HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2260-73
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

I beg to move, in page 21, line 6, at the end, to insert: Provided that nothing in this section shall prohibit or be deemed to prohibit the exercise otherwise than by will of a special power of appointment created by will. This Clause is in appearance highly technical, and it will probably frighten a good many hon. Members from taking the interest in it which they would do if they appreciated the effect of it. It is, in effect, one of the more human Clauses in this Bill. The part with which this Amendment deals prohibits any person, except with the permission of the Treasury, from exercising by deed any power of appointment in favour of a person resident outside the scheduled territories. These words are certainly technical words, and it is important that the House should appreciate what they really mean in plain, straightforward English. May I take a simple case?

Let us suppose that a small shopkeeper dies, leaving his shop premises and the business, together with a few hundred pounds of savings. He may have a homemade will in which he says that he wants his wife to have the shop and the income from his savings for her life, and then goes on to say that she may give any of his property to any of their three children during her life or that it shall be divided between them by her will. I think that is plain, straightforward and fairly easily understood. But to translate it into the language of this Clause, the provision which the shopkeeper has made is to give a life interest in his estate to his wife, with a special power to appoint, by deed or will, in favour of their children. The effect of this Clause upon such a will is this: Suppose that one of the children of the shopkeeper goes to live in America and while there falls on evil times and gets into financial difficulties. Obviously, in those circumstances, his mother would wish to make some provision to enable him to carry on or to come home. In fact, she would wish to exercise her power of appointment by deed in that child's favour, which is what she would have to do under the terms of this home-made will, and she would be prohibited from doing that without this expressed special permission of the Treasury.

I listened most carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the type of exemption, and I understood that it is not intended to give any general exemption for this type of case. So it would be necessary to get special exemption. It may be argued, of course, that the mother, in such a position, is not in any particular difficulty, since she would be unable to give her own property to her children in those circumstances. Of coarse, that is true. She could not. She would be precluded by the very provisions of this Bill. But this is not the case of a mother giving away her own property at all. In this case, she would be giving her husband's property to this child. She would merely be carrying out the machinery of her late husband's will. That is all she would be doing in exercising her power of appointment. The husband could himself, had he so pleased, have left part of his estate or the whole of it to the child in America. There is no objection to that under this Clause as it stands. Had he done so, the gift would have been perfectly valid and honoured. Why, if we give an estate power to do that, should we limit that power when he reserves out of that gift some lift interest in favour of his widow? He has seen fit, as most men would, to make some life provision for his children. But it is impossible for the wife, without expressed Treasury sanction, to hand over any part of his property if one of the children happens to be outside the scheduled territories. That is the position created by this Clause so far as the prohibition of the exercise of a special power of appointment is concerned. I should have thought that it is not unreasonable for us to ask the Government to say that once the existence of a special power has been validly created, the Treasury should no longer have the right to interfere. I am saying that once a person has validly created an interest which can pass under the exercise of this power, there is no further reason for requiring the Treasury to maintain control. If we give the subject the power to do the greater thing and to give the whole of his property immediately by will, why should we limit it when he tries to do the lesser thing, that is to say only give it after the widow or some other person has had a life interest in it. That seems to be completely anomolous and entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this Bill.

Perhaps I might point out that a person who is in possession of a special power of appointment cannot exercise it for his own interest. The Solicitor-General will no doubt be aware that the possessor of a power cannot use it so as to benefit himself, but only so as to pass on what he has been given by his testator or settlor to pass on. He can only do what he has already validly been allowed to do without Treasury sanction. In those circumstances, I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider this matter, and if he cannot accept the precise wording of the Amendment, at any rate to indicate that he is prepared to consider words which will give effect to what we ask.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I am sorry that I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) will be content to withdraw it. The argument on which the Amendment was founded was put in two ways. First, it was put on grounds of hardship. It was said, in the example quoted, that it would be extremely hard upon the son or daughter resident abroad that they could not enjoy the advantage of the exercise of a power of appointment by their mother during her life. Of course, she could do so by will. It was 'said, however, that they ought also, in a matter of hardship, to be able to have the benefit of a power of appointment exercised by her during her life. That could equally be said with regard to all other possible beneficiaries under trusts who happen to be resident abroad. Why should one single out children in the case of a limited power of appointment such as the hon. Gentleman indicated? There is no ground for singling them out.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I did not say that one should single out children; I said one should single out the objects of a limited power.

The Solicitor-General

There is no reason to single them out. If one is to make an exception to the general principle that settlements and the exercise of powers of appointment must come within the control—if one is to make an exception to that, other than, of course, wills and so on—logically the exception should extend so as to advantage all persons resident overseas who happen to be in difficult circumstances. If the hon. Member's arguments are right, all those exceptions should be embodied in the text of the Clause. In my submission, there is no case for doing that. If one introduced all the exceptions which are equally deserving as the beneficiaries under limited powers of appointment, one would nullify Clause 29 altogether. One would hedge it about with so many exceptions that there would be few cases in which it would operate.

In practice, the very same control has been operated under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a), and in fact, there have been requests, and there are constantly requests, for an indulgence in the case of persons who are hard up and who are overseas. Exceptions are constantly made, almost as a matter of routine, in those cases. The control is subject to the Treasury giving permission. Not only can the Treasury give permission in advance, but by reason of the Amendment which was made in Committee, namely, the Amendment which introduced Subsection (3) of Clause 29, it can be given retrospectively ex post facto, so that the Treasury already have a complete power to model a trust in favour of a beneficiary so as to make any exception to cover any hard cases. That power has been generously exercised. The question which is really raised by this Amendment is the one that was raised in respect of a whole number of Clauses by many Amendments that have been moved, namely, whether the exceptions that will be made should be introduced; and thereby made compulsory into the text of the Clause. Here again the whole basis of the Bill is that one must have complete and overall control and that control can be relaxed to meet a hard case. As I said, it is now relaxed under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a), and the relaxations are made in favour of all sorts of beneficiaries. Not merely is there a limited power of appointment but it extends to all sorts of beneficiaries in trust

8.15 p.m.

The arrangement hitherto worked extremely satisfactorily. I am not going back to the argument that because it worked during the war, it must work during peace. But it has worked since the end of the war and it has worked in favour of beneficiaries who are hard up. The hon. Member for South Hendon says it is illogical to let a person bequeath the whole of his assets and then take away from him this power. The answer to that is that the control is over all, but in a special case, on grounds of sentiment, there is special indulgence. In the case of the creation of a trust and in the exercise of the power of appointment a person shall be free to do so, as it were, on his death bed. That is a special indulgence for a person coming to the close of his life. That is why I would ask the House to say that it is not illogical. It does meet exceptional cases and because an exception is made for the reasons I have given, there is no real reason why it should extend to include other cases. If other cases were included, there would be no logical grounds to exclude all other persons who would be called deserving and in respect of whom, under Defence (Finance) Regulation 3 B (a) exceptions are constantly made. I do not reject the Amendment out of hand, but I say that no case has been made out for it, because what the hon. Gentleman is doing is to seek out a particular class of beneficiary and put him in front of all others. I ask the House to say that we have no reason to do that. It is impossible to make exceptions in the text of the Clause, in cases of all persons who would be equally deserving.

Mr. Assheton

I thought my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) made a strong and convincing case This is a matter in which there can be no party politics at all, and we can look at it with an entirely unbiased eye. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that, in the first place, the power of appointment under the will, is nothing more than the machinery for implementing the intentions of the original testator. The Solicitor-General has told us that he wishes to ratify the last desire of a man who is coming to the end of his life. A man who is coming to the end of his life, wishes in this case to delegate authority. No one who is a member of His Majesty's present Government, or who is introducing or taking part in this Bill, should object to delegated authority, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should look at it again, before the Bill reaches another place. I see he does not intend to look at it tonight, but perhaps he will do so, before the Bill reaches another place.

The Solicitor-General

I will certainly consider the arguments and reflect on them, but I do not want the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) to take out of those words anything more than the undertaking carefully to consider the arguments put forward a indeed I always do.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

in view of what the Solicitor-General has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I beg to move, in page 21, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Subsection, and to insert: excepting—

  1. (a) in the case of a settlement, so far as it purports to confer any interest on any person who at the time of the settlement is resident outside the scheduled territories and who fails before the time when the interest there under would have vested in such person in possession but for the provisions of this section, or as soon as may be thereafter, to obtain permission to the vesting thereof as aforesaid from the Treasury, or
  2. (b) in the case of the exercise of a power of appointment, so far as it purports to confer any interest on any person who at the time of the exercise of the power is resident outside the scheduled territories."
This is a considerably more important Amendment than the last. In the case of a person merely desiring to exercise a power in favour of some person overseas he can, as the learned Solicitor-General has indicated, attain his object by getting Treasury permission. It is true that that will mean trouble, delay and expense, but it can be done, and indeed I understand from the Government that it is frequently done. In the case of the other part of the Clause, which deals with settlements as such, the position is entirely different. In that case the Bill operates inevitably, finally and harshly, and there is no power of exemption remaining with the Treasury as was the case in the previous instance. In usual cases of settlement a person makes a trust in favour of a child and that child's family, and I do not think anyone in any part of the House would quarrel with the statement that settlements of that kind are, generally speaking, desirable. They mean an early distribution of the family fortune between the junior members of the family, they give some security to the child when it is starting life, and, what is perhaps more important to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they probably mean an obligation to invest the trust funds in Government stock. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I do not think the Treasury will wish to do anything which tends to deter people from making settlements.

In settlements of this common kind which I have described, if the child in whose favour the settlement is primarily made has no children then it is usual to provide for some gift over, and probably the commonest form of gift over is to the children or issue of the person making the settlement. It may very well happen that at the making of the settlement, when no one is thinking very much of what will happen in the distant future and everyone is hoping that the young couple who are to be married will produce a large and healthy family, no one thinks of the gift over taking effect at all. But one of the people interested in the gift over may be resident overseas somewhere outside the scheduled territories. In the case of a settlement any beneficial interest given to such a person, whether it is contingent or the result of the exercise of a power of appointment, any such gift is totally and completely invalidated by this Clause as it now stands. Moreover, it cannot subsequently be validated. I raised that very point with the learned Solicitor-General during the discussion on the Committee stage, and he indicated quite clearly that in the event of a gift over being invalidated by this Clause or, I take it, by any Clause in this Bill, it would not be possible for the Treasury subsequently and retrospectively to say that it should be made valid

The Solicitor-General

It can now, under the Amendment introduced in Committee to Subsection (3).

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I quite appreciate that that Amendment exists. I take it that if an invalid gift were conveyed to the Treasury, say, 20 years later, the validity of it, although for a full 20 years it had been a bad and ineffective gift, would not be challenged. If that is the position, I am glad. It is clear that the Solicitor-General has reconsidered what he said at an earlier stage, and that his opinion has now changed. I do not apologise to the House, because I was accepting the Government's earlier words, but it is clear that the case I was presenting has lost some of its force. Nevertheless, it still remains true that a gift made under a settlement in favour of some person who happens, unknown or un-thought of, to be outside the Scheduled Territories, is invalid. It would require some action to be taken to abate the invalidity, possibly at a very much later period.

I would ask the Solicitor-General about a case I have come across since the Committee stage. A settlement was being made in favour of one of two brothers. The other brother was resident in the Far East, I think without doubt in a country outside the scheduled territories. There was a gift over, in the event of the first brother dying without issue, in favour of the other brother. By the Bill, that gift is invalid. Whether it could be validated subsequently would presumably be a matter of Treasury policy at some future date. What does the Solicitor-General suggest? Is the gift simply to be struck out of the settlement altogether? Suppose there had been three brothers and not two, one of whom was the primary beneficiary, one of whom was in this country, and one of whom was in the Far East and not valid. Would the effect of the Clause be to make the gift over in favour of the other brother go wholly to the brother who was qualified? Or does the Clause have some other effect? If so, what is intended by the Government? We ought to have a clear answer before we part with the Clause.

I do not think I need go very much further with this matter. The argument which I am putting forward now is much more apt in the case of the smaller and poorer type of testator than in the case of the wealthy. The wealthy man will always get the best legal advice, which will no doubt tell him to get the thing straight and to square matters up with the Treasury before the damage is done. The poorer man, who wishes to make some provision for his children will almost certainly avoid taking legal opinion, or will get an opinion which is less qualified. This kind of point may easily be missed. It is only after the trouble has been found out and after action has been taken, that something has to be done to put it right. I think the Solicitor-General will agree that this is one of the most expensive forms of litigation to be found in this country. Therefore, on behalf of the least wealthy people who have something to dispose of by means of trusts and settlements, I submit that this Clause should be as clear and watertight as it can possibly be drawn.

8.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

The basis of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was really that if a settlement started off by being invalid it could not be cured, so that in 20 years time one might find cut out of the terms of the settlement somebody who by common consent was intended to be included. That is cured by Subsection (3) which was introduced by way of Amendment in Committee. Without that upon a fair construction of Subsection (1), an exception could not be made retrospectively, but Subsection (3) cures that position because in that case when the 20 years has gone by it would be perfectly open to the Treasury to give the certificate provided for by the Subsection, which would validate the particular settlement in question. So that in the case of a settlement of a brother resident here and, in default, of a brother resident overseas where the 20 years had passed and it was found that the gift over in favour of the brother overseas was invalidated, it could be validated and there would be no harm to anyone.

I ask the House to accept the view that that circumstance cuts the ground entirely from the argument adduced by the hon. Member. In point of fact, the hon. Member does very much, by his Amendment as is done by Subsection (3). He says in his Amendment that a settlement shall only be invalid in respect of a person who fails to obtain the requisite permission. What we have done in Subsection (3) by way of Amendment—it was not in the Clause as originally drawn—cures that defect. In any case his Amendment would be almost entirely otiose if standing side by side with Subsection (3).

The hon. Member for South Hendon makes another point which he says will operate more hardly in the case of a small estate than in the case of a large estate. In the case of a small estate one does not expect expensive legal advice to be obtained. The answer is that in giving the permission the Treasury should and would take into account that in the case of a small estate one does not want to waste legal costs by having expensive documents drawn to provide for every contingency, and it would be reasonable to give permission in the case of a smaller estate; whereas in the case of a larger estate where legal advice has been taken and the thing has been worked out, the conclusion might be that there had been some deliberate reason for drawing the trust as it was drawn, and in that case consent might be withheld. I do not attempt to generalise but in the case of a small trust where obviously as a matter of commonsense money would not have been spent in carefully framing the thing in accordance with the terms of the Act, that would be a cogent reason for asking for consent. The hon. Gentleman is looking at the observations I made during the Committee stage. I was intending to state with reference to Subsection (1) —I hope I made that clear—that there would be no power to issue consent retrospectively. Whatever I said, there is quite definitely power under Subsection (3). If the hon. Member will study it in connection with Clause 18, he will agree that there is now that power.

In other words, by the Amendment which we introduced in the Committee stage, we have done very nearly what the hon. Gentleman has sought to do in his Amendment today. For those reasons, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not withdraw his Amendment and, in any case, would ask the House not to accept it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am bound to confess that had the learned Solicitor-General made his speech on the Committee stage on the lines of the one he has made today, I should probably—[Interruption.]—I am entitled to speak a second time, having moved the Amendment, am I not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Perhaps I might have the leave of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

This is not the Report stage from a Standing Committee. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is not permitted to reply. I understood that he rose to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

On a point of Order. I would like to make some explanation. The learned Solicitor-General had made a statement in flat contradiction of what he said on an earlier stage of the Bill, and has put me at some personal difficulty, since I moved this Amendment. May I have the leave of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think it is really necessary—…

Sir H. Lucas-Toothrose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think it is really necessary. The hon. Gentleman has already made a fairly lengthy speech, the Solicitor-General has replied, and it is not usual for an hon. Member who has moved an Amendment afterwards to vouchsafe a reason for having moved it.

Mr. Stanley

On that point of Order. I understood that the practice of this House was that on the Report stage, if any hon. Member wished to speak a second time, he asked the leave of the House and, if the House gave him leave, he was entitled to speak. Am I now to understand that the Chair will rule whether he is to speak a second time or not?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, the normal Rule of the House is that an hon. Member does not speak a second time—

Mr. Stanley

Except by leave of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am not aware that the House has given the hon. Gentleman leave. As I understand it, the hon. Member now desires to offer an explanation. He has already spoken once on this matter. It is for the House to decide, and I would not stand between the hon. Gentleman and the House, but it seems to me unusual and unnecessary to press the point.

Mr. Stanley

I am sorry to press this point, but it raises a very important point of Order. I understood that whether an hon. Member was allowed to speak a second time or not depended entirely upon whether, when he asked the leave of the House, the House objected or not. I certainly had not realised before-but, of course, I accept your Ruling now, important as it is-that it is within the province of the Chair to say whether he shall be allowed to speak a second time.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

No, the Chair is always the servant of the House. If the House gives leave, then the hon. Mem-

ber is entitled to speak. Perhaps he will ask for leave if he wishes to do so.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

May I have the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: No.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

In those circumstances I cannot go on, and I shall not withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: We will divide then.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 75.

Division No. 48.] AYES. 8.38 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Deer, G. McEntee, V. La T.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Delargy, Captain H. J. McGovern, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Diamond, J. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Dodds, N. N. Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Donovan, T. McLeavy, F.
Alpass, J. H. Driberg, T. E. N Mann, Mrs. J.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Durbin, E. F. M. Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Dye, S. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Attewell, H. C. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Mathers, G.
Austin, H. L. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Messer, F.
Awbery, S. S. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Middleton, Mrs. L
Ayles, W. H. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Monslow, W
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B Farthing, W. J. Moody, A. S.
Bacon, Miss A. Field, Captain W. J. Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Balfour, A. Follick, M. Morley, R.
Barstow, P. G Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Barton, C. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Moyle, A.
Battley, J. R. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Murray, J. D
Bechervaise, A. E. Gilzean, A. Nally, W.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Naylor, T. E.
Benson, G. Gooch, E. G. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Berry, H. Gordon-Walker, P. C Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Binns, J. Granville, E. (Eye) Noel-Buxton, Lady
Blackburn, A. R Grey, C. F. Oliver, G. H.
Blenkinsop, A Grierson, E. Orbach, M.
Boardman, H Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Palmer, A. M. F.
Bottomley, A. G Gunter, R. J. Parkin, B. T.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hale, Leslie Paton, J. (Norwich)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge) Hall, W. G. Pearson, A.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R. Peart, Capt. T. F
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Perrins, W
Brown, George (Belper) Hastings, Dr. Somerville Piratin, P.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Haworth, J. Porter, G. (Leeds)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Proctor, W. T.
Buchanan, G. Herbison, Miss M Pursey, Cmdr. H
Burden, T. W Hobson, C. R. Randall, H. E.
Burke, W. A. Holman, P. Ranger, J.
Callaghan, James Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Rankin, J.
Champion, A. J Hubbard, T. Rees-Williams, D. R
Cluse, W. S. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W) Reeves, J.
Cobb, F. A. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Reid, T. (Swindon)
Cocks, F. S. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Rhodes, H
Coldrick, W. Irving, W. J. Richards, R.
Collick, P. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Collindridge, F. Jay, D. P. T. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Collins, V. J. Jeger, G. (Winchester) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Colman, Miss G. M. Jones. D. T. (Hartlepools) Royle, C
Comyns, Dr. L. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Scollan, T.
Cooper, Wins-Comdr. G. Kenyon, C. Scott-Elliot, W.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W) King, E. M. Segal, Dr. S.
Corlett, Dr. J. Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E A A
Cove, W. G. Kinley, J. Sharp, Granville
Crawley, A. Kirby, B. V Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Daines, P. Kirkwood, D. Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lee, F. (Hulme) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Levy, B. W. Simmons, C. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Skinnard, F. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lindgren, G. S Smith, C. (Colchester)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Longden, F. Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Thurtle, E. Wilkins, W. A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Tiffany, S. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Solley, L. J. Titterington, M. F. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Tolley, L. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Sparks, J. A. Turner-Samuels, M. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Stamford, W. Ungoed-Thomas, L. Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Steele, T. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Stephen, C. Viant, S. P. Williamson, T.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) Wadsworth, G. Willis, E.
Stubbs, A. E. Walkden, E. Wilson, J. H.
Symonds, A. L. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Wise, Major F. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Woodburn, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Warbey, W. N. Woods, G. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Weitzman, D. Yates, V. F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wells, W. T. (Walsall) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J. Zilliacus, K.
Thomas, John R. (Dover) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff) Wigg, Col. G. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Wilkes, L. Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Snow.
NOES
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Pitman, I. J.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Gridley, Sir A. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Beechman, N. A. Grimston, R. V. Sanderson, Sir F.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hogs, Hon. Q. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Boothby, R. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bossom, A. C. Howard, Hon. A. Snadden, W. M.
Bower, N. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Spence, H. R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Jennings, R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Sutcliffe, H.
Butcher, H. W. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Challen, C. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Thornton-Kemsley, G. N.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A. F.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Vane, W. M. F.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Walker-Smith, D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Cuthbert, W. N. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Manningham-Buller, R. E. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
De la Bère, R. Marlowe, A. A. H. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Digby, S. W. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maude, J. C. Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) York, C.
Drayson, G. B. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Pickthorn, K. Sir Arthur Young and
Mr. Drewe.