HC Deb 10 December 1945 vol 417 cc39-67

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Exemption from purchase tax of wireless sets for the blind.)

The Commissioners may, subject to such conditions as they may impose for the protection of the Revenue, remit purchase tax chargeable in respect of a wireless receiving set, by virtue either of a purchase thereof or of such an appropriation or application thereof as is mentioned in Section twenty-five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, if they are satisfied, by a certificate to that effect given to them on behalf of a charity registered under Section three of the Blind Persons Act, 1920, that the purchase, appropriation or application, was made for the purpose of making the set available for the use of the blind to the exclusion of use otherwise, and that the property therein will be retained by the charity for that purpose. — [Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.19 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)

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

This Clause carries out the undertaking I gave in the course of the Debate in Committee on this matter. I understand that there has been consultation with those entitled to speak for the blind—I speak for the organisations outside the House—and I understand that this Clause gives satisfaction. I hope it may be regarded as carrying out the undertaking I gave.

Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friends who were associated with me in this matter, for this Clause? As the Chancellor said, we are satisfied with the terms of the Clause, and there is only one question I wish to ask. Will it be possible for wireless sets purchased this Christmas, to get the advantage of this new Clause?

Mr. Dalton

So far as I possibly can arrange for that, I will do so. I will make every endeavour to see that it is so.

Mr. Murray (Spennymoor)

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I, along with others, pressed the previous two Chancellors to do something in this respect for the blind people. Each gave a negative answer. I am delighted that a Labour Chancellor has had the honour of breaking down the walls of tradition in this matter and giving these people what has long been their due.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Temporary exemption from purchase tax of war memorials).

Subject to such conditions as they may impose for the protection of the Revenue, the Commissioners, upon an application in that behalf made to them within the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act, may remit purchase tax chargeable in respect of an article of furniture, plate or textile material, or an ornament, by virtue either of a purchase thereof or of such an appropriation or application thereof as is mentioned in Section twenty-five of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, if they are satisfied that the purchase appropriation or application was made for the purpose of placing the article or ornament in a place of religious worship as a war memorial and that it will be retained therein. — [Mr. Dalton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dalton

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

This new Clause also relates to an undertaking which I gave when the question of war memorials was being discussed in Committee and I should explain to the House that I am presenting the Clause in a slightly altered form designed, as I hope, to remove any doubt as to whether it meets the conditions of the case, and substituting five years for three years. The Clause, therefore, will give this exemption for the various articles indicated in an Amendment originally moved by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and I hope that this Clause meets his point. I have had a few words from time to time since this was previously discussed, with various hon. Members. I have felt it necessary to impose some time limit. It will be possible, as we approach the end of the time limit, for the question to be looked at again to see whether there is a case for continuing this exemption further, but I hope those who intend to set up war memorials will not lose time. Much of the interest and memory fade in time, but as I say I or my successor will consider a possible extension. This is not the type of proposal I wish to accept at all freely, because as was pointed out in the Committee stage on another matter, it is administratively rather difficult to distinguish between textile, and non-textile. It is not simply a question of the character of the article, but of the use to which it is put, or the group of persons who are to make use of it. Therefore, I ask the House again, as I did on the question of wireless for the blind, not to press me to make too many exemptions of this form from the Purchase Tax. This, however, is a special case and I hope the Clause will be accepted by the House as a reasonable attempt to meet it.

Mr. Keeling (Twickenham)

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although I agree that war memorials ought to be completed as soon as possible, I hardly think it is possible, with the limitations of supply and labour, that all will be completed in the next five years. What I hope is that in the five years, the Purchase Tax will be removed altogether, and therefore this Clause will cease to have effect. I am grateful to the Chancellor for having met us so well.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE—(Amendment of 8 & 9Geo. 6, c. 32, s. 8.)

The initial allowances under Part I of the Income Tax Act, 1945, made to any person who incurs capital expenditure on the construction of a building or structure which is to be an industrial building or structure occupied for the purposes of a trade shall be made to any person who incurs capital expenditure on the construct ion of a building or structure in use for the purpose of a trade carried on in an hotel, and Section eight of the Income Tax Act shall be accordingly read as though the words "(g) For the purposes of a trade carried on in an hotel "were inserted after sub-paragraph (f) of Subsection (I) of the said Section and the word "hotel" omitted from Subsection (3) of the said Section. —[Wing-Commander Robin son.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson (Blackpool South)

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

To many Members of the House, the principle raised by this Clause will not be entirely new. Those who were here in the last Parliament will remember some of the discussions that took place on the Income Tax Act when the question was raised, and the then Ministry reviewed the position we put before them, and made some small concession towards it. Now, under the changed circumstances of peace, we are asking that the position of the hotel and tourist industry of this country may be reviewed so that we can adapt ourselves to changed conditions. The Income Tax Act of "1945 gave some important allowances in connection with new buildings and structural alterations to old ones, and allowances were made in connection with Income Tax to the extent of 10 per cent. of the cost in the first period, and thereafter at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, until the capital charges were written off. Unfortunately, these allowances were confined to industrial buildings or structures which were, supposedly, of a productive nature and they covered buildings such as mills and factories, storage establishments, mines and wells, transport undertakings, and water and electricity undertakings.

For some inexplicable reason, the allowances did not include hotels, and to them a small concession was made, and allowances for machinery and plant were extended to structural alterations necessary for the installation of machinery and plant. Our case today is that this allowance should be extended to the hotel industry on equal terms with the other industries of the country. The time has come when it is absolutely vital that the hotel industry should be regarded as one of the productive industries of the country. The hotel industry is not a luxury, but one of the necessities of the industrial life of this country. There is one point which should appeal especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If we have a well developed hotel industry, it can probably bring in a large volume of foreign exchange to this country at a time when we need it.

It is interesting to consider how big is the problem. A general estimate is that, between the two wars, the tourist industry was bringing into this country something over £30,000,000 per annum. It is our belief that with the proper development of this industry in peace time, it can make a contribution to the invisible exports of our country which may easily be over £100,000,000 a year. That is a big sum. It compares with something like £411,000,000 in exports which the

rest of the industries in this country were able to obtain in the first eight months of the year. I do suggest that here is an industry which now, and in the future, can take its place alongside the great basic industries of the country, coal, iron and steel, cotton, and chemicals, in the contribution it will make in bringing in foreign exchange. The Government need exports. They want foreign exchange; here is one of the greatest opportunities of acquiring it in the years after the war.

At the moment, the hotel industry is suffering all over the country, from lack of accommodation. Hon. Members know that it is difficult to get an hotel room anywhere, from Blackpool to London, or from Edinburgh to Torquay. We have not enough at the moment even to look after ourselves, and with the greatly expanding tourist industry, I believe the Government ought to put that industry in the same position as that of other industries in the country. In the next few days we shall be discussing the big dollar loan from the United States. Here is an opportunity by which we can get some of the dollars to repay the vast loan this country is facing. In the years after the war I believe that from America, as from all over the world, we can have coming into our country a vast influx of tourists. They will come for many reasons. People all over the world know that this country has done a good job, and they want to come and look at the people, and to see what has happened to our cities and towns during the war. Curiosity will bring people to see us once, but if we cannot look after them, and do not make them comfortable, they will never come back. We want to have our hotel industry in such a fine position that people are interested and attracted, so that if they come once, they come again, year after year, and we have a great volume of tourists coming into the country helping our exchange circumstances.

3.30 p.m.

It is useless for us, in this country, to advertise our wares if we have to send away dissatisfied customers. I appeal to the Chancellor on other grounds. We want the hotel industry to try to cater for the workers of industry all over our country. The Minister of Labour recently received a report from the Catering Wages Commission which pointed out to the Minister that, in the postwar period, on account of the great social reforms of the past few years, something like 30,000,000 will be having holidays with pay. These people have done their best for the country in the past, and they deserve the best. When their holiday comes round they will be looking for places where they can find ease and comfort, and enjoy a glorious care-free holiday. That will help to repay them for their years of hard work, and to refresh them for the labour of the next year. If this country can develop the hotel industry so, these workers will be able to get the holiday that they so much want. The workers' health is necessary to the industrial strength of the community, and the expansion of the hotel industry would be a benefit to the productive and creative capacity of industry. I ask the Government to consider the acceptance of this Clause, so that the hotel industry can be given a chance of increasing its capacity to cater for the needs of all our people.

There is one other reason that I would ask the Chancellor to consider, and that is the position of the workers in the industry itself. There are many hotels in this country which are old-fashioned, and where the working conditions in the kitchens and the pantries are not as we would like them to be. Why should the hotel industry be denied the tax allowances which are given to practically every other industry in this country, towards the improvement of conditions under which their workers have to live. We want spacious and modern kitchens, and decent working conditions for everyone in the industry and if the Chancellor resists this proposal he will only make it very difficult to improve the conditions of the people working in the hotel industry itself. The Chancellor and other Members will, no doubt, remember that some little time ago, the Foreign Secretary when he was Minister of Labour, piloted the Catering Act through this House. He then held out a great inducement to the workers of our country to go into the catering industry and said that the Government would help to make this industry one of the best in the country, in which everyone would be able to work under the best conditions. I would quote from the Foreign Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman said that this industry would become one of our most profitable industries— profitable in the real national sense, profitable in service, contributing, as I think it must do, to the organised leisure of our country, contributing to the morale of our people after the war, contributing, as I think it will, by the sources of wealth that it will bring to our country." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1943. Vol. 388, c. 1633.] This is the industry in whose interest I am moving the Second Reading of this new Clause and I appeal to the Chancellor to help us to establish our rightful position, so that as we can take our place alongside the great basic industries of this country.

Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to second the Motion.

I would remind the House that when a Debate last took place on this subject we were still at war, and conditions were somewhat different. In that Debate, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to consider whether plant and machinery and equipment, as used in hotels, could be included for allowances under Part II of the Bill, in particular because of alterations to buildings resulting from the installation of plant or machinery. This point has to some extent been met by Section 21 of the Income Tax Act of 1945, but it has yet, as far as I can see, to be mentioned specifically in the Finance Bill, and to bring within the scope of Part II the equipment and machinery which may be necessary to create the improvements which will be needed, if our hotels are to be really up to date.

For example, such items as lifts normally come within the description of plant and machinery but I do not believe that the Revenue will agree to the inclusion of hot and cold water installations, basins in bedrooms, of lavatories, of the provision of baths, ventilation, or central heating installations except perhaps the actual boilers. I do not believe the Revenue will allow these to be included unless specifically mentioned in Part II or unless there is some directive to the Revenue. During the last Debate the then Chancellor said: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff South spoke about hot water systems, lifts, central heating, air-conditioning and all sorts of things. All that plant and equipment will, under another Part of this Bill be eligible for an allowance. It may get the allowance which is set out in this Bill, or it may, in some cases, qualify for an allowance on a renewal basis." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1192.] I would like an assurance that these things can be included in Part II. The concession made in the 1945 Act was an important one but I said at that time, and I repeat it now, that I personally am not satisfied with what the then Chancellor conceded. I believe it is now urgently necessary that the hotel industry should be looked upon as one of the great industries of this country and it should be looked upon as productive in the same way as factories and the like and therefore should be included in Part I of this Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the importance of exports. I wonder if the Committee really appreciate the income that the hotel industry brings to this country. I wonder whether it is realised that in 1937, which is the nearest appropriate period from which we can take these figures, that the tourist trade raised £31,500,000, and we confidently believe that that figure in post-war years could be brought up to something like 100 million pounds.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

Does the hon. Member mean traffic coming from abroad?

Mr. Taylor

It is tourist traffic from overseas and is comparable with other industries like the iron and steel industry which produced £48,500,000. These exports are invisible and are perhaps in a way more valuable than actual exports. The Government have from time to time paid lip service to the export trade and to the necessity for increasing it. Here is an opportunity. The Government could say to the hotel industry that it was willing to help to improve it, to improve the conditions under which the people work, to make the whole industry up to date and so give visitors from overseas encouragement to visit this country. I do hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply will be generous to this proposal and I hope that the industry will be included under Part II as well as Part I.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)

I am sure we have all listened carefully to the eloquent appeal made on behalf of the hotel industry by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Blackpool South (Wing-Commander Robinson) and perhaps we might all like to be persuaded by him. But I must urge upon the House the fact that the hotel trade cannot fairly be called one of the basic industries of this country. The Income Tax Act of 1945 as was stated during the Committee stage of this present Finance Bill, was expressly designed to assist and forward the productive and creative industries. The hotel industry, no doubt, has great possibilities and I do not say for a moment that it has not and will not discharge one of the more useful functions to the community. But it cannot yet be fairly stated to have qualified to be one of the major basic activities of this country upon which the life-blood of the country depends. It is not, in consequence, within the sphere of those activities which come within the purview of the Act, an Act definitely and deliberately formulated in order to apply only to those which were of prime importance. It is a question of priorities and I am sorry to say that the view of the Government is that the hotel trade has not yet reached the requisite place in the order of priorities.

Wing-Commander Robinson

Could I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman one question? In suggesting that this industry has become one of the major industries, I did quote figures to support my case and it is my view that those figures prove that the industry is of major importance. For this reason, I do not feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman should just come down to the House and say it is not a very important industry, unless he can produce facts and evidence to this House to prove to the contrary. If he has these, I suggest he should give them to the House in more detail.

The Solicitor-General

I do not say and I did not say that it is not an important trade. On the contrary I stated that it has great possibilities but what I am saying now is that there are other things which come before it and must, in the present state of affairs, take priority. I would like to remind the House that in point of fact the hotel trade has not been harshly treated because if hon. Members will look at the provisions of Sections 15 and 21 of the Income Tax Act of 1945 it will be seen that a considerable measure of assistance was offered to the hotel trade. Hon. Members will no doubt remember that Section 15 provided an allowance of one-fifth towards the cost of plant and machinery and then as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor)stated, Section 21 of the Act extended that beyond plant and machinery, to the cost of making the necessary structural alterations in order to install that plant and machinery.

3.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) asked exactly what that included, and suggested that some sort of directive might be given by the Treasury. It is difficult offhand to give a comprehensive definition of plant and machinery, but he mentioned, I think, hot water installations. Speaking offhand, without having considered the matter in detail, I should think that hot water installations would come within the category of plant, and, therefore, if a hotel in renovating its premises decided to include a new hot water installation, necessitating structural alterations, both the cost of the hot water installation, and the cost of the structural alterations would qualify for the allowance.

Mr. Taylor

I agree about the hot water system, but would the actual hand basins in the bedrooms in the hotel also be included?

The Solicitor-General

I do not want to bind myself, but frankly I should have thought so. I should have thought that a tap was part of the plant. That is an offhand expression of opinion. I would certainly include boilers and anything of that sort. I would include a great deal of the kitchen apparatus to which reference has been made, and would include all the major items of expense which a hotel owner would incur in the course of renovating his hotel for the purpose of bringing it up to date. I regret that the Government feel impelled to ask the House to vote against this new Clause. In the view of the Government, the hotel trade is adequately protected by Sections 15 and 21, and a case has not yet been made out for saying that it comes within the limited category to enable it to qualify.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling (Brighton)

I was very sorry indeed to hear the Solicitor-General's speech, and frankly I am unhappy to think that he takes the matter in rather a light vein. After all, we represent constituencies in which the hotel industry is actually the main industry of those different towns. So far as I can understand the argument, it is that plant and machinery are to be helped because they are going to be of particular use in our export trade, in trade with the outside world and in getting back to this country other goods or dollars, or some other form of financial help. Can the Solicitor-General show how many industries in normal times are going to bring as much money, or the equivalent in goods, as would the hotel trade if built up to that £100 million figure, which we firmly believe it could bring into the country? Even the prewar figure of £30 million puts it in a high category already. We know it reached that figure before the war. If one studies the revenue brought by tourist traffic to Canada, France, Switzerland and places like that, one sees it has been a tremendous source of revenue. It has always been looked upon with great seriousness by the respective Governments. We are now told that it is not possible to grant the concession because hotels come low down on the list of priorities, for no apparent reason so far as I can see.

If our real object is to get money into this country, surely we ought to take a much greater interest in the possibility of bringing tourists to this country. At the present moment, the Government with one hand are trying to help the Tourist Association to bring people here, and with the other hand they seem to be unwilling to help it in the way which the tourist organisations most want. Take, for example, my own particular constituency. On the front area of Brighton and Hove there are lots of beautiful houses, all old and all of the Regency period. It is almost certain that in the near future these are going to be turned into hotels, very large boarding houses or big blocks of flats. But if they are going to be turned into hotels we are not going to pull them down. We would wish to keep the facade; we would want to keep the front. We would want to keep what will bring Americans and people from foreign countries, because there are few towns left with such beautiful Regency architecture. It will mean the pulling down of walls and the enlarging of rooms and all sorts of things like that. None of those things will come into the present remissions. It is a very serious position. In other parts of the country, large country houses are to be taken over and turned into hotels in vast numbers.

We are going to make it possible for the working people of this country to go to these places and have a rest. It may seem a little far fetched as an argument, but I do not think it is, that if it is desired to improve and bring up to date machinery to help the working man improve his work, then why should not the welfare of the working man be considered just as much? We have been told that everything is going to be done to give the working people a rest and get them to places such as Brighton and Eastbourne. We want them to have as many modern conveniences and opportunities as have the working people of the United States and other countries; then they will be able to work as hard. I hope, therefore, the Solicitor-General is not going to turn his head away from this issue the whole time—it is not the first time it has been brought up—but that he will take our argument more seriously and realise that we are trying to bring dollars, money and people to this country. If we can bring nearly £100 million into this country through the tourist trade in any one year, I think the Government should help us the way we want because they would be helping themselves just as much in the long run.

Mr. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I was puzzled by the speech of the Solicitor-General. I could not help thinking that he must have been descended from one of the jealous brothers of the prodigal son. There are no fatted calves about him. He would keep all the good food for those who have made a success of things, and would give nothing to the man who wants to start with a clean sheet. I cannot see him in the garb of the good Samaritan. He knows nothing about good Samaritans. He would not help a man who wanted to make a success of things. He used a very hard argument, and I do not think he had thought out the implications of the words he used. I cannot believe he meant to use the general thesis that the hotel industry is not a high priority because it has not done well enough, but that those industries which have done well and will continue to do so will, of course, get all the help. That is, in fact, what he said. We say, as the House has already been told, that this industry is capable of producing £100 million a year in international trade.

I feel sure that at the back of the Solicitor-General's mind is a sort of governmental germ in relation to hotels, sc that he thinks of monstrous, majestic buildings housing millionaires with great Rolls Royces waiting outside. The bulk of the hotel industry of this country is nothing of the sort. If one looks at the actual figures one goes right the way down to quite humble concerns. What do they want more than anything else? With this new era of holidays with pay, they find the hope of an enormous influx of visitors, and they want additional seatings, additional lounges, etc. They realise that their premises will not be enlarged in the immediate future, but they want to be able to plan so that they can have them enlarged. They want to be able to think things out. The Solicitor-General says that because they are not successful enough they cannot be helped. It is a very curious doctrine to come from this Government. How far is that general line of argument going to be applied to other subjects? If that argument is going to be sustained, how is it that the Surtax arrangements are such as they are? How very odd that Surtax has not been reduced enormously on the highest rate of income, if that line of argument is going to be used by His Majesty's Government in helping industry or the individuals concerned. If we are going to have that argument let us go flat out and say, '' Let us crush the hotel industry."

A special inquiry was set up to inquire into the terms and conditions of service of those working in this industry. It is of sufficient importance for them to look into that, but not of sufficient importance to see that the trade is given every assistance to re-establish itself in the national and international life. I am shocked by that argument. I hope the whole matter will be reconsidered It is not that these people say they want to get bricks, steel and hot water at the present moment, but that they must be able to plan. I thought the Government were the people who liked plans to be made. They say: "No, the hotel industry must not make plans at all." What encouragement is that to keen people who want to help their country far more than they want to help merely themselves and their own pockets? The whole life of the hotel industry is built up on supplying service to other people.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett (Bridgwater)

I am sorry the Solicitor-General has taker this line, because on Wednesday and Thursday we are going to discuss how we can get some more foreign currency into this country. There is possibly no country in Europe of greater historical and picturesque interest than this. We all know that the hotel industry has not been encouraged in the past, and it is extremely important that we should say to ourselves: Here is an industry which can easily be developed because the whole of the world looked to this country in 1940, and there are millions of people who want to come here. I have relatively few hotels in my constituency—I am not talking from the constituency point of view, but I am not reproaching those hon. Members who have—but I think from the national point of view it is perfectly clear that we have an industry with immense potentialities. I would have thought that the development of the tourist trade would be one of the easier ways of making sure that a great deal of foreign currency came to this country.

When my hon. and learned Friend spoke just now it seemed to me that he was thinking a little too much, purely and solely of the hotel industry. I have spent many years of my life in hotels on the Continent—far more than 1 would have liked—and I have come to realise that in countries where they have developed a tourist industry to a great extent, they have done it because they know that the money spent by people in paying their hotel bills is only a very small part; they know that every tourist who visits the country will spend money in shops and so on, and will bring a large amount of capital into the country. I, therefore, urge upon my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the ancillary and auxiliary sources of capital brought into the country by this tourist traffic, and to see whether he cannot re-consider his decision to reject this new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)

Like the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) I do not represent a constituency where the hotel trade is of much importance, and when we discussed this matter on the Income Tax Bill last summer I was rather against the inclusion of hotels, but this week-end I, and I am sure a great many other Members, have been hacking a way through Bretton Woods, and as we read that document we have become more and more gloomy about the terms on which this country is to borrow an immense sum of money. The Statistical Memorandum issued by the Government estimates that our deficit on trading account will be £1,250 million in the next three years.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is beginning to anticipate the Debate which has been fixed for Wednesday and Thursday.

Mr. Eccles

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was merely desiring to illustrate why I changed my mind about the inclusion of hotels in these allowances for building. It is because I do not see why a Chancellor of the Exchequer, faced with the present situation, should neglect any reasonable way of getting foreign exchange for this country. What was the defence put up by the Solicitor-General in refusing this new Clause? He cited the principle of the Income Tax Act, which was to give the building allowances only to buildings strictly concerned with the production of goods. As a first step in giving allowances for buildings that seemed the right one to take, but we did not know at that time that our foreign exchange situation was so bad, and the effect of the law now is that we are giving a building allowance to, say, a factory which is producing luxuries for the home trade but—unless this Clause is accepted—we shall not give an allowance to an hotel which would be bringing in foreign exchange. In these days of air travel it is going to be something of a race to see whether we can establish England as a staging place between America and Europe. Aeroplanes do not always fly off again to schedule, and what matters to the passengers is that for two or three days they shall be well looked after when on the ground. I do not think our facilities are adequate, and 1 do not think that even by accepting this Clause we shall be doing what we ought to do to improve our hotels. Something much more drastic is wanted, but this is a step in the right direction, and to refuse this step within two days of the Debate which I must not mention is really unwise. I do hope the Chancellor will think again.

Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)

I rise to support my hon. Friends, and I must say that I was horrified by the attitude which the learned Solicitor-General took on this question. It may be that he has not had the advantage of seeing the difficulties under which our hotels are labourings. His present knowledge of hotels may perhaps depend upon his perusal of requisitioning documents. All he knows, as we know, is that most of the hotels are housing Government offices and civil servants. But the time will come when the hotel trade will open up again every where. I overheard an observation by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) to the effect that what we really needed was enterprise on the part of hotel owners. I can assure him that in the part of the world which I represent there is no lack of enterprise, and what we ask now is that the Government will assist them with an extra opportunity to exercise that spirit of enterprise. I would appeal to the Chancellor, whom I had the honour to meet for the first time in a hotel—

Mr. Dalton

At Blackpool.

Brigadier Low

The right hon. Gentleman knows perhaps better than his learned Friend the needs of hotels, and I would appeal to him to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Dalton

It was a very good hotel and very up-to-date.

Brigadier Low

I will pass on that compliment. In reconsidering this matter, may I ask that he will give us a list of those industries which bring into the country more than £30 million a year, and also a list of those industries which are expected to bring in more than £100 million a year, as the hotel industry says it can do if it is allowed to improve? I hope that the Chancellor, who is so well known for his expansiveness in gesture and protestations of policy, will also show himself to be expansive in fact and in deed in this matter.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

I intervene only because the trend of this Debate may lead the right hon. Gentleman opposite to come to the conclusion that this is a geographical matter, in view of the speeches delivered by both the hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool (Wing-Commander R. Robinson and Brigadier Low), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Flight-Lieutenant Teeling), the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett), and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I rise to make the point that this is also a matter of considerable moment to the East coast resorts. I was a little disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater. With great respect, he showed some lack of knowledge of the hostelries in his own divison, many of which I know very well. It occurred to me that his lack of advertisement of some of those very excellent hotels in the West country was, perhaps, due to the austere form of Liberal support which sends him to this House, but I am sure that in his time he has strayed within the portals of the "Plume of Feathers" at Minehead, the "Luttrell Arms" at Dunster, or the "Clarence" at Bridgwater, all of which are excellent hotels. As he failed to give the necessary advertisement I thought I would do it for him.

I hope the Chancellor will not be unduly influenced by the arguments of the Solicitor-General, who appeared, and I hope I am not doing him an injustice, to confine himself to those houses of entertainment which can be patronised by Law Officers of the Crown with five figure incomes. This subject goes very much further down below that level. The new Clause deals not only with luxury hotels at Blackpool or elsewhere where well-known Socialist leaders may stay at conferences, but goes down to the smaller pensions and boarding houses where there is no lack of enterprise, with or without the aspidistras, as suggested by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). They really need this help. I want him to consider the boarding houses in small seaside resorts in the Holderness Division such as Homsea and Withern-sea, to which hon. Members might well go when they require a change of air, because those places would benefit particularly under this new Clause. I hope the Government will look at this question again and take into consideration the points which have been urged. It is an industry which is essential to the well-being of the people at a time when holidays with pay are coming within the purview of practical politics, apart from the question of foreign exchange—an important aspect of the matter which is

reserved until Wednesday and Thursday. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give second thoughts to this matter and not to be led astray by the legal arguments which were addressed to us a little earlier.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

As my interventions have been referred to twice I feel that I ought to say something on this subject. On the question of enterprise, I recall that about 1936 a very great friend of mine travelled on the Continent. A friend of his met him when he came back to England and asked, "What kind of a time did you have? What were the hotels like? "The returned traveller said, "Every hotel I stayed in right through Germany, Austria, Yugoslavia and so on, was perfectly wonderful —except one hotel." My friend said, "Where was that?", and the reply was, "The Howard de Walden at Dover, just before I got on the boat." Quite frankly, our hotels are disgraceful. Anybody who has done any motoring and has called at our hotels for a meal at lunch time or in the evening knows that they show no enterprise at all, and that we cannot hold a candle to any of the hotels one comes across on the Continent. I do not think that situation arose merely because the particular concession which is now being asked for had not been granted by Chancellors of the Exchequer in days gone by.

Then we come to the question whether we want to become a Switzerland or a Monte Carlo. I remember the present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, introducing the Catering Wages Bill and speaking of a large number of people wanting to come here for the purpose of seeing our blitzed towns. Since he introduced that Bill there has been a good deal of blitzing in other parts of Europe, and I do not think people want to come to see our blitzed towns very much. As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) pointed out, we have some lovely countryside and antique buildings and possessions, and it is right that people should come here and admire the country in which we live as much as we do, but I do not think we ought to encourage that from the point of view of getting foreign exchange, for the simple reason that I do not think I should like the beauties of this country to be commercialised in that way. Having regard to the fact that both hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool (Wing-Com- mander R. Robinson and Brigadier Low) have spoken, I would add that in any case I cannot see why anybody should go to Blackpool except as delegates to the Labour Party Conference, because I do not think there is very much that is attractive there. Stratford-on-Avon— certainly; Weston-Super-Mare—certainly; and there are other places, possibly Eastbourne.

Wing-Commander Robinson

I feel that the hon. Member is provoking me to say something. I hope that next time he comes to Blackpool he will spare time to look at the town, instead of wasting his time making speeches to people already converted to his own point of view.

Mr. Bowles

I took no part really in the Labour Party Conference except to vote for the Executive, and I spent a great deal of time in a very much more entertaining place, the Casino Restaurant. It is about the only bright spot I found in Blackpool—[Interruption.] I will tell the hon. Member where it is afterwards. But I do not think Blackpool is a place to which foreigners would go in a discriminating search for beauty. It has almost a mass invasion during the main months of the year, and even Blackpool had to attract people in October and November by keeping the lights or. During the war that was prohibited. I do not think that is really the kind of thing to do. Mr. Speaker ruled an hon. Member out of Order for anticipating the Debate on Wednesday and Thursday, and I do not doubt that he was right, but I do feel that somehow or other it does come to a question of understanding our economy.

4.15 p.m.

I do not think it is good enough to assume that foreigners coming to this country will necessarily get us out of our difficulties. We shall require to have more food. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) talked about the invisible imports represented by £31,000,000 which he said this trade would represent, later rising to £100,000,000. I do not think it would necessarily be of advantage to this country from the economic point of view. I may be wrong, and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me if I am wrong. I see he is nodding his head. He evidently thinks I am wrong. Well, even the best of friends are allowed to differ. The Exchequer needs revenue and cannot give many concessions. I am sure that this particular proposal must be low down on the list of priorities. Personally, I support the view put forward by the Solicitor-General.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

We have had a bright little Debate on this subject. First I would like to put the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) right about the name of the Dover hotel which he mentioned. The hon. Member is always full of self-assurance, but on this occasion I think he has got the name wrong. I think it should be the "Lord Warden."

Mr. Bowles

To the best of my knowledge it is the "Howard de Walclen."

Captain Crookshank

We are perhaps apt to forget that there are two types of hotel customer. There is first the foreigners whom we hope to get here. They represent a very considerable import. Secondly, there are the people of our own country who will, increasingly, travel about and will be in need of accommodation, owing to the vast extension of holidays with pay. "Hotel" is a word which covers a great variety of establishments. There are the large hotels which we see in the metropolitan area and other big cities. These are of very great importance, especially if London is to become increasingly the centre for commerce and travel, as we hope it will, because it is so convenient a bridge between the New and the Old Worlds. Visitors coming to London temporarily find it very difficult to get accommodation. That fact was becoming apparent before the war. There is room for a great deal of improvement in the hotel accommodation in London. I will admit, as no doubt the Minister would admit, that very large hotels are much the same in every capital city of the world, and they are probably of the same quality here as anywhere else. There is, however, a great lack of hotel accommodation in London, and the present accommodation is not up to the standard of comfort of Continental hotels, and certainly not of hotels in the United States and the Dominions.

When one looks at other parts of the country—and I do not refer to seaside towns, which are places on their own with their own special attractions—one recalls that in the years gone by the country inn in these islands had a great reputation. That reputation faded out with the ending of the use of the roads, until the motor car was invented. Then there was a great change, and there was a great demand by travellers in all sorts of places up and down the country for accommodation for the night. That demand will, no doubt, increase as the possibility of using large houses as hotels or rest houses comes into play, partly as a result of modern taxation. In both cases there is a great deal to be done to bring these hotels—I use that word, although the place may be only an inn with five or six rooms—up to a reasonable standard, which will attract people to stop there, not merely to get a roof over their heads, but because the places have been made attractive. If the Clause tends in that direction we hope that the Government will take it seriously into consideration.

I frankly admit I am surprised that the Solicitor-General should have been the Minister selected to reply on the Amendment. With all due respect to him, I would point out that he generally gives advice on legal problems, while this Clause is more a matter of business, or is even a human problem. I hope, therefore, that we shall have the benefit of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon it. I must also take exception to the argument which the Solicitor-General used. He said that the hotel and tourist industry could not yet be called—this is what he actually said— a basic industry. It is difficult to argue what is or is not a basic industry, but this industry at present represents something like £30,000,000 a year, the figure given by one of my hon. Friends, as representing its value in foreign exchange, and he said he hoped that it might rise to £100,000,000. Therefore it is getting on towards a position of considerable importance. It might not be productive or creative, in the sense of making articles, but it does bring in money. It can become an industry of considerable importance.

Take Switzerland. Forty or 50 years ago I suppose that the hotel industry there did not amount to very much, but the Swiss deliberately set out to make their country, industrial though it is in some parts, the playground of Europe. They succeeded, both as regards winter and in summer. There are, no doubt, great possibilities for us. We may not have great attractions of Nature such as the Alps, but we have our own attractions, which many people would wish to come to see. The hon. Member for Nuneaton referred to his friend's trip abroad. His friend came home with the idea that all the hotels he had been to were perfect, once he had crossed the Channel. It has to he remembered that in most countries, certainly in France and Switzerland, governments have had a great hand in helping the hotel industry, deliberately, as a matter of set policy. Governments in this country have not hitherto, so far as I recollect, done very much in that direction.

There is a provision in the Finance Act of 1945, which includes, as the Solicitor-General said, a relief for machinery and structural alterations to some extent, but much more has to be done. It has to be remembered that the concessions, good as they are and so far as they go, were made when we were still at war. The Government of the day might very well have thought that it was not a matter of great importance at the moment, as the war was still on and there was not much possibility of structural alterations being made within the next few months. All that is now behind us. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will therefore look at the matter with a good deal more favour than the unfortunate Solicitor-General did.

Captain Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

Why "unfortunate"?

Captain Crookshank

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was very unfortunate to be put up to deal with this new Clause and he dealt with it in a very brusque way. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take a different line, especially as he has the benefit of the arguments that have now been put before him. The right hon. Gentleman might perhaps, if he is going to reject the Clause, tell us what cost it would involve. We are always in the difficulty when we put down Amendments from this side of the House that, although the ideas may be good, we have no means of assessing what is financially involved. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that the sum involved would be out of keeping with our present Budgetary position, that might be an argument to be considered. This is the very time when we ought to be paying particular attention to this matter, in order to attract here, foreigners of all kinds and of all classes. We have in mind not only the luxury hotels but the smaller hotels, so that we may have a real interchange between ourselves, the Continent and the United States. From the national point of view, and in order to get a better relationship between countries, it is probably far more valuable that people like school teachers should come here for a few weeks holiday than it is to have much wealthier people.

These people will wish to have the sort of comfort to which they are accustomed when they travel in their own country, but that cannot be guaranteed at present as between Great Britain and the United States. Because of our financial position and the need for attracting here as much money as possible from overseas, because of the facilities which are being granted in regard to holidays with pay to the great mass of our workers, and because we want to put the hotel business upon a better basis, we ask that a concession on the lines of the proposed new Clause may be granted. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some hope, both for the present and for the years to come.

Mr. Dalton

We have had an interesting Debate. I do not know why my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General should have been called unfortunate. His Majesty's Government are very fortunate in their Law Officers. They are exceedingly human people. My hon. and learned Friend is a most human personality and his colleague, the Attorney-General, has been associated with this particular matter in an indirect fashion in connection with the Catering Wages Commission, of which he was Chairman.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made a true observation when he said that something much more drastic was needed than a small adjustment of taxation such as is proposed here, if our hotels are to be brought up to the standard we should like to see. There arc exceptions, of course. The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) and I met for the first time at an hotel in Blackpool —a very good hotel—where I commiserated with him on the uphill fight I believed he was having during the last General Election. There are good hotels in Blackpool as well as in many other parts of the country, but the majority of our hotels are not what they ought to be, if we are to have the success we desire with our tourist traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) asked me whether I thought he was wrong in regard to a particular part of his argument. I said I thought he was wrong. We hope that visitors to this country from abroad will bring in a good deal more money than it will cost us to feed them, and that they will leave it here. He seemed to think it was a tragedy that they should come here and eat food, because it would cost us a lot of money to get more food. We hope to get a great deal more out of them than the cost of looking after them. I am favourably disposed to doing everything we can on broad lines—I do not think this proposal is on broad lines. It is on very narrow lines—to improve the efficiency and vitality of the hotel industry.

We cannot accept the proposed new Clause, for several reasons, some of which have been mentioned by the Solicitor-General. There are great difficulties in distinguishing between hotels—the new Clause simply speaks of "hotels "—and lodging houses, and boarding houses of various kinds. We should get into a considerable administrative morass if we were to offer these facilities, refunds and so on relating to the structure of buildings. The introduction of heating plant for hot and cold water, and so on, is all covered now. If we got on to the question of structure, we should have endless Debates.. The two hon. and gallant Members for Blackpool would be coming back again pleading the cause not only of the great hotels where they stay when they visit their constituencies, but the smaller places which take in the poorer visitors from Lancashire.

4.30 p.m.

Wing-Commander Robinson

Never in my life have I stayed in an hotel in Blackpool. I have lived there.

Mr. Dalton

I should perhaps have said the hotels which the hon. and gallant Gentleman visits in the course of the day. Quite seriously, one cannot draw an effective administrative line between an hotel and a boarding house, and I do not think we ought to try. I revert to the statement of the hon. Member for Chippenham; something much more drastic is required, and I can give the assurance that the Government, apart altogether from this Finance Bill, is very greatly concerned to assist the development and improvement of all our facilities for visitors from overseas, whether from our own Dominions, the United States or Europe. We are very anxious to see the catering and hotel industry generally built up to a point at which we can hope to attract, not for just once but perhaps for a series of visits, large numbers of people from all over the world. We are most anxious to do that, and it is a large aim, but this particular Amendment is small in conception, very difficult in administration, and would really do very little indeed towards achieving what we all have at heart.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

The cost?

Mr. Dalton

It is difficult to estimate the cost because it is difficult to draw a line. There would be infinite discussion as to what is and what is not an hotel. I am not however arguing on the score of cost; I should not contend that the acceptance of this Amendment would wholly wreck the financial scheme of the year; my contention against it is along a different line. It is an inadequate approach to this large question, and it presents a great deal of administrative

difficulty, and I hope therefore that the hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press the Amendment, although if they want a Division we shall be very glad to oblige them. I do undertake, however, that the Government are looking at the whole question of the hotel industry with the desire to do whatever we can to stimulate its development, in order that we shall be able to give a worthy welcome to an increasing number of visitors from overseas.

Mr. Bartlett

Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some sort of detail? He said that he proposed to achieve this large aim of encouraging the hotel industry; would it be fair to ask whether he can give us any idea of what the Government has in mind towards that object?

Mr. Dalton

Hardly today, on this Clause, I think.

Wing-Commander Robinson

I would like to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the much more sympathetic attitude that we had from him as compared with that of the learned Solicitor-General. However, this case has gone a long way, and I feel that sympathy is not enough. We need action, and therefore I feel we should divide the House.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 97; Noes, 243.

Division No. 48. AYES. [4.35 p.m.
Astor, Hon. M. Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Baldwin, A. E. Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Bartlett, V. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Baxter, A. B. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Gridley, Sir A. Marples, Capt. A. E.
Beattie, F. (Cathcart) Grimston R. V. Marsden, Capt. A.
Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Boothby, R. Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Mellor, Sir J.
Bower, N. Herbert, Sir A. P. Molson, A. H. E.
Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G. Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C. Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley Nicholson, G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Howard, Hon. A. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Bullock, Capt. M. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Nutting, Anthony
Butcher, H. W. Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.) Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Carson, E. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Keeling, E. H. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Kerr, Sir J. Graham Ramsay, Maj. S.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lambert, G. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col.O. E. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Cuthbert, W. N. Linstead, H. N. Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield Lipson, D. L. Ropner, Col. L.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Low, Brig. A. R. W. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Drayson, Capt. G. B. Luoas-Tooth, Sir H. Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)
Drewe, C. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Spearman, A. C. M.
Eccles, D. M. McCallum, Maj. D. Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. York, C.
Sutcliffe, H. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N. Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W. Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge) Mr. Studholme and Commander Agnew.
NOES.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gilzean, A. Orbach, M.
Adamson, Mrs. J. L. Gooch, E. G. Paget, R. T.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Goodrich, H. E. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Palmer, A. M. F.
Allighan, Garry Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Parker, J.
Alpass, J. H. Grenfell, D. R. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Grey, C. F. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Grierson, E. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Attewell, H. C. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Peart, Capt. T. F.
Austin, H. L. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Perrins, W.
Awbery, S. S. Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side) Piratin, P.
Ayles, W. H. Gunter, Capt. R. J. Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Guy, W. H. Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Bacon, Miss A. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe) Popplewell, E.
Baird, Capt. J. Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Porter, E. (Warrington)
Barstow, P. G. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Porter, G. (Leads)
Barton, C. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Proctor, W. T.
Battley, J. R. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Bechervaise, A. E. Haworth, J. Randall, H. E.
Belcher, J. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Ranger, J.
Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F. Herbison, Miss M. Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R,
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hicks, G. Reeves, J.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C. Hobson, C. R. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Blackburn, Capt. A. R. Holman, P. Rhodes, H.
Boardman, H. Horabin, T. L. Ridealgh, Mrs. M,
Botlomley, A. G. House, G. Robens, A.
Bowden, Flg.-Oflr. H. W. Hoy, J. Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge) Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Royle, C.
Brown, George (Belper) Janner, B. Sargood, R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester) Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Burden, T. W. Keenan, W. Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Burke, W. A. Kenyon, C. Shurmer, P.
Callaghan, James. Kinley, J. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Lang, G. Simmons, C. J.
Chamberlain, R. A. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Skeffington, A. M.
Chater, D. Leslie, J. R. Skinnard, F. W.
Clitherow, R. Levy, B. W. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Cluse, W. S. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Cooks, F. S. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Colliok, P. Lindgren, G. S. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Collindridge, F. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Collins, V. J. Longden, F. Solley, L. J.
Colman, Miss G. M. Lyne, A. W. Sorensen, R. W.
Comyns, Dr. L. McAdam, W. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Cook, T. F. McEntee, V. La T. Sparks, J. A.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Mack, J. D. Stamford, W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Stephen, C.
Corlett, Dr. J. Maclean, N. (Govan) Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cove, W. G. McLeavy, F. Stokes, R. R.
Crossman, R. H. S. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Strauss, G. R.
Daggar, G. Mainwaring, W. H. Stubbs, A. E.
Daines, P. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Swingler, Capt. S.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Marquand, H. A. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Mathers, G. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Davies, Haydn (St. Panoras, S.W.) Mayhew, Maj. C. P. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Middleton, Mrs. L. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mikardo, lan Thorneycroft, H.
Dobbie, W. Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Thurtle, E.
Dodds, N. N. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Tiffany, S.
Driberg, T. E. N. Montague, F. Tolley, L.
Durbin, E. F. M. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Turner-Samuels, M.
Edelman, M. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.) Mort, D. L. Viant, S. P.
Edwards. John Blackburn). Moyle, A. Walkden, E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Murray, J. D. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Foot M. M. Naylor, T. E. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Neal, H. (Claycross) Warbey, W. N.
Gallacher. W. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Watkins, T. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Noel-Buxton, Lady Weilzman, D.
Gibson, C. W. Oldfield, W. H. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall) Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Zilliacus, K.
Whiteley, Kt. Hon. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Wilkes, Maj. L. Wiliiamson, T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilkins, W. A. Willis, E. Mr. Pearson and Captain Blenkinsop.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Woods, G. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Yates, V. F.
    cc67-72
  1. NEW CLAUSE. — (Investment.) 2,004 words
    2. cc72-5
  2. NEW CLAUSE. — (Amendment as to temporary residence in the United Kingdom.) 1,473 words
    3. cc75-8
  3. CLAUSE 36. — (Time for repayment of postwar refunds.) 966 words
    4. cc78-81
  4. CLAUSE 38 — Undertakings and authorities which must be given.) 1,304 words
    5. cc81-2
  5. CLAUSE 46. — (Payment of refunds out of Consolidated Fund.) 405 words
    6. cc82-6
  6. CLAUSE 48. — (Interpretation of Part IV.) 1,363 words