ Miss HerbisonThe hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about these matters. I accept that in moving the new Clause he was concerned about the needs of the small self-employed person. Has he any idea how many small self-employed people now have a pension to look forward to?
§ Mr. TileyIt would be unfair for me to give the facts which I know personally from my own professional pursuit, but I know that many hundreds of thousands 1582 of small self-employed people are thriftily saving through pension arrangements created by the Conservative Government and through private endowment assurance. Many hundreds of thousands of small self-employed people are saving for their old age with the help of the tax rebate on which both parties agreed.
I was surprised to find how near we were to the costing of this matter. We were within £250,000. It is not the wish of my hon. Friends that the self-employed people should cost the taxpayer anything. The self-employed person is a sturdy, independent man. I am sure that he is willing to pay for any benefits he may receive. We felt that if six days of benefit were deleted in respect of the self-employed we would bridge the small gap. We feel that it could be done immediately in the Bill.
Unless a more definite answer is forthcoming from the Government, I ask my hon. Friends to divide on the new Clause.
§ Mr. Harold DaviesI regret that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) and his colleagues feel that they should divide on the new Clause. The Tucker Report dealt with a completely different matter. I can give figures for these pensions. The wrong impression must not be created. One side of the argument relates to private pensions. It is worth while to have it on record that only 2 million people are currently drawing occupational pensions and that half of these are less than £2 a week. We should not go away with the impression that colossal pensions are being given by private occupational schemes. That side of the argument, therefore, is irrelevant.
We are dealing here with earnings-related benefits. Present as well as former Ministers, on both sides, know how difficult it is to deal with this subject in this interim Measure. I have made no cheap remarks about the drafting—far from it. I said that I would not do so, because I know how difficult it all was. I did say that the "option" made things difficult. However, if hon. Members opposite have to divide the Committee, I see no point in prolonging the debate
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 143.
1585| Division No. 29.] | AYES | [5.42 p.m. |
| Agnew, Commander Sir Peter | Farr, John | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fell, Anthony | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fisher, Nigel | Murton, Oscar |
| Amery, Bt. Hn. Julian | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Balniel, Lord | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Batsford, Brian | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) | Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Glover, Sir Douglas | Page, R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Glyn, Sir Richard | Peel, John |
| Bessell, Peter | Goodhew, Victor | Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth |
| Biffen, John | Grant, Anthony | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Grant-Ferris, R. | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel | Gresham Cooke, R. | Pym, Francis |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Grieve, Percy | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Blaker, Peter | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Roots, William |
| Braine, Bernard | Gurden, Harold | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) | Sharples, Richard |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hastings, Stephen | Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Bryan, Paul | Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Hordern, Peter | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Burden, F. A. | Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P. | summers, Sir Spencer |
| Buxton, Ronald | Hutchison, Michael Clark | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Campbell, Gordon | Irvine; Bryant Godman (Rye) | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Teeling, Sir William |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Chataway, Christopher | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) | Kilfedder, James A. | Thorpe, Jeremy |
| Cooke, Robert | Kirk, Peter | Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) |
| Corfield, F. V. | Lagden, Godfrey | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Costain, A. P. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Walters, Dennis |
| Curran, Charles | Longbottom, Charles | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Longden, Gilbert | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr) | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Webster, David |
| Dean, Paul | MacArthur, Ian | Whitelaw, William |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Eden, Sir John | Mathew, Robert | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Mawby, Ray | Younger, Hn. George |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Mitchell, David | |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Monro, Hector | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Eyre, Reginald | More, Jasper | Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Fraser. |
| NOES | ||
| Abse, Leo | Doig, Peter | Howie, W. |
| Albu, Austen | Driberg, Tom | Hoy, James |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Atkinson, Norman. | Ennals, David | Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.) | Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.) | Hynd, H. (Accrington) |
| Bence, Cyril | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Hynd, John (Attercliffe) |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Floud, Bernard | Janner, Sir Barnett |
| Bishop, E. S. | Foley, Maurice | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) |
| Boston, Terence | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.) | Ford, Ben | Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) | Freeson, Reginald | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & Fbury) | Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Lawson, George |
| Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.) | Grey, Charles | Ledger, Ron |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | Lipton, Marcus |
| Chapman, Donald | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Loughlin, Charles |
| Conlan, Bernard | Hamilton, William (West Fife) | MacDermot, Niall |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) | Mclnnes, James |
| Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank | Hannan, William | McKay, Mrs. Margaret |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S. | Harper, Joseph | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) |
| Darling, George | Hart, Mrs. Judith | McLeavy, Frank |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Hazell, Bert | Manuel, Archie |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Mason, Roy |
| de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey | Holman, Percy | Mellish, Robert |
| Delargy, Hugh | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Dell, Edmund | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Miller, Dr. M. S |
| Molloy, William | Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.) | Snow, Julian |
| Monslow, Walter | Pavitt, Laurence | Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank |
| Morris, Charles (Openshaw) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Stones, William |
| Murray, Albert | Pentland, Norman | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) |
| Neal, Harold | Perry, Ernest G. | Tomney, Frank |
| Newens, Stan | Prentice, R. E. | Tuck, Raphael |
| Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) | Pursey, Cmdr. Harry | Urwin, T. W. |
| Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.) | Rankin, John | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Norwood, Christopher | Rees, Merlyn | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Ogden, Eric | Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.) | Wallace, George |
| O'Malley, Brian | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) | Warbey, William |
| Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Weitzman, David |
| Orme, Stanley | Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. | Whitlock, William |
| Oswald, Thomas | Shore, Peter (Stepney) | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Owen, Will | Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.) | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Padley, Walter | Silkin, John (Deptford) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Skeffington, Arthur | Zilliacus, K. |
| Palmer, Arthur | Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) | |
| Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Small, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mr. McCann and Mr. Fitch. |