HC Deb 07 July 1937 vol 326 cc423-35

Where the income of any individual is such that he is not liable to payment of Income Tax and the whole or any part of such income is derived from the profits of a body corporate chargeable in respect of the national defence contribution, such individual shall be entitled to recover so much of the national defence contribution paid as is attributable to his holding in the body corporate.—[Mr. C. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. C. Brown

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

I have heard various sections of the Government's supporters pleading for tax relief of one kind and another, and generally they have been speaking for big landowners and big business. Therefore, it is not improper that I should say something for people who occupy humbler spheres of life, and who may be affected by the National Defence Contribution, which is primarily being levied to obtain money. The representatives of the Treasury will not want anyone to propose anything which will encroach on the possible yield of that tax, and already when suggestions of that kind have been made those who moved the Amendments have been told in one case that it would cost £2,000,000 and in another case that it was not known what it would cost. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will tell us what this proposal will cost, but I have no doubt of the justice of the proposal. I well understand the attitude of the Chancellor and the Treasury when they get these complaints from the benches behind them about taxation, and I know how their hearts must bleed for the persons who make those complaints. I know that they are terribly disappointed that they cannot make concessions, but it must be annoying to them to have to listen to these demands for relief, and I want to save them from some annoyance which they may otherwise have in the future. If they listen to our proposals, they may be saved from such annoyance.

It is generally agreed that profits on armaments and the general prosperity to which rearmament leads should pay its contribution to the demands now being made for the fighting services. No one argues against that, and it may be doubted whether we are calling for all that which some people ought to pay. In regard to the persons I have in mind, there is a case for asking that persons who do not come within the Income Tax field, if they should happen to have shares or holdings in any concern which pays the National Defence Contribution, they should be able to obtain repayment of the proportion which has been obtained from them by the levying of the tax. It would be a real hardship to take money from them. Big business says that it is willing to pay. It grumbled a good deal at first, but it has now got the matter simplified and at the moment is not grumbling much. But we ought to avoid levying the tax in any form on individual persons who do not have to pay Income Tax.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Watkins

I support the new Clause. The National Defence Contribution can be regarded as an extension of the Income Tax principle, and therefore it is not unreasonable that the regulation in Income Tax law which exempts low levels of income from the Income Tax should be extended to the National Defence Contribution. One could imagine an instance—I do not think that it could be regarded as an extravagant instance—of a person in lowly circumstances the whole of whose income would be derived from a corporate body which was liable for payment under the National Defence Contribution and, although the income of that person might be less than —100 a year, and as such would not be liable for Income Tax, yet he would be compelled to pay something under the National Defence Contribution, because that something would be deducted from his income before he received it. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to place this tax on very small incomes, and I hope that they will be able to accept the Clause. I have been wondering exactly what case can be put up against this Clause. I do not think that it can be said that the cost of acceding to it would be very large, and I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever replies for the Government, will admit that this is a perfectly reasonable Clause.

7.13 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somerville)

Everyone appreciates the motive behind this Clause. I hesitate to say that it is, in fact, contrary to the basic principle of the National Defence Contribution in case some one should move to report Progress. But the principle of the National Defence Contribution has already been approved by the Committee, and the principle is that the tax is one on profits of companies and not on the incomes of those who may participate as shareholders in such profits. There have been suggestions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have made it a tax on income or an increased Income Tax, but in fact the principle of the National Defence Contribution is that it should be 5 per cent. of the profits earned by companies or firms without regard to the incomes, Income Tax liabilities, exemptions or Surtax liabilities of those who participate in the profits of that company. If the Clause were accepted it would alter that principle altogether, because it would, in fact, make it a tax on the income of individuals. If you are exempted or partially exempted from Income Tax, under this Clause you would get, in addition to the declared dividend, a bonus, representing the individual share of the National Defence Contribution. All the people outside the Income Tax limit would get the dividend plus x. The people within the Income Tax limit would get only the dividend. There would be, obviously, a tax on incomes.

Mr. A. V. Alexander

Are we to understand that it does not in fact work out that way now? Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer at various times indicated that the incidence of the tax would not fall upon debenture holders and preference shareholders?

The Attorney-General

That is a different point. This is a proposal to make it fall upon those who pay Income Tax and not to fall upon those who do not. What I was suggesting to the Committee was that the effect was to make it a tax on incomes, and to incorporate in it the liabilities and exemptions, and so on, upon which Income Tax is based would make it a tax on incomes. That would, I suggest to the Committee and to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause, be inconsistent with the main principle of the tax. The principle of the tax is that all those who participate in the profits—to adopt the words that have been used by hon. Members opposite—of big business, of armament manufacture and all the rest of it, even though they may only participate to a small extent, and their other resources are small, will, by virtue of that participation, help to pay the contribution, which will not fall on them as individuals, but on industrial concerns before the profits are distributed. For these reasons, we cannot accept the Clause, which would really alter the principle upon which the tax is levied.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

I think that the Committee will have listened with a good deal of surprise to the reasons that have been put forward from the Government Front Bench for rejecting this very reasonable new Clause. To many of us the argument put forward is really a complete negation of the true situation. The argument put forward to the Committee is that if you were to accept the proposal, it would make this tax an Income Tax where it was not an Income Tax before. 'With the greatest respect in the world, I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is utter nonsense. The effect of not accepting the proposal now made is to impose for the first time an income Tax upon people, who, under the general Income Tax law, are not subjected to it. It is in order to prevent that result that the proposal has been made. If it is to be said that that is inconsistent with the whole basis of the National Defence Contribution, we are entitled to ask whether, in the opinion of the Government, the true basis of the National Defence Contribution is to place for these purposes an Income Tax for the first time, and for these purposes only, upon persons who are below the Income Tax level.

The Committee have been invited to listen this afternoon to a great variety of alleged hard cases. We have been told about the inequalities of double taxation and about impecuniosities of firms, and a great many cases have been put forward, reasonably in many ways, whether we agree with them or not, but all based on the assumption that there was something hard in the particular case put forward which entitled that particular class of person to consideration. Without exception, the Committee have rejected every one of those proposals on the sound principle that what matters about the tax most is not what you take away from it so much as what the taxpayer is left with after the State has taken away what it wants. The suggestion was made from the benches opposite that in certain circumstances as much as 70 per cent. might be taken away. The Committee felt that it could only be taken away in circumstances where the income earned was so Very high that the 30 per cent. that was left was still something the taxpayer might be glad to go on earning.

If you apply that principle here and consider not so much what you are taking away, but what the taxpayer has left after you have taken it away, then I invite the Government to consider that, if they are going to take away from people under this proposal some part of the income which is below the Income Tax level, they would be doing something quite new, very harsh, and certainly something which the country would not desire them to do, and what I believe the Government never intended to do at all. It is a very simple Clause to the effect that you shall not allow this new proposal to operate in such a way as to impose an Income Tax upon people who ex hypothesi have incomes which are not subject to Income Tax at all. It is with the very greatest surprise that I have listened to the refusal and to the reasons given for that refusal, and I hope that my hon. Friend will press his Clause to a Division.

7.23 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis

I do not quite follow the argument adduced as to Income Tax. Income Tax is paid only on the profit distributed. The position would be in this case, if you applied the Clause in its logical way, that people who never get any income beyond a certain amount would actually receive a bonus. What would happen would be that the part of the profit not distributed would probably go to reserve. Therefore, the effect of the Clause, if applied to National Defence Contribution, would be that certain people would receive a bonus out of the Reserve which they would not receive in ordinary circumstances.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to direct attention to the remarks of the Attorney-General who said that the Clause was in opposition to the principle of the National Defence Contribution. The attitude adopted by the Government on this question is completely contrary to any principle that was ever suggested in connection with National Defence Contribution. The National Defence Contribution was put forward on the principle that, arising out of the great expenditure on armaments, there would he the possibility of excessive profits being made by those who were getting contracts in connection with Government orders. It was essential that those who made excessive profits as a result of the great expenditure the Government were making upon armaments should make a contribution to the National Defence Contribution. The whole idea, when the National Defence Contribution was suggested, was to satisfy the country that profiteering arising out of the great expenditure on armaments would not be tolerated.

We have got to the stage where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who are assisting him say that National Defence Contribution will apply to people who are on the means test. Has that anything to do with the principle of National Defence Contribution? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Member get up and dare to say that it has anything in common with the principle? I could take you to any number of people on the means test where the little saving that they are making out of organising their purchasing is being taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, in his legal estimate said that the income that went to the members of the co-operative movement was no more a question of profit than the case of a man who gave another man £1,000 and sent him to buy a motor car, which he bought for £800, returning the £200 as the commission. That £200 so returned was as much profit as the income of co-operative members.

The people who are on the means test, because of their methods of purchasing, have at the end of the quarter a certain amount coming back to them. I know from experience in my own home that as a consequence of this method of purchasing, we were able in the most difficult times to get our food, and, at the end of the quarter, have sufficient saved to pay the rent. Here you come along and say that the National Defence Contribution is to apply to profits arising out of Government expenditure on armaments and that these people have to pay a share. Surely, nobody can contend anything like that. It is nothing short of a scandal that the Government, under the pretext of slopping profiteering arising out of the great expenditure on armaments, dare to come along and say that families living on the means test shall pay a share of this tax.

The families on the means test want defence from the Government. That is the kind of defence they want. I can take you to family after family whose homes have been broken up by the vicious operation of the means test. This cannot possibly be justified. It has nothing whatever to do with the principle of National Defence Contribution or with the statement that the Prime Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer made in introducing the National Defence Contribution. Never was there any thought in anybody's mind that the poor people in the country, those living on the means test and old age pensions should have to pay a share of the National Defence Contribution. Is it possible that there should be such a principle as that and that old age pensioners with 10s. a week should have to pay a share of it? This is not the principle of the National Defence Contribution but a sheer fraud upon the masses of the people of this country, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment because he can never, in this House or anywhere else, justify this as having anything whatever to do with the principle of the National Defence Contribution.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

I find it a little hard to understand how anyone who supports National Defence Contribution can support this Clause. Anyone who opposes National Defence Contribution might reasonably support the Clause on the assumption that if National Defence Contribution is a wrong tax, then the fewer that pay it, the better. As the Attorney-General has pointed out, the essence of National Defence Contribution is that it is a special tax placed upon corporations and firms as such, and not upon individuals. The effect of passing this Clause would be to turn National Defence Contribution into a clumsy form of additional Income Tax. If we desire to do anything of that kind, it would be far better to have a direct increase in Income Tax. The House has already decided that this contribution is a form of taxation which it approves, and in these circumstances it seems to me that all who take that view should oppose this Clause.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

The strong point in the statement of the Attorney-General was the complications that would arise if this Clause were adopted, that is, the examinations that would have to be made to find out the people who did not come under the Income Tax law, and then to give back to them their share of profits. On the equity of the question, however, I think there can be no answer to our proposal. When this tax was originally put forward, it was understood to be a tax on the richer people who were making huge profits, and as some return for the protection they were getting from the warlike preparations, they were to make a contribution towards the manufacture of armaments. I have had letters from my constituents on the subject, one of which I will quote. It relates to the case of a man and his wife who invested their money and were getting some return upon it. That return was about sufficient to keep them, but if there is anything to be taken from it, it will put them in rather difficult circumstances. Some of the interest which they get will be taken away by this tax, and whatever is taken away will mean that there will be so much less for them. It may be only a slight amount, but in their case it will cause a grievance.

Sir Henry Fildes

They will not be liable unless they have made increased profits.

Mr. Tinker

The hon. Member is wrong. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has altered that, and now the tax is general. I think I am right in that statement. In the ordinary course of things, the payer of Income Tax would have to pay something while the person who does not pay Income Tax would not have had to pay anything, but by the method that is proposed he has to pay something. Therefore, what we are asking is that where people do not come under Income Tax assessment they should be excused. I agree that the taxation might not affect very many people, but there are hard cases and it is on behalf of those hard cases that we are putting forward our plea. I have looked at this matter from every angle, and I must admit that a strong case has been made out about the intricacies of finding out what the position would be if our Clause were carried. That may be a strong argument, but on the equity of the case I do not think anyone can say a word against it.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Alexander

I do not propose to keep the Committee more than a minute or two, but the Attorney-General has such a pleasant manner in replying to Amendments that unless you are very careful you are misled as to his position. He has a very persuasive manner. He tried to convince the Committee that this tax is intended to apply only to the profits of concerns such as companies, corporate bodies and the like, and he tried to persuade us that it has no effect upon the incomes of individuals. That is the case that we want to make. The Attorney-General did not point out that in arriving at the basis of this tax you first of all omit altogether from its ambit large numbers of private traders, because they will not make individual profit of more than £2,000 a year. In relation to every small trader you are treating the basis of this tax as a gradation, just as much a gradation as if you were dealing with the intricacies of Income Tax, but when you come to deal with corporate bodies like building societies or industial societies, composed of large numbers of people, many of whom are below the taxable limit, you make no such gradation and no such exemption as you are making for the small private trader or the small firm and partnership. That is the basis on which we put our new Clause. I believe the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is right when he says that there may be some difficulty, but if there are difficulties, then the Government might meet us later on.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. C. Wood

The argument used by the Attorney-General seemed to be divided into two points. One was that the principle of National Defence Contribution was different from that of Income Tax, but we are assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is based on the same principle as the Income Tax. If it is based on the principle of the Income Tax, I see no reason why there should not be the relief which we ask for in this Clause.

Sir J. Simon

The position is this, that in assessing the profits of the undertaking the assessment shall be made on the principles of the Income Tax assessment, with a certain number of adjustments. It is in relation to the way in which the assessment is made that the principles of the Income Tax operate, is it not?

Mr. Wood

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is asking me a question. I was asking him one. If that is his statement, then it undermines the argument of the Attorney-General. The other argument of the Attorney-General was the argument that there might be difficulties, and the suggestion was made that this proposal would mean a bonus to those whose income is below the Income Tax level. There would not be nearly so much difficulty as is suggested. I have never had to make a claim for return of Income Tax on my own account, but some years ago I was an official of an educational body and it fell to my lot regularly to make claims for return of Income Tax. There was no difficulty about it. The Income Tax was deducted at the source and the organisation was not, as is. the case of many individuals, subject to Income Tax. All that I had to do was to fill in the form and in due course the Income Tax was returned, even up to three years back pay. If that is the case with regard to Income Tax, where would the difficulty arise if a similar claim is made in respect of National Defence Contribution by people who are not liable to Income Tax? It would not mean a bonus. It would simply mean that they would have returned to them the amount which they bad paid on the original demand.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will not look at this matter as a hard, cut and dried business. This is a human business. There are many people who have small investments which represent their life savings. They may have saved £100, £200 or £300, and the interest from that money, added to the old age pension, in many cases saves them from the disgrace, as they think, of going to the public assistance committee. Unless a Clause similar to this is added to the Bill, it means that we shall be compelling these people, many of whom have worked very hard and have had to save on meagre incomes, to come within the operation of National Defence Contribution. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to hon. Members to carry this Clause in the interests of justice and sanity in taxation.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 222.

Division No. 264.] AYES. [7.42 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Owen, Major G.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.) Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.) Paling, W.
Ammon, C. G. Hayday, A. Parker, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Parkinson, J. A.
Banfield, J. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Price, M. P.
Barnes, A. J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pritt, D. N.
Barr, J. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Batey, J. Holdsworth, H. Ridley, G.
Bellenger, F. J. Hopkin, D. Riley, B.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Jagger, J. Ritson, J.
Broad, F. A. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Bromfield, W. John, W. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. Rowson, G.
Buchanan, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Burke, W. A. Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth) Sanders, W. S.
Chater, D. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Seely, Sir H. M.
Cluse, W. S. Kelly, W. T. Sexton, T. M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Silverman, S. S.
Cocks, F. S. Kirkwood, D. Simpson, F. B.
Cove, W. G. Lathan, G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Cripps. Hon. Sir Stafford Lawson, J. J. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Daggar, G. Leach, W. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Dalton, H. Lee, F. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Leonard, W. Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leslie, J. R. Stephen, C.
Day, H. Logan, D. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Debbie, W. Lunn, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Ede, J. C. McEntee, V. La T. Thorne, W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) McGhee, H. G. Thurtle, E.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwallty) MacLaren, A. Tinker, J. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Maclean, N. Viant, S. P.
Foot, D. M. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Walker, J.
Frankel, D. Mainwaring, W. H. Watkins, F. C.
Gallacher, W. Maxton, J. Watson, W. McL.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Milner, Major J. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Montague, F. Welsh, J. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Westwood, J.
Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Muff, G. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Nathan, Colonel H. L. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Groves, T. E. Naylor, T. E.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Noel-Baker, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)
Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Entwistle, Sir C. F. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Errington, E. Morgan, R. H.
Albery, Sir Irving Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Munro, P.
Aske, Sir R. W. Everard, W. L. Nall, Sir J.
Assheton, R. Fildes, Sir H. O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Fleming, E. L. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M. Furness, S. N. Palmer, G. E. H.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Fyfe, D. P. M. Peat, C. U.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Ganzoni, Sir J. Petherick, M.
Balniel, Lord Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H. Gledhill, G. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Gower, Sir R. V. Porritt, R. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Pownall, Lt.-Col, Sir Assheton
Beechman, N. A. Grant-Ferris, R. Radford, E. A.
Beit, Sir A. L. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Rankin, Sir R.
Bennett, Sir E. N. Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Blaker, Sir R. Gridley, Sir A. B. Rayner, Major R. H.
Boothby, R. J. G. Grigg, Sir E. W. M. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Boulton, W. W. Grimston, R. V. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Boyce, H. Leslie Gritton, W. G. Howard Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Brass, Sir W. Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake) Ropner, Colonel L.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. Guinness, T. L. E. B. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund Gunston, Capt. D. W. Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Russell, Sir Alexander
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hannah. I. C. Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Bull, B. B. Harbord, A. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Burghley, Lord Harvey, Sir G. Salmon, Sir I.
Burton, Col. H. W. Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Salt, E. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Samuel, M. R. A.
Cartland, J. R. H. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Savery, Sir Servington
Carver, Major W. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P. Selley, H. R.
Cary, R. A. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) Hepworth, J. Simmonds, O. E.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Channon, H. Higgs, W. F. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.
Charlton, A. E. L. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Christie, J. A. Holmes, J. S. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford) Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Spens. W. P.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Hume, Sir G. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'Id)
Colfox, Major W. P. Hurd, Sir P. A. Storey, S.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Hutchinson, G. C. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Conant, Captain R. J. E. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Joel, D. J. B. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Tate, Mavis C.
Cranborne, Viscount Keeling, E. H. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Crooke, J. S. Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. Thomas, J. P. L.
Croom-Johnson, R. P. Kimball, L. Titchfield, Marquess of
Cross, R. H. Latham, Sir P. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Crossley, A. C. Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Cruddas, Col. B. Leckie, J. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Culverwell, C. T. Lees-Jones, J. Wakefield, W. W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Leighton, Major B. E. P. Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Dawson, Sir P. Levy, T. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
De Chair, S. S. Lewis, O. Ward, Ire[...]e M. B. (Wallsend)
Denman, Han. R. D. Lloyd, G. W. Warrender, Sir V.
Denville, Alfred Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Doland, G. F. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Watt, G. S. H.
Donner, P. W. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Wells, S. R.
Dower, Major A. V. G. MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Drewe, C. Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury) McKie, J. H. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Duncan, J. A. L. Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Eastwood, J. F. Macquisten, F. A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Eckersley, P. T. Magnay, T. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
Ellis, Sir G. Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Elliston, Capt. G. S. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Elmley, Viscount Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Emery, J. F. Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.
Emmott, C. E. G. C. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)