§ Motion made, and Question proposed, " That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)
This Resolution looks fairly harmless on the Paper, but it raises two points of considerable importance. On the face of it, it might be thought that what we were doing was putting the duty on imported coffee and chicory extracts. That is not really so, because in one of the less interesting parts of the Chancellor's Budget speech, referring to this matter, he said:' I also propose to remove the statutory prohibition on the import of coffee essences and to substitute an import duty. But no import licences will be granted for the present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1826.]That seems to me to put the House in rather an objectionable position, because here we are asked to agree to a Resolution without knowing what its consequences will be. It is becoming rather 2729 a usual habit with Ministers to confuse the issue by playing cat and mouse with the public, as we saw earlier today. For instance, the Government allow a company to make very large profits on Government contracts and then take away 100 per cent. in Excess Profits Tax and they repeal the Trade Disputes Act but take greater powers under Defence Regulation 58AA. I feel that before we agree to this Resolution, we ought to know what the Government really intend. Do they intend the Resolution to be a dead letter because they are not going to issue any import licences, or if they do not intend it to be a dead letter, what are the circumstances in which they would issue licences, and when are those circumstances likely to arise? I suspect we shall receive the answer—I hope not —that they have not the slightest idea.
But assuming that the Government do not mean this Resolution to be complete nonsense, there arises a second point which concerns a rather new aspect of the old controversy of free trade and protection. It would be out of Order to go over arguments on free trade and protection used during the last 150 years, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with many of them. The background of all the arguments as to whether an industry should or should not be protected was the assumption that the industry could get the raw materials. As I understand it, the coffee extract industry in this country are restricted to 60 per cent. of the sugar they had before the war, and although they have the plant and the men and long to supply all their customers, they cannot do so because they cannot get raw materials. Meanwhile the demand very much exceeds the supply.
The further question arises as to whether it is really fair to give away a home market now supplied, or which could be supplied, by the trade in this country when you are not allowing that trade to compete because they are not given sufficient raw material. Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, Is it wise to spend dollars on importing a finished article rather than on importing a raw material which would supply our own makers at home and enable them to manufacture this stuff? I very much hope the House will not agree to this Resolution without receiving proper information about what the 2730 Government intend to do about import licences and without a firm assurance that the trade in this country will be fairly treated in this matter.
§ The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)
I will try to answer the points put by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). This Resolution does not involve any controversy on the merits of free trade or protection. What it does is to tidy up an anomalous position. Under Section 42 of the old Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, there was a prohibition imposed entirely on the import of these extracts of coffee and chicory. That was done simply because it was then considered impracticable to work out a duty which would operate fairly. It has been represented time after time since then that the difficulties could be overcome, and that really the complete prohibition was no more than a hindrance to legitimate trade. What this Resolution purports to do is this, and no more: It is a convenient method of imposing an import duty on this particular type of extract. It has now been found practicable to do so, and all the Resolution does is to replace the complete prohibition by what is considered to be a reasonable import duty on the coffee extract.
The result is that the extract is still subject to the provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and the mere abolition of the restriction does not mean, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, that coffee and chicory extracts can be freely imported even subject to payment of the import duty. The Board of Trade must still think it proper to grant the necessary licence. The hon. Member for Flint asked the Government's intentions with regard to that. All I can say is that it will be taken into account in due course, and when and if it is feasible and proper in all the circumstances, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, the licence will be granted, and not before.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we should not give the industry in this country other raw materials in order to enable the industry to be developed now that the import is allowed. Again, that depends upon the availability of raw materials. It is impossible, on the face of it, to give any promise with regard to allocations that will be made available to the industry. The Resolution is a modest one. It does 2731 not introduce any revolutionary change, and in point of fact it will result in a very modest income to the Inland Revenue. The total income from coffee is of the order of £400,000 a year, and the import duty payable in respect of extracts will be commensurate, and quite negligible in amount. With that explanation, I hope the House will now agree to the Resolution.
§ Mr. Peake
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us a little further explanation of the rates of duty proposed? Are they designed to correspond to the existing duties on raw coffee? May we also have an explanation of the meaning et the rather complicated phrase at the end of the Resolution which provides for alternative rates of duty in certain cases?
§ The Solicitor-General
If I may have the permission of the House to speak again, I apologise for not having dealt with both the points that were raised. The rate of duty is calculated as follows. Roasted and ground coffee bears a duty of 2d. a lb. it is calculated that about 4 lbs. or 4½lbs. of roasted and ground coffee are required to produce approximately 1 lb. of coffee extract. Therefore, the duty is calculated upon the 4½ lbs. in order to produce a roughly commensurate duty. With regard to the second question, the answer is that the provision is designed to prevent a form of tax evasion which would otherwise be comparatively simple. Suppose that there is a compound which includes coffee extract and includes also saccharine, unless the combined mixture is taxable at the higher rate applicable to saccharine, it would be possible to evade a great deal of tax liability. Saccharine is payable at 7s. 6d. an ounce, that is to say, about £6 a lb. Therefore, it is provided, in order to prevent the mixing of a highly taxed commodity like saccharine with a much more lowly taxed commodity like coffee extract, that in the event of the two being combined into a single product the higher rate of duty, namely, that payable on saccharine, in the instance I have given, shall be the duty which is applicable. The object of the second part of the Resolution is simply to prevent that form of tax evasion which would otherwise be quite simple.
§ Mr. Butcher
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General has addressed the House twice on this Reso- 2732 lution, the second time by leave of the House, as is customary. I hope that on future occasions he will endeavour to restrain his anxiety to answer the points that have been raised, so that when he does rise he may have an opportunity of replying to all the points which various hon. Members wish to put to him. Otherwise, he may find leave to speak again refused on a number of occasions.
The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that it had been found practicable to introduce this form of words, and he then referred to certain legislation dated 1939 under which he said licences were to be granted by the Board of Trade. The point I wish to make is that surely the Ministry of Food comes into this matter of coffee. After all, coffee is a foodstuff with which one would expect the Ministry of Food to be concerned. Yet we have the Solicitor-General quoting to u, Regulations of Customs and Excise and referring to licences issued by the Board of Trade. Surely, the Ministry of Food is to be consulted as to whether these imports should be permitted? I should be grateful if—speaking for a third time by the leave of the House perhaps—the Solicitor-General would say whether the Ministry is to be consulted in any way in this matter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer k Mr. Dalton)
Of course the Ministry of Food will be consulted on all matters relating to food, but the actual licensing authority under the Statute is the Board of Trade. Theirs is the hand that moves, and the Ministry of Food exercise their influence as to what the amount taken shall be.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
Should not the right hon. Gentleman ask for leave to speak again?
§ Mr. Peake
On a point of Order, Major Milner: I have not yet made a speech. I interjected during the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to ask him to elucidate a point he had made, but if you consider, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I have made a speech I will ask the leave of the House to speak a second time, as did the hon. and learned Gentleman. I confess that even after hearing the explanation of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General I am still mystified by 2733 the purpose of the Government in bringing this Resolution before the House. Ail we have had to go upon in this matter hitherto are two sentences in the Budget speech of the Chancellor, in which he stated:I also propose to remove the statutory prohibition on the import of coffee essences, and to substitute an import duty.He added:But no import licences will be granted for the present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 5946; Vol. 425, C. 1826.]Rather to my surprise the hon. and learned Solicitor-General has stated that the statutory prohibition on the import of coffee essences was not a wartime prohibition but has been in operation, apparently, since the Customs and Tariff Act of 1876. For no less than 69 years, through all the great free trade era, there has been this prohibition on the import into this country of essences and extracts of coffee. After the prohibition has extended all this time, and when the Chancellor is badly in need of every bit of foreign exchange upon which he can lay his hands, and of dollars in particular—and after all, it is from the United States, I understand, that any possible import of coffee essences and coffee extracts will come — it does seem the most astonishing thing that at this time, when every dollar is precious to us beyond all words, that the Chancellor should propose to repeal the statutory prohibition and to substitute therefor a rather low rate of duty. It is a low rate of duty because it corresponds, we are told, with the duty of twopence a pound on coffee, and the duty on coffee is exceedingly low compared with the duty on tea, as every housewife is surely aware. It therefore seems an amazing thing that the Chancellor, for some reason which is not in the least clear to anybody, is going to permit the import of coffee extracts and essences at a very low rate of customs duty.
The House is bound to ask itself why this is being done. Where has the pressure come from? In the near future we shall be discussing proposals for widening the area of free trade throughout the world with the United States and other countries. Would it not be a good thing to go into that conference with a certain number of points to concede at 2734 the time, instead of disarming ourselves in advance by abolishing at this stage a statutory prohibition upon the import of coffee essences and substituting for it a very low rate of duty? As I have said, we are bound to ask ourselves why this is being done. It becomes all the more obscure when the Chancellor goes on to say, "But when we have established this rate of duty by Act of Parliament, it is not our present intention to allow any of these products to cross our shores." I must admit that I am completely mystified by what the Chancellor proposes to do.
He is going to put something on the Statute Book which will, apparently, be completely useless and meaningless for some unlimited period of time. All this does, of course, is to frighten very considerably those people engaged in the coffee trade in this country who have known hitherto that there would be no competition from imports of essences and extracts. It seems to me that the Chancellor's proposal will do only one thing, and that is to provide a feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence in a small section of British industry.
§ David Eccles (Chippenham)
I want to refer to an industry in the town of Chippenham where we make Nescafe, a most admirable product. Throughout the war I have been able to smell it, but not to get it, and now I very much desire to get it. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) I am mystified about this point. The Chancellor says that no import licences will be granted at present; the learned Solicitor-General said that the yield from this tax was likely to be only a modest sum, in which case there must be some imports. Either the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman must have some idea in his mind of when the import licences are to be granted. I should like to know when the modest revenue anticipated by the learned Solicitor-General will start coming in, and I should also like an assurance that the raw materials which are contained in the essences could not be obtained in their raw state, whether they be coffee, sugar or saccharin, in order that firms such as Nestles, about which I happen to know, and other manufacturers of coffee essences in this country, can produce to capacity. I should like to know 2735 this before we start importing manufactured products which must necessarily mean paying foreign exchange for labour in some other country than our own.
§ Mr. C. Williams
The learned Solicitor-General was good enough to inform us that this Resolution was not revolutionary, and that was a very comforting assurance. What rather puzzles me is why it was necessary to have this Resolution at all if, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, the result is almost negligible. If the Resolution was going to produce money or to help trade and industry, I could understand it. Although I do not understand the whole purpose of the Resolution I feel that it must have some meaning. I do not believe that it is negligible and I welcome the fact that the Government are exercising their right and duty to put a higher rate of duty on foreign produce than on Empire produce. I should like to know whether there has been any consultation or agreement with producers in the Dominions. We have a right to information on that point. We want to know how the figures are arrived at. There is a difference of 1½d between 7½d. and 9d., and if they relate to an extract, presumably there will be very much more coffee in the extract than there would be of raw coffee. We ought to make a marked difference between Dominions coffee and coffee coming from somewhere else. On that point we ought to have a little more clarification before we finish with this matter.
On one point, I definitely agree with what was said on behalf of the Government. I have read the last paragraph of the Resolution with care and I interpret it as I think the Government have interpreted it. It relates to the case in which there is an article containing two substances, one with a high rate of duty and the other with a low rate of duty. The interpretation is that the whole thing should be taxed at the higher rate. That is something which I have no doubt the Government learned from their predecessors as they do sometimes. There is probably some further reason for the Resolution which has not yet been mentioned by the Government. One reason may be to build up the amount of the extract that we get, rather than have to ship the bulk of it in coffee. Thus we shall save shipping. Perhaps this proposal has been made at the instance of the Ministry 2736 of Transport, and it may be a most excellent idea.
Before we pass away from this Resolution we ought to be sure that the amount of the preference is adequate and that we are doing nothing by way of this duty, in relation to the carrying of this coffee extract from America, that will make the dollar position more difficult. When that point was made I saw that the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking, not as though the point was entirely a new one on him, but as though it was a little bit fresh on him. He now shakes his head, but not very thoroughly. In all probability, he may have had some vague idea but perhaps he has not given it complete fullness of thought. He ought to take warning that although we encourage the import of extract of coffee from America, perhaps only a small amount, it might do something to make our dollar balance a little worse. I understand that a certain amount of this coffee is made for the people of this country. I know that labour conditions do not affect hon. Members on the other side of the House, but I ask them to consider whether the Duty is now sufficient.
§ Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)
I would like to raise a point arising out of the equation of one unit of raw material to four units of concentrated essence. It seems to me that it operates in two ways, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has said. Surely, the House would wish that there should be discrimination in regard to the finished article, as distinct from the raw coffee. Therefore, there should not be an exact equation of four to one, if that is a fact, but there should be some means of stimulating home production, since that, presumably, is an important factor in the decision whether we should continue to refuse to have any imports whatever of this essence.
Is it certain that the concentration cannot be keyed up? We are saying here that the ratio is four to one. I admit that is a dry weight and not a wet weight. Even so, is it not possible for somebody seeking to import coffee to get behind these duties on raw coffee by producing a greater concentration than four to one? In that case, they would be importing coffee, if the ratio were eight to one, at half the duty on raw coffee. It would be almost the state of affairs that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve by 2737 the second part of the Resolution, in which he says that saccharine and other substances of more value ought to be cut down in weight.
§ Mr. Dalton
Ministers tend to intervene too much, perhaps, in response to the Opposition. I have to ask the leave of the House to speak again.
§ Mr. Butcher
On a point of Order, Mr Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is actually speaking with the leave of the House?
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I understood that the right hon. Gentleman did seek, and obtained, the leave of the House.
§ Mr. Dalton
I wished, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to make sure that I was in Order. We are making too much heavy weather, intellectually, about this matter. There is a statutory prohibition. In the general fiscal law there are practically no other statutory prohibitions in the whole of our armoury. This is an exceptional state of the law. Before the last war, these matters were frequently considered, and attempts were made to construct an international convention which would be widely applied. The League of Nations spent a lot of time on it. The general feeling then was that statutory prohibitions were objectionable and that there ought to be other means to give effective control of trade. We are all in favour of some control of trade. The old fashioned Free Trader is, I hope and believe, as dead as the dodo. We arc all controllers now. The view taken before the war was that statutory prohibitions were, in general, undesirable. Representatives of His Majesty's Government often supported that view at international conferences. The view was then taken that import duties, in some cases, it may be very high duties, were a better method of preventing or limiting the entry of goods which it was desired to prevent or to limit.
During the war, primarily for exchange reasons, import licences were introduced. They are still a very important part of our machinery and will continue to be so for some time to come. It therefore appeared to His Majesty's Government that we should take this opportunity of getting rid of this very anomalous statutory prohibition and substitute the wider 2738 terms of the import duty. I sought to make this matter clear in my Budget speech that there is no present intention to grant import licences for these substances; nor will import licences be granted until the general situation as regards foreign exchange permits. The House will, of course, have an opportunity of discussing, if it desires, the intention of the Government when the time should come to permit import licences. For all practical purposes there is no change in the position. In place of the statutory prohibition, there is now refusal of import licences. None the less, we think this is a tidier and better way of doing it, and that is why this proposal is made. It has the advantage—
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Dalton
Would it not be more convenient if I made my reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)? There is the further advantage that under a statutory prohibition you can give no Imperial Preference—you can give nothing to anyone—but under this plan you can give Imperial Preference. "That is one of the advantages of this arrangement. As to the amounts of 9d. for non-Empire and 7½d. for Empire products, it has been our desire to translate the existing preferential margin in respect of coffee into this differential gap. We are applying the preferential rebate of one-sixth on Empire products—that is how the figure is arrived at—which is the same as the rebate now applied on coffee itself. This seems to us a fair and reasonable thing to do.
I would not think it proper that I should ask the leave of the House to speak a third time on this relatively unimportant Resolution, but if the right hon. Gentleman opposite wishes to put a question I will do so. I am only anxious to keep in order and to assist in providing any elucidation that is required, but if there are no further questions to be put, I trust that we may now have the Resolution. I should hesitate to ask the leave of the House to speak a third time on the matter.
§ Mr. Stanley
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not impose such a self-denying ordinance on himself. The House will be delighted to hear him any number of times, until we get our questions answered. If the hon. Member for 2739 Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) were in the House at the moment, he could only describe the present situation as "most unsatisfactory." We have had speeches from the Solicitor-General and from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both have been most courteous, and both have given, I must confess, an entirely different picture of the situation. Let me take first what the Solicitor-General told us. He told us that this tax had been in existence since 1876, and that, since 1876, various generations of Customs and Excise officials, Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, Solicitors-General, and Chancellors of the Exchequer had been trying to find some way of taxing this product instead of the prohibition. Suddenly this year they have found it and the method is to put a tax of so many pence per lb. on the product. That is not exactly a revolutionary financial proposal. If for 70 years people have really been trying to find a way of taxing this instead of the prohibition, they would have come upon this discovery rather earlier, and, quite frankly, it makes me feel that we are not being told the whole truth and that there is something more than this sudden financial discovery behind the change which is now being made.
The Solicitor-General very nearly let the cat out of the bag—the head certainly peeped out—when he told us what revenue was derived from this taxation and seemed to be proceeding to read from his brief what was to be the estimated revenue from the new tax which is now proposed, until he rememBèred, most fortunately, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said during his Budget speech that anyhow no importation of these goods was going to be allowed and therefore there could not be any revenue on them. What on earth was the reason, if in fact no importation of these goods is to be allowed, for bringing in this new tax? The Solicitor-General said something else which was most interesting and I hope he will pursue it. The House will certainly give him leave to do so. He referred to the representations which have been made about imposing this duty.
§ The House would be very glad to know from whom those representations came. Did they come from manufacturers in this country, did they come from consumers in this country, or did they come from exporters in America or elsewhere who hoped to have a chance of importing these products into this country, for which in return we shall have to pay dollars? We should know at whose instance—which to us seems quite meaningless—this is being done?
§ My final point to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that he has said that, in the meantime at any rate, he does not intend to grant any import licences for the products on which he is now imposing a tax instead of a prohibition of imports. He knows, of course, that the people who would be supplying these goods in this country today are now suffering under a rationing system and that they are not able, because of the rationing system, to produce up to 100 per cent. of their capacity. Can we have an assurance that this 'ban on imports is to be continued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer until the industry in this country is relieved of the handicap which rationing places upon it, so that once the Government throw competition, for no discoverable reason, open to imports from abroad, at any rate manufacturers in this country will he able to start on a level and without handicap? I am speaking for all on this side of the House when I say unless we have some clearer indication of the purpose behind what seems up to now a meaningless transaction, we shall suspect the worst—not that the Government have brought down something which means nothing, but that they are concealing from us, what it really means. In that case we shall be forced to divide against the Resolution.
§ Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 125.2741
|Division No. 135.||AYES.||[5.40 p.m.|
|Adams, H. R. (Balham)||Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Ayrton Gould, Mrs.B.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Bacon, Miss A.|
|Adamson, Mrs. J. L.||Attewell, H. C.||Baird, Capt. J.|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Austin, H. L.||Balfour, A.|
|Allighan, Garry||Awbery, S. S.||Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Ayles, W. H||Barton, C.|
|Battley, J.R.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R||Popplewell, E.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Porter, G. (Leeds)|
|Benson, G.||Hardy, E. A.||Pritt, D. N.|
|Berry, H||Harrison, J.||Proctor, W. T|
|Beswick, Fit,-Lieut. F.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Pursey, Cmdr. H|
|Binns, J..||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Ranger, J.|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Herbison, Miss M.||Reeves, J.|
|Blenkinsop, Capt. A||Hicks, G||Reid, T (Swindon)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hobson, C. R.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M|
|Boardman, H.||Holman, P.||Robens A|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)||Roberts', Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H W.||House, G.||Rogers, G. H. R|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Hoy, J||Royle, C.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (Lpl, Exch'ge)||Hubbard, T.||Sargood, R|
|Braddock, T (Mitcham)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Scollan, T.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Segal, Dr. S|
|Buchanan, G.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A A.|
|Burden, T. W.||Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W lverh pton, W.)||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Burke, W A||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rushoime)||Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Butter, H W (Hackney, S.)||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Callaghan. James||Jones A C (Shipley)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Skeffington, A. M|
|Chater, D.||Keenan, W||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C|
|Chetwynd, Capt. G. R||Kenyon, C.||Skinnard. F. W|
|Clitherow, Dr. R.||King, E. M||Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Kinely, J.||Smith H. N (Nottingham, S.)|
|Cobb F. A.||Kirby, B. V.||Smith, T. (Normanton)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Kirkwood, D.||Snow, Capt. J. W.|
|Collindridge, F||Lang, G.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.|
|Collins V. J.||Lavers S.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Colman, Miss G M.||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Stamford, W|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Lee. Miss J. (Cannock)||Steele, T|
|Cook, T. F.||Leslie, J. R.||Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Corbet Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.||Stubbs, A. E|
|Cove, W. G.||Levy, B. W.||Summerskill, Dr. Edith|
|Daines, P.||Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)||Symonds, Maj. A. L.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lipton, Lt,- Col. M.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Logan, D. G.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McAdam, W.||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed b gh, E.)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||McAllister, G.||Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)|
|Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Thurtle, E|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Tiffany, S.|
|Delargy, Captain H J||Maclean, N. (Govan)||Timmons, J.|
|Diamond. J.||McLeavy F||Titterington, M. F|
|Dodds, N. N.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Tolley, L.|
|Douglas, F. C. R||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mann, Mrs. J||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Viant, S. P.|
|Durbin, E. F. M.||Mathers, G.||Walkden, E.|
|Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Messer, F.||Walker, G. H.|
|Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Moody, A. S.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Morgan, Dr. H. B||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Morley, R.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Ewart, R.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Farthing, W. J.||Moyle, A.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Nally, W.||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N||Neal, H. (Claycross)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Gallacher, W.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Brabford, N.)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Wigg, Col. G. E.|
|Gilzean, A.||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Orbach, M.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Paget, R. T.||Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Williams, W. R- (Heston)|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Williamson, T.|
|Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)||Parkin, Fit.- Lieut. B. T.||Willis, E.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)||Paton, Mrs. F.(Rushcliffe)||Wilson, J. H.|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Paton, J. (Norwich))||Woods, G. S.|
|Guy, W. H.||Peart, Capt. T. F.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Haire, Fit.- Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Perrins, W.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Hale, Leslie||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Captain Bing|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (scot. Univ.)||Boothby, R||Butcher, H. W.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Bossom, A. C.||Byers, Lt.-Col. F.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Bowen, R||Carson, E|
|Baldmish, Maj. T. V. H.||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Challen, C.|
|Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Channon, H|
|Bales, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Keeling, E. H.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H||Renton, D.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Crowder, Capt. J F. E.||Langford-Holt, J.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Cuthbert, W N.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Legge-Bourke, Maj- E. A. H||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W|
|Donner, Sqn,-Ldr. P. W.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Smithers. Sir W.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Linstead, H N||Snadden, W M.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Drewe, C.||Low, Brig. A. R. W.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Eccles, D M.||Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Strauss, H. G. (Com. Eng. Univ'tilies)|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Erroll, F. J||Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)||Sludholme, H. G.|
|Fletcher, W- (Bury)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Marlowe, A. A H.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Glossop, C. W. H.||Marsden, Capt. A||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'lon, S.)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Gridley, Sir A.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Grimston, R. V.||Mellor, Sir J.||Touche, G. C.|
|Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Molson, A. H. E.||Vana, W. M. T.|
|Hare, Lieut. Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Wakefield, Sir W. W|
|Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Morris, H. (Carmarthen)||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Haughton, S. G.||Morris-Jones, Sir H.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Head, Brig. A. H,||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Circncester)||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.||White, J. B (Canterbury)|
|Hogg, Hon. Q.||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Hollis, M. C.||Nicholson, G.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Holmes, Sir J. Stanley||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Hope, Lord J.||Nutting, Anthony||Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl|
|Hudson, Rt Hon R. S. (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, I. L.||York, C.|
|Hurd, A.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O|
|Hutchison. Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Pitman, I. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C.)||Presoott, Stanley||Commander Agnew and|
|Jarvis, Sir J.||Raikes, H. V.||Major Conant|
Question put, and agreed to.