Skip to main content

New Clause— (Reduced Rates Of Entertainments Duty)

Volume 416: debated on Thursday 29 November 1945

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

On and after tie first clay of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six, all indoor and outdoor sports and games events to which the public is charged for admission, except those involving the use or participation of horses, dogs or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, shall pay the same reduced rate of entertainments duty as is for the time being payable in respect of entertainments covered by Subsection (3) of Section one of the Finance Act, 1935.[ Sir J. Stanley Holmes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.30 p.m.

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

The object of the new Clause is to seek the reduction of the rate of Entertainments Duty charged on games and sports events. This is asked for by 137 national bodies who are concerned wholly or in part with physical recreation. They include the governing body of nearly every sport, game and outdoor activity. To mention one or two well-known bodies, there are the M.C.C., the Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, and to avoid any idea that the Principality is being neglected, the Football Association of Wales, the Rugby Football League, the Royal and Ancient, the Amateur Athletic Association, the Amateur Boxing Association, and 129 other similar bodies. These national bodies an all promoting the development of physical recreation in Great Britain, and they find themselves hampered and frustrated by the rate of Entertainments Duty.

I think it should be pointed out that the governing bodies of most amateur games and sports are run by honorary officials, and depend for their revenue on the donations and subscriptions of enthusiasts, and on the profit derived from occasional events to which the public are charged for admission. Further, their whole resources are devoted to the extension and development of the game or sport in question. Let me compare these games and sports with cinemas, horseracing, and greyhound racing. The latter provide entertainment for the people and profit for the promoters. They do nothing to aid in the physical development of the men, women and children of the nation. On the other hand, the games and sports events for which the public pay for admission have a threefold purpose: firstly, to stimulate public interest in the game or sport by staging events in which a high level of skill is displayed, with the definite educational purpose of extending and developing interest in the particular game or sport; secondly, to give individual players the opportunity of developing their skill by meeting other players of front rank; and thirdly, and I think most important of all, to raise funds to enable the central or local organisation of the game or sport to develop its work, to extend its activities, and to help to meet the normal running expenses.

I will give an illustration. The M.C.C. are one of the best examples. They devote nearly the whole of their surplus to promoting cricket throughout the country. They send their teams to the public schools and to local clubs, paying all the expenses and charging nothing whatever, and, of course, they send their teams abroad to the Dominions, getting their share of the gates there; they are prepared to use the whole of their surplus funds for the purpose of developing cricket. Take the Amateur Swimming Association. The whole of their surplus funds are used for the purpose of teaching boys and girls, in the schools and elsewhere, to swim. The Amateur Boxing Association devotes its spare funds to the purpose of enabling the young people of this country to learn the art of self-defence. Even if there were no precedent for asking for the reduction of the Entertainments Duty on Sports and games, I feel that what I have already said will have satisfied the Committee that there is a good case for a reduction, and that games and sports should not pay as high an Entertainments Duty as cinemas or horse racing and dog racing.

But there is a precedent. Under Section r of the Finance Act, 1935, as subsequently amended, it is provided that the rates of duty in respect of entertain-ments—
"where all the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing, and the entertainment consists solely of one or more of the following items, namely, a stage play, a ballet (whether a stage play or not), a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental), a lecture, a recitation, a music hall or other variety entertainment, a circus or a travelling show "—
shall be at a lower scale. If, for example, there is a variety show with Flanagan and Allen, and a shilling is charged for admission, the Entertainments Duty is a halfpenny, and the proprietors, say the London Palladium, take 'Lid. of the is. But if the M.C.C. arrange a match between England and Australia at Lords, or the Glasgow Rangers play the Dynamos at Ibrox Park, or the Amateur Boxing Association arranges a championship meeting, and the admission 1s., the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes 3½d. of that is., and only 8½d. goes to the club or association. I want to point out that the championship meeting of the Amateur Boxing Association, or the game yesterday at Ibrox Park, or a test match at Lords, complies with the words in Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1935, namely, in respect of entertainments
"where all the performers whose actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing."
I could go on with examples of many other sporting associations, but there are many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House who want to speak with regard to cricket, football and other games, and I hope I may leave it for them to carry on and endeavour to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this concession, because we believe it is not only in accordance with the spirit of the law which has existed since 1935, but it is a matter on which an appeal should not entirely fail.

I am glad to support this Motion. As my hon. Friend has said, this is a subject which covers an extremely wide field, but I propose to confine the submissions I desire to make to the Committee, to football and cricket, the two sports which probably command the largest number of spectators of any in this country. As this subject is somewhat complicated, I hope the Committee will be patient if I make use of unusually copious notes, because a good deal of detail is necessary and I have not been able to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) to produce the necessary graph which might shorten the discussion.

The first point I want to urge is this. When the Entertainments Duty was first levied on football and cricket clubs in 1916, the House was assured by; the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that date that entertainments tax was an emergency war imposition, and that it would be removed when war taxation was no longer required. Facilis descensus Averno. All Chancellors of the Exchequer—although I hope the present holder of that office will be an exception—are reluctant to let go emergency wartime taxation. Far from being removed, this Entertainments Duty has from time to time been increased in time of peace, despite protests from sports organisations of all kinds that it was unfair to levy so heavy a tax upon gross receipts rather than upon profits. Before the war broke out in 1939, the Entertainments Duty on a 10d. admission ticket was 2d. Professional football clubs charged Is. at the gate inclusive of tax. During the war the tax has been increased from 2d. upon a rod. entrance fee to 7½d. on a 10½d. entrance fee. That represents the war time increase in the Entertainments Duty since 1939. Three years ago the leading clubs in the South of England charged is admission, and to that figure added 6d. for tax, making a total is. 6d. When the last increase in tax was made, the clubs did not add the extra 1½d. to the inclusive admission charge. This meant that on the lowest admission charge—and it is on this that the clubs mainly depend for their support and income—they lost one-eighth of their net receipts, and they are losing that today.

3.45 p.m.

It may be contended, in the course of the Debate, that the clubs do not in fact pay the tax, but that it is passed on to the public. That is a generalisation which is not in accordance with the facts. I have take the case of a very well-known London professional club, Tottenham Hotspur, with which the hon. Gentleman who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor will be familiar, since they play very near to his constituency. I think their case is a good example. In 1916, when Entertainments Duty was first levied, the Tottenham Hotspur club charged 5s. for the best seats in their stand, to which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman goes when he watches a match. That 5s. went direct into the club's coffers. There has never been any increase in that sum for League games since 1916. The whole of the tax on stand seats since then has been borne by the clubs, and not one penny of it has been passed on to the public. At the present time the charges for stand seats at most grounds are 4s. 6d. and 3s. On a 4s. 6d. seat the tax is 2s., and on a 3s.seat it is is. 3d. If a club desires to obtain 5s. for itself today through selling a stand seat, as in the pre-Entertainments Duty times, the charge would have to be 9s. 7d., as the tax on a 5s. admission charge is 4s. 7d. Naturally, the public will not pay such a figure, and today the club gets only 2S. 6d. from a 5s. inclusive charge, and the Exchequer take the other 2s. 6d. The tax on a 2S. 6d. admission' charge, therefore, is now 100 per cent. The balance sheet of the Tottenham Hotspur Club, which I have, shows that last season the amount paid to the players who drew the crowds was an aggregate of £1,12o for the whole season, but the amount paid in rates and taxes to the municipal exchequer and to the Chancellor was £12,000.

I would like to be sure whether £120 was the total sum paid to the players. To me it sounds a rather small figure.

It is a small figure for the reason that in wartime conditions the Football Association fixed a maximum payment of 30s. per match, because the players came from Service units, war work and so on, as opposed to £8a week which could be got by the best professionals in peacetime as regular employment. I do not think anybody would describe the figures I have given as a fair distribution of the receipts taken at the gate. Now that the war is over, the players are demanding higher remuneration, and the clubs reply to those demands with the plea that they cannot pay what the players are worth because of the exactions of the Government. They say they will be delighted to meet the player's demands if the Government will leave enough money in the clubs' tills to enable those higher wages to be paid.

When the question was last raised in a Debate on the Finance Bill and an Amendment was moved, to include football clubs in what is generally described as the "living performers' schedule," an opponent of the Amendment urged that before any concession was made to the clubs the Chancellor of the Exchequer should demand two things: first, that directors' fees should not be increased, and secondly, that dividends should not be increased as a result of such concessions. Such statements betray ignorance of the facts. The directors of football clubs in England do not receive, never have received, and it would be illegal for them to. receive, under the Football Association's rules any directors' fees or any payment. The Football Association does not allow directors fees, which are expressly forbidden in the articles of association of every professional club. Directors are directors on account of their interest in the game, and for some of them it is a Costly interest.

I do not suggest that the examples I am about to give are typical of what happens all over the country, but I want to rebut the idea that professional football is a profitable industry for the directors. I will give examples of four London clubs. I will not name them, but I will supply the names to the Chancellor privately if he wishes. I think it is not desirable to disclose across the Floor the financial circumstances of certain individuals. One club owes its directors £65,000, which they advanced to help the club to carry on through the war period. Another club owes its chairman £24,000. Within the past two years an ex-chairman of one club forgave the club £ £21,000 which he had lent it, while in another case, when the director died leaving a club £23,000 in debt to him, his heirs at law, with astonishing generosity, wiped out the £23,000. During the war many clubs were kept going only because the money necessary to enable them to function was found by the directors from their private pockets. I think those facts are not generally known, and that is why I mention them. They should be known if only because they are a powerful argument in favour of an amelioration of the enormous Entertainments Duty.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me at what rate of interest the directors lent the money?

I imagine it varied. I know that in one case where £21,000 was written off by the chairman of the club, he did really make a gift of it, because he was not drawing interest upon it. I am not in a position to say that in no case was any interest charged.

The only point I want to make is that it might be suggested—;I hope it is not a fact—that the directors of clubs might be in a position to lend money to the clubs at a high rate of interest.

I think the fact that in many cases very large sums have been written off, and that in one case the heirs of the director wiped out £23,000, shows that there has been no usury in this matter. I would like now to give the Committee an example of how much of the gate receipts find their way into the Exchequer. Last April there was played at Wembley Stadium the Final of the League South Cup. The sum of £29,000 was taken at the gate, £13,000 of which found its way into the Exchequer in Entertainments Duty, leaving £16,000. The expenses of the match—hiring the ground, printing, and so on—took £4,000, leaving approximately £12,000 to be divided into three equal portions, £4,000 to each of the two clubs which took part, and £4,000 to the League, which takes one-third of the gate receipts. That left each club with £4,000. But of course, the story did not end there. The Chancellor appeared again in the role of Income Tax collector, which meant that, at l0s. in the £, £2,000 was taken from each club. Therefore, with gate receipts of £29,000, each club participated to the extent of £2,000.

I will now be a little more topical and up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes) referred to the match which took place yesterday between the Glasgow Rangers and the Moscow Dynamos, that excellent team which has done so much to provide enjoyment for football spectators in this country. I have not got the figures of yesterday's match, but I have the figures for the match that was played at Tottenham a week ago between the Arsenal football club and the Moscow Dynamos. I think it would have been a gracious act if the Chancellor had been invited to kick off on that occasion. The conditions were particularly congenial for that. The ground was wrapped in an impenetrable fog, visibility was almost nil, and I must say that I think it might well have been described as "Dalton's benefit match," for the reason I am going to give. The gate receipts were £7,734, of which £3,400 went into the Exchequer by way of Entertainments Duty. As I want to be accurate, I will_ point out that there are still a few pre-sale tickets which do not come into those figures. I find that the Moscow Dynamos, Who have played four matches in this country, have been mulcted in about £6,600, which was their share of the Entertainments Duty on the gate money taken. I want to impress upon the Committee that the Moscow Dynamos are handing over the profits of their tour to the Stalingrad Rebuilding Fund. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the proposed new Clause, I suggest that it would be a graceful gesture if the Chancellor would hand back that money to the Moscow Dynamos, firstly, because it is for the Stalingrad Rebuilding Fund, a fact which strikes a sentimental and sympathetic chord in all our hearts. I suggest that by so doing the Chancellor would do far more for Anglo-Russian friendship than would any number of pontifical utterances from the Treasury Bench.

4.0 p.m.

Another point which needs to be dealt with is the oft repeated statement that huge dividends are paid to the shareholders in these professional football clubs. I come again to the balance sheet of Tottenham Hotspur. Their last balance sheet shows that a dividend of 5 per cent. was paid last year, and that the amount required to pay it was 245. It may astonish the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to find that the number of shareholders is so small that to pay 5 per cent. cost only £245. For every pound paid to the shareholders £50 was paid in rates and taxes, and I am told that the dividend was entirely pro- vided by the sale of programmes on the ground throughout the season, and that the gate money was not touched at all. I am assured by the vice-chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Club, with whom I had the pleasure of a talk in the House about a week ago, that not a penny of the gate receipts ever reach the shareholders. The Football Association rules prohibit the payment of a dividend of more than 7½percent., less tax, or 5 per cent., free of tax. Those are the maximum sums, but the majority of professional clubs never pay any dividend at all. There are well known clubs in this country, with a history going back forty or fifty years who have never paid a penny to their shareholders, nor did their shareholders ever expect it.

It needs to be emphasised that professional clubs are not commercial concerns in the ordinary sense of that word, although they are treated far more severely than ordinary commercial businesses, because an inordinately heavy tax is levied upon their gross receipts in addition to Income Tax at the standard rate on any profits which they may make. I think that is the gravamen of the complaint that it is a tax upon gross receipts rather than a tax upon profits. The receipts of the big clubs from gate money are used in the first place to meet Government demands, the Government taking the biggest share of those receipts, secondly, to pay their players, and, thirdly, to pay the permanent staff and their other establishment charges of one kind or another. It is important to emphasise that professional football cannot be exploited for profit by those who control it, nor do they receive the smallest coin of the realm for their services.

Amateur football is, of course, on an entirely different plane and I now want to say a word about that. I am dealing only with Association football; my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), whose name is so well known in the world of Rugby football, hopes to catch your eye later, Major Milner. Amateur Association football has been treated in an extremely churlish manner by successive Governments; this is not a party question at all in normal pre-war times there were some 40,000 amateur clubs under the jurisdiction of the Football Association. The 40,000 secretaries of those clubs and the others who run them are all honorary officials, men doing their best for sheer love of the game. I suggest that they are engaged in a work of vast national importance, the promotion of healthy amateur sport, the provision of facilities for participation in an excellent arid healthy game which builds up the physical side of our youth; but so far from the Government encouraging them every one of those 40,000 clubs which charges for admission to matches has to pay 3½d. in the shilling as Entertainments Duty. I suggest that so far from the Government taking 3½d. in the shilling from these clubs, which are promoting amateur sport, a very strong case could be made for a subsidy from the National Exchequer on account of the valuable work they are doing in helping to promote the physical development of the rising generation.

Before the Entertainments Duty was introduced the majority of amateur clubs which had stands on their grounds used to charge 1s and keep the whole of the is. The majority still charge Is., but the Government compel them to hand over 3½d. That Government exaction is the chief reason why so many thousands of clubs have to resort to all kinds of other activities, whist drives, concerts, dances and the like, in order to remain solvent. Here again, in amateur football, the members of the committee of a club frequently put their hands into their pockets to provide the money to balance the club accounts. In spite of this situation these amateur clubs do not ask to be entirely exempt from taxes, but they do feel that if they do manage to make a profit it should be sufficient for the Government to levy Income Tax at the standard rate upon that profit and not to demand Entertainments Duty in addition. It can be urged that the tax on an admission charge of 6d., which is the average admission figure, is only ½d. and that is true, but it is enough to make the many thousands of honorary secretaries and treasurers into unpaid tax collectors, running the risk of heavy pains and penalties if they do anything wrong in connection with the obligations thrust upon them by the various Finance Acts.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that now that we have gone through another long and terrible war the time has come to abolish Entertainments Duty on amateur games where the admission charge does not exceed is. The loss to the National Exchequer would be considerably less than a drop in the bucket as compared with our present post-war expenditure. Such a decision would give immense satisfaction to those running amateur sport, and relieve thousands of earnest hard-working officials from what is an ever-present nightmare, the fear that they may be doing something which exposes them to the pains and penalties I have mentioned. Those who are engaged in football cannot understand why there should be such an unfair differentiation against their game as compared with the theatre, the music hall, the circus, concerts and other activities. The hon. Member who moved the new Clause pointed out that on these other forms of amusement an admission charge of is. carries only ½d. in taxation, but if a football club makes a charge of '11½d. for admission another 8½d. must be added for tax. Why should a football club pay 17 times as much tax as a theatre? The living theatre, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has received certain concessions in recent Finance Acts in respect of what is regarded as cultural entertainment. I wonder whether he is aware that the play, which I hope he enjoyed as much as I enjoyed it in my youth, and since, called "Charley's Aunt," comes within that category, that it is regarded as cultural entertainment for the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's tax-collecting arrangements. I suggest that there is as much cultural uplift in watching first-class or even amateur football as is to be found in seeing that fine old play. The distinction really is fantastic and nonsense, hut it is the law. In "Oliver Twist," when Mr. Bumble was informed that he was responsible for his wife's actions, he remarked, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, "Then the law is a hass." I am bound to say that 1 think "the law is a hass" in this particular connection. It is small wonder that those who run football take the view that they have had a raw deal.

During the war many thousands of football clubs have had to close down, not for financial reasons but because their grounds were requisitioned or their players called up, or because they could not find the money with which to carry on—very often for all three of these reasons. Now, thousands of enthusiasts who are anxious to restart their beloved sport find themselves quite unable to do so for lack of grounds and lack of funds, or both. The grounds are derelict, the buildings are in a state of disrepair, and equipment cannot be obtained at reasonable prices, if, indeed, it can be obtained at all. Many clubs are pluckily making an effort to; cage a come-back but find themselves crippled to a tremendous extent by the tax demands upon them. Why, if a club charges only 4d. for admission, should the State demand that shall be handed over even today? Surely now that we arc at peace what I would describe as such a pernicious imposition, should be removed.

The Committee have been extremely kind and patient with me, and I am sorry if my speech has been a little long, but this is not a party matter and I feel that I ought to put these matters forward. Now I ask for a little further indulgence while I pass from football to another game. I put football first because we are in the football season, but next May the long "cold winter of our discontent," as nationally planned by the Minister of Fuel and Power, will be over and cricket will be with us once more. I want to say a word about cricket. I hear a suggestion from behind me that the Socialist Party need a little instruction about playing cricket, but 1 did not want to make that point. For the facts which I shall place before the Committee I am indebted to the M.C.C. I thought it best to go to the fountain head.of cricket. With the approach of the reconstruction period it is hoped to restart county cricket next May, and the financial crisis with which the game is faced justifies the formulation here, again, of very strong representations for relief from Entertainments Duty. It will be a very difficult period. Clubs will be faced with exceptionally heavy expenditure. Many have a reduced membership and no possible means of recovery unless every effort is made to increase the attendance at matches. Cricket is subject to various hazards from which football is immune. Rain can prevent play where a football match carries on, and in the case of county cricket there is evidence to suggest that any attempt to pass on the Entertainments Duty to the spectators reduces rather than fosters public interest in the game.

An increased admission charge in order to meet the burdens of Entertainments Duty can only delay the re-establishment of a game which is not only national but, I suggest, is also imperial in the best sense of the word. It seems doubtful whether, when this taxation was introduced in 1916, the authorities could possibly have realised that it would operate as onerously as it does upon county cricket, which can claim a wide social and cultural value and which, long before the introduction of this taxation, was struggling for existence, very often in straitened financial circumstances. In 1933 the competition of the cinema and broadcasting directed the attention of a small section of the public towards the plight of the theatre. Action was then taken, and the Living Stage Schedule appeared after that, but I think it is no exaggeration to say that the development of interest in cricket which has taken place not only in this country but throughout the Dominions has been arrested here in Britain by the Entertainments Duty.

4.15 p.m.

It is this fact alone which has prevented the equipment and maintenance of county grounds in a manner calculated to increase public interest. It might be argued that to reduce the tax would undoubtedly have led to prosperity in the cricket world, and that ultimately the Treasury might be the gainer rather than the loser. There are many figures, with which I will not weary the Committee, which could be used in argument that the crippling effect of Entertainments Duty on county cricket between the two wars was perhaps the most important factor. In 1937, of the 17 first-class counties, the average aggregate annual loss was £10,500, after the payment of £15,800 annually in Entertainments Duty. At the present rate now ruling, without altering the total charges for admission, the payment on that account would have been increased by nearly £12,000 with a corresponding increase in the aggregate annual deficit. In addition to the payment of Entertainments Duty, during the same period, clubs paid an average annual duty amounting to £1,183 of their membership subscriptions. That gives a combined total of 17,000, which indicates the same effect that even the total relief of Entertainments Duty would have on the National Revenue receipts.

In 1939 the admission charged was Is. 2d. for the Treasury and rod. for the club. Today the increasing costs reduce the club's share to 8½d., which means a loss of 15 per cent. in total revenue. Today, with certain increases of expenses which are inevitable, such as players' wages, and so on, clubs will have to look to an increase of 33½ per cent. in revenue, which implies a 2s. admission or a 100 per cent. increase of the prewar charge to spectators, which will entail a loss rather than a gain to the Exchequer.

From the earliest days, county cricket has struggled against financial difficulties, which have prevented the development of grounds and amenities on the scale expected by the public. I suggest that the time has come for early sympathetic consideration of this particular problem. In 1937 the investigation which the M.C.C. then conducted disclosed that of 17 first-class county clubs, only three were in a condition to raise any substantial sum in an emergency without having recourse to special appeals or to borrowing. The same inquiry failed to discover any kind of extravagance in administration, and their plight now is indeed sad. Precedent has already been established for preferential treatment of certain entertainments both in regard to total exemption and reduced taxation.

We differentiate between the employment of human performers as distinct from animals or performances on the screen, and profits put back into the game as against dividends distributed to shareholders. In the Customs Act of 1885, Corporation Duty is payable by cricket clubs, which escape Legacy Duty, but limited companies are exempt. It is a differentiation which might assist the right hon. Gentleman in assessing liability for entertainment duty. It is economically preferable to maintain a struggling institution rather than to contemplate its decay, particularly if such an institution is the game of cricket. If it be correct that discrimination between different classes of entertainment is both practicable and justifiable, the M.C.C. wishes to advance certain proposals to the right hon. Gentleman to aid county cricket and to put certain considerations in front of him.

I will summarise them briefly before I resume my scat. The failure to revive county cricket as a national institution would affect the game adversely not only nationally but throughout the Empire, where it plays such an important part in our relations; the existing resources of county clubs will not be adequate to meet the liabilities with which they are faced, and at the conclusion of war county cricket will qualify as again requiring revival; cricket is a form of entertainment necessitating living performers, it has never been connected with profit, and is completely divorced from sensational money prizes or betting. It is difficult to believe that when the duty was first imposed it was ever intended to inflict such hardship on a non-profit making game. It is more susceptible than any other game to the vagaries of the English climate, it has an educational and cultural value, and provides employment during the summer months for players and staff on the ground. The Entertainments Duty is very small in terms of money but extremely damaging in its effect upon the game.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will examine the possibility of providing relief here and now. In this connection relief in time in the first postwar season will be particularly valuable. The first postwar season will be with us in May. I ask that cricket may be placed high on the list of the priorities of the right hon. Gentleman, and high on the list for consideration, here and now, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. This has been a very long speech for a Committee stage and they have listened with great attention, for which I am very grateful.

I would add a final word leaving football and cricket on one side. I have always felt that here, in Great Britain, sport is a social cement which stands us well in times of stress and strain, and when confronted' with two vast wars, as we have been, the love of sport enables Tories and Socialists to fight in politics yet play on a Saturday afternoon on the football field in a manner which is free from the violence and hitter hatreds which so often typify politics in other lands. One of the most remarkable incidents between the two wars was when, during the General Strike of 1926, at Plymouth, there was played a football match between strikers and special constables, at which I believe the Chief Constable of Plymouth kicked off. This is something in British life well worth preserving. It acts as a cement which enables us to be a nation to pull together in times of stress, and who can forget our soldiers at the Battle of Loos dribbling footballs before them on that terrible day. Sport means more than a matter of finance, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the new Clause from that new angle and make the concession.

Those of us who are interested in this matter were encouraged to go forward with it owing to the very sympathetic way in which the Chancellor, and the Financial Secretary listened to what we had to say earlier on this Bill. The mover and supporters of the new Clause gave abundant evidence to the Committee and I only want to underline one or two things which they said. The facts and figures put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) in connection with Association football, cricket, boxing and swimming, can all be amplified in the case of Rugby football. I will not give the detailed figures to the Committee because they would only weary the Committee. The figures I could give would be precisely of the same kind and nature as those given by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Where do the funds go that are collected by Rugby football clubs? Rugby football clubs have no paid players. They are composed entirely of amateurs. Many of the players pay their own expenses. Where do the funds go from the big matches held at Twickenham? The answer is that these funds go towards the provision of grounds for clubs. Almost the whole of the surplus funds obtained from Rugby football, after the payment of the expenses of players, who come to play in big matches from different parts of the country, go towards the upkeep and maintenance of grounds. It is a most laudable object. With so much money taken away in Entertainments Duty clubs will not have the money available to rehabilitate their grounds and to get going again. They will not have the funds available with which to purchase new grounds. Let us not forget that, prior to the outbreak of war, the National Fitness Council was set up to which substantial funds were contributed to help in the provision of playing fields and other recreational facilities. It is to that end that so much of the money col- lected from the playing of Rugby football is devoted. The money is used not only for Rugby football, but for cricket as well. Many Rugby football clubs join with cricket clubs. Some of this money is used for the provision of grounds for schools.

I urge the Financial Secretary to translate the sympathetic consideration which he has previously given to this subject into action. If he does this, he will be furthering a very valuable object. Grounds are wanted as near as possible to the cities so that players and spectators have not far to travel. We want, therefore, to be in a position to have funds available to secure fields, recreation and playing grounds for our amateur clubs for all time. The imposition of this crippling Entertainments Duty will not only prevent the acquisition of these grounds, but it will also, I fear, prevent the rehabilitation and re-establishment of so many clubs which, because of the war, have not been able to carry on. I press upon the Financial Secretary to take action now. It is now that help and funds are needed. If he does this, his action, without any shadow of doubt at all, will be more than acceptable to millions of people throughout the country.

I rise to take part in the Debate because of certain observations that were made regarding the funds of the Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. I do not wish to go into the figures, but I am concerned to have the Entertainments Duty made clear to us. I have been listening very carefully and attentively and I wonder if I am right in my conclusion, that the payment of Entertainments Duty is made by the individual who attends the particular sport. if the Entertainments Duty is removed, then, surely, those who pay the Entertainments Duty should benefit. But it appears to me that the people who benefit in this case will be the Association football clubs. It seems clear that the case which has been built up, was for the removal of the Entertainments Duly Tax for the benefit of the football clubs.

I do want to make the point that in wartime the players' wages do not come into the picture so much as they will when peacetime conditions are restored.

I quite appreciate that and that the running of these clubs will demand financial assistance greater than that which was available during the war. What I want to say is that the whole of the argument was based on Association football clubs because, so far as amateur clubs are concerned, they would not pay anything like the same volume of Entertainments Duty as the professional clubs. It is perfectly true that the amateur clubs deserve special treatment, and I am -speaking as one who has played in the amateur world, and with some knowledge of the amateur's difficulties. The payment of this Entertainments Duty is something which was imposed during the war period to help the national funds for a particular purpose, and as a person pays a tax on many things that he purchases, so he paid a tax for watching football. I can, therefore, understand the Chancellor refusing to give way on this tax during the period of war. He has explained to the Committee how he has given the utmost concessions in his Budget and that he has refused Amendments because they would at this period unbalance his Budget. However, I hope that the Chancellor will give serious consideration to the matter of Entertainments Duty as it affects amateur athletics so that when the next Finance Bill is introduced they may have the benefit proposed in this new Clause.

Some reference has been made to swimming. Let us see the difference as compared with Association football. Swimming events, in the main, are competitions between individual members and between clubs, and the buildings in which they take place are Then there are gymnastic exhibitions and, of course, amateur boxing, which has an even bigger appeal. Those are the cases which deserve consideration, but as far as Association football is concerned, it has developed into a business. As one who often stands behind the goal posts at Tottenham Hotspur ground and who, in the past, paid the nimble shilling—now is. 6d—to see matches, I object to paying tax in order to subsidise the Spurs football club as such. If there is to be any relief in the tax then the people who pay it should have that relief. So far as the finances of Tottenham Hotspur are concerned, I do not dispute the figures given but I do feel that some explanation should be given regarding the money paid for players' wages during the war period, and the amount paid in rates and taxes. I do not want to be misunderstood. We in North London have a great regard for the Spurs, because we feel that it is the only club that gives those who pay the lower prices three sides around the field, to see the play. But I was surprised to hear that it is we who have. been subsidising the 5s. seat-holders. If the Entertainments Duty on this side has been increased, it must have come from the volume of money which has been paid by us on the is. 6d. side. There may be a reason for it, because the tax must be paid.

As regards rates and taxes, I may say that I am a member of the M.C.C.[Interruption]—do not misunderstand me, I mean of the Middlesex County Council's assessment and valuation authority, of whose area Tottenham is a part. I did hope that I had got on the right school tie. As I have said, I am on the valuation committee of the local authority. The figure has -been given of something like £12,000. Tottenham Hotspur are assessed on their football ground, in so far as a particular area is covered and so on, and in relation to revenue. If they pay £12,000 in rates and taxes, that amount is distinct from Entertainments Duty and is based upon the rateable value so that they pay the same as other people pay. However, I hope that the Chancellor will give deep consideration of the question of Entertainments Duty specifically in connection with amateur organisations and if some relief can be given in the next Finance Bill, it will be of physical and cultural benefit to a concerned. Physical instruction is needed, and it will be stimulated by watching and also taking part in games. For this reason I ask the Chancellor to look into the matter very seriously.

The proposalhere is a limited one. It is that all sports events and games for which an admission charge is made, except horse racing, motor racing and dog racing, should be given the preferential treatment now accorded to the living theatre. That is the proposition of the new Clause. This has been considered on many occasions in the past, and up to now no Chancellor has seen his way to accepting the various suggestions that have been made. I think all will agree that sport should come first, if any change is made in the law and as the Chancellor has indicated, both privately to Members who have written to him and in the House in reply to Questions, this is a matter which is receiving his most earnest and sympathetic consideration, but he cannot see his way now to accepting this new Clause.

The preference given to the living theatre dates back, as the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes) stated, to 1935. It was then given at a certain rate and that rate has been extended several times since—the last time I think in 1943. The exception was made in 1935 in favour of the living theatre, which then and since—not perhaps so much during the war years but most certainly before the war—had suffered as compared with the cinema. The concession was made to the living theatre, riot because the living theatre is a good thing in itself although we are all agreed that it is—and I am not resisting this Clause now on the ground that sports and particularly amateur sports are not good things—but for the simple reason that the living theatre was up against a competition which sports and games are not up against today. It had the competition of the cinema to meet, in circumstances which were altogether different from those connected with sports and games. The arguments used by the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this Amendment were four or five in number, and contained much that cannot be contradicted. The first was that sports and games are good in themselves and we will agree as to that. It was also stated that the financial position of the various sports clubs was precarious and that again may be so, in fact undoubtedly it is so. But, the financial position of the sports club is not entirely due, in fact is possibly not due at all, to the incidence of the Entertainments Duty. During the war certain troubles have fallen on sports clubs, football and cricket clubs, in common with the rest of mankind. They have had to meet the incidence of a very high rate of Income Tax and to this has to be added all their other troubles. We must, however, keep a sense of balance in this matter and although I was extremely interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) and in the figures he gave, with which I do not quarrel, it showed only one side of the picture, and he must, as we all must, keep a sense of balance.

So far as the events for which admission is charged are concerned, it is doubtful whether it can be said that the public gain anything except entertainment from watching these events. So far as they are getting any improvement in their health, I think it can only be argued that they get this to the extent that their minds are taken off their work, and they are given good entertainment and they like to pay to watch it. But except for this there does not seem to be anything in the points put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who pleaded that we were penalising the health-giving activities of the sports in question.

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to interrupt, may I say that without the assistance of the public watching and paying for these games, many sports could not exist? It is by the public paying to watch these games that it is possible for most of these clubs to carry on. They could not carry on otherwise, and it is the provision of the physical side of this entertainment that is desired.

4.45 p.m.

I was trying to make a distinction between those who watch and those who are playing the game because, as I have said, no real point has been made that it affects anything but the entertainment of the people who pay to watch these games. Therefore, it is open to anyone, if it is a question of having sport, to indulge in that sport without having to pay all that duty. The point I am making, for what it is worth, is that it cannot be said that we are, by the Entertainments Duty, penalising the healthy recreation of the ordinary working man. Nor can it be said, as was said, that preference was given to the living theatre, or that sports clubs suffered by competition with the cinema. So far as the analogy of the living theatre is concerned, I think that it breaks down on all counts. No one has said during the discussion that, if the sports clubs who charge for admission—the professional clubs—are in great financial difficulties, there is any reason why they should not increase their charges. Other forms of entertainment during 'the war have increased their charges—

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that. The matter is within the recollection of the Committee. It was pointed out that, when the charges were increased, the attendances fell away.

It is a legitimate argument that, if a thing does not pay, the charges must be increased in order to try to make ends meet. It cannot be argued that, because professional clubs cannot, under existing conditions, make money in the way some of them did in the days before the war, the one thing they must not do is to increase the cost of entry to a game. As a matter of fact, 1 believe the cost has been increased. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) gave us figures to show just how the incidence of Entertainments Duty was divided up and how it fell as between one club and one price of seat and another. The average price of a seat at most matches is 1s. 6d. It is true there are higher priced seats in the stands, and there are also lower priced seats on the bank, or for boys and those under a certain age. It varies from club to club, but about 40 or 50per cent. of the people who go to football matches now pay 1s. 6d. Before the war, it was is., on which 2d. Entertainments Duty was paid. The proprietors of these various clubs put the Is. seats up to 1s. 6d., and that is the average price now for most of the grounds. The duty on that is 7½d. Before the war, out of the is., with 2d. duty charge, the proprietors or club retained 10½d. Now, the charge is 1s. 6d., with 7½d. duty, and they retain 'old. so that it is right to say, taking the average, that the incidence of Entertainments Duty today is not very much greater than it was in the prewar days. The price of the seats has gone up, but the net loss to the proprietors of the grounds is nil, and, actually, on balance, they gain a ½-d. on every is. 6d. seat. However sympathetic we were to the general idea of helping sports and games in this way, the difficulty is that, if you exempt sports and games, immediately other forms of sport not included in this proposal will want to be included, and it would be difficult to know just where it would stop. It would mean, too, that the cinema would havea definite grievance—

:I am sure the hon. Gentleman is anxious to address himself to the new Clause. We have been at great pains to point out that the whole burden of the new Clause rests upon the fact that non-profit making sports are those which we seek to help, and we are in no sense trying to help horse racing and greyhound racing, which are run as business concerns for profit.

I am aware of that, and it is a good point to make, but, if we take other forms of sport, except the cinema, they would feel that there was a case for taking the Duty off in their case, and it may well be that, in the fulness of time, this is the kind of tax that may be remitted. I do not know. But it is a tax on gross receipts, which normally is a bad form of taxation. The financial effect, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this Clause, would be £2,000,000. Hon. Members may say that that is not a great amount, but, at any rate, much can be done even with £2,000,000.

Yes. Therefore, the conclusion I come to is this. Whilst we are, as the Chancellor has indicated several times, extremely sympathetic to the new Clause, it cannot be accepted now. My right hon. Friend will, however, between now and next April, look into this matter with the utmost sympathy to see if something cannot be done to meet the point put forward this afternoon and in previous Debates on this subject. Hon. Members may say that it would be better now than next April, but I would like to point out to them that next April will still be in time for the football season of 1946–47, and also in time for part, at any rate, of the forthcoming cricket season.

I, therefore, ask the supporters of this new Clause to withdraw it on the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without commitment or promise, will examine the matter sympathetically to see if anything can be done in the direction we have been discussing.

I want to say how disappointed I am with the reply of the hon. Gentleman. I think this is one of the first proposals from this side of the Committee with which he has dealt, and I must say that, although I regarded the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last three days as chastising us with whips, I now find the hon. Gentleman is chastising us with scorpions, because he has really held out no hope that any relief will be given in this matter. 1 must say that 1 was singularly unimpressed with his argument that, if a concession were given to sports, which everyone agrees are not run for commercial interests, and, if in fact, are almost all non-profit-making, we would inevitably be forced to extend to the cinemas, clog racing, horse racing and so on, all industries definitely run for profit, and, in most cases, succeeding in making profit. The moment when that was likely to happen, was when the concession was given to the living theatre, because it is run for profit, and, on some occasions, makes a profit, and yet something like to years have elapsed and the argument has never been raised to extend the same concession to horse racing or dog racing.

I am particularly interested in the amateur side of this problem, and I feel that the next few months may, indeed, be critical. As I understand it, the case is that many of these boxing and swimming functions and football and cricket matches are run either by indiviual clubs or by associations. These in many cases run one or two shows or matches, for admission to which payment has to be made, during the course of the year, and out of that, they expect to make enough, not only to meet their own expenses for the year, but, in the case of associations, to make enough money to he able to distribute sums to branches or clubs in other parts of the country, which, otherwise, would be unable to survive. It does seem to me that that is a laudable thing to encourage, and, when the Financial Secretary says that this tax makes no difference to their receipts, I cannot believe that it is all passed on to the spectator. I do not believe that, in the amateur case, that is possible. There is a limit to what you can charge for entertainments which often depend for their value rather on the loyalty of the spectators than on the intrinsic merits of the show to be witnessed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that, before the Report stage, he would offer to redraft this new Clause, in order to confine it to amateur undertakings to ensure that that branch of sport, at any rate, had a chance to recover from the war, I should have advised my hon. Friends to accept it. But, faced as we are with a cold douche, I shall be quite prepared to go into the Lobby on this new Clause.

I want to say that lovers of sport, not only in this Committee but all over the country, will be deeply disappointed with the very unfavourable reply of the Financial Secretary to this Amendment. I feel that, in putting forward at this time the cause of sport, we are essentially supporting what I would call the people's cause. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell), and, to some extent, the Financial Secretary, gave me the impression that, as far as football is concerned, they have been brought up on Tom Webster cartoons and think that every director is a man with a top hat, smoking a cigar and with a large gold pin in his scarf. That is far from being the case, and it is not the fact with regard to sport generally. The Clause covers all branches of sport played by men and women—cricket, football and many other games. I think of the game of water polo, which I have played myself. Before I had the honour of representing Blackpool in this House, I equally had the honour of representing Blackpool in their water polo team, and I want to go on helping them now, as in the past. I think we should do something more for them than the Financial Secretary visualises. This is not a problem that will arise only after the war. There should be no confusion in anyone's mind between greyhound racing and other commercial sports, and the sports which we have been talking about. It is a well known fact that there is practically no profit in these sports, anyway. Very rarely do we hear of any football or cricket club paying a dividend, but we do hear of supporters' clubs appealing for money all round. So much so, in fact, that we have been hearing reports of a possible strike because professional players feel that they cannot now maintain a satisfactory living.

In sport now, as we have seen in this last week, we have got into the field of international competition. Hon. Members on the other side may say that they do not like competition, but it is in the world and always will be. In the old days, when Yorkshire and Lancashire differed, they fought the Wars of the Roses, and people gave their lives. Now they meet on Bank Holidays at cricket, and when we, of the Red Rose, win, we know our cause is just and right

5.0 p.m.

I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will correct my history if I have it wrong, but I always thought that the Wars of the Roses were wars between titled gentlemen who drew their titles from Lancashire and Yorkshire and that actually Lancashire and Yorkshire had nothing to do with it, except to fight.

At any rate the hon. Gentleman will concede that the war was fought by men from Lancashire and Yorkshire. Now we fight our battles on the field of sport. If we win we go away sappy; if we lose, we know in our hearts that we shall win next year. Sport is the place where competition may well come into the international sphere and we want to be represented by players that are good. If the Treasury takes the attitude that it will rob all these sporting organisations of their money, where are we to get the money from to provide the necessary coaching so that we can achieve in our country good international standards of sport?

One more thing Cannot we get way from the old-fashioned idea that sport is a luxury to be taxed? I say that sport is one of the necessities of the people. I have heard it said that one of the great lungs of London is Epping Forest; it is quite true, but there are hundreds of other Lungs of London in the sports fields which lie in and all round our great cities. Not only is benefit being given to the people who play, but to the hundreds and thousands of spectators who tramp to the field, who gather together—instead of being in the factories—in the open air, shouting and cheering, and who go away from that field very much better physically. I think we should help them to achieve something that is a real and valuable change from their work, which helps them to equip themselves for the struggle for life in the week that follows.

I hold a mandate from a Lancashire constituency, and I propose to say—in spite of the animal noises that are being made opposite—that the extremely unsympathetic reception which the Financial Secretary has given to this proposal will not be received with very favourable comment in Lancashire. His sympathy is with the good old principle of "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today." Sport means a great deal to everybody in Lancashire. Even hon. Members opposite who, by some incomprehensible mischance also represent Lancashire constituencies, will agree with me in this: that to Lancashire sport is an absolutely vital part of their daily life. It is a thoroughly democratic thing, and it is a health-giving thing. Reference was made to the necessity for a sense of. balance and I believe, if we had altered the Clause to include acrobatics, gymnastics and prestidigitation, we would have had more sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a great expert on balance. He was complimented yesterday on balancing the Budget, and we have seen him in the House, time and time again, demonstrating balancing with his—

I am afraid that is not relevant to the new Clause. Being a Yorkshire man myself I gave the hon. Gentleman a little latitude, but I do not think that he ought to trespass upon it.

I must apologise, Major Milner. I will only say in conclusion that I believe the hon. Gentleman should reconsider what he has said and instead of adding to the heap of gifts and promises that he has piling up for next April he will, I hope, decide at the last moment to give us the relief which I believe every man in the street in this country feels is necessary

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 224.

Division No. 34.]

AYES.

[5.5 p.m.

Aitken, Hon. M.Gridley, Sir A.Osborne, C.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)Grimston, R. V.Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E.Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)Pitman, I. J.
Baxter, A. B.Haughton, Maj. S. G.Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Bennett, Sir P.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountPrice-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Birch, LI.-Col. NigelHogg, Hon. Q.Raikes, H. V.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Boothby, R.Holmes, Sir J. StanleyRoberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Bowen, R.Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Bower, N.Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.Hurd, A.Ropner, Col. L.
Braithwaite, Lieut.-Cmdr. J. G.Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)Ross, Sir R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lieut.-Col. W.Joynson Hicks, Lt.-Cmdr. Hon. L, W.Scott, Lord W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Kendall, W. DSmiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Bullock, Capt. M.Kerr, Sir J. GrahamSmith, E. P, (Ashford)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)Lambert, G.Smithers, Sir W.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.Lancaster, Col. C. G.Snadden, W. M.
Chalien, Fit. Lieut. C.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Spearman, A. C. M.
Channon, H.Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)Spence, Maj. H. R.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Linstead, H. N.Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.
Cole, T. L.Lipson, D. L.Stephen, C.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F.Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Lucas, Major Sir J.Sludholme, H. G.
Crowder, Capt J. F. E.Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.Sutcliffe, H.
Cuthbert, W. M.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Darling, Sir W. Y.MacAndrew, Col, Sir C.Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, s)
Davidson, ViscountessMcGovern, J.Teeling, Fit. Lieut. W.
Digby, Maj. S. WingfieldMackensen, Lieut.-Col. H, R.Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen,S.)
Dodds Parker, Col. A. D.McKie, J. H. (Galloway)Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)MacLeod, Capt. JThorp, Lieut.-Col. R. A. F.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.Manningham-Buller, R. E.Touche, G. C.
Duthie, W. S.Marlowe, A. A. H.Turton, R. H.
Eccles, D. M.Marples, Capt. A. E.Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Marshall, Cmdr. O. (Bodmin)Wadsworth, G.
Erroll, Col. F. J.Maude, J. C.Wakefieid, Sir W, W.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.Maxton, J.Walker-Smith, Lieut.-Col. D.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Medlicott, Brig. F.Ward, Hon. G. R.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)Maller, Sir J.Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.Webbe, Sir H.(Abbey)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.Whealley, Lieut.-Col. M. J.
Gage, Lieut,-Col. C.Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Williams, C. (Torquay)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)
Gammans, Capt. L. D.Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.
Gates, Maj. E. E.Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Neven-Spencer, Major Sir B.
Glossop, C. W. H.Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Mr. Drewe and CommanderAgnew
Granville, E. (Eye)Nutting, Anthony

NOES.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Dumpleton, C. W.
Adamson, Mrs. J. L.Castle, Mrs. B. A.Dye, S.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Champion, A. J.Edelman, M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Chater, D.Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Allighan, GarryChelwynd, Capt. C. R.Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)Clitherow, R.Fairhurst, F.
Attewell, H. C.Cobb, F. A.Foot, M. M.
Awbery, S. S.Cocks, F. S.Forman, J, C.
Ayles, W. H.Colindridge, F.Foster, W. (Wigan)
Bacon, Miss A.Colman, Miss G. M.Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Baird, Capt. J.Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.Freeman, P. (Newport)
Balfour, A.Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Barstow, P. G.Corlett, Dr. J.Gallacher, W.
Barton, C.Cove, W. G.Gibson, C. W.
Battley, J. R.Daines, P.Gilzean, A.
Bechervaise, A. E.Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Belcher, J. W.Davies, Edward (Burslem)Goodrich, H. E.
Berry, H.Davies, Ernest (Enfield)Grenfell, D. R.
Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.Davies, Harold (Leek)Grey, C. F.
Binns, J.Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)Grierson, E.
Blenkinsop. Capt. A.Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Bottomley, A. G.Deer, G.Guy, W. H.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.Delargy, Capt. H. J.Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)Diamond, J.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)Dobbie, W.Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Dodds, N. N.Hardy, E. A.
Brook D. (Halifax)Douglas, F. C. R.Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Burke, W. A.Driberg, T. E. N.Haworth, J.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)Naylor, T. E.Sparks, J. A.
Hewitson, Captain M.Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Stamford, W.
Hicks, G.Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham, E.)
Hobson, C. R.Noel-Buxton, LadyStokes, R. R.
Holman, P.O'Brien, T.Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)Oldfield, W. H.Swingler, Capt. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Orbach, M.Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Paget, R. T.Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Janner, B.Pargiter, G. A.Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)Parker, J.Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)Paton, J. (Norwich)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley, Hitchin)Peart, Capt. T. F.Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)
Keenan, W.Perrins, W.Thorneycroft, H..
Kenyon, C.Piratin, P.Tiffany, S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.Platts-Mills, J. F. F.Tolley, L.
Lang, G.Popplewell, E.Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Lavers, S.Porter, G. (Leeds)Turner-Samuels, M.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.Pritt, D. N.Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)Proctor, W. T.Viant, S. P.
Leslie, J. R.Pryde, D. J.Walkden, E.
Levy, B. W.Pursey, Cmdr. H.Walker, G. H.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)Ranger, J.Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)Rankin, J.Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.Rees-Williams, Lieut.-Col. D. R.Watson, W. M.
Lyne, A. W.Reeves, J.Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
McAdam, W.Reid, T. (Swindon)Weitzman, D.
McEntee, V. La T.Richards, R.Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
McLeavy, F.Ridealgh, Mrs. M.White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
MacMillan, M. K.Robens, A.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.Rogers, G. H. R.Whittaker, J. E.
Mann, Mrs. J.Royle, C.Wilkes, Maj. L.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)Sargood, R.Wilkins, W. A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)Scott-Elliot, W.Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mathers, G.Segal, Sqn.-Ldr. S.Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.Sharp, Lieut.-Col. G. M.Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)
Medland, H. M.Silverman, J. (Erdington)Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Messer, F.Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)Willis, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.Simmons, C. J.Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.Skeffington, A. M.Yates, V. F.
Monslow, W.Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Montague, F.Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.
Moody, A. S.Smith, T. (Normanton)Zilliacus, K.
Morley, R.Snow, Capt. J. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)Solley, L. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Moyle, A.Sorensen, R. W.Mr. Pearson and
Nally, W.Soskice, Maj. Sir F.Mr. J. Henderson.

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the three new Clauses on the Paper dealing with the subject of housekeeping and attendant allowances were considered together.