Skip to main content

New Clause—(Allowance For Subscription To Professional Organisation)

Volume 529: debated on Wednesday 7 July 1954

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

The Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall be amended by the insertion after paragraph 7 of the following new paragraph:-

"(7A) If membership of a specified professional organisation was one of the conditions of appointment to the office or employment of profit, the annual subscription for such professional organisation may be deducted from the emoluments to be assessed."—[Mr. Albu.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

This new Clause is to deal with what apparently many people may consider a small injustice in connection with allowances for expenses. Frequently in this House we have discussed expense allowances, sometimes at very high level. I freely admit that the figures here are comparatively small, although in present conditions even a small sum of money may be of considerable value to an individual. In any case, I remember a little bit of Latin which begins, "De minimis …". Here we are asking only for the rectification of a small injustice, but that does not make it less important to a large body of very important citizens.

The difficulty arises out of the very controversial paragraph (7) of the Ninth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1952, which defines the allowance to be made for expenses for someone working as an employee. It arises out of words which I can never remember, and have had to write down, that the expenses "must be wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of the duties of the office." They are words which, I am quite sure, are engraved on the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

6.30 p.m.

It might appear that this is merely a question of interpretation and that it is open—as it is—to the inspector of taxes to interpret this Clause widely or narrowly. The class of persons concerned are those people—mostly professional engineers, though there are other professionally-qualified persons—who are employed generally by public authorities and who, as a condition of their appointment, are required to be members of a particular professional organisation. I do not say that this really applies in private industry, because in my experience there is no difficulty whatsoever in getting a private employer to say, as is perfectly true, that if he employs one in that capacity he requires one to be a member of a professional organisation. I got over it by saying that my membership was wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of my employment.

These qualifications are frequently required in the professional Civil Service. It may not be generally known to hon. Members that in this country for many years the examinations for corporate membership, particularly of the engineering institutions, have been one of the leading methods of getting professional qualification. To prove that one had the necessary educational background, and the practical training and experience, one obtained the qualification by examination and the usual method of proposal for acceptance by the appropriate body. In the course of many years, these qualifications have come to be recognised if not necessarily as the only, at any rate the main, qualifications.

Will the hon. Member define the words "professional organisation" in the title of the new Clause? Is he able to say whether, if my right hon. Friend accepted this new Clause, my annual subscription to the Institute of Directors would be covered by it?

It is not possible for me to interpret the law, even after helping to make it. I can only answer that if the Institute of Directors requires examination, and some experience and standing before one can become a member, and if it is a recognised condition of employment, I suppose that would be the case. But that I very much doubt, because one thing which is quite clear about that Institute is that no qualifications whatever are required in order to be a member. Perhaps I may now return to the very serious basis of the argument.

I was saying that these qualifications have now become recognised frequently as the main qualifications, particularly in the engineering industry. In proof of that, perhaps I can quote from some recent advertisements in the Press for qualified persons. Today in the "Manchester Guardian" the Department of Atomic Energy advertises for a design engineer of whom the qualifications required are:
"…recognised engineering apprenticeship with Associate Membership of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, or equivalent …"
In "The Times" of 9th June, the Mines Inspectorate of the Ministry of Fuel and Power advertised for a Deputy Principal Electrical Inspector of Mines and Quarries, and the advertisement said:
"Candidates must be Corporate Members of the Institution of Electrical Engineers …"
On the same day the Air Ministry advertised for civil engineers for duty in their Works Department. Among other things:
"Candidates must be … Corporate Members of the Institution of Civil Engineers or Institution of Municipal Engineers."
There was an advertisement on the same day for librarians for a number of different Departments—the Foreign Office, the Royal Air Force College at Cranwell and so on—and the qualification was that:
"Candidates must be Fellows or Associates of the Library Association or hold the Diploma of the London School of Librarianship."
It can therefore be seen that, to obtain many of these appointments, one must already be a member of one of these associations. To those hon. Members who do not understand these matters, I can say that one does not just pass an examination. One has to be elected a member and pay the appropriate subscription, which runs to five, six or seven guineas a year.

This is not the first time that this matter has been raised. On other occasions when it has been raised the attitude of the Treasury has been based either on ignorance or an over-legalistic view. If the Financial Secretary is to reply, I hope that we shall not again get a piece of over-legalism. Last year I wrote to him on the subject, and in return received a most interesting and complicated letter. I was asking, not for legislation but for an interpretation of the present law in favour of the people of whom I am speaking. The letter I got back was, to say the least, Treasury legalism at its very worst. It is perfectly true that in his letter the Financial Secretary did not deny
"…that the Government very frequently prescribe membership of a professional organisation as a condition of appointment to professional grades in the Civil Service."
Then he went on:
"But conditions of employment are quite another matter. The question is whether it is necessary for the Government as an employer to prescribe, either expressly or by implication, that continued membership of the appropriate institution is a sine qua non for continued employment in the job."
In other words, one has to have paid the subscription and become a member of the professional institution to get the job, and after that it does not matter what one does. If the Treasury is saying that it does not care whether or not its professional officers, its scientists and engineers remain members of the professional institution, it is very ignorant of what these institutions do. Such institutions do not only qualify members by examination. They publish papers, hold conferences and meetings and keep the qualified man up to date with new ideas, changes and so on occurring in his profession. It must surely be to the advantage and interest of the Government service, and of the public service generally, that a man should continue to be a member of one of these institutions and, if necessary, if not one already, to become a full member.

What we are asking is that where it is a condition of appointment that one must be a member of one of these bodies, it is only right that the subscription to that body should be allowed as expenses. We are not asking that any organisation shall be recognised as a professional body. Surely the appropriate Government Departments and the Treasury are capable of deciding the qualifications they require for particular jobs. I assume that the Civil Service Commission decides that. The Financial Secretary brings prejudice into the matter. He tries to make out that what I am asking for would mean that if a member were ever to resign from his appropriate professional body—and here I quote:
"…he must ipso facto be sacked."
What a strange mixture of Latin and slang. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not say:
"He must ipso facto be dismissed from his appropriate employment."
Then he said:
"I hope that, on reflection, you will not think that this is either mean or dishonest."
I consider it both.
"I do not want you to conclude from what I have said anything definite one way or the other about whether the expenses of membership should be allowed for Income Tax purposes: that is quite a separate question. I am dealing only with the question of what it is right for the Government, as an employer, to put in their rules about employment."
No employer can behave in that way and get out of his responsibilities. It is most extraordinary. I presume that the Treasury cannot bring pressure on the Inland Revenue on the interpretation of the law, but in the circumstances surely the proper thing to do is to accept the new Clause to put the matter beyond doubt. The Treasury is unwilling to say that what is a condition of appointment is also a condition of employment. If this is the sort of thing with which the colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby have to deal, I can only say that dancing on the point of a needle is nothing compared with it.

No doubt my hon. Friend will support me in this attempt to simplify the law so that the officials do not have to deal with these almost impossible contradictions.

The position is clear. The Inland Revenue cannot interpret the present provision in favour of the people of whom I am speaking because the Treasury is unwilling to say that what is a condition of appointment is also a condition of employment. Therefore, let us alter the law. It would cost the Treasury practically nothing and it would give a lot of satisfaction to many valuable Government servants.

We have heard a good deal from hon. Members opposite about the effect of the redistribution of incomes and taxation on the professional classes. This would apply, on the whole, not to the very high level but to the medium level of the professional classes. Let the Treasury accept a fair and just change to put the law beyond doubt.

6.45 p.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has spoken with his usual penetration and shown that this matter is of considerable concern to professional people. These arguments have been before the House on previous occasions under various Governments but, because they have been considered before and injustice has been done in spite of the strength of the arguments, there is no reason why the matter should not be considered again.

I want to stress the difference between the professional man—the engineer, the technologist and the architect—in practice on his own account and the professional man employed by a public body or corporation. The man in business on his own account, whether he be architect, technologist or doctor, is allowed his subscription to his learned body or society. The membership of this society is often determined by examination and the membership is a recognition of qualification and standing. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred, I think jokingly, to the Institute of Directors.

All right. It comes to the same thing, probably. I should regard the Institute of Directors as a kind of trade union though it is not quite so respectable as others.

Is not it now patently clear that the whole purpose of the new Clause is to secure that a trade unionist's subscription to his trade union shall escape assessment for Income Tax?

No. That intervention shows that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose of the new Clause at all. The reason a subscription to the Institute of Directors would not be included is that such a subscription is of the nature of a trade union subscription and we do not ask for them to be included. The new Clause has nothing whatever to do with trade union subscriptions.

The new Clause deals entirely with membership of a specified learned society or a scientific body. The kind of bodies we have in mind are the Royal Institute of British Architects or the Institutions of Electrical, Mechanical or Civil Engineers, which are not trade unions and which have Royal Charters. The point I was making is that a man in private practice can get an allowance for his subscription to such a body because it can be counted as an expense against his business under Schedule D. However, if the same man gives up business and accepts employment with a public authority or with a corporation, or a private employer for that matter, he can no longer get the allowance against his income. In other words, he must pay Income Tax on a sum of money which he never receives but which goes out so that he can carry on in his work efficiently and effectively.

I do not think that any man joins a learned or a scientific society for fun though he may get some fun of a kind afterwards as a by-product, but he joins in order to further his work and to make himself more efficient as a member of the working community. I should think that that argument would commend itself to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He knows that the country needs more trained, scientific and technical people of every kind. It needs professional people who are serious and zealous about their work. They should be encouraged as a matter of public policy.

In the past the matter has been one of definition. I put down a similar new Clause some years ago and I think that on that occasion we also proposed a Schedule to deal with the difficulty of definition. On this occasion the Clause is drawn fairly narrowly. It is confined to membership of a recognised professional body if that is made a condition of appointment in the first place.

My hon. Friend quoted a few examples. I propose to quote two from the current issue of the "Electrical Review." Here is an advertisement showing that the Yorkshire Electricity Board's head office wants a second assistant engineer on distribution design. It says,
"Applicants should be corporate members of the Institution of Electrical Engineers."
That is an example, and here is another:
"Kent County Council. Senior Electrical engineers. Applications are invited from chartered electrical engineers for two appointments as above."
I should have thought that those examples greatly strengthened the very moderate arguments which my hon. Friend has advanced. The Clause is drawn very narrowly—so narrowly that, in the circumstances, I should have thought that the Economic Secretary could have accepted it.

I have a good deal of sympathy with, and I hope understanding of, the Clause. There is something to be said for it, but the difficulties seem to me to be greater than the advantages. If the Clause were accepted, I think we should find a great increase in the number of societies seeking to become, in the terms of the Clause, "specified professional organisations." Already there are a great number of them, and the Clause is an incitement to the formation of societies which would come within the description. I do not think that would be a very good thing for the existing societies, which have a standing of their own.

Some remarks of a derogatory character have been made about the Institute of Directors. Would it be qualified under the Clause? I take it that it would, because it is a professional body and one cannot become a member of it unless one is a director. I happen to be a director of a company and I can say that becoming a director is a long, tiresome and tedious business. I understand the envy of hon. Members opposite, who could not qualify, because, in the words of George Bernard Shaw, in his opinion they lacked even the ability to be directors of a whelk stall. He said that, admittedly, some time ago.

Would the hon. Gentleman tell me when the examinations for the Institute of Directors take place? Are they held annually, quarterly or biennially? What is the composition of the board of examiners?

It would not be proper for me to take this opportunity to give in detail the qualifications for membership of the Institute of Directors, but the address is Palace Chambers, Victoria, and any inquisitive Opposition Member of Parliament can, by applying there, learn, undoubtedly to his disappointment, that he may not be eligible for membership. The qualifications are indeed very high—rightly so, because the direction of successful industry in this country is a task in which those engaged cannot be too highly qualified. I hope the Institute will be encouraged by hon. Members opposite, who I believe desire to augment their income in one way or another. Possibly this seems a suitable opportunity.

There is something more important in the plausible arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer). The terms of the new Clause refer to membership of a "specified professional organisation." The National Union of Teachers is a professional organisation, and rightly so. It has no political associations of a marked character. Does the hon. Member for Edmonton think that every teacher in the country should, under the Clause, be entitled to deduct from his Income Tax the contribution which he makes to this professional Society?

May I take it a little further and draw attention to the National Association of Local Government Officers. Hon. Members opposite may say that it is a trade union, but it is also a professional body the qualifications are high and it has standards of examination. Is it seriously contended that members of this trade union—no doubt reputable and proper trade union—may deduct their trade union contributions from their Income Tax?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) completely misunderstands the point. It would have to be a condition of appointment, and although employers may encourage trade union membership, it is hardly likely to be a condition of employment.

The hon. Member is suprisingly ill-informed on labour and trade union matters. Most hon. Members are aware that many local authorities demand that their employees shall he members of a trade union. They insist upon it as a condition of employment. If the hon. Member reflects, he will remember one which was prominent in the news quite recently—the County of Durham.

The new Clause is an ingenious device, put forward with all the commanding plausibility which a not-too-successful director, now Member of Parliament for Edmonton, is able to command. Once this Clause is passed, no trade union will be satisfied until it is prescribed as "a specified professional organisation," and trade union subscriptions, quite proper in their place, will be deducted from Income Tax; and an increase in the income of the Labour Party will thereby be secured. I hope that, in the interests of the taxpayers and in the highest public interest, this Clause will be rejected.

This Clause is one of the facets of the rather complicated problem of what are allowable expenses under what used to be Rule 9 of Schedule E of the Income Tax Act and is now in the Income Tax Act, 1952—the interpretation of the phrase

"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of"
the particular office.

The law has been laid down by Parliament and the interpretation of that phrase is in the hands of the courts; and the Inland Revenue, like the Treasury, is bound by what the courts say in the matter of interpretation. It has been clearly held in a number of cases that there is a difference between expenditure necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of an office and expenditure incurred in order to make one fit to carry out those duties. For example, expenditure on books required for study in order to obtain certain knowledge before taking on the job is not allowed. Expenditure incurred in travelling to work in order to put oneself in a position to do the job is not allowed. Expenditure incurred in travelling in performing one's duties at work is allowed. That is a fairly clear principle which is laid down. It is one to which the Inland Revenue has to work it has no alternative.

In the case of the subscriptions to learned societies and professional organisations, the classic case was Simpson v. Tate, 1925—a case in which a county medical officer was paying subscriptions to the Royal Society of Medicine and other similar royal and public institutions. These subscriptions were not a condition of his employment and it was clearly held by the court in those circumstances that they could not be deducted for Income Tax purposes.

On the other hand, these subscriptions can be deducted where they are a definite and continuing condition of employment in order to enable the individual to carry out his duties with efficiency; where they are necessarily expended in the performance of the individual's duties, then they are allowed. Where that condition cannot be met, they are not allowed.

What the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) seeks in the new Clause is that we should take this form of expenditure out of the general run of expenses and treat it differently—that we should say, in the case of subscriptions to professional organisations, that they should be treated differently from the normal run of expenditure incurred by people in connection with their employment. He is asking that the normal rules dealing with
"wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties"
shall not apply in this case.

May I ask a question about medicine and expenses allowed in this field? I am a member of the British Medical Association, although I disagree with its policy in most respects, and I also want to be a member of the Royal Society of Medicine which, in the case of my speciality—industrial diseases—offers one of the few places where I can get the requisite books.

Will the Economic Secretary agree with me in recognising as a legitimate expense, from the point of view of earning my own living, my subscription to the Royal Society of Medicine, which is necessary in order to enable me to obtain necessary literature in following what is a comparatively rare speciality? Can he tell Me whether any improvement in the situation is to be expected, and whether this subscription will now be allowed as a legitimate expense for a professional man like myself doing a specialist job?

7.0 p.m.

I should hesitate to intervene in any question concerning the hon. Gentleman's own Income Tax.' He can get all the information he requires on that subject elsewhere, and I cannot debate the matter with him, not knowing whether he pays Income Tax under Schedule E or Schedule D. It is a very difficult matter.

I do not feel that we could accept this proposal for changing the law relating to expenses in this particular regard, but I am advised that it is a matter which is now being considered by the Royal Commission. It is particularly the sort of complicated point on which it would be very much worth while to have the advice of the Royal Commission, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, while my right hon. Friend cannot accept this proposal at the present moment, he will be very glad to look at it again when he has received, in addition to the advice of the hon. Member, the advice of the Royal Commission.

Can I ask the Economic Secretary a question? He has said that the matter is being considered by the Royal Commission. Are we then to have a further report from the Commission on the taxation of the income of individuals?

The Interim Report has covered a number of points. No doubt, we shall in due course have another report covering all other matters considered.

As usual, the Economic Secretary has taken refuge in a possible report on this matter which may be presented at some future time, but that does not alter the facts, as far as we see them. It is true, as many hon. Members are aware, that we have discussed this matter on several occasions in past years, but, again, that is no reason why, having discussed the general proposal before and Governments having turned it down, this Government should turn down this particular Clause if, in the view of the House as a whole, the Clause is a good one.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who, as usual, gave us a very humorous speech, which was quite beside the point. Over and over again, from this side of the House, it has been asserted that we are not here trying—although there is no reason why we should not do so—to get special treatment for trade unionists. If we were, we should only be trying to put trade unionists on all fours with members of the Federation of British Industries, because, so I understand, the subscription to the F.B.I. is allowed to count in this way, and if those people are allowed to count their subscription as an expense, why on earth should not lesser people—if they are lesser people—also be allowed to count their subscriptions to a trade association or to a trade union?

This Clause is very limited in its scope, and sets out to do one simple thing, It concentrates on the proposition that the annual subscription, which professional men and women have to pay to their professional organisation, where the subscription is obligatory on the individual, should rank for tax allowance.

The Economic Secretary quoted the case of Simpson v. Tate, which is the leading case on this particular point. There, as the hon. Gentleman very rightly said, the court decided against Mr. Tate, who was a medical officer of health. The hon. Gentleman did not, however, point out to the House that the Special Commissioners, who dealt with the matter before it went to the High Court, granted Mr. Tate his case. In their view, it was a reasonable one. Mr. Tate, however, was not putting forward the narrow claim which would be accepted if this Clause were passed. Mr. Tate was asking for relief on subscriptions to a number of learned societies which, though good in themselves, and did assist him in his professional work, were certainly not obligatory on one holding the position he did.

What we should like to ask the Economic Secretary is this question: Why is it

Division No. 191.]


[7.7 p.m.

Albu, A. H.Darling, George (Hillsborough)Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Allen, Arthur (Besworth)Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)Herbison, Miss M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Dear, G.Hobson, C. R.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Dodds, N. N.Holman, P.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Houghton, Douglas
Awbery, S. S.Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Hoy, J. H.
Bacon, Miss AliceEdelman, M.Hubbard, T. F.
Balfour, A.Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Bartley, P.Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Beattie, J.Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bence, C. R.Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodEvans, Edward (Lowestoft)Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Benson, G.Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Blackburn, F.Fernyhough, E.Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Blenkinsop, A.Fienburgh, W.Janner, B.
Blyton, W. R.Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Jeger, George (Goole)
Boardman, H.Follick, M.Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. D.Forman, J. C.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Bowden, H. W.Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethGaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Gibson, C. W.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Glanville, JamesJones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Keenan, W.
Burke, W. A.Grey, C. F.Kenyan, C.
Callaghan, L. J.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Champion, A. J.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)King, Dr. H. M.
Clunie, J.Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Kinley, J.
Coldrick, W.Hamilton, W. W.Lawson, G. M.
Collick, P. H.Hannan, W.Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Corbet, Mrs. FredsHardy, E. ALever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Cove, W. G.Hargreaves, A.Lindgren, G. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Crosland, C. A. R.Hastings, S.McGovern, J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.Hayman, F. H.Mclnnes, J.
Dalnes, P.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)McKay, John (Wallsend)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)McLeavy, F.

that a taxpayer who is taxed under Schedule E is not able to get an allowance of this kind, whereas another individual who is fortunate enough to be assessed under Schedule D can do so? It seems to us grossly unfair that this differentiation should exist, and some time this matter will have to be looked into. Why is it that some individuals who, some people would think partly by chance, are assessed to Income Tax under Schedule D are allowed to set off quite a number of items which no one assessed under Schedule E can get?

This Clause would help to redress the balance a bit for professional people. I had thought up to now—indeed, I was almost certain—that hon. Members on the other side of the House would have jumped at the chance to support professional men and women to receive these allowances and are surely entitled to them. I do not know how my hon. Friends feel, but for my part I feel strongly on this matter. It is an injustice, and, that being so, I invite them to go into the Lobby in support of the Clause.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 204 Noes, 254.

Mainwaring, W. H.Popplewell, E.Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Porter, G.Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mann, Mrs. JeanPrice, Philip (Gloucestershire, W.)Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Manuel, A. C.Proctor, W. T.Thornton, E.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Pryde, D. J.Timmons, J.
Mason, RoyPursey, Cmdr. H.Tommy, F.
Mayhew, C. P.Rankin, JohnUngoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mellish, R. J.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)Usborne, H. C.
Messer, Sir F.Reid, William (Camlachie)Wallace, H. W.
Mitchison, G. R.Rhodes, H.Watkins, T. E.
Moody, A. S.Richards, R.Weitzman, D.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.Robens, Rt. Hon. A.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Morley, R.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)Wells, William (Walsall)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)West, D. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Ross, WilliamWheeldon, W. E.
Mort, D. L.Shackleton, E. A. A.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Moyle, A.Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mulley, F. W.Short, E. W.Wigg, George
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)Wikins, W. A.
O'Brien, T.Skeffington, A. M.Willey, F. T.
Oldfield, W. H.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)Williams, David (Neath)
Oliver, G. H.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)Williams, Rev. Llewelyn (Abertillery)
Oswald, T.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Padley, W. E.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)Willis, E. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Sorensen, R. W.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir FrankWinterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Palmer, A. M. F.Sparks, J. A.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Pannell, CharlesSteele, T.Wyatt, W. L.
Parker, J.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.Yates, V. F.
Paton, J.Sylvester, G. O.
Pearson, A.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Peart, T. F.Taylor, John (West Lothian)Mr. Holmes and
Mr. James Johnson.


Aitken, W. T.Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Alport, C. J. M.Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Hirst, Geoffrey
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Davidson, ViscountessHolland-Martin, C. J.
Arbuthnot, JohnDeedes, W. F.Holt, A. F.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Digby, S. WingfieldHopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Astor, Hon. J, J.Dodds-Parker, A. D.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McAHorobin, I. M.
Baldwin, A. E.Donner, Sir P. W.Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Banks, Col. C.Doughty, C. J. A.Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Barber, AnthonyDouglas-Hamilton, Lord MalcolmHoward, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Barlow, Sir JohnDrayson, G. B.Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Baxter, Sir BeverleyDrewe, Sir C.Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Beach, Mai. HicksDuncan, Capt. J. A. L.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Duthie, W. S.Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Eccles, Rt Hon. Sir D. M.Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Iremonger, T. L.
Black, C. W.Erroll, F. J.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bossom, Sir A. C.Finlay, GraemeJennings, Sir Roland
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.Fisher, NigelJohnson, Eric (Blackley)
Boyle, Sir EdwardFleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Braine, B. R.Fletcher-Cooke, C.Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyFord, Mrs. PatriciaJoynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.Fort, R.Kaberry, D.
Brooke, Henry (Hempstead)Foster, JohnKerby, Capt. H. B
Brooman-White, R. C.Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Kerr, H. W.
Browne, Jack (Govan)Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellLancaster, Col. C. C
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. TGalbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Garbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Leather, E. H. C.
Burden, F. F. A.Garner-Evans, E. H.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Butcher, Sir HerbertGeorge, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydLegh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Godber, J. B.Lindsay, Martin
Campbell, Sir DavidGomme-Duncan, Col. A.Linstead, Sir H. N.
Carr, RobertGough, C. F. H.Llewellyn, D. T.
Cary, Sir RobertGower, H. R.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Channon, H.Graham, Sir FergusLloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Low, A. R. W.
Cole, NormanHall, John (Wycombe)Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Colegate, W. A.Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHarrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertHarvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Cooper-Key, E. M.Harvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeMcCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Heath, EdwardMacdonald, Sir Peter
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Henderson, John (Cathcart)Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Higgs, J. M. C.McKibbin, A. J.
Crouch, R. F.Hill. Dr. Charles (Luton)Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnPowell, J. EnochSutcliffe, Sir Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. LTaylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Raikes, Sir VictorTeeling, W.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Ramsden, J. E.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir ReginaldRayner, Brig. R.Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Markham, Major Sir FrankRees-Davies, W. R.Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon. W)
Marlowe, A. A. K.Remnant, Hon. P.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Marples, A. E.Renton, D. L. M.Tilney, John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Ridsdale, J. E.Touche, Sir Gordon
Maude, AngusRoberts, Peter (Heeley)Turner, H. F. L.
Maudling, R.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)Turton, R. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. CRogers, John (Sevenoaks)Tweedsmuir, Lady
Medlicott, Brig. F.Roper, Sir HaroldVane, W. M. F.
Mellor, Sir JohnRopner, Col. Sir LeonardVaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Molson, A. H. E.Russell, R. S.Vosper, D. F.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir WalterRyder, Capt. R. E. D.Wade, D. W.
Moore, Sir ThomasSavory, Prof. Sir DouglasWakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)Scholfield, Lt.-Col. W.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Mott-Radclyffe, c. E.Scott, R. DonaldWalker-Smith, D. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.Wall, Major Patrick
Weave, AireyShepherd, WilliamWard, Hon. George (Worcester)
Nicholls, HarmarSimon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Nield, Basil (Chester)Smithers, Peter (Winchester)Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. PSmithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)Watkinson, H. A.
Nugent, G. R. H.Snadden, W. McN.Webbe, Sir M. (London & Westminster)
Nutting, AnthonySpearman, A. C. M.Wellwood, W.
Oakshott, H. D.Speir, R. M.Williams, David (Tonbridge)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.Stanley, Capt. Hon. RichardWilliams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Stevens, GeoffreyWilliams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)Wills, G.
Page, R. G.Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.Wood, Hon. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.Storey, S.
Pickthorn, K. W. MStrauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pitman, I. J.Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)Mr. Studholme and
Pitt, Miss E. M.Summers, G. S.Mr. Redmayne.