Skip to main content

New Clause—(Amendment Of Part Viii Of Income Tax Act 1952 (Personal Allowances))

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.

Supplementary personal allowance

Part VIII of the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall be amended by the insertion after clause two hundred and twenty of the following new clause:—

220A.—(1) if for any year of assessment the aggregate (hereinafter called 'the standard aggregate') of all relief allowed to a claimant under the sections of this Act which are mentioned in the next following subsection is less than the minimum personal allowance as hereinafter defined, the claimant shall be entitled to a deduction (hereinafter called a 'supplementary personal allowance') from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable.

(2) The sections referred to in the last foregoing subsection are sections two hundred and ten, two hundred and twelve and two hundred and thirteen.

(3) The minimum personal allowance referred to in subsection (1) of this section is the sum of sixty-three pounds and two-sevenths of any amount by which the standard aggregate exceeds sixty-three pounds.

(4) The supplementary personal allowance shall be the difference between the minimum personal allowance and the standard aggregate.—[ Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I feel that at this stage of the Finance Bill we are all agreed on one thing, at any rate, and that is that the system of taxation is highly complicated and that the Income Tax is about the most complicated part of it. This new Clause relates to the question of a personal allowance for Income Tax. It carries out, to some extent but not quite completely, the proposals of the Royal Commission on Taxation. We put it forward not by any means as the last word, because I do not think it is or ought to be the last word on this matter, but as a first step in the right direction.

I shall have to remind the House that a personal allowance, and for that matter a personal allowance with a marriage allowance included, serves two purposes. It serves, or should serve, the purpose of lightening taxation especially at the bottom of the scale; and secondly, it is a part of the whole machinery of graduation and a part to which we have long been accustomed.

The Royal Commission gave this question the most detailed and careful consideration. The point they had in mind and upon which they were all agreed is that the lowest limit and the lower part of the scale receive unfair treatment in the matter of personal allowance. If we regard this as an instrument for graduating the tax, no doubt it serves its purpose, but it has so constantly been regarded in that light that it does not in fact make a sufficient concession to the people right at the bottom of the scale.

The matter is involved because in the majority, though not necessarily in all, of these cases there will either be earned income relief or some element of earned income relief in the small income. It is not in a very large number of cases that we find so small an income being the only income and entirely unearned.

8.45 p.m.

Naturally, such cases exist, but the Royal Commission carefully considered the question whether the hardship which it had in mind would be sufficiently relieved by dealing with the earned income allowance. It concluded that in cases of this sort there was an elementary fairness in extending a measure of additional relief in the case of these small incomes, whether earned or unearned. It devoted another part of its Report to a consideration of the question of earned income.

When the Royal Commission came to the remedy—all the members were agreed that there was something wrong at the bottom of the scale—there were differences of opinion both in the body of the Report and between various members of the Royal Commission. I would simply say that what is proposed in the new Clause is the very smallest thing—if, indeed, it is all that—that the Royal' Commission recommended. I will quote the words of the Royal Commission at the beginning of paragraph 170 of its Report:
"We are all of us agreed that a minimum allowance scheme of this modest sort "—
what is proposed now is just that—
"would be at team a step in the right direction."
If I may immediately cut away the ground from the Economic Secretary, I will read the next sentence:
"The cost is small, and the effect on incentive of the rise in the marginal rate would be negligible. However, the rise in the exemption limit is also small, and the relief of tax on small incomes is not very considerable. There is therefore a strong case for trying to find something more ambitious."
I entirely agree with the last sentence; there is indeed a strong case for trying to find something more ambitious. We Are engaged for the moment in testing the intentions of the Government in regard to this matter, and I am certain that they would agree that the acceptance of this scheme would not at all preclude them from trying something more ambitious at a later stage, if indeed they do not choose to do it on this Bill.

Let me frankly put the test as I see it. This is a cheap, small, inadequate concession to people at the very bottom of the Income Tax scale. Outside the Conservative Club in Kettering there is a large notice which says:
"The country is better off. Trust the Tories."

I am glad that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) agrees with that. If the country is better off, this is certainly the sort of concession which ought to be made to people at the bottom of the Income Tax scale, and that is exactly the point that I am making. I should be out of order if I added anything about old-age pensioners, but the point is obvious.

Taking for the moment the particular matter that we have in mind, let us see exactly what the Royal Commission required, for it is upon that that the Clause is founded. Here again, the Royal Commission put its requirements in a clear and succinct form. It said:
"The basis would be a minimum allowance of £63 for the single person."
That, of course, means £63 and not the tax on £63. It went on:
"For each taxpayer entitled to more than the bare single personal allowance, this minimum would be increased by 2/7ths of the difference between the single personal allowance and the actual personal allowances to which the taxpayer was entitled."
I tell the House frankly that I am not quite certain what that means. The phrase "personal allowances" is used in various senses, both in this Report and actually in the 1952 Act. Therefore, what we have done is to put down the very minimum of what could be regarded as a personal allowance; that is to say, what is strictly called the single man's allowance, with the addition thereto for a wife, making it a married man'; allowance, and then the child's allowance.

I am not going into the figures in any detail. It is sufficient to say that I do not think that anyone who has any practical sense of how people live would disagree with me when I say that, if we find that something is too little for the single man's personal allowance, it is quite certain that the additions to the allowances which are made for a married man and for children will not remedy that unfairness. They are certainly not too much, and certainly they do not fully meet the requirements for which they are intended.

Therefore, I can start off by pointing out that at present, taking the case of earned income, the starting point for a single man is £155, and if I take the single man as an instance, I do not do so because he is a particularly meritorious instance. I think that actually the case is even stronger for the married man or the married man with children. I take the case of the single man knowing that I said just now that the additional allowances in the case of marriage or children will certainly not meet the difference in the requirements which a taxpayer has to pay for in his daily life by reason of the agreeable burden of a wife and children, and I only take it for that reason.

Now, taking the present figure of £155, one has only to ask oneself one simple question. Can a man reasonably live on it? Of course, the exemption figure makes a slight difference, but, quite obviously, it is well below the standard of living that one considers reasonable or indeed practicable. Perhaps the most startling light is thrown upon the matter by one very small point which I noticed in the Report of the Royal Commission revealing that the exemption limit, which I think now stands at £135, in 1894 was actually £160. Prices in 1894 were a very different matter from what they are today, and what has happened is that changes in taxation have been made from time to time, and that every time the effect of those changes on the people at the bottom of the scale has not been considered. That is the reason for it.

What we propose to do is to start at the very bottom of the scale and put up the single man's allowance by a matter of £20 or £30, and I call it little more than a token step, though it is roughly the step which the Royal Commission recommended.

I am waiting to see what objections the Government make to accepting this Clause now. Let me take the usual standard objections. The first is that the Government are waiting for the advice of the Royal Commission. They have it. It is that this concession is the very minimum, only a first step. The next objection is that it would be administratively difficult. The Royal Commission considered that point very carefully and in very great detail. The odd fraction, two-sevenths, reflects their favourable conclusion about it. We could reconcile it with the requirements of P.A.Y.E. and produce what the experts call an "even band" throughout the Income Tax arrangements.

What is the next objection? "Not this year, but next year," like the old game we used to play: "This year, next year, some time, never." This objection has gone on for a very long time. It is true that the Royal Commission has only made its Report recently, but it knows what it is talking about. It consists of practical people. Nobody can say that the Commission is unduly generous in its recommendations or that this is a minor matter. It is a thing upon which the Commission hung a very large part of its recommendations. Therefore, one does not see what can be the reason for delaying the introduction of this proposal, as a first step.

I put one discreditable thought to the House, only to reject it. Let me confess to the Economic Secretary, who is to reply, that when I listened to the Budget I said to myself, "That means no Election this year. The concessions and the Election will come next year." I am a very nasty-minded person or the thought would never have occurred to me. I must have an unduly suspicious nature. Of course, if by any chance the Economic Secretary were to say that he could not take the proposed step this year because he or his Department wanted longer to think about it, I should begin to wonder whether I might not have been right and whether they are keeping the whole thing back only to bring it forward on the plate next year.

This proposal will affect quite a large number of voters, including that mythical animal the floating voter. This might be a very good electoral stunt. I know that the Economic Secretary is a very high-minded person, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in many ways, comparatively speaking—comparing him with the others, of course—the sea-green incorruptible of the Tory Party. It would be just an unfortunate coincidence if this happened in connection with an Election. I hope that they will not tell us that this minimum step cannot be taken this year. The right thing to do is to take this little step this year and bring all the popularity that will result from so doing; and then to go one better next year. That would have a certain electoral effect. It might be a surprise; one never knows. That is the argument for it.

9.0 p.m.

I shall not go in very great detail into the explanations. This is a very simple new Clause. We are compelled by the rules of order to put the matter in a particular way. Indeed, I see very little alternative. What we are seeking is a supplementary personal allowance which would be the difference between what the Royal Commission recommends—as interpreted by me, and I am not sure that I have the whole of the Commission's recommendations right—and what the man is already getting by way of the three reliefs which I have mentioned. Instead of taking one allowance and substituting another, we are providing a supplementary allowance, which will conform with the rules of order and have the same result.

It is possible to say, "You have not gone even as far as the Royal Commission"; and I am not sure that we have. That may be a reason for doing more. It is certainly not a reason for rejecting the very small step which we wish to take. The House should remember who will be affected by the Clause. It will affect the average, ordinary, quite small income—the small wage earner, the unskilled man, those who are living on small savings, the ordinary humble folk in the community, who seem to me to have been neglected in the Budget.

We have been talking high and mighty things about investment allowances, chicory and other obscure subjects. Here is the first opportunity to do something for the ordinary small man and woman. While I hesitate to appeal to the Economic Secretary on grounds of electoral expediency—the Clause would make him and his party a little more popular, but it is not my business to help him over that—I put the Clause to him as a matter of obvious common justice towards the ordinary people of the country with small incomes.

I beg to second the Motion.

The case for this new Clause has been admirably made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who has made a great study of this subject. Like him, I regard it as one of the major defects in the Budget that no attempt was made to carry out any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and particularly that there was no attempt whatever, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, to assist the class of small Income Tax payer who is so badly hit today compared with the situation a decade or two ago.

I do not know whether it was for electoral reasons or for some other reasons that the Chancellor made no attempt to give effect to the recommendations. It may have been for electoral reasons; it may be that the Government are saving up this concession. It is most important that the country should know that we on these benches are most anxious that at the earliest possible moment the recommendations, which have the authority of the Royal Commission, for assisting the lowest grade of Income Tax payers in the country should be carried out, because until they are carried out these people are suffering a very great injustice.

My hon. and learned Friend has explained the details of the new Clause and I shall not weary the House by repeating them. I want to try to explain in my own words the principle which underlies the new Clause and the necessity for doing something on these lines. As the Royal Commission pointed out, our present Income Tax system has become considerably distorted by reason of inflation. The broad lines of our progressive scale of Income Tax were laid down some time ago, and have been looked at from time to time.

I had overlooked the fact, until it was pointed out by the Royal Commission, that the exemption limit has not risen proportionately with the degree of inflation that has taken place in this country. In other words, the inflation that has occurred has distorted the operation of the Income Tax system, particularly with regard to the exemption limits, the allowances, and the differential as between a single man, a married man and a man with children, and so on.

It is high time that the necessary rectification was carried out because, until it is, it is the poorer sections of the community who will suffer as they are now only getting the benefit of the exemption limits, the personal allowances, and so forth, that were relevant at a pre-inflation date, and before the cost of living rose to its present level.

My hon. and learned Friend quoted in support of his new Clause the precise terms of the Royal Commission's Report, because the Clause follows its suggestions. It may only be a beginning, but I regard it as a very important beginning, and I shall not be satisfied unless we hear from the Economic Secretary tonight that he accepts the principles on which these proposals are based. We have not heard a word at any stage of the Finance Bill to indicate whether or not the Chancellor even accepts the principles which the Royal Commission has recommended.

This is how the Royal Commission put it in justification and explanation of the precise recommendation which we are now considering. In paragraph 172, it says:
"We must emphasise that the question we have been discussing is intimately connected with the inflation which has been experienced during the past decade. A progressive tax is bound to be distorted by inflation;"—
it has been distorted by inflation, but it must be corrected if justice is to be done—
"for since it fixes the proportion of income paid in tax by reference to the money value of the income, each class of the community takes up the burden of a higher rate of tax as money incomes rise and prices rise with them."
In other words, prices rise, but the exemption limit available for Income Tax purposes does not rise in proportion. The result is that people are not getting an exemption limit which corresponds to the degree of inflation that has taken place, and that it operates unfairly on the lowest grade of Income Tax payers. The Report goes on:
"Thus at present a single man with an earned income of £500 pays 11 per cent. of his income in tax; in 1938 conditions, at 1938 prices, such a man could not be expected to have been earning more than £250; at £250, with present tax rates he would pay less than 5 per cent. This automatic stiffening of the tax burden proceeds all along the scale … Nevertheless, just because the stiffening has been to this extent automatic, rather than deliberate, its consequences have been somewhat different from those which would have been easily accepted as part of a deliberate policy."
In other words, we are faced with a situation in which there has been a shift in emphasis of taxation which puts a greater burden on those in the lower income groups compared with the others because the exemption limit has not been changed.

There has been a shift in the emphasis of the burden over a decade or two as the result of inflation and to some extent it has been imperceptible. It takes some time for economic consequences to make themselves apparent and we may not always appreciate the process. But the result has been indicated by the Royal Commission, and I see no justification whatever for the singular omission in this year's Budget of any reference to this growing need to remedy an injustice. There is nothing to which I attach greater importance than that there should be some recognition of the fact that relief for the Income Tax payers at the lower end of the scale is overdue. This is only a beginning. I hope that the Clause will be accepted. I hope, also, that it may be followed by a recognition of the other suggestions contained in the Report of the Royal Commission.

We are here attempting to lay down the principle of a minimum personal allowance on earned income. The text of the Clause has been drafted to take account, as far as possible, of the detailed recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission. I hope that no one will assume from anything that has been said that we should be satisfied merely by the acceptance of this modest beginning to what we wish to bring about.

I was particularly impressed by the observations contained in paragraph 8 of the Minority Report, where it is put in a different manner. The broad reasons which led to the conclusion are explained succinctly. Reference is made to some complicated tables which are printed in various pages of the Report and I would invite hon. Members who are interested to study them. Paragraph 8 states:
"Three broad conclusions emerge from these tables. In the first place, the starting point of liability is at a much lower level of real income than before the war."
That is what we complain about. Owing to inflation, the starting point of liability for Income Tax today is at a much lower level of real income than ever before. Surely that proposition has only to be stated to be appreciated and I think that the House will accept the corollary that something should be done to remedy it. The, 20 on to say:
"In the second place, the rise in taxation has been proportionately much greater in the lower categories of Income Tax payers … than on those higher up the scale."
They go on—and this is very relevant to the Clause—
"In the third place, the rise in the tax burden has been much greater on the family man than on married persons without children; and it has been much greater on married persons than on single persons."
9.15 p.m.

In other words, what has occurred is this. This gradual increase in the cost of living has completely thrown out of Rear what we regard, and what I imagine is commonly regarded, as a properly balanced system of Income Tax liability measured as between different categories of persons in the community—the single man, the married man, the married man with two children and so forth. The result has not merely been to distort that system: it has done so in a sense which is completely anti-social.

When these reliefs and allowances were originally devised, they were devised for the specific purpose of encouraging the married man with children. Everybody knows—it is common experience—that it is the married man with a wife and two or three children who is most severely hit today, both by the cost of living and also by the incidence of the Income Tax system which has become so distorted as a result of inflation. Nothing has been done in the Budget to correct that. We have not heard whether the principles underlying the Report are to be accepted.

As the Chancellor realises, this is the only way in which we can bring to the notice of the community our insistence on something being done about this matter without delay. As my hon. Friend has said, we have drafted this Clause in this particular way because it is not easy to draft a large number of new Clauses to give effect to all the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In the course of the Finance Bill we have already done a great deal of work for the Chancellor which we think ought to have been done in the Treasury, and he has from time to time expressed his gratitude for our assistance. But had time permitted and had the opportunity arisen, I should like to have seen a great many more new Clauses put down on the lines proposed by the Royal Commission.

I am therefore supporting this new Clause not merely because it contains a specific, precise recommendation on the lines of the Commission's Report, which. I hope, the Chancellor will accept, but also because it enshrines the principles which have actuated the Royal Commission in drawing the attention of the country to the necessity, if justice is to be done, for a complete reorganisation of our whole system of personal allowances, minimum liability, differentials, and so forth, all of which should be done in order to give overdue relief to the lowest Income Tax payers in the community.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) gave the House the benefit of his very interesting thoughts on paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Report of the Royal Commission, but what we are now discussing is not that, but the proposed new Clause, and there is quite a difference between one and the other. The hon. and learned Member himself said that there was a difference, but according to my interpretation of the matter the difference is a good deal wider than he appears to think.

I want to say a word or two about this recommendation of the Royal Commission. Like the other recommendations, it is an extremely interesting one, but my right hon. Friend is not proceeding with it this year because, as he has already explained to the House, he has not a great deal of revenue to spare this year, and he is not prepared to pick out one individual recommendation from the whole group put forward by the Royal Commission. The recommendation contained in paragraph 169 would cost about £8 million, which is a very substantial sum, and the cost of the recommendations mentioned in paragraph 170 would be a great deal more, namely, £56 million. For that reason my right hon. Friend did not proceed to implement that recommendation, any more than any of the others, although he will study them all carefully between now and next year's Budget.

The proposed new Clause would have an effect very different from the recommendation of the Royal Commission, but I do not intend to advise the House to reject it on any of the grounds which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. The grounds I put forward are that it would cost about £60 million and the benefit would go entirely to single people. No benefit would go to married people, about whom the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) spoke with great feeling but without a very accurate appreciation of the effect of the proposal.

The effect would be to give a supplementary relief in a case where the aggregate of all the reliefs under certain Sections of the Income Tax Act, 1952, was less than £63. As I understand it, that can happen only in the case of a single man, whose relief from tax on a sun of £120 is £54. He would therefore receive an allowance of £9 in terms of tax which, grossed up, would be £20, making up the difference between £120 and £140, to which difference the hon. and learned Member referred. That is the effect of the proposal as I understand it, and it is quite clear that it can have no other effect, and can be of benefit only to people whose tax relief is below the figure I have mentioned. These people could only be single people, and a concession costing £60 million a year would be given to them.

The hon. and learned Member talked in a spirit of badinage on the subject of elections, but I would ask him if he thinks it would be a good election move to vote in favour of giving a £60 million concession entirely to single people.

This is a relief which is additional to any present relief. It is founded on a certain sum, plus two-sevenths of the personal allowances. Those personal allowances are obviously larger in the case of a married man, and larger still in the case of a married man with children. What I fail to understand is why two-sevenths of a larger sum is not larger than two-sevenths of a smaller sum. Perhaps the hon. Member can explain the matter to me.

The hon. and learned Member has made the precise point. It is true that reliefs for married men are much larger than for single men, but the relief in this case would arise only where the present reliefs are as small as possible. This proposed new Clause would cover the situation only where the standard aggregate was less than £63, and that would apply only in the case of a person with the minimum personal allowance, namely, a single man. It is because this proposal would cost £60 million a year and would benefit only single persons that my right hon. Friend cannot accept it.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, might I ask him one further question? This may differ in one small respect from the recommendations of the Royal Commission but it may differ only because it does not include all the personal allowances it had in mind. Subject to that, it follows exactly the passage that I read from the Report. The Royal Commission gives a table showing the effect as regards married men and single men, and I completely fail to understand—and I do not believe I am the only person who fails to understand—why that table is quite wrong and why following out what the Royal Commission said is apparently the opposite to that which they concluded it would be.

I am sorry that the Opposition have put down such a bad Clause. I sympathise with them because I know how difficult it is without the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsmen to put ideas clearly into a draft Clause. I do not wish to challenge the drafting, but I want to make one point about this proposal. The minimum personal allowance is referred to in subsection (3) in these words:

"… the sum of sixty-three pounds and two-sevenths of any amount by which the standard aggregate exceeds sixty-three pounds."
I only want to say that I think that is far too complicated a thing to introduce into our Income Tax law, and I hope that account will be taken of the general trend of the arguments which led to that particular proposal and that a more plain and simple proposition will be put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes to deal with it in due course.

I am getting rather tired of having to start my speeches at this stage of the Bill by saying that the hon. Gentleman's or the right hon. Gentleman's reply is very disappointing, but I can assure the Economic Secretary that his answer on this new Clause was extremely disappointing. I thought he fell below his usual standard of courteous explanation. He dismissed curtly, and without any argument at all, the drafting of this Clause; indeed, I could not follow what he had to say at all. I will not go into detail, because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is far better equipped to do that than I am, and I have no doubt that he will take full opportunity of pressing the hon. Member on this point.

But even supposing that the drafting is difficult, the hon. Gentleman's reply was not adequate to a Clause of this importance. We are concerned here with one of the major proposals of the Royal Commission, and I would say to the Economic Secretary that I do not think it was even polite to the members of that Commission to dismiss the proposal in the way that he did.

I was most careful to say that my right hon. Friend would study all the proposals of the Royal Commission with great care.

For how long? After all, this Report has been out for some time, and I have little doubt that the Treasury was informed of the contents before it was published.

I am not sure that we can accept that. The report was received by us actually after the Budget and, therefore, it was not possible to make any detailed examination which I should like to give to the Report in the time; but I am not responsible for that.

I am concerned with whether the Chancellor had an opportunity of studying the Report before it was printed and published. I should be very surprised if he was not given the Report in typescript so that he could at least have some opportunity of looking through it.

In any case, some time has elapsed since the Budget, and to say, "We cannot consider any of these proposals as we have said on an earlier occasion" is not good enough. I come back to the point that here we have a major proposal of the Royal Commission. It is not a completely new idea. As a matter of fact, I think great credit is due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who has repeatedly pressed for a higher minimum tax figure. The scheme which the Royal Commission recommends is, in certain respects, very like the proposals which he has put forward in this House on earlier occasions.

9.30 p.m.

The case is based largely on two grounds. First of all, obviously if one can secure substantial administrative economies at very little cost, from the sheer efficiency point of view there is a great deal to be said for it. If one can write off a million or two people from the Income Tax scheme altogether and the cost is only a few million pounds there is a substantial gain on that account. I do not think that the Economic Secretary would deny that.

Secondly, the Royal Commission itself argues with great pertinacity that there ought to be a subsistence level which should not attract Income Tax at all and the Commission discusses in some detail what that level should be. It points out that the present situation is anomalous and unsatisfactory because the effective minimum is determined by the personal allowances only and the earned income allowance, and the Commission puts forward very powerful arguments why that is not really satisfactory from the point of view of a fair fiscal system.

The Commission points out that if one wanted to raise the minimum figure by raising the personal allowance one would have to give away in tax relief an enormous amount to people who are far above the levels of income with which the Commission is concerned. The Commission also points out that if one raises the personal allowance to £200 and £320 respectively, thereby exempting about 7 million people, a very substantial number, it would cost no less than £290 million on the basis of doing it that way, although only £37 million would relate to those who would be completely exempted from tax. Therefore, the Commission concludes that we ought to find a new system by which there is a higher effective minimum than the personal allowances at present provided.

My hon. Friends have explained the matter with extraordinary clarity and lucidity. I hope they will not take offence when I say that though they are both lawyers and not economists, they seem to have an admirable grasp of the economics of the Royal Commission's Report and have explained with great detail exactly what is involved. They have referred to the specific proposal relating to the minimum personal allowance as the sum of £63 plus two-sevenths of any amount by which the standard aggregate exceeds £63 and that the supplementary personal allowance shall be the difference between the minimum personal allowance and the standard aggregate. Although this may seem only a modest step it is an important step forward. I think that we have shown some restraint in selecting this particular variation of the general idea of a minimum earned income relief instead of the much more extensive one which occurs later in the Report.

The case for introducing something of this kind is very powerful indeed and one would suppose that even if the Economic Secretary could not have conceded the new Clause he would have presented some arguments about it at least. We have not the slightest notion whether the Government think that this is a good idea or a bad idea and whether there are any difficulties in it. It would have been interesting for the House to know whether it is thought practicable by the experts of the Inland Revenue, whose advice the hon. Gentleman swallows completely whole when it comes to drafting, without apparently being able to pass on exactly what they say to the House.

That would not necessarily have committed the Government. It is entirely unsatisfactory that when we put forward schemes of this kind, drawn from the Report, we should be told that nothing out of the Report can be accepted, because it is in the Report. That is very discourteous to the Royal Commission and certainly very unsatisfactory for the Opposition. I do not know what my hon. Friends who support this Clause feel, but I still hope that we shall get a better explanation, at least on the drafting point.

The hon. Gentleman is an extremely intelligent person—he is not only an economist, but a lawyer as well, which is a very rare combination. He is quite capable, if the Chancellor would only take off his muzzle, of holding forth to us on this very interesting and important subject for a long time. I strongly suspect that he would have done so if the Chancellor had not come in at that time. No doubt that is the real trouble. Now that this little plot has been exposed, I hope that the Chancellor will allow the Economic Secretary to give a better reply and at least explain why this new Clause is so unacceptable to the Government.

We do hope we shall get something from the Economic Secretary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) has deployed a very powerful case and the Chancellor is taking a personal interest in this.

When I first started to be interested in the Inland Revenue, 25 years ago, there was not an exemption limit, but there was its equivalent in the sense of a single man's personal allowance plus earned income relief. In 1930 that allowance amounted to £160. One did not start to pay Income Tax until one had an income of £160. Today, as I understand the Royal Commission's Report, one starts to pay tax at £155. This is a most singular change in the level of taxation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that we ought to double the old exemption allowance to bring it into line with modern conditions. He could have put it the other way and have said in effect that the level of exemption which existed in the middle years between the wars at £160 was really equivalent to only £80 today and that in fact we have substantially worsened—practically halved—the position of those people.

I do not take the view—and I hope the Economic Secretary will not deploy it as part of his political armoury—that to take the part of the single person against the married person is a vote loser. I would remind the Economic Secretary that there is a very large number of single people now enjoying incomes—if that is the appropriate phrase to use—of between £155 and £183 a year and they are very badly off. We are talking about a wage of between £3 and £3 10s. a week. If the hon. Gentleman would pause and consider the case, he would find that there are large numbers of young people whose employment takes them from home, and who have to live in lodgings, getting between £3 and £3 10s. a week. They are young people, but that is no reason why they should not have the same consideration as married people, or anyone else.

The very fact that the Economic Secretary has told us that this concession would cost so much money—the only reason he has advanced for rejecting it—is in itself a reason for examining it much more carefully. If he is saying that the amount of revenue he secures from a great many single young people whose wages are between £3 and £3 10s. a week is so important to him, he might equally consider whether there is not a case, on common grounds of humanity, for relieving that very section of young people. Many of us know of some young persons trying to get along on these small incomes and know what a benefit such a concession would be to them.

I shall not talk about the technical merits or demerits of the proposed Clause, but I hope that before you put the Question finally. Mr. Speaker, we may have some views from the Economic Secretary on its merits and on the attitude of the Government to it—whether it is a good idea or not and whether he does not accept some of the considerations put forward by my hon. Friends on behalf of this class of person. Or will he subside behind his Treasury brief and turn down the Clause on the ground that it is defective and would cost a lot of money? I hope that we shall have an answer from him.

I wonder whether I may have the leave of the House to say a few words more?

Being on Report, it is not desirable that a Minister, or indeed any person, should take part twice in our debates. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is not usual on Report. I am merely trying to observe the proprieties.

I can quite understand the interest of hon. Members. I had supposed, having got here before me an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission, in paragraphs 169 and following, that they had hoped under this to follow up the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who took part in the debate on Clause 13—which is now Clause 14. In his speech on 15th June he referred to the desire of the Royal Commission that a specific minimum relief should be introduced for the purpose of affording a graduated exemption limit in favour of the smallest incomes. He said that he hoped that that would be one of the ideas which might find a place in the next Budget.

It therefore does not seem to me that the Opposition is entirely logical because at that time I thought that was sensible, namely, that we should look at this with a view to making it one of our ideas for the next Budget. But tonight hon. Members opposite are pressing a Clause which is not on all fours with the Royal Commission's recommendation, which does not cost—as I have calculated that the Royal Commission recommendation would cost—about £8 million per annum but which, as drafted, would cost £60 million per annum. That, I think, we could not possibly accept in relationship to all the arguments, claims and counterclaims which we have had in the course of the Finance Bill debates.

Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will therefore see that the contribution made by the Economic Secretary was absolutely just. This Clause, as drafted, is too expensive. It does not apply to married men or to single persons entitled to child allowance, it costs far too much money and is not, I think, effective. The actual recommendations in paragraphs 169 and 170 of the Royal Commission's Report which I have set out before me with their tables, and which were referred to by some hon. Members opposite, would be within our scope and more possible to accept.

From the right hon. Gentleman's previous contribution, I understood that be wished those ideas to be raised in connection with next year's Budget. Now he comes with a Clause costing £60 million which he says he wants dealt with in this Budget. It is not a consecutive argument. Either we consider something quite rationally—as the right hon. Gentleman did in June when he asked us to consider these ideas in the next Budget—or we have a proposition which is not within the scope of the amount of surplus I have available with which to grant concessions.

That was on an earlier Amendment. There was no reason why the Chancellor should not give the further consideration which we hope that he will give to the other recommendations of the Royal Commission with a view to next year's Budget, but also there is no reason why there should not be a beginning made now by the acceptance of these principles. If this particular Clause is objectionable, perhaps the Chancellor would be prepared to have some modified form of it which he could accept. That would show a willingness to move on the road advocated by my hon. and right hon. Friends in this debate.

I naturally considered this. We consider every single Clause on the Order Paper. I have already accepted one put forward, in essence, by the right hon. Gentleman because I thought it was within the scope of what I could accept. I am afraid that this is not within the scope, even if it were on the basis of the Royal Commission's original recommendation, namely, £8 million per annum, because, if we are to accept anything as an initial step towards accepting part of the Royal Commission's recommendations, I would rather have accepted something for the child allowance, which has been for some time very near my heart.

9.45 p.m.

That would have cost in one form approximately this—£8 million—and in its main form it would have cost about twice this—about £16 million—but I was obliged to refuse. I, personally, would have given it priority over this one. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will see that had I accepted in a hurry any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, I would have given priority to the child side rather than to this new Clause in making my decision.

Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Economic Secretary have told us that this new Clause would cost many times as much as the recommendation of the Royal Commission upon which it is intended to be founded. No one has yet explained what the difference is.

The difference is broadly that the Clause would give no benefit either to married men or to single persons entitled to child allowances. I give the reasons. Their minimum standard aggregates of tax relief, £210 at 9s. in the £ and £205 at 9s. in the £, equal £94 10s. and £92 5s. respectively, and are far more than the minimum personal allowance as defined in subsection (3) of the Clause; £94 10s. must be more than £63 plus two-sevenths of the difference between £63 and £94 10s. So, to give relief all the way up the scale to single persons without dependants and to do nothing for family men would, in our view, be indefensible and would, incidentally, if carried out according to the drafting, cost £60 million.

That is the explanation which has been provided far me in interpreting this new Clause. The hon. and learned Member asked for it. I have given the explanation as best I can and, in order to clinch the argument, whether it costs £60 million or £8 million, I am afraid that I could not accept the new Clause for the reasons I have given in my statement. I have given the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the specific point, incomprehensible though it is to him and to me. Whether it would cost £60 million or £8 million, I regret that, in view of our general attitude to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, I could not accept it.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question I asked him. I read out to him the very clear and short statement of the recommendation of the Royal Commission. Conceit is an abominable vice, self-defence a permissible virtue. I should like to know in what respect the Clause differs from the recommendation.

I should like to say that I considered all the recommendations of the Royal Commission and I asked for time, both for myself and for public opinion, to study them with the care which they undoubtedly deserve. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), I would say that it is perfectly true that unfortunately the Report did not appear in time for consideration before this year's Budget. I cannot help that. The one thing Ministers are powerless over, besides some of their colleagues, is a Royal Commission. I would willingly have tried to get this Report of the Royal Commission in time to consider some of the recommendations. Unfortunately, it did not report in time. Therefore, I say in all sincerity that when men with the great ability of Lord Radcliffe and his confreres have taken all this time to produce their Report, the least compliment we can pay them is to give the Report more consideration and to introduce our recommendations when we have had a little more time to consider it.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 260.

Division No. 193.]

AYES

[9.49 p.m.

Acland, Sir RichardHardy, E. A.Pargiter, G. A
Adams, RichardHargreaves, A.Parker, J.
Albu, A. H.Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Parkin, B. T
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Hastings, S.Paton, J
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Hayman, F. H.Pearl, T. F.
Awbery, S. S.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bacon, Miss AliceHealy, Cahir (Fermanagh)Popplewell, E.
Baird, J.Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Porter, G.
Balfour, A.Herbison, Miss M.Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bartley, P.Hobson, G. R.Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Beattie, J.Holman, P.Proctor, W. T.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.Holmes, HoracePryde, D. J.
Bence, C. R.Houghton, DouglasPursey, Cmdr. H
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodHoy, J. H.Rankin, John
Benson, G.Hubbard, T. F.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Reid, William (Camlachie)
Bing, G. H. C.Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Rhodes, H.
Blackburn, F.Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Richards, R.
Blenkinsop, A.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Blyton, W. R.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Board man, H.Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Bowden, H. W.Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Ross, William
Bowles, F. G.Janner, B.Royle, C.
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethJeger, George (Goole)Shackleton, E. A. A.
Brockway, A. F.Jeger, Mrs. LenaShinwell, Rt. Hon. E
Brook, Drydon (Halifax)Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Short, E. W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Johnson, James (Rugby)Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Jones, David (Hartlepool)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)Skeffington, A. M.
Burke, W. A.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Jones, T. W (Merioneth)Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Callaghan, L. J.Keenan, W.Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Kenyon, C.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Champion, A. J.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Sorensen, R. W.
Clunie, J.King, Dr. H. MSoskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Coldrick, W.Kinley, J.Sparks, J. S.
Collick, P. H.Lawson, G. M.Steele, T.
Corbet, Mrs. FredaLee, Frederick (Newton)Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Cove, W. G.Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Lever, Harold (Cheetham)Swingler, S. T.
Crosland, C. A. R.Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)Sylvester, G. O.
Cullen, Mrs. A.Lindgren, G. S.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)MacColl, J. E.Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Davies, Harold (Leek)McGovern, J.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)McInnes, J.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Deer, G.McKay, John (Wallsend)Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Delargy, H. J.McLeavy, F.Thornton, E.
Dodds, N. N.Mainwaring, W. H.Timmons, J.
Donnelly, D. L.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Tomney, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Mann, Mrs. JeanUsborne, H. C.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Manuel, A. C.Wallace, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Marquand, Rt. Hon. H AWarbey, W. N.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Mason, RoyWatkins, T. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Mayhew, C. PWeitzman, D.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)Mellish, R. J.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Messer, Sir F.Wells, William (Walsall)
Fernyhough, E.Mitchison, G. RWest, D. G.
Fienburgh, W.Monslow, W.Wheeldon, W. E.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Moody, A. S.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Follick, M.Morgan, Dr. H. B. WWhiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Foot, M. M.Morley, R.Wilkins, W. A.
Forman, J. C.Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Willey, F. T.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Mort, D. L.Williams, David (Neath)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Moyle, A.Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Gibson, C. W.Mulley, F. W.Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Glanville, JamasOldfield, W. H.Willis, E. G.
Greenwood, AnthonyOliver, G. H.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Grey, C. F.Orbach, M.Winterbottom Richard (Brightside)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Oswald, T.Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)Padley, W. E.Wyatt, W. L.
Hale, LesliePaget, R. T.Yates, V. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Hamilton, W. WPalmar, A. M. F.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hannan, W.Pannell, CharlesMr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.Glover, D.Moore, Sir Thomas
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Godber, J. B.Morrison. John (Salisbury)
Alport, C. J. M.Gomme-Duncan, Col. AMott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Gough, C. F. H.Nabarro, G. D. N.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Gower, H. R.Neave, Airey
Arbuthnot, JohnGraham, Sir FergusNicholls, Harmar
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Grimond, J.Nield, Basil (Chester)
Astor, Hon. J. J.Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M.Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Nugent, G. R. H.
Baldwin, A. E.Hall, John (Wycombe)Nutting, Anthony
Banks, Col. C.Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Oakshott, H. D.
Barber, AnthonyHarrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Barlow, Sir JohnHarvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Baxter, Sir BeverleyHarvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeOrr, Capt. L. P. S.
Beach, Maj. HicksHead, Rt. Hon. A. H.Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Heath, EdwardPage, R. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Henderson, John (Cathcart)Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Higgs, J. M. C.Peyton, J. W. W.
Bennett, William (Woodside)Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Bishop, F. P.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountPitman, I. J.
Black, C. W.Hirst, GeoffreyPitt, Miss E. M.
Boothby, Sir R. J. G.Holland-Martin, C. J.Powell, J. Enoch
Bossom, Sir A. C.Holt, A. F.Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. AHope, Lord JohnPrior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Boyle, Sir EdwardHopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryRaikes, Sir Victor
Braine, B. R.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Ramsden, J. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Horobin, I. M.Rayner, Brig. R.
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyHorsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorenceRedmayne, M.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)Rees-Davies, W. R.
Brooman-White, R. C.Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Remnant, Hon. P.
Browne, Jack (Govani)Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Ronton, D. L. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. THulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.Ridsdale, J. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Burden, F. F. A.Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Butcher, Sir HerbertHylton-Foster, H. B. H.Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Iremonger, T. L.Roper, Sir Harold
Campbell, Sir DavidJenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Carr, RobertJennings, Sir RolandRussell, R. S.
Cary, Sir RobertJohnson, Eric (Brackley)Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Channon, H.Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Jones, A. (Hall Green)Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Kerby, Capt. H. B.Scott, R. Donald
Cole, NormanKerr, H. W.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Colegate, W. A.Lambton, ViscountShepherd, William
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerLancaster, Col. C. G.Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.Langford-Holt, J. ASmithers, Peter (Winchester)
Craddock, Bereford (Spelthorne)Leather, E. H. C.Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)Snadden, W. McN.
Crouch, R. F.Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.Spearman, A. C. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Lindsay, MartinSpeir, R. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Morthwood)Linstead, Sir H. N.Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S.)Llewellyn, D. T.Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Davidson, ViscountessLloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Deedes, W. F.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. CStewart, Henderson (File, E.)
Digby, S. WingfieldLongden, GilbertStoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Low, A. R. W.Storey, S.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McALucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Donner, Sir P. W.Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Doughty, C. J. A.Lucas-Tooth, Sir HughStudholme, H. G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord MalcolmMcCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Summers, G. S.
Draysen, G. B.Macdonald, Sir PeterSutcliffe, Sir Harold
Drewe, Sir C.Mackeson, Brig. Sir HarryTaylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.McKibbin, A. J.Teeling, W.
Duthie, W. S.Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnThomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Maclean, FitzroyThompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Erroll, F. J.MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Finlay, GraemeMacmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Tilney, John
Fisher, NigelMacpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Touche, Sir Gordon
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. FMaitland, Patrick (Lanark)Turner, H. F. L.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.Manningham-Buller, Rt.Hn. Sir ReginaldTurton, R. H.
Ford, Mrs. PatriciaMarkham, Major Sir FrankTweedsmuir, Lady
Fort, R.Marlowe, A. A. H.Vane, W. M. F.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Marples, A. E.Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Vosper, D. F.
Fyfe Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellMaude, AngusWade, D. W.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Maudling, R.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St.Marylebene)
Gammans, L. D.Medlicott, Brig. F.Walker-Smith, D. C.
Garner-Evans, E. H.Mellor, Sir JohnWall, Major Patrick
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydMolson, A. H. EWard, Hon. George (Worcester)

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)Wood, Hon. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Watkinson, H. A,Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.
Wellwood, W.Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)