Skip to main content

New Clause—(Footballers' Benefits)

Volume 466: debated on Monday 27 June 1949

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

The money, commonly known as benefit, payable to professional footballers after a period of service, where not specifically guaranteed by contract, shall be exempted from Income Tax.—[ Mr. Hollis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

This is a very small Clause as regards the amount of money involved which obviously cannot be more than something in the nature of £2,000 every year. It is obvious from the other hon. Members who have been good enough to write their names under mine that it is by no means a party issue. It clears up what I am sure the Committee will agree is a small anomaly, and I have great hopes that the Chancellor will allow that anomaly to be cleared up by accepting the Clause or by inserting a provision with similar effect.

Professional footballers are an admirable class of persons who give great pleasure to me, to many other hon. Members and to many millions of people throughout the country. I am in no sense pleading for any special favours for them and I am in no sense setting them up as such model citizens that they should be exempted from the normal incidence of Income Tax. I am simply asking that an anomaly be remedied. Most people make their living from a more or less steady income and can calculate roughly what they will spend each year, but certain people in various walks of life make the bulk of their earnings over a very short period of time or in some cases on one occasion in their lives. There is nothing in the least unethical about that. In the past when Income Tax was at a very low level it raised no practical problem, but these days when Income Tax is at a very high level it raises a very great problem for these people if the bulk of their life savings, if it comes within one year, is liable to Income Tax.

There are a number of professions which suffer from that anomaly and included in them is the professional sportsman, who, by the nature of his working life, has to divide it into two parts. In the nature of things the professional sportsman has to stop playing his game long before he reaches the age when he wants to stop work. Therefore, the sensible system has been devised in football and cricket by which the professional sportsman receives a reasonable but not excessive remuneration for playing his game and, if he has achieved great distinction, when he gets towards the end of his playing career he is sometimes allowed to have what is called a benefit. The money from that benefit is not intended to be used, and is not used as income during that current year, but is used in order to give him a sum of money with which he can buy a shop or farm or establish himself in a public house or set himself up in whatever form of life he wishes for the second or non-playing period of his life.

I am putting forward two contentions. The first is that whatever may be the correctness of the technical decision of the courts that the benefit money counts as income, it is not income in any sense of the word but is a capital payment. Secondly, it is not in any real sense of the word a contractual payment but is much more in the nature of a personal gift. There is, in one of the curious anomalies of the law, a distinction between cricket professionals and football professionals on this point. Cricket professionals are allowed to have their benefits exempt from Income Tax. That was entirely due to the pertinacious public spirit of Mr. Seymour, the Kent batsman, who had a benefit in his match at Canterbury with Hampshire on which the Inland Revenue attempted to charge him Income Tax, and he so obstinately refused to accept this ruling that he carried the matter right up to the House of Lords and eventually obtained exemption of Income Tax for cricketers.

When, however, similar tactics were attempted by a number of football professionals, particularly Mr. Harrison, who played for Everton, and Mr. Duff, who played for Manchester City, their Lordships were less amenable to footballers than to cricketers and they did not get exemption.

That may well be. They all come from Lancashire without exception. It is not my intention to challenge the verdict of the law. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) is in his place, and I hope he will intervene in this discussion so that if there are observations to be made about the law as it is now, they can be made with great authority by the hon. and learned Member. My intention is to put forward certain contentions about what, in my submission, the law should be. Doubtless these learned judges gave the correct interpretation of the law as it is now, but even the law as it is now cannot be as certain as all that, because there was a large variety of opinions and appeals and assenting judgment, so clearly it is in some doubt.

Indeed, oddly enough in both cases the lawyers were continually referring back to a somewhat distant parallel of clergymen's Easter offerings. The case seemed to turn on whether a footballer or cricketer was more like a clergyman, and it was decided on the whole that a footballer was more like a clergyman.

No. However, neither of them in this respect was very much like a clergyman because, without wishing to raise the issue of Easter offerings about which I have strong views, those offerings are in the nature of income in the sense that they come in every year. As I understand them, the reasons why footballers were discriminated against in contradistinction to cricketers was that in the judgment on clergymen's Easter offerings we were told that clergymen got away with it if the Easter offering had been peculiarly due to the personal qualities of the particular clergyman. It was decided that on the whole that was not so; that they were payments made to a person by virtue of his office rather than to a clergyman as a personal gift.

It was decided that the cricketer's benefit was more in the nature of a personal tribute from admirers and that the footballer's benefit was more in the nature of part of the regular remuneration of his profession. The clause in the Football League's contract which says that clubs may enter into agreements with players for a benefit was quoted as evidence that they had at least a semi-contractual right to this benefit; but the right was semi-contractual only in the most literal sense of the word, for only 53 per cent. of regular playing professional footballers do, in fact, get their benefit.

Benefits are of certain different natures and kind. There are occasions when it is a very little different from a regular payment. The club simply says to a player, "We will pay you so much money—£650." There are occasions when the footballer runs a private charity match of his own and gets the gate money in very much the same way that a cricketer does. In any event it is not for me, and it is not my wish, to challenge the interpretation of the law as it is now. I simply want to make the point, with which the Committee, I think, would agree, that if there are these differences between cricketers and footballers they are technical and legal differences. Doubtless the courts did their duty by interpreting the law as it was at the time or as it is now and paying attention to the technical difficulties; but it is equally our duty in this Committee, surely, to free the courts from this obligation of being tied down by a mere technicality and to put the football profession into a position where it can properly remunerate its players with benefits. This is as all-important in the football as in the cricketing world, because in the nature of things the playing life of a professional footballer is much shorter than that of the professional cricketer.

There is little doubt that there are ways in which, by changing words in contracts and in changing titles, these things can probably be got round without an amendment of the law, but I assure the Committee, and I hope the Chancellor will agree, that it would be very much better to put the thing above board and beyond doubt rather than it should be left in this present extremely unsatisfactory condition. There is a general feeling of injustice that the Income Tax is being paid and continual attempts are being made in courts to use wording to get round this obligation. It is very much better that the Committee should take the opportunity of dealing frankly with the situation and put it beyond doubt.

I am very glad indeed to be associated in the new Clause with somebody to whom on this occasion I can refer to as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). He has put the case very clearly and fairly. Like him, I am no lawyer, and I should certainly hesitate to argue with anybody, particularly the Solictor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon legal matters; but I would put just one or two legal questions before I come to my main point of underlining some of the points made by the hon. Member for Devizes.

8.45 p.m.

On the legal points, it seems that there is a strictly legal case for treating these benefits as capital rather than as income. They are, in the first place, a form of depreciation; of wear and tear on the footballer. There is considerable wear and tear on the footballer. Ordinary company profits like those of a coalmine or such things are strictly income, yet the Chancellor allows sums to be ploughed back to reduce taxation. Besides capital depreciation, there is also compensation because of the nature of the footballer's job. Nearly all professional football clubs insist that their players shall be fulltime footballers and not indulge in any other jobs outside. To compensate them for the disadvantage of not being able to learn a trade until they reach the age of 35, or even slightly later, this capital sum of money is set aside in the form of benefits and can be used to set up in business. I urge that the law should recognise these sums as being capital and not income.

I leave the legal argument for a ground on which I feel more secure, not the ground of legality but the ground of fairness and justice. The hon. Member for Devizes has mentioned that cricketers' benefits are tax free, whereas footballers' benefits are not tax free. That leads to some of the most extraordinary anomalies. Those who are interested in cricket will remember that Bill Bowes, the famous Yorkshire fast bowler, had a benefit two years ago of £8,000. Cyril Washbrook, Lancashire's opening batsman, got a benefit last year of £13,000 and it is forecast that in the current year Denis Compton will get something in the nature of £20,000.

All those benefits are tax free. Yet in the past season five players of the Brighton and Hove Football Club who were granted a benefit in the form of a sort of charity match—the lowest service they had was 10 years and the highest 15 years—and they got, not £8,000, £13,000, or £20,000, but £300, and that £300 is not tax free, but subject to tax. That seems utterly ridiculous. An even more ridiculous instance relates to Denis Compton who, besides being a top-class cricketer, is also so good a footballer as to be almost worthy of playing for Huddersfield Town. Supposing he gets a benefit from Arsenal Football Club, that would be taxable, but, if the Arsenal Football Club decided to hand over to the cricketer Compton's benefit fund the sum of £700, that would be tax free.

There is an almost grosser case in a club very near to my heart, the Oldham Athletic Club. They have a player named Williamson, who has been on the books for 15 years. To recompense him for loss of efficiency, the club allowed him to organise a benefit match himself and took no part in the organisation, beyond lending him the ground. He arranged the benefit match, paid out of his own pocket the wages of players and received about £1,200. By league regulation he could not receive more than £900 and Oldham Athletic took the remainder. But, although he got only £900, he was subject to tax not only on £900, but on the £1,200, some of which he did not even get.

That kind of anomaly, of which there are dozens in the realm of sport is ridiculous and unjust. They tend to make people think the law is unfair and ridiculous and offers an inducement, as the hon. Member for Devizes said, for wangling round the law. Wangles can be done and it would be most unfortunate if they were done and the law brought into disrepute. I beg the Chancellor to consider accepting this proposed new Clause in the interests of the players, but even more in the interests of the law, and most of all in the interests of common simple justice.

I should like to associate myself with the plea which has been made to the Chancellor for the adoption of this Clause. I happen to have been associated in a modest way for a long time with the football world, and I am president of a well-known football club. For years we have had to deal with cases of the kind envisaged in this new Clause. The Chancellor, with his great wisdom, judgment and all the fine Parliamentary and other qualities he possesses, ought not to allow an anomaly like this to continue as part of the structure of our sporting life, and I hope that he will pay heed to the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu).

The life of a footballer as such is limited, and the time comes when he has to be given some measure of compensation to make up for what one might call the depreciation of his efficiency in his profession of sport. In that situation, the benefit given to such a man ought not to be treated otherwise than as a gift. Under the present state of the law that position does not obtain, and I very much hope that the Chancellor will see the absurdity of a football player being placed in one category in relation to his sporting work and a cricketer being placed in a different category. I am sure that that is something to which the Chancellor would not like to be a permanent party, and I strongly support the plea which has been made from both sides of the Committee this evening.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said that this was not a party question. Indeed, it is not; nor is it, I am afraid, a question of whether we are sympathetic to this claim on behalf of footballers, or whether they are deserving people. It is simply a question whether these benefits, which footballers receive on some specific occasion, are or are not income or remuneration for their services. If the benefits are income, or remuneration, we are bound under the law to tax them. We cannot select one form of income and say that Income Tax should not apply to it. The question whether a given footballer's benefit is to be regarded as remuneration for his services or not is really one for the courts to determine, and any individual who wishes to contest his own case can do so in the courts.

I understand that this question has on several occasions been contested in the courts, and on all those occasions the court found in the case of footballers that the payment in question, benefit or whatever it was called, amounted to remuneration and income. If the courts find that, we are bound to impose the tax. I believe that in the case of cricketers the courts have come to a different conclusion. I do not intend to enter into the reasons for that now, but so long as the position is as I have stated, we are bound to impose tax accordingly. I do not think that we should here pass an amendment of the law which would in effect instruct the courts that one particular form of what they regarded as income was not to be so regarded for Income Tax purposes. Indeed, if we were to do so it would raise the question of whether that did not——

We are asking that Parliament shall take a course which will make it perfectly clear to the courts what interpretation is to be placed on the law. This House is superior to the judges so far as legislation is concerned.

Yes, but that would raise the question how widely the expression "commonly known as benefit," could be applied. It might be open to football clubs to apply that expression very widely. I do not think that the exemption could be extended too far in that direction. Even if we did make this exemption, it would produce a series of further anomalies in the other cases which have been mentioned—tips of waiters, etc. Therefore I think that whatever our opinion about the benefits to footballers, we must accept the principle that Income Tax applies to incomes, and must therefore apply to those individual cases where the courts think that the payment in question was remuneration for services.

This is one of the most astonishing replies ever delivered, even by the present Government, and I cannot imagine hon. Members on either side of the Committee allowing the hon. Gentleman to get away with it, even for a moment. First of all, he tells us that this is a matter for the courts; that the cricketers' benefit has been so decided. So it was, after incredible litigation proceeding so far even as the House of Lords. That shows there was so much dubiety in the matter that it was arguable in legal circles. What on earth are we here for? To legislate. I do not think that even the Financial Secretary will deny that. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) followed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) made out a perfectly clear case for the qualification of the law in this particular and very important subject. To be told that it would introduce anomalies; to be told that tips for waiters may come into the matters—as if forsooth, waiters had a benefit every ten years—well, I think the hon. Gentleman might have given us a more intelligent reply than that.

I am glad that this has been put on a strictly non-party basis, because we have had a valuable intervention from the hon. Member for Huddersfield possibly—I do not know—on the grounds of consanguinity. We all know his interest in this matter of professional football. May I say that I sincerely hope he will not get into disciplinary difficulties as a result of the speech he has made. After all, a Parliamentary private secretary can have his head cut off only once, and I was very glad to see the hon. Gentleman in such good form and speaking so valuably to us.

There are two main arguments in this matter. The first is that the law has ruled differently in the matter of cricketers and footballers—"the Seymour Case" as it was generally called—with regard to the beneficiary. We have already been told that the life of a professional footballer is very short, compared with that of a cricketer. I am informed that 12 seasons in first-class football is the average for a man who is able to keep his place in the first eleven. I have made inquiries, and I am told that that is a reasonable average. There are exceptions. Men like Billy Meredith, I believe, played for Manchester City and Manchester United for something like a quarter of a century. However, men of that kind are exceptions, and the average for a footballer is 12 seasons in first-class football.

The first-class cricketer can go on very much longer by the nature of the game. We have been told by the hon. Member for Huddersfield of the case of Denis Compton. I had another name in mind: the famous Jack Sharpe—who was known as "Jack of both sides"—who played for England in both games, as Compton has done. In those days—and this may be the origin of some of the difficulty—benefits were much smaller and indeed taxation was very much lighter. Today the footballer who enjoys a benefit of £2,000 not only is subject to Income Tax, but in that financial year it brings him into the ambit of Surtax and imposes a very heavy burden indeed upon him.

The Economic Secretary said something else which, if I may say so, I thought was feeble. He said that this was not a particularly well-worded Amendment. I should have thought that it was clear enough and that it dealt with the main source of objection. The insertion of the words:
"where not specifically guaranteed by contract,"
is most important. If a man signs on for a club on the understanding that after four or five seasons he will receive a benefit, then I think the Chancellor is entitled to say that that was computed from the outset as part of his income.

9.0 p.m.

We are endeavouring to deal with cases where the benefit is a genuine reward for long and efficient service. It really is time that this matter was satisfactorily cleared up. If these words are imperfect, and they well may be, surely between now and Report stage the Government can look at the matter again, as is desired by both sides of the Committee, to see whether there is not a form of words which will cover this very simple position. This concession would cost the Exchequer very little indeed and it would put right what is a definite source of grievance. In reconsidering the matter, I beg the Economic Secretary not to confuse professional footballers with waiters.

I wish to reinforce the pleas which have been made that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give further consideration to this point. I confess that I was unable to follow the Economic Secretary to the Treasury when he told us that in cases where there are difficulties of interpretation the matter must be subjected to consideration by the courts and that ipso facto Parliament was not competent to make a decision quite clear. I may be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but I believe that Parliament is competent to do what it likes with the law, and that in fact it is within the power of the Chancellor to express this Amendment in as clear words as possible in order to make application to the courts unnecessary.

We appreciate the point made by the Economic Secretary that if the money is income in the normal way then it is subject to taxation. We ask that this money should be considered as compensation for loss of efficiency or compensation in some other respect, in the same way that a person who is deprived of the opportunity of carrying on his employment as a result of an accident can get compensation which is not subject to Income Tax. I hope that the Chancellor will undertake to reconsider this question. If it went out from this Committee that the Government were of opinion that cricketers were entitled to have benefits free of Income Tax and footballers were not, that might lead to a misinterpretation of the attitude of the Government in the minds of the public.

I think that there is a little confusion on this subject. There has been no decision of the courts, and certainly none by the Government, that cricketers are entitled to tax-free benefit and footballers are not. The decision is that in one particular case the circumstances were held to be such that a cricketer did not have to pay Income Tax, and in four other cases the circumstances were held to be such that people who played football did have to pay. The law is exactly the same as regards both. Income Tax has to be paid upon income. Though this Committee is competent to legislate as it wishes, of course, it would be a very difficult process if we were to start to try to legislate for everything that is not considered to be income, which is what we are attempting to do if we pass this Amendment, because we do not really get very much further by saying:

"Money, commonly known as benefit.…"
That might cover anything. What in effect hon. Members are attempting to say in this Clause is that there shall be exempted all non-contractual or incidental payments received in the course of a person's employment or as a result of his holding of a position.

That is something very much wider than the footballer's benefit in the colloquial sense in which the word is understood, and I suggest that it would be quite impossible with fairness in legislation to define fully the circumstances of all non-contractual incidental payments. The benefit might be intended to be in one form. A payment to a jockey for winning a race may be another form, and indeed, there could be many forms of bonus. There could be bonuses paid to harvesters for harvesting, bonuses paid to employees for long terms of service, and all sorts and kind of moneys which are received as incidents of employment but which are not contractually provided for. To suggest that it would be satisfactory to say that there is a difference between that which is specifically guaranteed by contract and that which is not, is obviously nonsense. All one has to say to the fellow is, "I am not going to put it in your contract, but I assure you that you will get it, and it will be free of Income Tax." That would be ridiculous.

Is that not exactly what the courts have done? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the decision in favour of professional cricketers, but is the decision not reversed in the case of the footballers?

No. In the three cases of the footballers in 1941 there was no form of agreement in any of their cases. What I am saying is that a distinction to be drawn here between something which is specifically guaranteed in the contract and something which is not, is something quite unreal.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is reading too much into the new Clause.

I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks so, but they are the words put down here; this is what the new Clause says. I cannot do more than read the words of the new Clause.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot deduce from the new Clause a principle which he alleges we are trying to apply to all non-contractual emoluments. If he thinks the new Clause carries the matter too far and lays down a general principle, surely it is possible for the Government to redraft it to cover the cases we have in mind?

I am pointing out that it is quite impossible to do something for footballers which we say we will not do for anybody else. We cannot pick out the footballer, splendid fellow as he is, and say that we prefer him to the rest of the population. We have to do it for everybody, whether it be footballer, cricketer, parson, waiter, servant or whoever it may be.

Take, for instance, the waiter. Tips are part of his emoluments. A footballer does not get emoluments every Easter or every time he serves dinner.

The hon. Gentleman will know that there are a number of ways in which waiters are remunerated, and one of them is out of a fund which is collected from tips or from the amount collected from the 10 per cent. added to the bill. The tips are collected and pooled and distributed quarterly or annually. It is a casual payment which is associated with a person's employment but for which there is no contractual obligation. We cannot distinguish the case of the footballer, because we must cover other people as well.

Surely, he can get it when he likes, after three weeks or a month or any other period of service?

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can find some other form of words to achieve the same object?

I am suggesting that there is an infinity of differing circumstances and that we cannot lay down a definition to exclude certain kinds of income and not exclude others. The only proper way to do it is, as it has always been done, to make the broad principle that people pay Income Tax on income, and for the courts to decide whether a certain thing is or is not part of a man's income. If they decide in his favour, he does not pay, but if they decide against him, he does. Therefore, we much regret, great as is our sympathy with the footballer, that we cannot possibly accept this Amendment.

There is one argument of the Chancellor's which does not appear to hold water. It seems that he is relying on the doubts existing about the present law, but as one hon. and learned Member from this side has stated there is dubiety on this matter as to how to interpret the law——

May I finish my observations, when I shall be delighted to receive those of the Chancellor? The dubiety appears to my lay mind to exist in the fact that the cricketer seems to have won his case by taking it to the House of Lords, and it also appears that other cases have followed on that of this signal cricketer, which seems to show that there must be some dubiety.

It seems unfair that the Chancellor should say in Committee on the Finance Bill that he will regulate the law in a way that it is comprehended by the courts. We cannot have two worlds—one world in which there is uncertainty and where a cricketer is allowed his benefit free of tax, and a footballer is not. The alternative would be easy. We should tie up the law so that it would be impossible for the cricketer to take his case to the House of Lords and to get a verdict given in his favour. The Chancellor appears to want to allow an adventurous cricketer, or, indeed, a bold footballer to carry his case through the whole process of law, no doubt at great expense, and to leave the law vague and general. That seems to be the last word in nonchalance, and I think that, having support from all sides of the Committee, we ought to press this matter and ask the Chancellor to reconsider it before the Report stage, to consider what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), and to try to bring forward an Amendment which will make the law and the situation clear as between cricketers, footballers, and all people who desire to draw a benefit.

I hope I shall be forgiven as a representative of a city whose football team performed such prodigies last season if I say a word or two on this matter. Before the Cup Final, the Football Association kindly wrote to me and said they would be according me as such a representative an official invitation, for which I thanked them very much. The official invitation never came along, and I found out afterwards that they had sent it to my colleague the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on the understanding that the football ground was in his constituency, which is not the case. However, I have lived that down, and have always felt a certain amount of sympathy for the professional footballer in this matter.

I am afraid I disagree with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he says that there is doubt about the law in this matter. In Seymour's case, on the facts, it was held that the benefit was not a reward for services, but an expression of gratitude to the man as a man though no doubt provoked by his prowess as a cricketer. That has always seemed to me to be a somewhat fine distinction, but there it is. On the other hand, in the case of Mr. Harrison, of Everton, he had it set out in his contract—although it might be subject to discretion—that he was to get a benefit as part of his remuneration. Where those different situations exist—one a lump sum as remuneration for services, and the other a personal testimonial—it is quite easy to see that one should be taxed and the other should not, although the line of demarcation may be very difficult to perceive at times.

9.15 p.m.

I cannot help thinking that, whether it is in black and white in the contract or not, a professional cricketer signing engagement forms for his county knows quite well, and is influenced by the fact, that in all probability, if he behaves himself and scores some runs or takes enough wickets, that eventually there will be a benefit. There is, therefore, I think, little distinction, but, nevertheless, it is not the case that there is dubiety or that the professional cricketer is treated differently in the eye of the law from a professional footballer.

That is the law. When one comes to whatever is the opposite of the law, whether we call it the merits of the situation or the justice of the case, I think rather different considerations apply. I remember Lord Dunedin saying in the Seymour case, in which the Court of Appeal held that the benefit was taxable, "When I think of this little nest-egg bearing Income Tax as though it were the remuneration of one year, then if it had not been for the fact that the honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal, whose opinions I respect, thought the other way, I should have thought the proposition quite unarguable." I also feel that when a footballer, at the end of five years, gets a lump sum as benefit, then it is a little hard to treat it all as the income of one year.

Here, however, I am afraid I have to differ from the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). I do not agree in the example he gave, of £2,000, that Surtax would be attracted, because I believe that as a matter of practice the man is allowed to spread his benefit over the past or the ensuing five years, but that is a purely extra-statutory concession and must. I think, indicate the recognition of the Board of Inland Revenue that there is a certain amount of injustice in this matter.

I have been rather impressed by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and those of the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) when they both said that in reality this is compensation, first, for the loss of efficiency and physical power which a professional footballer must undergo if football is still anything like what it was in my younger days, and I believe it is worse. That wear and tear he must undergo. Secondly, if he is forbidden to have any other trade or employment during his period of service with his club, then he is in an exactly analagous position to that of the director of a company who may say, "I hereby covenant that at the end of my directorship I will not serve without your consent any other company and for that restrictive covenant you shall pay me £5,000." It has been held that that £5,000 is not income but is capital, and in reality some part of the professional footballer's benefit must partake of that character.

Therefore, although I quite agree that if we passed an Amendment in this form we should certainly be in great difficulties in other cases where no hon. Member would want the lump sum to escape—it is extremely difficult, as the Chancellor said, to draw a hard and fast line—I do not think it is impossible to do something for the professional footballer. The law now is that in certain cases lump sums received from superannuation funds shall be taxed as to one quarter. That is purely arbitrary; there is an argument for taxing the whole, but the law says that one quarter shall be deemed to be income and the other three-quarters not. I would welcome a proposal that between now and the Report stage the Chancellor and his advisers may consider whether we could exempt some portion at any rate, specifically, of the footballer's benefit on the grounds that in so far as it was recompense for wear and tear, and in so far as it was a solatium for not being able to accept other employment during the period of service, it did partake of the character of capital and not of income.

I want to support what the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) said. The Treasury Bench have told us that this Committee could not decide what income is, but what about Clause 20, which decides that all benefits paid under the National Insurance scheme were not in future to be taxable? If we can decide it in the case of Clause 20, we can decide it in the case of footballers. Some modified proposal, such as has been suggested by the hon. and learned Member, will probably meet the views of the House, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put it down in his own name on the next stage of the Bill.

I should like to reinforce what has been said by both sides of the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as one would expect, has put a very good legalistic case, but he omitted what I might call the flesh and blood aspect of this matter. It is very difficult for the ordinary man in the street to understand why Compton should get £20,000 tax free, while a chap like Stanley Matthews, who gets £900, should have to pay tax on it, because during the course of Compton's career he will have infinitely greater opportunity than a professional footballer to make his economic position secure. For example, he will go to Australia two or three times, and as a result of those tours will probably collect at least £1,500, whereas the professional footballer does not get those opportunities. Generally speaking, his remuneration will be less than that of the best professional cricketer. Of course, the period in which he is at his best and able to command good money will be very much shorter than that of the professional cricketer.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer should look at this matter from the point of view of elementary justice between these particular classes of persons. A professional footballer gives great pleasure to millions more than a professional cricketer in the course of his career. As a public entertainer, he does an infinitely better job in the quantitative sense at any rate, and it is quite impossible to justify what I regard as this unfair discrimination between these two classes of athletes.

I can see the grave difficulties which arise in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mind. He is anxious that there shall be no evasion of tax by people frequently receiving emoluments which are non-contractable. I should have thought that the Government would be able to draw this distinction and say that anything in the nature of a testimonial, which is essentially something which is non-recurring, should not be subject to tax. I hope he will find some solution along those lines. In this House our salaries are subject to tax, but if upon our retirement or perhaps as an inducement to make us retire, our constituents collected £500, that would not be taxable for it would be a testimonial. It would not be emoluments arising out of our employment, and I feel that there should be enshrined in the Income Tax a rule that something in the nature of a testimonial at the conclusion of a person's service should not be subject to tax.

I want to associate myself with the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan). I only wish to call the attention of the Committee to the astonishing argument put forward from the Treasury Bench, which was that, if a thing is income, it must be taxed, and, if it is not income, it must not, and the courts must decide which it is. That would come very much better from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Clause 21 were not in the present Bill. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester persuaded the House of Lords that certain things were not income. Whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer promptly comes down to this Committee and inserts in the Finance Bill a provision that what the House of Lords decided, after listening to the skilled advocacy of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester, was not income, shall in future be income.

That being the case, it is hopeless to pretend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not constantly interfere with the decisions of the courts on that sort of question. I see the force, as I am sure did my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of this new Clause, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticism of the particular form of words in the new Clause. The benefit referred to in it might be repeated on two occasions or more, but that, I am certain, is not the intention of my hon. Friend. I hope that the Chancellor, while insisting, quite rightly, that the precise words of this proposed new Clause will not do, will listen to the pleas that have been made from all sides of the Committee, and that he will accept the very clear statement of the law made by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester. I hope that he will not—I will not say "mislead"—but seek to divert the Committee from pursuing what it believes to be just by the argument that only the courts can decide what is income and what is not, when Clause 21 of the present Bill definitely reverses a decision of the courts on this subject.

The Committee has slipped into a sense of impotence on this matter and I hope that we can reverse that feeling. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury ignored the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). He cannot defend the glaring anomaly which would be corrected by this Clause. I do not see how the Chancellor can avoid accepting the Clause. The Committee must have an opinion in the matter whether the law has been rightly interpreted or not. Are we to understand that the Committee are not able to decide that matter? The Economic Secretary referred to remuneration; the whole matter hangs on remuneration or gift. I maintain that this is a gift. Let us take the case, which presents a certain parallel, of the gift which Parliament makes to a prominent general at the end of a war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not with this Government."] Prior to this Government, a general who commanded an army in the field could reasonably expect a fair sum of money granted to him by the people as a gift. Hon. Members may think that there is a big difference between a footballer and a general, because the general wins battles while the footballer only wins football matches. I could argue that they both contribute to the drama of life and that in each case the people subscribe the money, in the case of the general through their representatives but in the case of the footballer directly out of their pockets.

9.30 p.m.

We can equally well argue the cases of the military man with an expectation of a grant given by Parliament and of the footballer with an expectation of a sum of money subscribed by the public. The Economic Secretary was not on firm ground on that point when he said that the case was perfectly plain. I shall not be satisfied unless the Chancellor says that for taxation purposes he will allow this money to be spread over a number of years, not as in the case of authors only two years, which I believe to be inadequate, but over a period of time commensurate with the professional life of the footballer. So far we have not had a single argument from the Treasury Bench in answer to the arguments advanced from this side. It is not too late for us to have a concession on this point.

I wish to join those who have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at this again. There has been a recent case of this anomaly in my constituency where there is the Millwall Football Club. It may not be so famous from the point of view of its success as some of the others, but it has a very long record, being one of the oldest clubs in the country. It had a man who served it for over 30 years and played for it 30 years ago. He was finally given a job on the ground staff and eventually became head groundsman. A benefit match was arranged for him with the Scottish football team, Celtic. The balance sheet of the match is interesting. The gross gate was £1,539 5s. 9d. Entertainment Tax of £96 8s. 8d. was paid on that amount, so that the Treasury already had a fair amount of money from it; the referee and the linesmen cost £10 10s. 0d.; the printing was cut to a minimum and the charge was only £1; the police charges were very reasonable, being only £3 4s. 4d.; the turnstile account came to only £22 15s. 0d.; and Celtic's share was £691.

That left a balance of £713 for the benefit of Mr. Moore. Instead of getting £713 he got something like £400. There is an anomaly in the case of this man when we read of Denis Compton getting thousands of pounds from his benefit, which no one begrudges him. While I appreciate the difficulty of my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg him to consider the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) in order to see if something can be done. Otherwise, let us be honest about it and make the cricketers pay too, for the present position is not fair.

Every conceivable argument which could be canvassed has already been used in support of the Clause and I do not propose to weary the Committee by repeating any of those arguments. It is my duty, however, to remind the Chancellor of the unusual character which the Debate has assumed. A very reasonable case was put forward by two hon. Members opposite and two of my hon. Friends. We saw the Economic Secretary reply in a most inadequate way. Then further arguments were advanced from both sides of the Committee and we saw that the Chancellor had to rise in order to try to answer those arguments. Obviously there is a feeling of disquiet in the minds of all hon. Members when 16 back benchers from both sides of the Committee have already supported the Clause. It seems to me that there may be a case being made out for a third Member on the Front Bench, who I believe is now consulting certain experts, to answer the further arguments advanced.

My right hon. and learned Friend may have satisfied himself on a point of law when he made his explanation, but he has not satisfied anybody in the Committee, and on that basis alone this matter calls for further consideration on the Report stage. I hope the Chancellor will be broadminded enough to look into the matter again and give satisfaction to hon. Members who, I believe have risen to great heights tonight in examining this simple matter of human relationships in the field of sport. It is a great illustration of the part this House can play in the world outside that it takes such an interest in a matter pertaining to sport as it has done tonight. I accordingly ask the Chancellor, in view of the unusual character of the Debate to give this matter further consideration?

There is here clearly a conflict between equity and law, and when that occurs it can only be resolved by ingenuity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to exercise a considerable amount of ingenuity later in the week in another country, and we all know that he has probably one of the finest and best equipped minds for getting over, round, or under difficulties. The general consensus of opinion in the Committee, as it has been expressed from all sides and from every kind of constituency, is clearly in favour of the Treasury Bench saying, "Though we may be the masters and able to crack the whip, nevertheless, when 16 backbenchers have come forward with the same theme, then it is clearly the duty of the Treasury Bench not to assert the authority they undoubtedly possess but to say, 'The will of the House of Commons as representing the people is in favour of a solution based on equity rather than that the narrowness of the law shall prevail'."

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman this question: what happens in the case of war gratuities? It is not an exact parallel—football is one thing and war is another—but surely war gratuities are not subject to tax in this way? On the point of equity, I ask him not to be inflexible in this matter but to see that for once the right, the generous and the wise thing to do is to say that between now and the Report stage, in view of the general consensus of opinion on an entirely non-Party basis, he will consider this again and thereby enhance his reputation and go from here with more power to his elbow to the even greater task he has to tackle later in the week.

I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor and the Committee to one point which is analogous, the payment of prize money. There we see a bounty or a benefit to a large number of people which the law provides shall be tax-free. If it is done in that case and in that manner in war, why is it not possible to provide a benefit or a bounty for professional players of games in exactly the same way? I suggest to the Chancellor and the Committee that here is an occasion for combining equity with law as was suggested by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). I hope the Chancellor will look again into this matter.

Out of courtesy to the Committee, I must say another word about this new Clause. I should like very much to say that I will reconsider it on Report stage and see whether something can be done, but I am afraid it would be a perfectly empty promise. I have examined this question with the greatest desire to do something. This is not the first year it has come up. It is an old Amendment and was up last year and on other former occasions. It has often been examined in an attempt to see whether it was possible to do something.

Quite clearly, everyone would agree that the Clause as set down would not be possible. First it deals only with footballers. Secondly, it deals with
"money, commonly known as benefit. …"
which really is not a phrase that courts should be asked to interpret. Therefore, the Clause is no good. Nobody has suggested what sort of Clause would be any good. I have been asked to exercise my ingenuity, but nobody else has exercised theirs, to see how it could, in fact, be expressed. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) suggested a very general arrangement by which a certain proportion of these payments—whatever "these payments" are—should be discounted for the purpose of Income Tax.

The difficulty, of course, is to define the payments, how the payments of this sort are to be limited, and what are to be the criteria; I have certainly been unable to find any satisfactory criteria at all for this sort of thing, of which there is an infinite gradation from the extreme case when everybody would say, "Of course, this is a benefit in the sense that it is an uncovenanted benefit; it is not part of his earnings. It is a gift, a testimonial, or what you will"; to the other case where people would say, as the courts have said in other cases, "This is, obviously, simply a delayed part of his remuneration." There is every possible gradation between them, and I do not believe there is any form of words by which we can define where the line should be drawn.

What has been done in the past is to leave it to the courts to draw the line, and they have drawn it, as my hon. and learned Friend said; in one case, quite clearly, they said, "This is a testimonial." In another case they said, equally clearly, "It is a part of remuneration." There was an infinite variety of cases between the facts of which it was impossible to lay down hard and fast lines. Therefore, much as I should like to do something, I am afraid that I cannot promise to do anything more.

Division No. 180.]


[9.45 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Astor, Hon. M.Gage, C.Marples, A. E.
Baldwin, A. E.Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)Marsden, Capt. A.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)Maude, J. C.
Birch, NigelGrimston, R. V.Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Boothby, R.Harden, J. R. E.Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Bower, N.Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.Nicholson, G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Bullock, Capt. M.Henderson, John (Cathcart)Nutting, Anthony
Butcher, H. W.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountOdey, G. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)Hogg, Hon. Q.Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Challen, C.Howard, Hon. A.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Channon, H.Hurd, A.Pickthorn, K.
Clarke, Col. R. S.Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)Prescott, Stanley
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Jeffreys, General Sir G.Raikes, H. V.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)Keeling, E. H.Rayner, Brig. R.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Lambert, Hon. G.Renton, D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Lancaster, Col. C. G.Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Crowder, Capt, John E.Langford-Holt, J.Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Cuthbert, W. N.Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Darling, Sir W. Y.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Ropner, Col. L.
Digby, Simon WingfieldLindsay, M. (Solihull)Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Linstead, H. N.Sanderson, Sir F.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)Lipson, D. L.Spearman, A. C. M.
Drewe, C.Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)Stanley, Rt. Hon O.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)Low, A. R. W.Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Duthie, W. S.Lucas, Major Sir J.Sutcliffe, H.
Eccles, D. M.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. WalterMcFarlane, C. S.Teeling, William
Erroll, F. J.Mackeson, Brig. H. R.Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Fletcher, W. (Bury)Maclay, Hon. J. S.Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)Touche, G. C.
Fox, Sir G.MacLeod, J.Turton, R. H.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)Vane, W. M. F.

was not allowed an Easter offering but who, surely, would be allowed, tax-free, a testimonial on giving up his cure. Cannot something be laid down in the nature of a non-recurrent testimonial free from tax? Is not there an analogy here?

There might be an analogy between that and certain types of so-called benefits to clergy; on the other hand, there might not be, because there is an infinite variety of such payments.

The Chancellor has admitted that some benefits are of the nature of capital gifts and not income. Is he prepared to give instructions to the Inland Revenue that in such cases they shall not assess the payments for Income Tax?

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 262.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.White, Sir D. (Fareham)York, C.
Walker-Smith, D.White, J. B. (Canterbury)Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Ward, Hon. G. R.Williams, C. (Torquay)
Watt, Sir G. S. HarvieWilliams, Gerald (Tonbridge)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)Willoughby de Eresby, LordLieut.-Cmdr. Gurney Braithwaite and
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)Winterton, Rt. Hon. EarlMr. Hollis.


Acland, Sir RichardField, Capt. W. J.Middleton, Mrs. L.
Adams, Richard (Batham)Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)Mikardo, Ian
Albu, A. H.Follick, M.Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.Foot, M. M.Mitchison, G. R.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)Forman, J. C.Monslow, W.
Alpass, J. H.Fraser, T. (Hamilton)Moody, A. S.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)Freeman, J. (Watford)Morley, R.
Allewell, H. C.Ganley, Mrs. C. S.Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Awbery, S. S.Gibbins, J.Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ayles, W. H.Gibson, C. W.Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Gitzean, A.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Bacon, Miss A.Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Mort, D. L.
Baird, J.Gooch, E. G.Moyle, A.
Balfour, A.Goodrich, H. E.Murray, J. D.
Barstow, P. G.Grey, C. F.Nally, W.
Battley, J. R.Grierson, E.Naylor, T. E.
Bechervaise, A. E.Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)Neal, H. (Claycross)
Benson, G.Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Berry, H.Guest, Dr. L. HadenNicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Beswick, F.Gunter, R. J.Oldfield, W. H.
Binns, J.Hale, LeslieOliver, G. H.
Blackburn, A. R.Hall, Rt. Hon. GlenvilOrbach, M.
Blenkinsop, A.Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Blyton, W. R.Hannan, W. (Maryhill)Palmer, A. M. F.
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.Hardy, E. A.Pargiter, G. A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)Hastings, Dr. Somerville.Parker, J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Haworth, J.Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Brook, D. (Halifax)Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)Paton, J. (Norwich)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)Pearson, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Herbison, Miss M.Peart, T. F.
Brown, George (Belper)Hewitson, Capt. M.Popplewell, E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)Hobson, C. R.Porter, E. (Warrington)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.Holman, P.Porter, G. (Leeds)
Burden, T. W.Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)Price, M. Philips
Burke, W. A.Horabin, T. L.Proctor, W. T.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)Punsey, Comdr. H.
Callaghan, JamesHughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Randall, H. E.
Carmichael, JamesHughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)Ranger, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Rees-Williams, D. R.
Chamberlain, R. A.Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)Reid, T. (Swindon)
Champion, A. J.Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)Rhodes, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.Jay, D. P. T.Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Cocks, F. S.Jeger, G. (Winchester)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Collick, P.Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Collindridge, F.Jenkins, R. H.Rogers, G. H. R.
Collins, V. J.Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Colman, Miss. G. M.Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)Royle, C.
Comyns, Dr. L.Jones, Elwyn (PIaistow)Scott-Elliot, W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)Jones, J. H. (Bolton)Sharp, Granville
Corlett, Dr. J.Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Cove, W. G.Keenan, W.Shurmer, P.
Crawley, A.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.King, E. M.Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Daggar, G.Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.Simmons, C. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Kinley, J.Skinnard, F. W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)Kirby, B. V.Smith, C. (Colchester)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)Lee, F. (Hulme)Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)Leonard, W.Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)Leslie, J. R.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)Levy, B. W.Sparks, J. A.
Deer, G.Lindgren, G. S.Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Delargy, H. J.Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Stokes, R. R.
Diamond, J.Logan, D. G.Stross, Dr. B.
Dobbie, W.Longden, F.Stubbs, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.Lyne, A. W.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Driberg, T. E. N.McAdam, W.Sylvester, G. O.
Dye, S.McAllister, G.Symonds, A. L.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.McEntee, V. La. T.Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)McGhee, H. G.Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)Mack, J. D.Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)McKay, J. (Wallsend)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Evans, John (Ogmore)Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Ewart, R.McLeavy, F.Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Fairhurst, F.MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Thurtle, Ernest
Farthing, W. J.Mainwaring, W. H.Titterington, M. F.
Fernyhough, E.Mann, Mrs. J.Tolley, L.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.Wells, W. T. (Walsall)Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Turner-Samuels, M.West, D. G.Willis, E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Viant, S. P.White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Wadsworth, G.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Walker, G. H.Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)Wyatt, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)Yates, V. F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)Williams, D. J. (Neath)Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Wartey, W. N.Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Watkins, T. E.Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Weitzman, D.Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)Mr. Snow and Mr. Wilkins.