Skip to main content

Clause 27—(Reduced Rate Of Duty On Certain Business Assets)

Volume 529: debated on Thursday 8 July 1954

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

6.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 29, line 25, at the end, to insert:

Where an interest in a partnership passes on death the deceased shall be deemed to have an interest in the hereditaments and machinery or plant referred to corresponding to his interest in the partnership assets.
The Amendment is intended to deal with partnerships so far as they are affected by the Clause and is designed to remedy a legal gap in the relief proposals. As I understand the position—in this complicated field I am open to correction by the Financial Secretary—in the case of a partnership at will—that is to say, one without a partnership agreement—a share in the real property of the partnership does not pass on the death of a partner.

These situations are governed by Section 33 (1) of the Partnership Act, 1890, which holds that on a partner's death the partnership is dissolved. What then happens is that the deceased partner's interest in the firm has to be ascertained according to rules set out in Section 44 of the Act, and the interest becomes a sum of money constituting a debt due from the surviving partners to the estate of the deceased.

I imagine that in these circumstances—here I shall welcome the elucidation of the Financial Secretary—it will be held that what passes is not an interest in an industrial business, whether hereditament, plant or machinery, but a mere money claim, which would not qualify for the relief which the Clause proposes to provide.

Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a case where relief should be given, and I will show how I imagine it should operate. It might, in the first place, be argued that the efficiency of the partnership would not be affected by the death of one of the partners, particularly as under the Partnership Act the interest in the partnership is dissolved on the death of a partner. However, in this sort of business there is usually a very strong family connection, and although the interest in the partnership might be held to be dissolved, the probability is that a relation of the deceased partner would wish to enter the business as a partner, or, if he was already in the business as a junior, would wish to become a partner.

The surviving individual would in all probability be one of the principal beneficiaries under the will of the deceased partner, because he would be a close relation, and as a beneficiary, and no doubt the principal beneficiary, he would only be receiving money with which to buy himself back into the partnership and it would be after that money had borne Estate Duty at the appropriate rate. He would then, in fact, be less well equipped than he should be to restore to the partnership the working capital which it required in order to maintain itself. He would be worse off to the extent that, as matters stand at present, he would not be able to get the relief which the Clause ought to be designed to give him.

The efficiency of such partnerships will be affected if the relief is not given, and the reasons are the same as those in the case of other family businesses. I hope very much that the Government will accept this small Amendment which closes a legal gap in their relief proposals.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has moved the Amendment so thoroughly and with such clarity that very little remains to be said. The Amendment follows on naturally from the provisions which the Government have introduced in Clause 27 of this Bill, in which relief is given to industrial hereditaments. Its purpose is to ensure that partnerships, and particularly partnerships in which there is no partnership agreement, are included in the benefits given by Clause 27.

My hon. Friends have made it clear that they, are concerned with the application of the benefits given by this Clause to the cases of partnerships. I have studied their Amendment carefully, and, as it is phrased, I must say that it would not have the effect of extending the provisions of the Bill in this respect at all.

Where, under the Clause as it stands, an interest in a partnership, which is the expression used in the Amendment, passes, it does receive, proportionately, the benefits of the Clause, and therefore in that case there is no legal gap, to adopt the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). But, as I understand his speech, my hon. Friends are not so much concerned with that, but with the wider question, much more frequently arising, of whether, on the death of a partner, what passes is not part of the interest in the partnership, but, in the much more usual case, a sum of money, and in that case, as I think my hon. Friends have indicated, the provisions of this Clause do not apply. Therefore, though the Clause as it stands deals only with the passing of an interest in a partnership, I think that, in view of the interest of my hon. Friends in the other and much more frequent case, when what passes is a sum of money, I, should say a word or two about the general merits of the matter.

I agree that the passing of a sum of money is the more frequent where there is a partnership deed. Whether what passes is an interest in a partnership or a sum of money depends on the terms of the deed, and therefore, in the drawing up of a partnership deed, it is very much a matter for the partners concerned whether they desire to frame their partnership deed in a way which will attract the benefits of this Clause or not. On the other hand, in the case of a partnership at will, the Partnership Act, 1890, in Section 33, provides that what passes shall be a sum of money, and these are really the cases with which my hon. Friends are concerned, because, in respect of a partnership deed, it depends on the way it is framed, and we can assume that in framing it the partners will do it in such a way as to suit their particular circumstances.

My hon. Friends say that, in the case of a partnership at will, the benefit of this Clause should be given. It is true that, in the sort of case to which my hon. Friends have referred—the case where the money passes to a near relative, who desires to continue the partnership business—there is an argument in favour of extending the benefits of this Clause to that sort of case, but that is not the only case by any means, and we must deal with this matter on the broad general merits, which are these.

Where, on a death, a partner has to pay a sum of money to the executors of the deceased, it is of no significance at all to the partnership whether that sum of money is paid net or gross of Estate Duty. It is of great interest to the dependants of the deceased partner, but, as far as the partnership is concerned, and as far as its continued operation as a business is concerned, if it has to pay, say, £50,000, it makes no difference at all to the working of the partnership whether or not that £50,000 is paid over entire to the executors and they have to find the appropriate sum in Estate Duty; the working of the partnership is not affected one way or another.

On that basis, it really seems to me that the proposal of my hon. Friends, though it appeals naturally to one's sympathies, in respect of the beneficiaries of the deceased person's estate is not really within the intention of this Clause as it was outlined by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend made it clear that one of the major purposes of this Clause was to assist the operation of the family business, of which a partnership is a particular example, and the proposal in the Amendment to extend the benefits of this Clause would extend it into a sphere where the health of the family business does not really arise. Looking at the matter from a purely sympathetic and compassionate point of view, we should be driven by this Amendment to extend the ambit of the Clause very widely.

For these reasons, and quite apart from the fact that the actual drafting of the Amendment does not achieve what my hon. Friends want it to do, on the merits of the matter it would not be possible to accept this proposal, involving some departure, though not a very great one, from the main purpose of the Clause. I appreciate, however, the intention with which the Amendment was put forward, and, indeed, would not wish in any way to diminish the very valuable share which partnership activities take in the economic and industrial life of the country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 31, line 34, after "into," to insert:

"before or is entered into within three years after the death."
This Clause deals with the partial relief from Estate Duty given to family businesses, and subsection (9), to which our Amendment relates, deals with those businesses and companies to which relief will not be granted The Amendment is designed to close a gap of a very different kind from that which has been referred to by the hon. Member who moved the last Amendment. This matter was fairly fully' debated in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. East (Mr. E. Fletcher), with his usual lucidity and brevity, moved this particular Amendment with such clarity that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General had to agree that there was a great deal of substance and force in what he had said.

In fact, when the Solicitor-General began his speech, we had great hopes that he was going to accept the Amendment, but, having said that there was everything in the point put forward, he went on to erect what we thought were Aunt Sallies in order to knock them down again, and to show that, although there might be something in it, and although, in fact, there was everything in what my hon. Friend had said, nevertheless there were certain difficulties. The Government, however, would watch the matter very carefully during the coming year.

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General gave what we thought were very insubstantial reasons for turning down the Amendment. I listened to what he said with great care, and I re-read it. His chief reason for turning down the Amendment, in spite of the fact that he thought it reasonable, was that there might be a sale
"because there is no suitable member of the family left to run the business."
A more fantastic reason for turning down the Amendment was
"because the surviving member of the family does not consider it suitable for him to run."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1954; Vol. 529, c. 726.]
That surely cuts the whole ground from under the concession of 45 per cent., which is a considerable one. It is to be given only because there is a certain amount of feeling that family businesses, after paying Estate Duty, would find themselves deprived of assets necessary for the continuance of the business on the family basis, and would have to be broken up and sold. It was demonstrated beyond all doubt by the Inland Revenue, after going into this matter at some length, that there was very little in the suggestion that family businesses had had to be liquidated wholesale from one end of the country to another. Nevertheless, the Government moved the Clause, and we were willing to accept it because we wanted to be reasonable.

Here undoubtedly is a loophole which should be closed. We are suggesting in our Amendment that if a sale takes place within a period of three years after the death, the full weight of Estate Duty should apply to the estate. We think that is reasonable, and it is obvious that the Government think it is reasonable, but they will not accept our suggestion. They did not put it into the Bill them- selves, and they dislike accepting it from this side of the House. They also think that the Estate Duty department might have a little extra work to do in watching these estates over the proposed longer period.

The arguments from our side of the Committee were so strong that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to intervene, following the Solicitor-General, and he, like the Solicitor-General, agreed that there was a great deal in our contention. He said that he would watch the situation, but added that nothing could be done this time. It is absurd to leave this matter over for a further period of years. If we leave the stable door open all that time, a good many horses will have disappeared. There is no reason why, if the Government make this concession, it should not be as watertight as possible.

The arguments used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General were not very convincing. If the surviving member of the family does not want to carry on the business, obviously it will cease to be a family business. If the family takes steps within a reasonable period—we say three years—to sell the business, the obvious intention is not to continue it on the family basis, and we do not see why relief should be granted in those circumstances.

I have every confidence that the Solicitor-General, having slept on this matter, having considered what was said then and what was said then having sunk in, is now about to rise in this place and say that, on behalf of the Government, he accepts the Amendment which I now move.

I would say one word on this Amendment. Its purpose was clearly stated in the Committee, and has been reiterated by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall). It is designed to prevent a man from buying up a family business simply for the purpose of getting a lower rate of death duty. His heirs, having no interest in the business, will probably sell it or its assets, thereby defeating the very purpose which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind in giving this concession. This is not an unlikely event. I have already seen advertisements in newspapers offering for sale family businesses, and pointing out that they will be liable only to a lower rate of death duty.

The right hon. Member for Colne Valley criticised some parts of the Solicitor-General's speech in Committee. Some of his arguments did not seem very conclusive against the Amendment then moved. I would draw attention to another part of the speech of the Solicitor-General. It was apparent that he agreed that there was a loophole and that it was undesirable that the concession should be used by people who simply wanted to get a lower rate of death duty. He went on to say:
"One does not wish to take those steps in advance. In my view, it is better to keep a close watch on the position to see whether exploitation does take place, and, if so, to note what devices are used and to stop the use of them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June. 1954; Vol. 529, c. 728–9.]
If there are obvious loopholes in the Clause, we ought to stop them up now. Otherwise, the quickest and cleverest men will get through them and then steps will be taken to stop the loopholes retrospectively, which will be highly objectionable. If it is not done retrospectively some people will have got away with it; I do not say immorally and certainly not illegally, but in a way which the House and the Government think undesirable. In due course, other people who are in exactly the same position will be unable to do the same thing.

This method of dealing with fiscal legislation, in which draft Bills are put forward with obvious doubts and loopholes is objectionable. It may in some cases prove necessary to amend fiscal provisions against unforeseen results, but to leave obvious loopholes in its provisions should not be a method which the Government advocate while the Bill is still under debate. They should not be stopped up retrospectively. I think what the Solicitor-General had in mind, when he spoke about people who take advantage of the Clause, was that they might be brought in by some form of retrospective legislation. That surely would be highly undesirable.

In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) raised a subject which we discussed, and I would say very fully discussed, in the Committee. He hardly did justice to the arguments advanced from this side of the Committee, and he has quite clearly quoted two passages from my speech right out of context. He has confused illustration with argument. I will make no point about that. This is a narrower Amendment than the one we discussed on that occasion.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let me reply. We want to get on to the next debate, on much bigger issues.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made an assertion which makes it appear that I have been unfair to him and to the arguments that he advanced in Committee. I quoted what he actually said. The rest of his argument advocated an Amendment which was taken at the same time, and which was moved by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

I think that the right hon. Gentleman was unfair to my argument, because he took sentences completely out of their context. Anyone can form his own opinion about that by looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I would remind the House that the Amendment now moved is narrower than the one then under discussion, and is consequently more objectionable than the previous one which sought to deal not only with the case of a private business for sale, but also with the case of a company which was wound up within the period. I then indicated that one of the difficulties in dealing with companies was where the company was not wound up but there was a sale of shares. It is, in fact, very difficult to overcome that possible way of operating.

This Amendment is the more objectionable because, were it accepted, it would apply only to private businesses and not to companies which would be affected by subsection (2, b). That is a very strong objection to the Amendment. I say now, as I said on the last occasion, that there is some substance in the point put forward, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that we are not prepared to recognise the force of any arguments advanced from the benches opposite.

It really would be wrong to accept this Amendment not only for the reasons which I advanced on the last occasion but because it would not cover the held to anything like the same extent as the previous Amendment, unsatisfactorily as it was covered by that Amendment. I dealt, I hope, satisfactorily with the Amendment discussed at the same time in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I then indicated the hardship that the time-limit which he proposed to impose might create.

To give another example, If a time limit were imposed, for even three years, only in relation to businesses, it would be very hard and unfair where a death occurs and where someone of the family carries on a business coming within the intentions of this Clause and then, within the three-year period, the person carrying on the family business dies and there is no one left to continue it. In such a case, the benefit of this Clause would be taken away. That, I think, would be very hard.

The difficulty here is to distinguish between operations designed to abuse the provisions of the Clause, and what I might call the unfortunate events which occur, where there is no intent to engage in tax avoidance or to secure an improper tax benefit. That difficulty of distinguishing between the two makes it impossible at the present moment to accept any Amendment on the lines suggested.

If such an Amendment were accepted, it would mean that one would have to hit a number of such unfortunate cases as well as hitting some of those one would want to hit. I reiterate once again that, although in this instance there is great force in the argument, we hope that there will not, in fact, be abuse of the Clause. If there is, it may possibly take one of two or three different forms. But directly we see which form, if any, emerges, I can assure the House that we shall give immediate consideration to preventing the use of that form, without injuring the genuine family business of the sort I have instanced.

6.45 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he took part in the debate, said that he thought it more likely that we should adhere to our decision to allow the Clause to operate, and that then, if any abuse should arise in future years, we should deal with it in the light of experience. We have given most careful consideration to the point, because, as I have indicated all along, we feel that there is some substance in the view advanced as to the possibility of the improper use of the Clause.

Having given further consideration to the matter, we adhere to our view, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is better to retain the Clause as it now stands. I hope that I have not dealt with the point too shortly, and, equally, that I have not dealt with it at too great a length. I have confined my remarks to perhaps a shorter compass than I might otherwise have done because we discussed the matter very fully in Committee, and because I know that the House wants to get on to the next Clause, which raises some very big issues.

It is perfectly true that the House wants to get on to the next Clause, which raises some very big issues, but I do not think that the House would be content to do that until it had dealt satisfactorily with this Clause. I do not believe that anyone listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman would really regard the explanation which he has given this evening as being in any way satisfactory.

What did the Solicitor-General say? He started by complaining that my right hon. Friend had today moved an Amendment in a more limited form than the one which was considered in Committee. He then went on to say that one of his reasons for rejecting the Amendment was that it was not precisely the same as the earlier Amendment, to which he adduced arguments in opposition in Committee.

We are not concerned with the other Amendment; we are concerned today with dealing with a matter which both the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor recognises as being a serious and genuine complaint. Indeed, in urging us to come to a decision on the last occasion, the Chancellor said that he recognised the spirit of perfect sincerity in which the Amendment was put forward.

I think that we are perfectly entitled to complain that on this Clause we have been treated with very scant civility by the Solicitor-General. He really has not done justice to the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend. Here is a case in which, admittedly, there is the possibility of considerable abuse of these concessions. In fact, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that it is apparent, from advertisements already appearing in the Press, that some subtle persons have already discovered that quite advantageous benefits can be obtained by purchasing, shortly after the death of an individual, businesses which have benefited from this concession in respect of Estate Duty.

What were the arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General for opposing this Amendment? In Committee, his chief argument was that if Estate Duty was allowed to remain in suspense for more than three years, it would involve the Estate Duty Office in a duty to supervise all estates during that period. In other words, he put forward an administrative difficulty. All hon. Members who have any experience of these matters know perfectly well that it is part of the job of the Estate Duty Office to keep watch on estates over a long period of years. Claims frequently arise for the revision of Estate Duty and Succession Duty and no real administrative difficulty arises in this connection.

Even if it did, the Solicitor-General contradicted himself both in Committee and today by saying that, instead of accepting this Amendment, he preferred to keep a close watch on the matter. How can he keep a close watch on the matter unless he imposes on the Estate Duty Office precisely the same responsibility of supervising these matters which he gave as one of the administrative difficulties for not accepting the Amendment? That argument strikes me as being so hollow and insincere that I do

Division No. 196.]

AYES

[6.53 p.m.

Acland, Sir RichardBraddock, Mrs. ElizabethCrossman, R. H. S.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Brockway, A. F.Daines, P.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Brock, Dryden (Halifax)Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Attlee Rt. Hon. C. R.Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Awbery, S. S.Brown, Thomas (Ince)Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bacon, Miss AliceBurke, W. A.Davies Stephen (Merthyr)
Beattle, J.Burton, Miss F. E.de Freitas, Geoffrey
Bence, C. R.Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Deer, G.
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodCastle, Mrs. B. A.Delargy, H. J.
Benson, G.Champion, A. J.Dodds, N. N.
Bing, G. H. C.Clunie, J.Donnelly, D. L.
Blackburn, F.Coldrick, W.Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Blenkinsop, A.Collick, P. H.Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Blyton, W. R.Corbet, Mrs. FredaEdwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Boardman, H.Cove, W. G.Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Bowles, F. G.Crosland, C. A. R.Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman could have intended to put it forward seriously.

Here is a situation in which, as both the Chancellor and the Solicitor-General have recognised, there is the possibility that this provision will be exploited for ulterior purposes, and the possibility certainly that, if it is exploited for those ulterior purposes, it will defeat the whole object of these Estate Duty concessions, which are reserved for the continuity of family businesses. In the light of evidence which has already accumulated, surely it is monstrous for the Solicitor-General to refuse this Amendment on the grounds which he has given.

He said that the Amendment does not go far enough and that, if he accepted it, there should be another Amendment to deal with cases of companies being wound up. We are concerned not with the technicalities of draftsmanship but with the acceptance of the principle. I think it perfectly disgraceful that the Solicitor-General—particularly in view of what he and the Chancellor said in Committee—should have adopted this completely unrelenting attitude this evening. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we did not have a single concession, despite the numerous Amendments which were put forward. I can only regard the Government's attitude in these matters as being completely obscurantist and indefensible. For those reasons, I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will carry their views into the Division Lobby.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 249.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Kinley, J.Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Fernyhough, E.Lawson, G. M.Ross, William
Fienburgh, W.Lee, Frederick (Newton)Royle, C.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Shackleton, E. A. A.
Follick, M.Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Forman, J. C.Lindgren, G. S.Short, E. W.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Shurmer, P. L. E.
Freeman, John (Watford)McInnes, J.Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.McLeavy, F.Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Gibson, C. W.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Glanville, JamesMallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Skeffington, A. M.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Mann, Mrs. JeanSlater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Greenwood, AnthonyManuel, A. C.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Grey, C. F.Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. ASmith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Mason, RoySmith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Grimond, J.Mayhew, C. P.Sorensen, R. W.
Hale, LeslieMellish, R. J.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Messer, Sir F.Sparks, J. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Mikardo, IanSteele, T.
Hannan, W.Mitchison, G. R.Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Hargreaves, A.Monslow, W.Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Hastings, S.Moody, A. S.Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Hayman, F. H.Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)Morley, R.Sylvester, G. O.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Herbison, Miss M.Moyle, A.Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hewitson, Capt. M.Mulley, F. W.Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hobson, C. R.Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Holman, P.Oldfield, W. H.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Holmes, HoraceOliver, G. H.Thornton, E.
Holt, A. F.Orbach, M.Timmons, J.
Houghton, DouglasOswald, T.Tomney, F.
Hoy, J. H.Padley, W. E.Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hubbard, T. F.Paget, R. T.Wade, D. W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Palmer, A. M. F.Warbey, W. N.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Pannell, CharlesWeitzman, D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Pargiter, G. A.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)Parker, J.Wheeldon, W. E.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Parkin, B. T.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Paton, J.Wigg, George
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Peart, T. F.Wilkins, W. A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Plummer, Sir LeslieWilley, F. T.
Janner, B.Popplewell, E.Williams, Rt, Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Jeger, George (Goole)Porter, G.Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Jeger, Mrs. LenaPrice, J. T. (Westhoughton)Willis, E. G.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Proctor, W. T.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)Pryde, D. J.Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)Pursey, Cmdr. H.Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)Reid, Thomas (Swindon)Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Reid, William (Camlachie)Wyatt, W. L.
Keenan, W.Rhodes, H.Yates, V. F.
Kenyon, C.Richards, R.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. WRoberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
King, Dr. H. M.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wallace

NOES

Aitken, W. T.Billiard, D. G.Doughty, C. J. A.
Alport, C. J. M.Bullus, Wing Commander E. EDouglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Burden, F. F. A.Drayson, G. B.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Butcher, Sir HerbertDrewe, Sir C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Arbuthnot, JohnCampbell, Sir DavidDuncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Carr, RobertDuthie, W. S.
Baldwin, A. E.Cary, Sir RobertEden, Rt. Hon. A.
Banks, Col. C.Channon, H.Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Barlow, Sir JohnClarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Erroll, F. J.
Baxter, Sir BeverleyClarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Finlay, Graeme
Beach, Maj. HicksCole, NormanFisher, Nigel
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Colegate, W. A.Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Birch, NigelConant, Maj. Sir RogerFletcher-Cooke, C.
Bishop, F. P.Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertFord, Mrs. Patricia
Black, C W.Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)Fort, R.
Boothby, Sir R. J. G.Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Foster, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Boyle, Sir EdwardCrowder, Sir John (Finchley)Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Braine, B. R.Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Galbraith, Rt, Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyDeedes, W. F.George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Digby, S. WingfieldGlover, D.
Brooman-White, R. C.Dodds-Parker, A. D.Godber, J. B.
Browne, Jack (Govan)Donaldson, Cmdr. C E McAGomme-Duncan, Col. A
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. TDonner, Sir P. W.Gough, C. F. H

Gower, H. R.Mackeson, Brig. Sir HarryRoper, Sir Harold
Graham, Sir FergusMackie, J. H. (Galloway)Russell, R. S.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnRyder, Capt. R. E. D.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Maclean, FitzroySavory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Scott, R. Donald
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Shepherd, William
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeManningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir ReginaldSmithers, Peter (Winchester)
Hay, JohnMarkham, Major Sir FrankSmithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.Marlowe, A. A. H.Snadden, W. McN.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelMarples, A. E.Spearman, A. C. M.
Heath, EdwardMarshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Speir, R. M.
Higgs, J. M. C.Maude, AngusSpens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Maudling, R.Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Stevens, Geoffrey
Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMedlicott, Brig. F.Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hirst, GeoffreyMellor, Sir JohnStewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.Molson, A. H. E.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryMoore, Sir ThomasStorey, S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Morrison, John (Salisbury)Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Horobin, I. M.Nabarro, G. D. N.Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorenceNeave, AireyStudholme, H. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)Nicholls, HarmarSummers, G. S.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Nield, Basil (Chester)Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. W. J.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hurd, A. R.Nugent, G. R. H.Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)Oakshott, H. D.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.Odey, G. W.Tilney, John
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.O'Niell, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Touche, Sir Gordon
Iremonger, T. L.Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Turner, H. F. L.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Turton, R. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)Tweedsmuir, Lady
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Page, R. G.Vane, W. M. F.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)Peake, Rt. Hon. O.Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. WPeto, Brig. C. H. M.Vosper, D. F.
Kaberry, D.Peyton, J. W. W.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.Pickthorn, K. W. M.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Kerr, H. W.Pilkington, Capt. R. AWalker-Smith, D. C.
Lambton, ViscountPitman, I. J.Wall, Major Patrick
Lancaster, Col. C. G.Pitt, Miss E. M.Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Langford-Holt, J. A.Powell, J. EnochWard, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Leather, E. H. C.Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. LWatkinson, H. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)Raikes, Sir VictorWebbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.Ramsden, J. E.Wellwood, W.
Linstead, Sir H. N.Rayner, Brig. RWilliams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Redmayne, M.Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon. E.)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Rees-Davies, W. RWilliams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Longden, GilbertRemnant, Hon. PWilliams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Law, A. R. W.Renton, D. L. M.Wills, G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)Ridsdale, J. E.Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)Roberts, Peter (Heeley)Wood, Hon. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir HughRobertson, Sir David
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Macdonald, Sir PeterRodgers, John (Sevenoaks)Mr, Richard Thompson and
Mr. Robert Allan.