Where a taxpayer through any circumstances is obliged to employ the services of a house keeper the taxpayer shall be entitled to a tax allowance of fifty pounds per annum.— [ Mr. Eccles.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."I know that this business of the house keeper allowance is a hardy annual, but it is none the worse for that. I am sure that there are many provisions in the In come Tax law which have been pressed on former Chancellors of the Exchequer, year after year, before some right hon. Gentleman saw the light and amended the law. I want to press again for a widening of the definition of those who are to be allowed to receive an allowance in respect of a housekeeper. The law as it stands now is that an allowance of £50 a year is paid, in respect of a house keeper, to a widow or widower whether he or she has children or not; and to a single person who has charge of a child. In all cases, the housekeeper has to be resident in the house which she is looking after, if the allowance is to be granted. The new Clause which' my hon. Friends and I have put upon the Order Paper is rather wide. I recognise that the words
would cover a very wide range of cases. In fact the Chancellor might argue in regard to the male sex who employ housekeepers that it would cover any body, because any man could pitch a tale that he needed to have a woman to look after him. We have drawn this new Clause very wide, so that all the hard cases can be discussed. I would first direct the attention of the Committee to married couples. If both partners of a marriage are alive they arc not allowed to get the allowance. That, I think, creates a serious hardship. There are many instances where a wife is infirm, or for some other reason cannot look after the house; but the man has to go out to earn the family's income, and he has to have someone to do the cooking and cleaning; and in this case the allowance is not paid. If the man were a widower he would get the allowance. There are other married couples and they are on the increase in the modern world—where both husband and wife work. There are many professional women—for instance doctors—who are married, and they would have to neglect their professional duties if they were not to have a housekeeper, because there can be scarcely any of them with a husband so talented that he can do the cooking and cleaning. We want to encourage women of this kind who give great service to society. I would especially draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to this class of person: I think that we are all wondering who are to be the new local government councillors. Are we going to get enough of the right people to sit on local government bodies? I know two or three women in my county who, when I said, "Will you stand for the rural district council or the county council?" said, "We cannot do that because we have got to look after the house." Being a local government councillor does not bring in any money and therefore quite a small relief towards the housekeeping expenses might encourage more people to stand for local government bodies who, at the present time, will not do so. I think that we ought to consider carefully any means by which we can widen the field of candidates for local government. Turning to the single people, one finds that the widow is preferred to the bachelor, and the widow is put in a better position than the spinster. That may be a good thing. I am not arguing that the law should give a little prize to those who have been through the trials of marriage; but I do not think the present position is fair with regard to this question of housekeeping. Let me give one instance: There is a girl in my constituency whose father died during the war. She then took on the management of the family farm, and she has mach- an exceedingly good farmer, respected by all her male colleagues. She has to be about her business on the land, or at the market, and so she has had to engage a resident housekeeper to look after the farmhouse. About a year ago, she wrote and asked if she could have an allowance, and I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He replied—and I have permission to quote his letter—as follows:"is obliged to employ the services of a house keeper"
That put me in the position of having to write to my constituent arid tell her that, if she could procure a child, by one means or another, she could have the allowance. I really do not think the law ought to be such that Members of Parliament have to tender that sort of advice. We want these single women to work, and it is not right that they should only get the allowance if there happens to be a child under their care. I come to my third point, the question of whether a housekeeper should be resident or not. As the law is now, no allowance is paid if the housekeeper does not live in the house. Former Chancellors of the Exchequer have argued that it would be invidious to ask the tax collector to ascertain whether a non-resident housekeeper was in fact a genuine housekeeper, or a woman who came in for an hour or two to do a bit of cleaning. I see some force in that argument, but I think there is much more force in stressing the injustice that is created by being so tender to this administrative difficulty. The Committee will realise that this injustice has been greatly aggravated by the housing shortage. There are now hundreds of thousands of dwellings in which there is not a spare bed. I wonder whether it is right that we should leave the law in the position where, if a man can rind a bed in his house for his housekeeper, he is entitled to the allowance but if she lives more comfortably—and it may be with more propriety—in a neighbouring house, then he is not entitled to the allowance. I think that is a most unsatisfactory thing, and I would urge this upon the Financial Secretary for his consideration. The whole condition of domestic service has changed, and we are very glad that it has. The pay and conditions of domestic workers are being raised, and in this respect we are following the American practice, where many more domestic workers live out. That is a good thing. We do not want them to go on living in damp basements or draughty attics, and there is a greater sense of freedom if a woman lives out in her own rooms, and comes in to do the work. That is the way things are going in domestic service. I believe that the Labour Party is against the principle of the tied cottage, and they ought also to be against the principle of the tied bedroom, because that is the position of the law as it is now. Therefore, I put forward this new Clause, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not repeat the stern and Scottish "No," which we got when we last raised this question."In framing the legislation extending the allowance, Sir Kingsley Wood considered the case of the bachelor or spinster who employs a housekeeper, but he felt that any extension. of the sphere of allowance must be founded on the presence in the home of any children."
You were good enough to say, Major Milner, that the new Clause (Constant Attendant Allowance) standing on the Paper in my name could be considered at the same time as this Clause. The point I wish to raise is slightly different from that raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I agree entirely with his argument in favour of the allowance in respect of the housekeeper, but in my Clause, I am not thinking of the housekeeper, but of someone in the position of an attendant or nurse-companion to a crippled person. I feel that there should be some relief for a person who requires the services of an attendant to wheel about a bath chair and generally assist in the domestic tasks. I do not suppose that a very large number of persons in the aggregate in the country would qualify for this allowance; so that I cannot believe that the expense that would fall upon the Exchequer would be very great.The people I have in mind are those who, unfortunately, have been the victims of railway or street accidents, or perhaps have been smitten by some terrible disease, such as cerebro-spinal meningitis, and who are unable to do much for themselves. I am notconsidering, for the moment, the question of disabled Servicemen and workers disabled in industry. In the case of those who are victims of accidents probably they will receive some compensation payment and that money will have been invested in an annuity or gilt edged security which will bring them in a small, fixed income. But take the case, of someone who was a cripple before the war, when Income Tax was 5s. in the £. It might be that from the income derived from that compensation money that person would be able to get someone to assist during part of the day, or as a whole-time attendant. Now that Income Tax has risen to l0s. in the£and has taken away a large slice of the money coming into the home—this is not possible and furthermore money derived from that source of compensation is not treated as earned income but is taxed as unearned income—I think some relief should be given to people who require the services of an attendant.
So far as men disabled in the Services are concerned, I am asking for an increase in the constant attendance allowance. It happens that under the Royal Warrant, men who are totally disabled as a result of war injuries receive a tax-free allowance of 20s. a week, called constant attendance allowance, which is of some assistance. A few weeks ago, we discussed the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, at present before one of the Standing Committees, and in that. Bill provision is made for payment of 20s. a week constant attendance allowance if a worker is completely disabled by injury. I should like to quote very briefly a passage from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance during the Second Reading Debate. He said:
"An additional allowance of up to I a week may be paid if constant attendance is required. This will be paid even if the necessary care is given by the injured worker's wife. In other words, it will not be necessary to prove that somebody from outside is coming in. The wife herself can get the Li per week.'— [OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 278.]
I assume that this £1 is free of Income Tax, although the right hon. Gentleman did not specifically mention that. The position at the present day is that people who are totally disabled are in two distinct categories so far as taxation is concerned. On the one hand, there is the man or woman in the Services who is disabled, and who receives a constant attendance allowance, and alongside them is the workman who is disabled in industry, and who is to receive a similar allowance, whilst on the other hand there is this body of members of the general public, who may be the victims of a railway accident or sonic other misfortune, for whom there is no relief at all. Naturally, there is no pension scheme for them. Therefore, the only way in which their particular case can be tackled is by some Income Tax relief.
This matter was first brought to my notice about a year ago by a constituent, quite a young woman, who had the misfortune to become totally paralysed as the result of a motor accident. She is still in her twenties, and will unfortunately have to spend the rest of her life in a wheel chair, unable to do anything for herself. In compensation for this accident she received a certain sum of money, which was invested, and before the War she was able to get somebody to assist her. With the rise in taxation she is now unable to do so, and is dependent on such casual help and assistance from relatives and neighbours as' she can get. I feel that it is a hard case, and there must be quite a number of similar cases throughout the country. I took this matter up with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) last December. He was very sympathetic about it, he said, but he referred me to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, which indicated that there were difficulties in dealing with a point of this nature.
It had been my intention to raise this matter on the Finance Act passed earlier this year, but that Measure had to be passed through rather hurriedly because of the advent of the General Election, and the opportunity did not arise. However, after the Election, when the new Government was formed, I took this matter up again with the present Chancellor, in correspondence. He also 'referred me to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, but he did say, in a letter to me, dated 4th September, that he would bear this point in mind when he came to consider the question of Income Tax allowances. I submit that the question of Income Tax allowances has now been considered, to some extent, at any rate, by the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him to consider this point still further between now and Report stage, if he is not able to accept the new Clause. The chief difficulty, as I have said, to which both the Chancellor and the former Chancellor drew my attention, was the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, Paragraph 271, which reads as follows:
"Nor can we accept the suggestion that the allowances should be varied in accordance with the private or individual circumstances of the person to whom or in respect of whom they are made. It is not possible in any scheme to adjust taxation so closely as to take into consideration the purely personal circumstances of each taxpayer. The feeble health of a man who has to maintain a family and the feeble health of a wife whom the husband has to maintain are individual considerations to which no general scheme of taxation can be adapted."
The particular sentence to which both right hon. Gentlemen drew my attention was that which says:
"It is not possible in any scheme to adjust taxation so closely as to take into consideration the purely personal circumstances of each taxpayer."
I submit that there is a loophole, and that that declaration does not perhaps entirely apply in present-day circumstances. Since 1920there have been many modifications to the machinery of taxation, and to some extent taxation has been adjusted to meet the needs of different categories of people, by allowances or in other ways. I have cited the constant attendance allowance, both for the disabled ex-Serviceman and the industrial worker. I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Pay-as-you-earn scheme, a system adapted to meet the circumstances of many groups of taxpayers. Today, in 1945, when I understand the Chancellor has many and large schemes in contemplation, he is surely not going to stand on the obsolete dictum of a Royal Commission Report of the year 1920? I ask him to look into this matter very carefully, and to try to meet me on it, because I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that a strong case can he made out for some assistance being given to those who are physically crippled and unable to fend for themselves.
The case which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mem- ber for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison) is deserving of great sympathy, and I subscribe to every word he has said. The object of his new Clause, as I understand it, falls well within the scope of the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), and if the Financial Secretary could be induced to accept that Clause we should all be satisfied. I should be satisfied as regards the new Clause which stands in my name— (Housekeeping allowances for certain occupiers)—and which provides:
I devised it because I thought that possibly a second line of defence against the Government might be a good thing in case they weighed in with a counterattack against my hon. Friend. The housekeeper allowance has had what might be called 'a chequered career, or perhaps it would be better to call it an expansive career. I trust- that the Committee will not object if for a few moments I go back a little into its past history. It was in 1920 that, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, this housekeeper allowance was granted to a widow or a widower in respect of a family nurse or attendant for young children, and also to a single person in respect of a female relative to look after a younger brother or sister in the home. In 1924 the widow or widower was allowed to claim for himself or herself alone. In other words, children were no longer made a condition of the allowance. Then, in 1943, the scope was widened to include any taxpayer, not only a widow or a widower, who was entitled to claim Income Tax relief in respect of a child or adopted child, with the proviso that the taxpayer had either to be entitled to a single personal allowance, or, where he was entitled to a married personal allowance, he must show that his wife was permanently incapacitated. That change of 1943 brought in for the first time the divorced or separated spouse with children. As a result, we are in the position stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, that as the law now stands a widow or widower may claim a housekeeper's allowance, even though there are no children, and where there are children any class of taxpayer may claim, except that large class in which the wife is not permanently incapacitated. What I seek to do, in the Clause standing in my name—and I only ask that due consideration be given to it by the Financial Secretary in- the event of his not being disposed to accept the Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham—is to extend the housekeeping concession to the single or divorced taxpayer, but without the qualification of children. Why is the widow or widower more worthy of State assistance than the unmarried or divorced man or woman? The only reason I can see for the 1924 concession to the widow and widower without children—and I searched back through the Debates and could not find that Lord Snowden, who made the concession, ever argued the point in the House, so far as the records show—is that that concession is regarded in some measure as compensation for bereavement. Is that the position? If it is, then the allowance cannot also be regarded as a financial inducement to remarry. Therefore, I am armed against anybody who might suggest that to refuse this concession to a divorced or unmarried person is to constitute such an inducement. To be unmarried or divorced is to be most unfortunate. Not all the national savings, which, in spite of my injunction, are laid on the Treasury doorstep, can make up for the calamity. Nevertheless, we should try to do something for those unfortunate people. I am suggesting a £5o a year allowance to help the lonely soul in his or her own premises. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said in 1944 that he did not think that the single taxpayer without dependants had a strong case, but if it is tied down to residence, as is done in my Clause, and all that class who live boarded out in lodgings is excluded, is there not a strong case? Is it any weaker than the case of the widow or widower, who so far as I can find out, can claim the £5o allowance for a housekeeper living in the country, while the widower maintains himself in style all the year round at a London hotel? I do not think I need enter in any detail into the possibilities of life, under the 1924 provision, for the merry widow. Sir Kingsley Wood said in 1943 that the 1924 Act was a great source of complaint on the part of other taxpayers that they had not the same allowance as the childless widow or widower, if they employed a housekeeper. I maintain that that complaint is abundantly justified so far as the limited class described in my little Clause is concerned and, therefore, I ask the Committee for sympathy with the object of this Clause and I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman."Where a taxpayer, unmarried or divorced, is the occupier of premises and employs the services of a resident housekeeper, the taxpayer shall be entitled to a tax allowance of fifty pounds per annum."
I take it that though we are discussing these three new Clauses together, we will if necessary, vote separately upon them.
I must make the position clear. It is within the discretion of the Chair which Clause is called but I have called the first one and, if desired, there will be a Division on that, and then I should not propose to select the two following Clauses.
What will happen if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is willing, as I hope he is, to accept one of the two following Clauses?
Shall we take that point when it arises? It might save the time of the Committee if we argued it then and not now. The first proposal of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who coined a new phrase, the "tied bedroom," is to give any taxpayer, obliged through any circumstances, to keep a housekeeper, the ordinary £50 housekeeper allowance and, as he said, the phrasing of the new Clause is extremely wide. For that reason alone I would have to ask the Committee to reject it, because the word "obliged" might cover almost any conceivable circumstance and the additional words "under any circumstances," might quite conceivably mean anything. Therefore the wording of the Clause is far too wide for any Government however sympathetic—and we are sympathetic to the point of view put forward—to accept. As hon. Members have said, at the present moment the £50allowance is given in respect of a widower or widow, whether they have children or not living in the home, who have with them a resident housekeeper. It is also given, since 1943, to any other taxpayer, whether single or not, who has a female person resident with him or her looking after a child. It is not given to a married man who gets the £140 personal allowance, even if he has a wife completely incapacitated, unless she is incapacitated in the whole year of her assessment, and it is not given to a woman taxpayer, generally speaking, unless she, also, is incapacitated, or is working full time earning her own living.That is the position it is today, and I frankly admit that, after all, with many of the instances brought forward, it is not satisfactory. On some grounds, one cannot justify giving a widower the £50 housekeeper allowance if he has no young children in the home, but the point is that it has been done by Chancellors of the Exchequer in years past and at the moment, it is not suggested that the concession should be taken away. But that is an entirely different thing from inviting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend it. If it were extended, in the directions asked for in the new Clause under discussion it would open the door wide, and no one recognises more clearly than the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who agreed that the 'words he used in his new Clause "obliged" and "under any circumstances" would enable anyone to employ anybody and to ask for, and probably get, the £50 allowance in respect of a housekeeper. It would mean that any young sister living in the home, could be considered as a housekeeper. It would certainly mean that any domestic help who came in for however short a period during the week, might be described as a housekeeper looking after the home. For those reasons, and others which I will not go into, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to accept the new Clause. The suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) is, I agree, in a different category and we can all have a great deal of sympathy with the individuals he visualised who have need of care and attention and who for that reason might be considered to have an equal claim with others to an allowance for someone who is to look after them. The difficulty there, again, is where to draw the line. You may have someone who is completely incapacitated and you give him, if the suggestion were accepted, the allowance for the constant attendance of an individual. What about the person only partially incapacitated, who might equally claim that, although not in the medical sense wholly incapacitated, he was to some extent incapacitated?
:A line is drawn in the Royal Warrant and I think it should be drawn in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and it could be carried into civil life to deal with accident cases.
I agree that it is so under the Royal Warrant—andin passing may I say that is a diminishing number of a special class. We are all anxious to treat the returned soldier who has been disabled, in a different way from others. We give special treatment and we do know there before we start the percentage of disability under which they suffer. In addition, many of us have tried in the past, when sitting on the other side of the Committee, to get the Minister of Pensions to give the constant attendance allowance but the Minister of Pensions thought differently. It led to difficulties and troubles. The same would apply here only on a much bigger scale, and that is one of the difficulties we see in accepting this suggestion. We have the utmost sympathy with it, but just what we can do we do not know, and it would open the door very widely. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh himself quoted from the Royal Commission of 1920 which made perfectly clear that once you embark on allowances for this and that type of disability, you never know where you are going to stop. Therefore the situation or the conditions of the individual cannot be taken as any guide. We have to go by general principles and, although the principles may appear to some people to work out unjustly as between one individual and another, nevertheless they are embedded in the present law and as far as the proposals put forward today are concerned, I am sorry to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept them.
Will the hon. Gentleman not say a word about my Clause?
:As the Noble Lord himself said, his Clause was only a second line of defence. I thought at the time he used the word "defence" he might have said "attack" as I gathered that the whole burden of his speech was simply to follow up what had been said by hon. Members who preceded him and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the first Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham, the greater would include the less.
The point is that I am asking for a much more limited application of this allowance. I submitted that if the hon. Gentleman would not accept the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) there was a case for accepting this far more limited Clause.
:I am sorry to say there is no case for accepting any of these new Clauses, for the general reasons I have given. The Noble Lord wants to see taxpayers, unmarried or divorced, who are occupiers of premises and who employ the services of a resident housekeeper, getting the£ 5o and the answer is quite shortly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept even that proposal, modified though it is as compared with the Clause put forward by the hon. Member for Chippenham. For one thing, ark occupier of premises may not necessarily by the kind of person whom the Noble Lord wishes to benefit. A man may live in premises and not be, technically, their occupier. It would lead us into an amazing situation and we cannot accept either this Clause or the other Clauses which have been put forward.
The Financial Secretary started off with so much reluctance to refuse, and so much sympathy, that I am not clear whether he is completely refusing to consider any part of the proposals. Will he consider some part of this proposal before Report stage, particularly in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) about the man with an invalid wife, who would get an allowance but for the fact that he has not a room to put her in?
I really do not know whether we ought to allow the Financial Secretary to get away quite so easily with the reasons he has given for his refusal to accept the constant attendance allowance. I could only find two precedents in his speech. The first was to refer back to the Royal Commission of 1920, and that after all, is evading the question on its merits and the other referred back to a 25-year-old Report in which the subject is only dealt with almost in passing and in a very vague way. The second reason he gave was, to use his own words, "What we can do we do not know." I am not sure that I know what that means, but I think what the Financial Secretary was intending to imply by that was simply that the Government did not propose to do it.
"No can do."
:Exactly. But this is a very small section of the community, namely, elderly people living lonely lives on very small incomes. Those are the people who have been hit more than any others by increased taxation and the increased cost of living. It is surely desirable that we should try to keep these people out of infirmaries and homes for the aged and so on, if we possibly can, This extra allowance of £5o a year might make all the difference in many of these cases between being able to lead their own lives in their own homes and going to a home for the aged. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why this cannot be done for the ordinary member of the population, as it is in fact going to be done for anybody who happens to be injured by an industrial accident. If it can be done in the case of a person who is injured in an industrial accident, there is no ground for the hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot do it for the other members of the community.
I think it is a good point which we are trying to persuade the Financial Secretary to accept, and he is not treating it as we expect him to treat it although he says he is full of sympathy with the case. Admittedly the state of the law is bad and there are any number of anomalies, but the hon. Gentleman can do nothing at all about it.
I said we were not going to add to them.
I appreciate the Financial Secretary's point, but surely, with all the resources at his disposal, he could, without much difficulty, find a way to express his sympathy without creating an anomaly, I do ask him, with all the the opportunities he has, even if he cannot do it during the course of this Bill, to hold out some hope that this matter, which I can assure him from my professional knowledge is a very pressing one indeed, may receive some consideration at the hands of the Government.
:Perhaps the Clause is too wide, but I did think we would get some sympathy with some of these cases. It comes to this, that the Financial Secretary has admitted there are a number of anomalies, but because he cannot put l00of them right, he is not prepared to put 90 right. I think that is unreasonable, and I want to ask this question. Did he say that the woman who was employed in a full time job could get a housekeeper's allowance? Because my information is that a single woman, however hard she works, cannot get the housekeeper's allowance, whereas a well-endowed widow can get it just for the asking. It is most unfair.
I certainly would ask my hon. Friends to divide on this new Clause as a protest against the way in which it has been received. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but they know quite well that cases coming under these Clauses are numerous and sometimes very painful. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to prove that there are no hardships involved. All he said was that it is too difficult to remedy.' I thought the benches opposite were full of people now able to do things which the previous Government were not able to do, things which we found too difficult arid which are now going to be done by them, and that precedents which we followed are now to be torn in pieces by them. We have had this evening an example of the fact that they admit themselves, not only incapable of solving these problems, but unwilling to try to solve problems which, admittedly, cause hardship to those whom they claim to represent.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 250.
Division No. 35.]
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'br'ke)||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Aitken, Hon. M.||George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)||Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Nicholson, G.|
|Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.||Granville, E. (Eye)||Nutting, Anthony|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Gridley, Sir A.||Osborne, C.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Grimston, R. V.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Haughton, Maj. S. G.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel||Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.|
|Boothby, R.||Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Bowen, R.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Bower, N.||Howard, Hon. A.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.||Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Hurd, A.||Ross, Sir R.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr- Clark (Edin'gh, W.)||Scott, Lord W.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Keeling, E. H.||Snadden, W. M.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Kerr, Sir J. Graham.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Byers, Lt.-Col. F.||Lambert, G.||Spence, Maj. H. R.|
|Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.|
|Channon, H.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Stephen, C.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Cole, T. L.||Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.||Linstead, H. N.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lipson, D. L.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Little, Dr. J.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirrall)||Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen,S.)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Lucas, Maj, Sir J.||Thorneycroft, G. E. (Monmouth)|
|De la Bere, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.|
|Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.||McGovern, J.||Wakefleld, Sir W. W|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.||Waker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.|
|Drayson, Capt. G. B.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Eccles, D. M.||MacLeod, Capt. J.||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Erroll, Col. F. J.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Wheat'|
|Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wi'|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Marples, Capt. A. E.||Wil'|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Maude, J. C.||Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gage, Lt.-Col. C.||Maxton, J.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Mellor, Sir J.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Gammans, Capt. L. D.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Mr. Drewe and Major Mott-Radclyffe|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)|
|Adamson, Mrs. J. L.||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Champion, A. J.||Ewart, R.|
|Allighan, Garry||Chetwynl Capt. G. R.||Fairhurst, F.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Cluse, W. S.||Farthing, W. J.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Cobb, F. A.||Follick, M.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Cocks, F. S.||Foot, M. M.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Colman, Miss G. M.||Forman, J. C.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Foster, W. (Wigan)|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Corlett, Dr. J.||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Corvedale, Viscount||Gaitskell, H. T. N.|
|Baird, Capt. J.||Cove, W. G.||Gallacher, W.|
|Balfour, A.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Gan'|
|Barstow, P. G.||Daines, P.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Barton, C.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Gilzean, A.|
|Battley, J. R.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Goodrich, H. E.|
|Belcher, J. W.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Grenfell, D. R.|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Grierson, E.|
|Berry, H.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.||Deer, G.||Gunter, Capt. R. J.|
|Binns, J.||Delargy, Captain H. J.||Guy, W. H.|
|Blackburn, Capt. A. R.||Diamond, J.||Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)|
|Blenkinsop, Capt. A.||Dobbie, W.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Dodds, N. N.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Douglas, F. C. R.||Hardman, D. R.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Driberg, T. E. N||Hardy, E. A.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)||Dugdale, J, (W.Bromwich)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Haworth, J.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Durbin, E. F. M.||Hewitson, Captain M.|
|Burden, T. W.||Dye, S.||Hobson, C. R.|
|Burke. W. A.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Ho'man, P.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Hoy, J.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Naylor, T. E.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Stamford, W.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Stewart, Cap. M. (Fulham)|
|Janner, B.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Summerskill, Dr. Editn|
|Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Swingler, Capt. s.|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||O'Brien, T.||Symonds, Maj. A L.|
|Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Oldfield, W. H.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)|
|Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Orbach, M.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Keenan, W.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Kenyon, C.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Key, C. W.||Parker, J.||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Lang, G.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)|
|Lavers, S.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Thorneycroft, H.|
|Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Pearson, A.||Tiffany, S.|
|Leslie, J. R.||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Tolley, L.|
|Levy, B. W.||Perrins, W.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Piratin, P.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Platts-Mills, J. F. F.||Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.|
|Lewis, T (Southampton)||Popplewell, E.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Viant, S. P.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Pritt, D. N.||Walkden, E.|
|McAdam, W.||Proctor, W. T.||Walker, G. H.|
|McAllister, G.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|McEntee, V. La T.||Ranger, J.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Mack, J. D.||Rankin, J.||Watson, W. M.|
|McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Maclean, N. (Govan)||Reeves, J.||Wetzman, D.|
|McLeavy, F.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Maopherson, T. (Romford)||Rhodes, H.||Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Robens, A.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)||Whittaker, J. E.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Wigg, G. E. C.|
|Marquand, H. A.||Rogers, G. H. R.||Wilkes, Maj. L.|
|Mathers, G.||Royle, C.||Wilkins, W A.|
|Mayhew, Maj. C. P.||Sargood, R.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Medland, H. M||Scott-Elliot, W.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Messer, F.||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M||Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Mikardo, lan||Shurmer, P.||Williamson, T.|
|Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Willis, E.|
|Mitchison, Maj. G. R.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Wyatt, Maj. W.|
|Monslow, W.||Simmons, C. J.||Yates, V. F.|
|Montague, F.||Skeffington, A. M.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Moody, A. S.||Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)||Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Morley, R.||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)|
|Morris, Lt. Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Snow, Capt. J. W.||Mr. J. Henderson and Mr.Collindridge.|
|Moyle, A.||Solley, L. J.|
|Nally, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
On a point of Order. Might I ask you, Major Milner, if you approve of the way in which the Government Tellers announce the figures? May we not have the announcement in the ordinary way, by saying "Two hundred and fifty" instead of "Two, five oh"?