I beg to move Amendment No.48, in page 12, line 10, after "vehicle", to insert:
and whether or not the disabled person would have qualified for a grant at the time when the controls were fitted".
This may seem to be a comparatively narrow point. On the other hand, it may be an important one. I welcome the relief that is to be granted to disabled persons
under Clause 11, and I am anxious that it should be clear to whom it will apply. There is a later Amendment, which I intend to support, which seeks to widen the scope of the Clause.
My Amendment seeks to add some words. Under the Clause relief is granted in the first case where the disabled person
…caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle and obtained in respect of the cost thereby incurred a grant paid by the Minister of Health…or
whether or not he caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle, his disability is of a kind in the case of which grants in respect of the fitting of such controls are so paid".
The question is whether the test is the nature of the disability or the eligibility for grant. There may be a distinction there. Before 1948, there probably would have been no eligibility at all for a disabled person. I understand that since then, each application is considered on its merits and that one of the circumstances taken into account is the need for the person to get to and from work.
Let us consider the case of the housewife stricken with polio who has to have a special vehicle fitted with these controls but who does not apply to the Ministry, or perhaps might not succeed in an application because she does not work. I say "might not succeed" and I would put it no higher than that, but that type of person is an example of those who might not be eligible at the time when the controls are fitted.
On Second Reading, the Financial Secretary said:
If one of the two Health Departments would have done the job, but it has been done privately, the invalid is still entitled to receive a certificate."—[OFFIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1964; Vol. 694, c. 1468.]
Does that mean that the test is whether the invalid would have received a grant? This point has been put to me by a body in which I am interested and which is concerned with disabled people. It may be that the Economic Secretary will be able to satisfy me that the wording of the Clause is adequate to cover the kind of case I have in mind.
I have my doubts, however, and that is why I move the Amendment. I hope that either it will be accepted or that I shall be satisfied by the reply.
This Amendment turns on the question of timing, and on that I can assure the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that it is redundant. Any driver who would be eligible at any time under the Ministry of Health test of disability for an invalid carriage will qualify under the Clause as it stands. For instance, where a disabled driver who is eligible for the provision of transport and who qualifies on medical grounds has bought a secondhand car with controls already adapted, he will qualify. Again, where a disabled driver has received help with the adaptation of a vehicle within the preceding five years—which would not entitle him to further help directly from the Ministry—he will qualify provided the medical qualifications are present.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment. I thought at one stage that he was getting on to the point of whether the disability qualification was wide enough. This is covered by further Amendments, however, and could perhaps be more conveniently discussed then.
With this can also be taken the Amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 18. at end insert:
(2) A mechanically propelled vehicle registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962 in the name of a person to whom a disabled driver's identity badge has been granted by a local authority on conditions specified by the Minister of Health shall not be chargeable with any duty under that Act by reason of its use by or for the purposes of that person, or by reason of its being kept for such use.
The House of Commons is always very sympathetic when considering the claims of disabled persons, and the spirit of the Financial Secretary's reply just now makes me think that in this debate we shall probably get a little nearer to what some of us have in mind in suggesting the various Amendments to this Clause.
First, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the concession which he is granting in this Clause. It is the second of what I hope will prove to be a series of reliefs through the years for disabled drivers as inventions and methods of coping with the disabilities of disabled motor drivers develop.
In Section 6(9) of the Vehicles Act, 1962, we exempted from motor duty mechanically propelled vehicles not exceeding 6 cwt. if they were used by disabled persons. That was the first step, and that concession helped disabled persons who had what we now call the old invalid tricycles, the first motor propelled vehicles for disabled people.
The invalid tricycle is now being superseded by the small car, and usually—and this is the point of the Clause—such a sir all car is adapted in some way. It has some kind of special controls for the man who has lost an arm or leg, or the use of one or both of his upper or lower limbs.
Last year, at the Report stage of the Finance Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), probing this problem, suggested that we should advance the limit of 6 cwt. to 15 cwt. and in that way bring in the mini car which disabled drivers were using. It was perhaps too crude an approach and the Financial Secretary pointed out that it would bring in several other types of car if we had this weight qualification and might be open to abuse. However, he expressed great sympathy with the motives and promised to do something about it. This Clause does something along the lines of what we were asking for last year. Exemption from duty is now to be provided for small motor cars which have special devices to enable disabled men to drive them. The Amendment goes further, and the Liberal Amendment which we are also discussing is also an attempt in the same spirit to go further. I support either.
It is worth pointing out that most disabled drivers will not benefit from the Clause. If they receive grants as ex-Servicemen who are disabled or in some other respect as disabled men, and receiving a grant is one of the qualifications of the Clause, they also have their tax paid by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, or the Ministry of Health. The only people who will benefit from the Clause as it stands, or as amended, will be those who do not have their tax already paid by some Ministry.
My disabled friends in the various associations of disabled men, B.L.E.S.M.A. in particular, point out that more and more disabled men, even severely disabled men, are managing and preferring to drive a car without the hand or special controls which the Ministry fixes. With automatic gears it is possible for a severely disabled man to drive a motor car if his disability is of a certain kind. Very often he would prefer to do that rather than use the clumsy and difficult apparatus which is provided by the Ministry as a substitute for the ordinary controls when fitting mini cars. Would not it be possible to give the concession which the right hon. Gentleman is giving in this Clause not to the car but to the disabled person?
Two years ago we began by a weight of vehicle qualification. Now the qualification is the kind of motor car being used. The tax exemption will be given in only two cases: first, if the car has controls fitted by the Ministry, and, secondly, if the disabled driver has himself fitted controls which, in the opinion of the Ministry of Health, might have been fitted by the Ministry. From the debate which we have just concluded I believe that that will be interpreted as generously as possible, but this concession is tied to the controls which exist on the car.
The difficulty of taking the tax off the car is that all other motor taxation is on the motor vehicle itself, and nobody, least of all the disabled men for whom I am pleading tonight, would want a situation to arise whereby a car which was not fitted with controls could be exempt from motor tax and some able-bodied man could drive it around the country.
I accept that the Clause as it stands ties the benefit to those two cases: first, controls on the car, and, secondly, entitlement to be supplied with controls on the car by the Ministry. What we are seeking to do is to add a third alter-
native, and for this we go to the local authorities who issue disabled drivers with badges, which are very useful as they are a kind of protection for disabled drivers. There are three qualifications for the issue of those badges, two of which the Government have adopted. The first is that mechanical improvements have been made to the car. The second is that the driver qualifies for mechanical improvements to the car. The third is that local authorities issue such a badge
to drivers with amputations which cause considerable difficulty in talking, or who suffer from a defect of the spine or the central nervous system which makes control of the lower limbs difficult.
On that broad basis local authorities issue disabled driver's badges, and from time to time they check on the degree of disability to see whether it has disappeared or whether the man has become fitter than he was. If he has, his disabled driver's certificate is taken away. Every year when he applies for his disabled driver's certificate, local authorities check on his circumstances, so we need have no fear that this provision would be abused.
The Amendment would extend the concession which the Government are generously and gladly giving to all disabled drivers who have a degree of disability which conforms to those degrees of disability set out in the local authority regulations. We could then have one single badge which the police would recognise as a disabled driver's badge, and which all authorities in the country would recognise as qualifying a man for exemption from the motor tax on his vehicle.
There will be no administrative difficulties about adopting this provision. The work is already being done by local authorities and by medical officers of health. I would leave it to the disabled man to decide whether to use the kind of apparatus which is fitted to these small cars for the disabled driver. I pay tribute to the inventors of the various aids which have been provided, but if the disabled man finds that he can get about better without those aids, he should not be debarred from the benefits of this Clause. The Amendment would achieve the object that I have in mind as would the Amendment that we are discussing with it, which tackles the problem in another way and whose explanation I will leave to those who have put it down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and myself, who have put down Amendment No.17, would be prepared to back the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King). Amendment No.17 has exactly the same object. The difference between the two Amendments is purely a matter of wording. I shall not go over the ground that has been covered by the hon. Member for Itchen. I merely want to emphasise a point which has been put to me by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, on whose behalf I have tabled the Amendment, which is that a number of disabled drivers are now using cars with automatic gear changes which need no modification for their operation by those drivers.
As I read the Clause, those drivers would not be entitled to the valuable but limited concession granted by the Bill. We cannot see any reason, in principle, why the concession should not be extended to cover the newer types of cars which are coming into increasing use. The Government must surely accept that smaller and smaller cars are being fitted with automatic gear changes and that their use by limbless people, or people with substantial difficulties of locomotion, is increasing all the time. That is one important technical reason why one or other of the Amendments should be accepted.
The yellow badge scheme which is operated by local authorities provides a satisfactory means of tying together this concession in respect of licences with the other advantages which the badge scheme gives to limbless people and people with substantial difficulties of locomotion. It is a rigidly controlled scheme. Before issuing the badges local authorities must be satisfied not only that applicants suffer from a permanent and substantial disability, but that it causes severe difficulty in walking. That is the criterion laid down, which must be interpreted by the medical officers of local authorities.
We have included in our Amendment a provision that the disabled driver's identity badge shall be granted by a local authority on conditions specified by the Minister of Health. This would enable the Minister to bring into the scope of the concession any people who may not be covered strictly by the wording quoted by the hon. Member for Itchen, namely, drivers with amputations which cause considerable difficulties in walking, or who suffer from a defect of the spine or of the central nervous system which makes control of the lower limbs difficult. We would like to include anyone covered by the more general grades that I mentioned earlier. On the basis that these conditions are laid down by the Minister and have to be observed by the medical officers of local authorities in awarding a disabled driver's badge, there need be no fear of this concession being given to people not strictly entitled to it.
I hope that the Government will accept one or other of the Amendments, or that if the wording is not satisfactory they will move their own Amendment on Report.
I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), and I also commend the Amendment of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Both Amendments seek precisely the same objective. I am sure that the Treasury has a considerable amount of sympathy for this objective and that it is not far divorced from the case that is being made. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been put forward, because every possible point was covered in the speech of my hon. Friend.
I wish to add just two points. The first refers to the anomaly which arises when two disabled men, equally qualified, have two different vehicles. One has a car in which the controls have been altered and the other a car where the controls have not been altered. This means that one man would be exempt and the other would not. I should like to quote the case of a Mr. Adrian Weitzman who, because of polio, has a leg disability. He had a Ministry vehicle for a number of years. About four years ago he was able to change it and received a grant from the Ministry in order to acquire an ordinary Vauxhall car in which the controls were adapted to suit his disability.
Such is the speed of invention in the car industry that Mr. Weitzman now finds that he can drive a modern Morris car with automatic gears without the necessity for any adaptation. If this Clause remains as it is drafted, does it mean that Mr. Weitzman can get some slight adjustment made at the Minister's expense to meet the technical point behind the wording of the original Clause, which would cause the Ministry to pay for some alteration to the vehicle and thus enable him to qualify for exemption? Or, alternatively, is he to leave his car as it is and pay the tax?
If the Clause is left unamended, it will be a direct incentive to disabled men to seek to get their vehicles adapted at the expense of the Ministry rather than pay tax and so obtain a grant under the provisions in the Clause. In view of all the arguments which have been put more forcibly by my hon. Friends than I can put them, I hope that the Economic Secretary will not resist the Amendment or that the Government, if they cannot accept the wording of the Amendment, will Rive an undertaking to incorporate the principle behind it into the Bill. In the event of the Government being unable to do so, I hope that my hon. Friends will press this Amendment, because it involves an important point of principle affecting a large number of our constituents.
The Amendment takes to a logical conclusion a point which I made during the discussion on an earlier Amendment. In effect, relief would be granted to a disabled person and under the proposals in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) the test would be the provisions in the yellow badge scheme and that would be a fair test. The conditions which would have to be satisfied have already been indicated and I merely wish to add that in their administration of the badge scheme the local authorities confirm by physical examination the extent of the disablement in individual cases. There is a review at least annually when the applicant applies for a renewal of his badge and I think, therefore, that the conditions are reasonable.
We must foresee that in the future more and more small cars will be made available and suitable for disabled persons without special controls having to be fitted. I think it only reasonable, therefore that proposals such as have been made should be accepted.
I should like to get quite clear what we are considering. There are several Amendments on the Notice Paper and I refer to them only for the purpose of pointing out that some would involve definitions which might present considerable practical difficulty, but this Amendment does not wholly rule out the vehicle element in this matter. Indeed, it leaves it untouched. The mechanically propelled vehicle has still to be "fitted with special controls", and so on.
What it does is to deal with the second class of Amendments which are already personal ones and appear in paragraphs (a) and (b) on page 12. They require that the claimant should have
caused the controls to be fitted to the vehicle…or whether or not he caused the controls to be fitted
to have a disability of a kind which would have carried the right to a controlled vehicle.
This Amendment adds a third qualification in no way detracting from the other two, the third qualification being that if he is a man who has been granted a disabled driver's badge by a local authority and if the badge, which though renewable annually, has not been refused he need not necessarily be the person who has caused the controls to be fitted or has a disability of a kind which would have carried the right to a controlled vehicle.
This is a very narrow Amendment and would make a very small extension. It leaves the vehicle side of the matter untouched and it is a single alternative qualification to the personal side of the matter. I can see no possible objection to the present Amendment in the form it is put forward. There is no real administrative difficulty. The class of people covered by the proposed paragraph (c) are a great deal easier to identify than the class of people covered in the Bill by paragraph (b), because that paragraph involves an inquiry into the man's or woman's disability—the kind and quality of the disability. All that this Amendment does is to provide an absolutely objective test from the point of view of the Revenue in the grant by a local authority of a particular badge under its powers to do so and its continual renewal year by year.
Nothing could be easier to administer than the addition now proposed. I earnestly hope that without any qualification the Treasury Bench will accept this Amendment. I can see no possible objection to it. It is asked for by responsible organisations, at least they ask for something to this effect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) pointed out in clearly and succinctly moving the Amendment, this Committee is always sympathetic in cases of this kind.
There is, however, a further point to which I refer only because the answer of the Government may be, "We are prepared to accept this in principle, but we do not like the wording". I cannot remember any occasion on which the Treasury has accepted anyone's Amendment in the form in which it was put forward, unless the Government fathered it on him in the first place.
I have little doubt that in these circumstances they will be reluctant to accept this Amendment, but I hope that they will accept it in principle. If they say that, I hope they will look also at Amendment No.32, in page 11, line 41, after "vehicle", to insert "whether or not". That would make the personal condition we seek to introduce a substitute for the controls.
I feel that the drafting on the Notice Paper is too wide, but I must not discuss it at any length, because we are not considering it now. Nevertheless, it falls to be considered in the broad interests of these people whether there ought to be, in the case which we are putting forward, anything but the grant of a disabled driver's licence by the local authority as a condition of getting the remission of duty which is proposed.
I hope that the Government will show in a matter of this sort, which surely does not involve any very substantial question of revenue, the generosity which successive Governments have always felt that they were bound and glad to show to disabled drivers. I imagine that every hon. Member here has had representations from B.L.E.S.M.A. about this point and perhaps about others, too, with which all of us, however we may view any part of the recommendation, have had in broad terms the deepest sympathy, the sort of sympathy which any person in full possession of his faculties must feel for people who by no fault of their own are disabled.
I therefore trust that the Government will give not only a favourable but a generous answer and that, if they have to consider the whole matter, they will do so in that spirit.
I intervene for only a moment or two because of a case which I had in my "surgery" last week and which will not be covered by the Amendment. It concerns a constituent who has had poliomyelitis since the epidemic of 1917, when he became paralysed in one leg. Ever since then he has had it in irons. He has been to the Department concerned and has been offered a certain amount of money for the conversion of a motor car.
In considering the Amendment, my right hon. Friend ought to take into account the fact that the motor industry has made considerable development through scientific knowledge and that cars today are very much more efficient for disabled drivers than they were 10 years ago. My constituent tells me that he does not need a motor car for a disabled driver; all he needs is a car with automatic gear change. As he points out, he has to pay a higher price for such a car than he would normally pay for a car.
My constituent is, therefore, not asking that he should qualify as a disabled driver for the conversion of a motor car. What he says—and there is much power in his argument—is that there ought to be a system whereby he can receive a grant towards the purchase of a car which provides all the conditions of a disabled driver's car because it is virtually automatic.
I apologise, Sir William. I realised that I should have to rely on your good nature in allowing me to state the case. I think that I have said enough to show my hon. Friend that there is another case, apart from that concerning the conversion of a car for a disabled driver.
I am sure the Committee appreciates that I and the Treasury have every sympathy with the cause of disabled drivers and I will therefore go with some care into the points of detail and principle which have been raised. It is worth looking back at the history of this Clause, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) did. I am grateful for the kind words which, for once, came towards the Treasury. It was a very limited proposal deriving from the idea that the weight concession should be extended from 6 cwts. to 15 cwts. for vehicles broadly coming under the title "invalid carriages". I think that the Committee must accept that the Amendments carry this concession a very great deal further. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong or that it should not be done, but it introduces a new principle and extends the concession on vehicle licence duty to a new putative class of disabled drivers.
The first question is the technical one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) referred. He said that for the purposes of vehicle licence duty the automatic gearbox should be considered as an adaptation for the disabled driver because in many cases it is nowadays adequate. I am afraid that at the moment we could not possibly accept this because of the necessity, which the hon. Member for Itchen accepted, of being able to police this concession effectively. One of the methods of so doing is to have a vehicle which is clearly visible as having been adapted and therefore used by a disabled person. It seems extremely difficult to find any method of identifying a car itself which has been adapted for a disabled driver from one which merely has an automatic gearbox in any case. To elaborate, it is because there is a medical criterion of the degree of disability that one of the main difficulties arises. It is possible for a car to be driven by a disabled driver whose disability has been judged as not sufficient and yet for him to be seen when getting out of the car to be disabled.
Such a disabled man, when he is stopped by the police, will, if the Amendments are carried, have to produce the certificate not only that he is disabled but that he is the kind of severely disabled man that the local authority registers as disabled. The only abuse we are afraid of is, not the disabled man driving in a motor car, but the able man driving with a disabled man's motor car.
My hon. Friend's intervention brings me to the second point, which is the need to have the vehicle registered in the name of the disabled driver, which has been accepted by the Committee as a whole. The point made by the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was that this scheme could be extended to people who were identified by being in receipt of a badge entitling them to park under the local authority scheme. The difficulty here is two-fold. First, these additional criteria, if accepted, would do one of two things. Either they would create a new class of disabled persons who did not qualify necessarily under the Ministry of Health Regulations for an invalid carriage but who did qualify under other Regulations for exemption from Vehicle Licence Duty, or they would, in effect, be tending to extend to a less disabled person the Ministry of Health qualification.
I can inform the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) that the case of Mr. Weitzman is a somewhat exceptional one. It is know to us and we are examining it. There might have to be a slight Amendment to the Clause to take account of the circumstances, but if there is it will follow the present spirit of the Clause as it stands.
The other disadvantage of identifying those who qualify for exemption from the Vehicle Licence Duty by reference to the scheme for parking is that at the moment this is a collection of local authority schemes and not one scheme in itself. The criteria at present for issuing these badges is wider than the Ministry of Health criteria; and that would lead to the creation either of two separate classes or an extension of the Ministry's criteria. The scheme would have to be adapted to bring a degree of uniformity y into it to make it suitable for the purposes of the Amendments. It is a fairly new scheme which has got off to a good start, and I do not think that it would be wise to interfere with it in the way necessary to make it possible and practical to provide the extra criteria which the Amendments suggest.
There is also the difficulty of identification, to which I have referred. For these reasons I must recommend the Committee, with considerable regret, to reject the Amendments. It is fair to remind the Committee that the proposals put to the Finance Bill last year were rejected, but the then Economic Secretary said that he would look at the matter. We have taken one more step and the existence of the comparatively new scheme of badges for parking has led hon. Members to suggest that we should take yet another step. This would itself involve reconsidering the criteria laid down by the Ministry of Health for invalid carriages.
Also raised has been the whole question of the advance in the techniques of building motor cars, making cars used by normal drivers sufficiently easy for
disabled persons to manage without further adaptation. Having posed these difficult problems, I suggest that the Committee give us a little longer in which to consider these matters. We must also see how the scheme in the Clause works out in practice, whereupon we can reconsider the matter in the light of that experience.
I cannot give an estimate of the cost at the moment, but that is not the main point. The main point is the effect it will have in either creating two separate classes of disabled person or of extending the Ministry of Health's criteria for the provision of invalid carriages.
It was the intention of those who moved the Amendments and supported them to extend the category of disabled persons. That is the whole and obvious intention of them and I am afraid that we cannot accept the assurance of the Government of good intentions, an assurance which we believe is a substitute for doing something in this matter. I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
|Division No. 97.]||AYES||[10.0 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hayman, F. H.|
|Ainsley, William||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Herbison, Miss Margaret|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Delargy, Hugh||Hilton, A. V.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Dempsey, James||Holman, Percy|
|Awhery, Stan (Bristol, Central)||Diamond, John||Houghton, Douglas|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Doig, Peter||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Barnett, Guy||Donnelly, Desmond||Hunter, A. E.|
|Bence, Cyril||Driberg, Tom||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)|
|Blyton, William||Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)||Jeger, George|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)||Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Jones, J. Idwat (Wrexham)|
|Bowles, Frank||Evans, Albert||Jones, T. W, (Merloneth)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Fernyhough, E.||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Fitch, Alan||King, Dr. Horace|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Foley, Maurice||Lawson, George|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Callaghan, James||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Galpern, Sir Myer||Loughlin, Charles|
|Collick, Percy||Ginsburg, David||Lubbock, Eric|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Grey, Charles||McBride, N.|
|Cronin, John||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||MacColl, James|
|Crosland, Anthony||Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||McInnes, James|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Hannan, William||MacKenzie, J. G.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Harper, Joseph||MacPherson, Malcolm|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)|
|Manuel, Archie||Reynolds, G. W.||Thornton, Ernest|
|Mapp, Charles||Rhodes, H.||Wade, Donald|
|Mason, Roy||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Warbey, William|
|Millan, Bruce||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Milne, Edward||Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Ross, William||Whitlock, William|
|Morris, Charles (Openshaw)||Short, Edward||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Neal, Harold||Silkin, John||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)|
|O'Malley, B. K.||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Oram, A. E.||Small, William||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh. E.)|
|Padley, W. E.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Pavitt, Laurence||Sorensen, R. W.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Spriggs, Leslie||Woof, Robert|
|Peart, Frederick||Steele, Thomas||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Pentland, Norman||Stones, William|
|Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Probert, Arthur||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Mr. Charles A. Howell and|
|Randall, Harry||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Mr. McCann.|
|Redhead, E. C.||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)||Morgan, William|
|Allason, James||Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Anderson, D. C.||Glover, Sir Douglas||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)||Neava, Airey|
|Barlow, Sir John||Goodhew, Victor||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey|
|Barter, John||Grant-Ferris, R.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)|
|Batsford, Brian||Green, Alan||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Grosvenor, Lord Robert||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Gurden, Harold||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Bidgood, John C.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Partridge, E.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Percival, Ian|
|Bishop, Sir Patrick||Hay, John||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hiley, Joseph||Pitman, Sir James|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hill Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Pounder, Rafton|
|Box, Donald||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Hirst, Geoffrey||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin||Ramsden, Rt. Hon. James|
|Brains, Bernard||Holland, Philip||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter|
|Brewis, John||Hollingworth, John||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hornby, R. P.||Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)|
|Buck, Antony||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bullard, Denys||Hughes-Young, Michael||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Hurd, Sir Anthony||Roberts, Sir Peter(Heeley)|
|Carr, Rt Hon. Robert (Mitcham)||Iremonger, T. L.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Chataway, Christopher||Johnson Eric (Blackley)||Seymour, Leslie|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Sharples, Richard|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Johnson Smith Geoffrey||Shaw, M.|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Kershaw, Anthony||Stainton, Keith|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Kirk, Peter||Stanley, Hon. Richard|
|Corfield, F. V.||Kitson, Timothy||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Critchley, Julian||Leavey, J. A.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Litchfield, Capt. John||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Talbot, John E.|
|Dance, James||Longden, Gilbert||Tapsell, Peter|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmith, Sir Henry||Loveys, Walter H.||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||MacArthur, Ian||Temple, John M.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||McLaren, Martin||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Duncan, Sir James||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N.Ayrs)||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||McMaster, Stanley R.||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Macmilllan, Maurice (Halifax)||Turner, Colin|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Maginnis, John E.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Maitland, Sir John||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Farr, John||Markham, Major Sir Frank||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Finlay, Graeme||Marshall, Sir Douglas||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Marten, Neil||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Walker, Peter|
|Freeth, Denzil||Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Gammans, Lady||Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Gardner, Edward||Mawby, Ray||Webster, David|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)||Woollam, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)||Worsley, Marcus||Mr. Peel and Mr. Pym.|
|Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
Seldom have I heard such unanimity in response to a proposal of mine. I think that we have made very good progress today, and I hope that it will be repeated on subsequent occasions.
I wish only to echo the Chancellor's remarks and to ask whether we can have a guarantee that, if the rôles are reversed next year, we shall have such co-operation from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.