§ Where a private school earns a profit the sum shall not be subject to tax where it can be shown to the Inland Revenue that the profit has been devoted solely and exclusively to educational modernisation and improvements in the school.—[Sir G. Nabarro.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.275
§ 4.10 p.m.
§ Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause is unique in the records of Finance Bills. No hon. Member has sought in earlier years to seek the kind of relief from taxation for what I describe in the new Clause as a private school. I define a private school as an independent fee-paying school which is non-grand-aided; and, as profits are entailed in the new Clause, it would be a school which is a non-charitable trust.
Although there may be a tiny minority in the party opposite who would seek to discriminate against private fee-paying schools, I think that the overwhelming majority of men and women, of all political parties, recognise the right to continuing existence of the private sector in education, or the private fee-paying school.
There is no means of establishing from statistical records how many private fee-paying schools there are in Britain, although I believe that it would be correct to say that in all categories they number 4,200. What is more reliable is a statistic, the latest available in this context, which was published in 1965. My source is the Education Statistics, 1965, Part I, pages 21 and 63, which state that in independent schools in Britain in that year there were 477,494 pupils, or 5.3 per cent. of the entire school population, as compared with 8.3 million, or 92.7 per cent. of the school population, at maintained schools—that is, State schools—of all categories and 2 per cent. of the school population at direct grant schools, the latter equalling 179,559 pupils. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to say that the new Clause relates to that part of the education system of Britain which caters for about ½ million schoolchildren at fee-paying and independent schools.
I believe, and the entire Conservative Party believes, that the private fee-paying sector should be allowed to continue to exist, and to flourish. Non-charitable establishments in the private sector may from time to time earn a surplus or a profit on their year's work. I do not believe that a primary purpose of these fee-paying schools is to make a profit, but in the course of their conduct and in order to remain healthy, they should make a profit. If they are run at a con- 276 tinuing loss, they will inevitably pass into bankruptcy.
I declare at once a constituency interest. The greatest concentration of private fee-paying schools in Britain in any one constituency is in Worcestershire, South. There are no fewer than 32 fee-paying schools in Malvern alone. I shall not name them in great detail, but they include the famous boys' public school of Malvern, Malvern Girls' College and Abbey, St. James, Lawnside, and the remainder. There is a very large number of private fee-paying schools. That is my constituency interest in the problem.
I also have a much wider interest as Chairman of the National Consultative Committee for Independent Education, which is a body representative of most of the organisations which deal with private fee-paying education in Britain. As Chairman, I submitted recently my evidence on behalf of this Consultative Committee to the Newsom Committee, or Public Schools Commission. Under paragraph 5 of the evidence which I was privileged to submit on behalf of the Consultative Committee, I included a section on taxation.
I dealt with the discrimination against private schools in the matter of the Selective Employment Tax and the discrimination in the matter of Purchase Tax. Also, I included the following passage—I quote it exactly in the context of the new Clause—which was the progenitor of the new Clause.
I quote:Excepting educational establishments registered as charities, the surplus, or profit, earned by private schools is taxable. It should not be taxed so long as it is demonstrated to Inland Revenue that the surplus has been devoted solely and exclusively to educational modernisation and improvements in the school; expansion of educational facilities and the provision of additional places; the enlargement or enhancement of curricula; extra sporting and playing field facilities; television and radio; and cultural improvement in the educational standards within a private school. All such improvements should be accepted, therefore, as a charge against taxation of surplus or profits earned by the establishment.That, briefly, is the purpose of the Clause.
It would not be possible to determine what the Clause would cost the Revenue. As far as I am aware, there are no published statistics. I hope that the 277 Financial Secretary, in replying to the debate, will at once correct me if I am wrong. I can find no record of published statistics stating the taxation revenue which is derived from the profits or surpluses of the 4,200 private fee-paying schools which are not registered as charities. It cannot, however, be a very large sum of money.
I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that education, in the national aggregation, on capital and on revenue account is costing about £1,650 million a year. My calculation is that if, which is impossible, the private fee-paying sector in education were eliminated entirely—all the public schools, all the preparatory schools and all the Froebels and the kindergartens which are fee-paying in character—the cost of education to the nation this year would rise by approximately £150 million. That could not be contemplated by the Ministry, neither would it be practicable to carry it through.
If that sum of money were devoted to the private sector were it nationalised, commensurately lesser sums would be available to educational pursuits and advancement which is the general objective of all political parties. I believe that the new Clause would cost a relatively small sum of money. It is non-discriminatory in character. It does not ask for any privilege for a small minority. Rather would it save public funds along the lines which I have suggested.
I suppose that in Britain today the most Left-wing of all representative educational bodies is the Workers' Educational Association. I give this quotation from its evidence to the Newsom Committee, or Public Schools Commission, as reported in the Observer of 19th February, last. The Workers' Educational Association concluded its evidence in these terms:The abolition of public and other independent schools ' is outside the range of practicality and out of harmony with the mood of the British people '".
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not widen the debate. We are discussing a tax exemption. cannot discuss the whole future of private schools.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
I was endeavouring to use that quotation only as support for the view I expressed—this is a very Left- 278 wing organisation—that there is no desire in any part of the House to eliminate the private sector of education. If that is so, then we should give fiscal encouragement to the expansion of that sector, keeping it up to date and ensuring that conditions and equipment and curricula are at least as good as those available in State establishments.
§ Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)
The hon. Gentleman, in making his argument and trying to be fair to everybody, should not be unfair to the W.E.A. It will not thank him for calling it Left-wing.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
I have no great knowledge of the Workers' Educational Association. I am sure it is a very noble body, but it is to the Left of me.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
In those short terms I commend the Clause to the House. It is my endeavour not to be partisan in my approach to this matter. I have almost been completely non-party political in the speech that I have made and I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and the Treasury Bench as well, will support my Motion and the contribution it makes to educational advancement and attainment.
§ Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has moved this Clause unnecessarily. If he has in mind what is set out in the Clause he did not really need to move it at all. He told us that its primary objective was the advancement of private education. The Clause says:… that the profit has been devoted solely and exclusively to educational modernisation and improvements in the school.If a private school does not wish to distribute its profits it is a simple matter to turn itself into a charity. If it turns itself into a charity, it will not be subject to tax. Not only will it not be subject to tax, but it will be in a better position than that type of private school would be if the Clause were accepted, because it could accept fees under covenant. Under this Clause it would be worse off unless the hon. Gentleman has in mind having the best of all possible worlds. In other words, one year getting exemption from tax for 279 the use in a particular way of its profits and the following year reverting back and having a distribution of the profits.
If the sponsors of the Clause have true educational interests at heart, there is no need to move it. These schools could easily turn themselves into charities and solve their problems, because there would be no tax liabilities.
That is my reason for saying that the Clause is unnecessary and that I am not in favour of it. Having said that, may I say that I am totally opposed to what is going on at the present time by way of abuse of the tax system by the use of covenants by private schools whereby large sectors of the population, the reverse of what the hon. Gentleman was saying, are being discriminated against. I mean, of course, that the pupils in non-fee paying schools—State schools—are being discriminated against in the sense that they are at schools with a teacher-pupil ratio of more than 40, whereas the fee-paying schools are subsidised by the Revenue to a very large extent. I have not been able to find out to precisely what extent. I asked the Treasury how many fee-paying schools were charities and I was not given an answer.
However, there is no doubt that of the 4,200 which the hon. Gentleman referred to, a very large number of them are charities and, as charities, they are receiving much of their fees under covenant and at the expense of ordinary taxpayers whose children are being educated in schools where the teacher-pupil ratio is far too high. Therefore, it is they who are being discriminated against, and not the private schools, as the hon. Gentleman was suggesting. Therefore, I hope that the Clause will be thrown out. What is more, I hope that after it has been thrown out the Government will give serious consideration to a review of the whole fee-paying school system so that we can have a revision of the present definition of charities.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. That will have to be done on another Amendment, possibly even another Finance Bill.
§ Mr. Barnett
I think I have made the point, even if inadvertently out of order, Mr. Speaker. However, it is for those reasons that I am wholly opposed to the 280 Clause and I hope that the Treasury Bench will not agree to it.
§ Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)
This Clause gives an opportunity to the Government to show that they do not intend to discriminate against independent schools and parents who send their children to them.
§ Mr. Page
To reply to the hon. Gentleman, who interrupts from a sitting position, there is none in Harrow, West, though there is a school bearing that name in a neighbouring constituency.
In Harrow, West there are some small independent fee-paying schools many of which are owned by the headmaster or headmistress. I see a difficulty in turning one of these schools into a charity. This is not my subject, but, although this was what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) suggested, I think that it would be very difficult for the owner of the land and the school buildings to give to a charity the totality of his or her personal capital.
The hon. Gentleman also said that if independent schools were abolished the pupil-teacher ratio at all State schools or schools in general would improve. I take a different view.
§ Mr. Barnett
I hope I did not say that. If I did, I am sorry. What I said was that there was discrimination against children in State schools in that they have a very large number of pupils per class whereas in fee-paying schools the State is subsidising their smaller pupil-teacher ratio.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I warned the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that we could not debate the abolition or non-abolition of private schools on this Clause, which proposes merely a tax concession.
§ Mr. Page
I will draw away from that, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the existence of independent schools increases the number of teachers as a whole. We are here considering the schooling of 477,000 pupils, or 5.3 per cent. of the pupil population. The Clause would give these schools an opportunity to keep themselves up to date, to modernise and maintain efficiency. Through their efficiency and modernisation, they could then make a contribution even greater than they are making now to the total sum of education in Britain.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
This short debate has shown some of the inequalities in the taxation of independent schools. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) pointed out, a school which is a religious foundation or a charitable institution can erect new laboratories out of profits and pay no tax on the income. All the maintained or direct grant schools can use their resources for modernisation, without any liability to tax. Only in the other sector, the smaller independent schools, does ore find, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out, a barrier against turning a school into a charity and getting round the difficulty. In these smaller independent schools, every improvement made out of profits is none the less subject to taxation.
On Thursday, 8th June, answering a different debate but one relating to independent schools, the Financial Secretary said:I agree that education in general is a social service, and that most education in this country is provided as a social service and paid for from public funds. But a part of education is operated on a commercial basis and is already subject to taxation in various forms. There is no general principle for exempting it from tax. I do not consider it reactionary to tax commercially run education."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 1408.]If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's standpoint, I ask him to follow the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and do something to remove some of the anomalies attending expenditure directed out of profits for the modernisation of these schools, 282 modernisation which is desperately needed if they are to conform to the requirements of Part III of the Education Act.
To pursue the argument by comparison, I take the example of commercially run rented property. In its wisdom, Parliament gives the owner of rented property an improvement grant of 50 per cent. for modernisation. For the property of an industrial enterprise, on the other hand, an initial allowance of 15 per cent. is allowed on industrial buildings, and, if they are not industrial buildings, there are tax-free investment grants. In addition, the industrialist will be helped in certain districts by the regional employment premium. There are similar allowances in agriculture. A farmer wishing to modernise his farm receives a grant from the Government of 25 per cent. and a further investment grant of 5 per cent. If it is not an approved scheme, he will now receive, under the new Order, an investment grant of 12½ per cent.
The owner of a private school, who, surely, is doing as much for this country in improving the education of our children, receives no help whatever. If he uses his profits for the building of new laboratories, classrooms or assembly halls, ordered by the Ministry of Education so that he may be recognised as efficient, he has to pay for those developments but he receives no relief from taxation and no grant from the Government. I am sure that this is harming education very much today.
The 4,000 independent schools—I am thinking particularly of the 500 smaller independent schools, of whose association I am president—are subject to a thoroughly unequal state of affairs. They see the big public schools which are charities doing building works and modernising out of their profits, without liability to tax. The quality of education provided in the smaller independent schools is good, but some of their buildings are desperately out of date. Either this Government or their successor will have to tackle the problem and encourage these schools to bring their buildings up to date. The Clause now before us gives what is probably the easiest way to do it.
Although I put my name to the new Clause, I am not absolutely happy about its wording. I think that, if we restricted it more clearly to the requirements of the Ministry of Education under Part III of 283 the 1944 Act, it would be a workable Clause. But I beg the Financial Secretary to realise that, if the Minister of State for Education and Science, when conducting her inquiry into the efficiency of the small independent schools, could offer some measure of tax relief when profits were directed towards modernisation, this would be of enormous help.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)
In moving the Second Reading of his new Clause, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) claimed, rightly I think, that it is unique and has never been put to the House before. This might have caused some people to hesitate for a moment and wonder whether there was a flaw in the principle underlying the Clause.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It comes from his deeply suspicious mind. He must know that the Newsom Committee, or the Public Schools Commission, is sitting now. I quoted a passage from the recommendations on taxation which I put to that Committee on behalf of the National Consultative Committee for Independent Education. That is my purpose in moving the new Clause today.
§ Mr. MacDermot
The hon. Gentleman meant that it had not been proposed before in any Finance Bill debate, and I think that that is correct. It has been my sorry experience in the last three years that it is difficult to put any new ideas to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to which they cannot produce formidable objections.
The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) suggested, as a bait, that the Clause gave the Government an opportunity to show that they did not wish to discriminate against private schools. It is a curious way of giving us that opportunity because, in fact, the Clause asks us to discriminate in their favour, and to do so as compared with any other organisations run commercially and for profit. In effect, the proposal in the new Clause is to equate the position of private schools run for private profit with schools operated by charitable trusts and not run for profit. That is the effect and, I think, the intention.
284 The existing reliefs enable private schools, if they wish, to plough back a good deal, if not all, of their profits in certain forms of capital outlay. They can have relief, in effect, for the full range of equipment and apparatus which is used in a school—school furniture, laboratory equipment, kitchen equipment, and so on—because that ranks as machinery or plant and is relieved either by way of normal capital allowances or on the renewals basis. Thus, profits made from carrying on a school are already effectively relieved to the extent that they are expended on acquiring new equipment used in the schools.
Where, if it were accepted, the Clause would go further would be in giving them relief for capital expenditure on buildings. This is the difference. There are many other fields in which people engaged in commercial activities have argued for, and continue to argue for, a scheme of capital allowances applying to buildings. My hon. Friends interested in the Cooperative movement argue this in favour of shops and offices. It is argued in favour of nursing homes, consulting rooms, and so on.
These pleas have always been resisted on the grounds that it is necessary to maintain a clear distinction in tax principle between organisations which are run on a commercial basis and run for profit and those which are charities. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that there is discrimination against certain private schools. The right hon. Gentleman is thus saying that by granting tax concessions to charities we are discriminating against bodies which are not charities. I do not think that this is an acceptable argument.
I invite the House to consider the real substance of it in relation to school buildings. We are dealing with schools which are owned by an individual or a partnership or a company. They want to plough back profits into school buildings. This will enhance the capital value of the school. It will enhance the school's earning capacity. They must make up their minds. Either they are in business to make a profit as well as to educate the young, or they are purely bodies with educational aims and purposes and none other; and with no commercial objects.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) 285 pointed out, if they do not intend to distribute their profits but intend to spend them and plough them back in advancing education, they can take the simple course of turning themselves into charitable trusts. Then they get all the benefits. But they do not turn themselves into charitable trusts because they have the intention at some later stage, if not immediately, of distributing some or all of the profits. If that is so, surely they ought not to be given this advantage over other commercial bodies of being able to expand their capital assets, in effect, in this way out of tax-free income.
If we granted aid to private schools, we would be under great pressure from many other bodies which are run commercially, which no doubt do very useful work, which perform a useful social function, but which are organised as profit-making bodies. They would say, "If the owner of a private school can do this, why cannot we?" This is the overwhelming objection to the proposal in the Clause.
Finally, it would seem particularly inappropriate to give direct encouragement of this kind through the tax system to privately owned schools at a time when inquiries are being made under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Education and Science into various aspects of the school system. As we have been reminded, what we are concerned with here is the taxation aspect of this. As I hope I have convinced the House, there are overwhelming objections of tax principle to accepting the Clause.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will reply very shortly. I found the Financial Secretary's reply most unsatisfactory. I doubt very much indeed whether any rational or reasonable man compares a wholly educational establishment—a school—with a commercial profit-making enterprise in industry, trade or commerce. People do not run schools for that reason. People run schools because they are dedicated to the correct upbringing of the young and to educational
§ pursuits and purposes. That is why people run private schools. It is not the profit motive that causes them to do it. I believe the larger the private sector in British education becomes the better our educational system will be.
§ The one thing which will be fatal to State education is a monopoly in State education and the removal of all parental choice or freedom as to where a boy or girl shall be educated. Without going too wide, I ask the House to remember that those parents who make the great sacrifice and who often endure heavy hardships by paying fees for private education do so in addition to the large sums they pay in taxes and local rates.
§ I reject the arguments of the Treasury Minister. Of course the Clause is unique. It is meant to be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and myself conceived it. It is unique. "Unique" means in this context, as in other contexts, "without parallel". Such a Clause has never been moved on a Finance Bill before.
§ Sir G. Nabarro
I, too, am unique—I realise that. I have done what I have done with my right hon. and hon. Friends this afternoon to draw attention to the very important fiscal aspects of the private educational sector, representing, as it does, 5.3 per cent. of the school population. May that small minority private sector flourish and expand in the future, for variegated educational arrangements, as well as these facilities available for freedom of choice for parents, are invaluable in our educational system.
In view of what the Treasury Minister has said, I have no alternative but to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House in support of this important Clause.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:
§ The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 226.289
|Division No. 393.]||AYES||[4.47 p.m.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Balniel, Lord||Black, Sir Cyril|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Bossom, Sir Clive|
|Astor, John||Biffen, John||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Biggs-Davison, John||Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward|
|Brewis, John||Hitey, Joseph||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Bruce-Cardyne, J.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Bryan, Paul||Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Holland, Philip||Peel, John|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Hornby, Richard||Peyton, John|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)||pounder, Rafton|
|Burden, F. A.||Howell, David (Guildford)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Campbell, Gordon||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Pym, Francis|
|Cregg, Walter||Jopling, Michael||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Cooke, Robert||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Corfield, F. V.||Kerby, Capt. Henry||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Costain, A. P.||Kershaw, Anthony||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Crowder, F. P.||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Cunningham, Sir Knox||Kirk, Peter||Royle, Anthony|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kitson, Timothy||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Dance, James||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Lambton, Viscount||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Smith, John|
|Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Tapsel, Peter|
|Emery, Peter||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Eyre, Reginald||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Farr, John||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Temple, John M.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||McMaster, Stanley||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Foster, Sir John||Maginnis, John E.||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G.||Marten, Neil||Walters, Dennis|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Maude, Angus||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Mawby, Ray||Weatherlll, Bernard|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Webster, David|
|Goodhart, Philip||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Goodhew, Victor||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Grieve, Percy||Montgomery, Fergus||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||More, Jasper||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Gurden, Harold||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Wright, Esmond|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Murton, Oscar||Wylie, N. R.|
|Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Harvie Anderson, Miss||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Mr. David Mitchell and|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Nott, John||Mr. Hector Monro.|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Albu, Austen||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dalyell, Tam||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)|
|Alldritt, Walter||Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Anderson, Donald||Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)||Hannan, William|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Harper, Joseph|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Davies, Ifor (Cower)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Haseldine, Norman|
|Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice||de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey||Hazell, Bert|
|Barnett, Joel||Dempsey, James||Henig, Stanley|
|Baxter, William||Dewar, Donald||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Beaney, Alan||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Hilton, W. S.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.||Dickens, James||Hooley, Frank|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Dobson, Ray||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)||Doig, Peter||Horner, John|
|Bessell, Peter||Dunn, James A.||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)|
|Binns, John||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Blackburn, F.||Eadie, Alex||Huckfield, L.|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)||Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)|
|Boardman, H.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Booth, Albert||Ellis, John||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Boston, Terence||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Hunter, Adam|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert||Faulds, Andrew||Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Fernyhough, E.||Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)|
|Brooks, Edwin||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Ford, Ben||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, w.)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Forrester, John||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Cant, R. B.||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Galpern, Sir Myer||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)|
|Chapman, Donald||Gardner, Tony||Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)|
|Coe, Denis||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)|
|Coleman, Donald||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Kerr, Russell (Feltham)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Gregory, Arnold||Lawson, George|
|Conlan, Bernard||Grey, Charles (Durham)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Ledger, Ron|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)||Moyle, Roland||Small, William|
|Lee, John (Reading)||Murray, Albert||Snow, Julian|
|Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Neal, Harold||Spriggs, Les,ie|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Ogden, Eric||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||O'Malley, Brian||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Orme, Stanley||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Oswald, Thomas||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Loughlin, Charles||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)||Swain, Thomas|
|Luard, Evan||Owen, Will (Morpeth)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Lubbock, Eric||Padley, Walter||Taverne, Dick|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E)||Palmer, Arthur||Thornton, Emest|
|McBride, Neil||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|McCann, John||Park, Trevor||Tinn, James|
|MacDermot, Niall||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Tomney, Frank|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Pavitt, Laurence||Tuck, Raphael|
|McKay, Mrs. Margaret||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Pantland, Norman||Varley, Eric G.|
|Mackie, John||Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Price, William (Rugby)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||Probert, Arthur||Wallace, George|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Manuel, Archie||Rankin, John||Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)|
|Mapp, Charles||Rees, Merlyn||Wellbeloved, James|
|Mason, Roy||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Richard, Ivor||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Mellish, Robert||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Whitlock, William|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornehurch)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Millan, Bruce||Ross, Rt. Hn. William||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Ryan, John||Winnick, David|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)||Sheldon, Robert||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|Monoy, William||Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.|
|Moonman, Eric||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Yates, Victor|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Slater, Joseph||Mr. W. Howie and|
|Mr. Ioan L. Evans.|