HC Deb 19 December 1946 vol 431 cc2202-17

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Foster

My third point was that even if it was considered right for this Bill to forbid people outside the United Kingdom from making certain payments in the United Kingdom, it is unconstitutional for this country to seek to make acts by persons in the Dominion illegal by a single Act of Parliament. The proper constitutional position, in my submission, is that the Dominions should pass their own legislation, to supplement the legislation in this country. In other words, in certain cases it is quite proper for an Act of Parliament to say, for instance, that a merchant seaman abroad who may not be a British subject, shall not do such and such a thing, but that that should be restricted to persons outside the British Commonwealth. Under the Statute of Westminster, the legislation of each Dominion should be complementary to that of other Dominions and complementary to that of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if it is the desire of Parliament here to make an act by an Australian, committed in the United Kingdom, but ordered or initiated by an Australian in Australia, illegal; if it is the desire of the United Kingdom to make that act, started in Australia but having further consequences in the United Kingdom, illegal, then the Australian Parliament should pass the requisite legislation. I submit to the House that it is unconsitutional under the practices of the Statute of Westminster, to seek to assume jursidiction over Australian or Dominion subjects.

Those are three reasons why this Amendment should be accepted, and I would ask the Government spokesman, when he deals with the Amendment, to inform us whether it is correct that the word "person", which we are seeking to amend, includes persons outside the United Kingdom, but who nevertheless commit acts inside the United Kingdom. In that connection, I invite the Solicitor-General to look at Clause 42 (5), which says that this Bill shall apply to everyone in the world. In terms it says: The obligations and prohibitions, imposed by this Act shall, subject to the expressed limitations contained therein, apply to all persons, notwithstanding that they are not in the United Kingdom and are not British subjects. In the light of that Clause, I ask whether it is correct to say that the word "person" includes everyone in the world, and applies to persons if they happen to commit some act in the United Kingdom contrary to this Clause. I invite the Solicitor-General also to look at Clause 35, and say whether the word "person" includes a Dominion Government, and whether the word "person" in Clause 5 includes a Dominion, and if so, whether a Dominion Government which orders or initiates the act to take place in England, does not contravene the Clause in question with the civil and criminal consequences laid down in the Bill. I seriously ask the Government to consider whether in the light of these Clauses, the word "person" is not too widely drawn, and whether some limitation should not be put in

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to make two further points in support of what has been so ably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). To begin with, I ask the House to appreciate the difference between small payments which are de minimis, and about which the Government intend that this Bill shall not concern itself, and the big sums for which it is necessary to have the financial machinery built up by the City of London for the benefit of this nation. I draw a very big distinction between the payment of a pound note out of one's pocket, in other words payments which can easily be made between persons, and payments which are so big that they can be be made only through the normal financial machinery. I would point out that under Clause 5 the Government have full control over all the authorised agents, because although a person in Australia may be doing an act in London, in directing the authorised agent to pay some money to an American resident, the authorised agent will be caught under this Clause and the Government may be absolutely safe, because the agent cannot then carry out the instruction.

The second point arises out of Clause 41. We are not, in moving this Amendment, seeking to wreck this Bill. We want a really good and watertight Bill, and we are out to cooperate to achieve that end. If there are people resident outside the United Kingdom, whom we really desire to bring under this Clause, then let us turn to Clause 41 under which the Treasury have power to define who are, and who are not residents. The Government have a perfectly good wicket-keeper and long-stop; here they have another long-stop. There is the further advantage that, if the House accepts the distinction between small payments, which need no machine, and the big payments, which require a big machine, this meets the point raised by my hon. Friend on Second Reading of an American who gets his money through an authorised dealer, comes to stay in this country with his wife, cashes his first travellers' cheque, and cannot, within the strict interpretation of this Bill, give his wife £1. It is a fantastic situation, but that is the law we are passing; the American cannot take out a pound note, cashed through the authorised machine, and hand it over to his wife, because she is a person resident outside the scheduled territory. If this Amendment is accepted, we shall be releasing all the small "minimos" and "minimas" while nevertheless catching all the bigger payments because they have to go through the normal machine. In other words, both the big man—the finance Minister of Australia, for example—and the little man who is giving his wife something with which to go out shopping or buy herself a lunch, will if this Amendment is accepted, be permitted to do these acts and yet the Act will still effectively catch the transactions it is desired to catch within the terms of what will thus be a reasonable set-up.

5.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice)

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) said he was anxious to cooperate to make this a sound, watertight, scheme of control, and I entirely accept that from him. He based his argument on the case of an American who he said under the Bill could not give a pound to his wife to spend. We have said that that case will be dealt with by exemption; now the hon. Gentleman asks why we could not do the same thing by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Pitman

It is appreciated, I suppose, that each payment has to be authorised?

The Solicitor-General

General exemptions can be made under Clause 31. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, when he made his general statement on this Clause, indicated the way in which the Clause will be used. The hon. Gentleman says that something could be done to meet the point by accepting this Amendment. I want to show why I do not think this is so, and in answering his argument, I will at the same time, I hope, answer the argument of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Suppose we did accept this Amendment, what would be the consequence? It would mean that only persons who were resident, were controlled in the matters set out in Clause 5. That would at once give rise to the possibility of very extensive evasion. There are several methods which might be used for the purpose of evasion, that is to say, if anybody other than a person resident in the United Kingdom, should do the things which are prohibited by Clause 5. For instance, you might get the case of a foreign company wanting to get assets from this country, using the services of a person who travelled between the two countries. It would be easy, by getting that person to change his residence to make him, first, a resident, so that he could acquire the asset which it was desired to transfer abroad. By giving up his house, hotel, or flat and acquiring a flat or furnished rooms abroad, he could change his residence and then he would be free to transfer the asset which he had acquired. That sort of thing could be done, and if it were done, it would lead to extensive evasion. Other kinds of evasion would be possible; I have selected that type as one which would be possible if the Amendment were accepted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the Amendment would in that case destroy the effect of Clause 5, and make evasion easy.

I want to say a word or two about the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Northwich. He said that the way to do this was to make only the person who was resident, or an agent in the country amenable to criminal jurisdiction, which could be set in motion in the event of a breach of the provisions of the Clause. If the hon. Member looks at the Fifth Schedule he will see that that is precisely what is done. If hon. Members look at page 39 they will see that in so far as the impact of the criminal provisions of this Bill are concerned, they affect only persons resident in the United Kingdom. The Bill does what the hon. Member said it should do. The criminal administration which is dealt with by that part of the Fifth Schedule affects only persons in, or resident in, the United Kingdom. The hon. Member said that it would be an offence if the Australian Government directed their agent in this country to effect a payment contrary to he provisions of Clause 5. That point was fully discussed in the Committee stage, on Clause 35, and I think Members on both sides were satisfied with the argument I used on that occasion. The argument was that the Bill would affect the agent here, but would not alter the law of Australia in the least. No doubt instructions by the Australian Government to their agent here might be affected by the fact that the agent could not carry them out. I also said that the question of whether it was affected, and the degree to which it was affected, would have to be determined by Australian law, which would remain unaltered.

I submit to the House that the provisions of Clause 5 do not infringe in any way Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. They do not alter the Australian law. The hon. Member suggested that the Bill has some territorial effect, that it affects the Government of Australia. That is true of any other Act. Take any other Act which imposes a prohibition on something in this country. In a sense it is extra-territorial, because if any person outside the jurisdiction comes into the jurisdiction, he is prohibited from doing that Act. In the sense in which any Act imposes a prohibition it affects Governments, and everybody, abroad. It makes it impossible for a person to come here from abroad and do what is prohibited by the provisions of the Act. That is what is done by Clause 5. So, the argument based on the question of whether this Bill has extra-territorial effect does not hold water. Constitutionally, the Clause is not objectionable and the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Northwich are not well-founded. As I have said, if we accepted the Amendment it would wreck the Bill in the sense that it would make it easy to evade the prohibitions of this Clause. For those reasons, although I have listened carefully and sympathetically to the arguments which have been adduced, I ask the House to say that this Amendment should not be accepted.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid (Glasgow, Hillhead)

This is a very odd form of legislation. The Solicitor-General has told us that we are quite safe in legislating against people who are neither in, nor resident in, the United Kingdom, because if they break the law, they can be punished. That is putting, in a nutshell, what he has told us.

The Solicitor-General

They can only break it while they are here.

Mr. Reid

I take it that under this Clause there are prohibitions which affect people who are neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom, but if these people choose to contravene these prohibitions, then the law is powerless because they have committed no offence. I have never seen any legislation like that. I always thought that it was quite wrong for the legislature to put on the Statute Book prohibitions which there were no means of enforcing. The usual means of enforcing a prohibition is to make it an offence for one to contravene the prohibition, and I cannot understand why the Solicitor-General having said that he does not propose to attach any consequences, criminal or otherwise, to a breach of a prohibition by persons not in the United Kingdom nevertheless wants to maintain this paper prohibition against them. That is what the learned Solicitor-General has said. He shakes his head, but let me try to get this right, because I believe that this question goes much deeper than the merits or demerits of this particular Amendment.

Do I understand that, although the Bill, in many places, goes out of its way to prohibit actions by persons who are neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom, it nevertheless, at a later stage, makes it clear that persons outside the United Kingdom can break the law with impunity? That, I take it, is the Solicitor-General's argument—that because they can break the law with impunity, this. House ought to pass this Clause. I never heard an argument like that before. I should be interested to learn what is the interest of His Majesty's Government to have a prohibition against those persons who are outside their jurisdiction at present, and who, even when they come within the jurisdiction, can never be proceeded against. Surely, it is a fundamental rule of legislation that we ought not to legislate, in the general case, against acts committed by people when they are out of the jurisdiction, because we cannot catch those people, and not prosecute and punish them. There is a case, sometimes, for legislating against acts committed by people outside the jurisdiction, because we may say that it is important to do everything we can to stop these acts, and the effect of the prohibition will be that when they come back within the jurisdiction we can prosecute them, although it may be months or years later. But that is not this case. The Solicitor-General agrees that although a non-resident person commits a prohibited act outside the jurisdiction today and comes in tomorrow, he cannot be touched, because although he committed the act he was neither in nor resident in the United Kingdom. Yet he insists that we must prohibit him from doing it. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will give us some justification for this—I will not say unprecedented, because if is always rash to say that—highery irregular form of legislation, and a form of legislation which, on general principles, is peculiarly objectionable. If he will give us that justification, we shall listen to it with interest. I ask him what is the interest of His Majesty's Government in putting this very odd form of legislation into the Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

The right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid) is such a convincing speaker that whenever he addresses the House on a matter such as this, one is almost persuaded against one's will and better sense to agree with him. This Amendment is a very good example of the capacity which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has for making the worse appear the better cause. May I say, with all respect to him, that I am surprised that this proposal should have attracted his support. First, the Amendment seeks to do what, to my mind, is a most remarkable thing. The Clause with which we are dealing is found in the context of a Bill which is seeking to establish financial control over a large domain of financial dealings. I am not arguing whether the Bill is right or wrong for this purpose. But there is embodied in this Bill a principle, and either that principle remains or it goes. If it remains, we cannot possibly justify whittling it down in any way, because the principle is directed towards preventing an attack on our economic position in relation to overseas finance, and on the vital question of exporting capital. If this Amendment were accepted it would undermine the whole structure of the Bill. I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why. Here we have a Clause the opening words of which read as follows: Except with the permission of the Treasury, no person shall do any of the following things. It then goes on to recite certain prohibitions against the making of certain payments, which is absolutely fundamental to the principle of this Bill. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do is plainly this: He wants to overturn the whole machinery, and effect of this, because he says "what you must do is not to limit it to the act of any person whatsoever, but limit it to the act of a person 'resident in the United Kingdom'." I cannot believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be "taken in" quite as easily as that, because all that anyone who wants to subvert the whole of these fundamental provisions of this Bill has to do, is merely to take himself out of the Kingdom and do anything which the Bill says he ought not to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Just let us see. It says here that no person resident in the United Kingdom shall make certain payments— fundamental to this Bill. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman subscribing to the view that all that is needed is to have someone outside the Kingdom who can make these payments, and then that is not to be wrong and not to be included within the scope of this Bill? If that is his idea, it absolutely overturns the whole provisions of this Bill and makes nonsense of it. Clause 41 (2) confers upon the Treasury the right to direct when or when not a man has taken residence or is not resident in this country. It is absolutely otiose and futile, in my submission, to confer that power on the Treasury under Clause 41 and take it away in the way with which it is sought to take it away, in this particular Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, of course, feeling not too secure about his point, and not too happy about this Amendment, goes on to argue that the learned Solicitor-General—as I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's submission— said: "If these wrongs occurred outside and the man came back, you could not get at him or punish him at all." First, I do not accept that the Solicitor-General said any such thing, and secondly, that would not be the position. It is because of Clause 41(2), and because of the language of this Measure, that it involves the transgressor in the wrong of what he is doing, and when he is in this country he could undoubtedly receive the attention which the Government would give him because of that matter. Therefore, because of the wide and fundamental financial policy at the foundation of this Bill, because of Clause 41(2), and for the sake of being consistent and of giving effect to the machinery of this Measure, I ask the Committee to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)

I want to put one or two questions to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, and I refrain with reluctance from putting to him the really difficult question whether or not he agrees with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, if I understood his argument correctly, said that so unlimited were the actions which the Government could take under Clause 41 that it does not really matter what we do with Clause 5. That may, indeed, conceivably be the right view.

Mr. Turner-Samuels

That is the hon. and learned Member's view, and not mine.

Mr. Strauss

My own view of the best way of making Clause 5 sensible was contained in the proviso which I proposed in Committee, and about which I shall say nothing now; but, if I understood the Solicitor-General correctly, he said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), that some additional safeguard, or some step towards meeting what would otherwise be the absurd position that would arise, is to be found in the Fifth Schedule particularly on page 39. I want, if I can, to follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman meant. Is he referring to paragraph 1 of Part II on page 39?

The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

Mr. Strauss

In that case, I cannot see that it takes us any further, because it refers to Any person in or resident in… Either qualification brings the person within the mischief of that paragraph. The words "any person in" occur also in Clause 5, which we are now considering. Does the Solicitor-General suggest that any additional limitation or protection is afforded by the Fifth Schedule which is not already found in the Clause we are considering? I cannot find any further limitation. The other questions I wish to ask him refer to Clause 41 and Clause 42 (5). I imagine that the powers given to the Treasury under Clause 41 (2): The Treasury may give directions declaring that for all or any of the purposes of this Act a person is to be treated as resident or not resident in such territories as may be specified in the directions. apply equally to the Schedules and to the clauses of the Measure. I imagine the Solicitor-General will agree with me in that. Therefore, if the possibilities under the combined effect of Clause 5 and Clause (2) are as unlimited and as ridiculous as the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester believes them to be, how are we protected in any way by what appears in the Fifth Schedule? I think that the Solicitor-General now gathers the purport of my inquiries. The only other question I would add is that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich, to which I think the Solicitor-General has not yet replied, namely, the effect of Clause (5), which seems to extend the obligations to everybody in the world.

The Solicitor-General

To deal with the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman slightly misunderstood what I intended to say. If one looks at Clause 42 (5), one sees, as I said in Committee, that it imposes an obligation or prohibition only subject to express limitations. In this particular case, one looks to Clause 5 to see whether there is any express limitation. One finds that there is, because the express limitation is to persons who are resident in the United Kingdom or persons who are in— [Interruption.] The limitation there is to persons who are in the United Kingdom. The Clause reads: …no person shall do any of the following things in the United Kingdom….

Mr. Strauss

Not "resident in the United Kingdom."

The Solicitor-General

May I complete my argument? When a Clause provides that a person shall not do a thing in the United Kingdom, the converse, that he may do it outside the United Kingdom, is a necessary inference. Therefore, one has a limitation which is to be imported into Clause 42 (5) when one is applying that particular Subsection to any particular person. One finds that the only obligation upon the person is not, in the United Kingdom, to take a particular course of action.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid

He need not be in the United Kingdom to do an act in the United Kingdom.

The Solicitor-General

Yes, certainly. He only does the thing when it is in the United Kingdom and when he is in the United Kingdom himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In any case, whatever the precise effect of that limitation is, there is the limitation. It is a limitation in the sense that Clause 5 only imposes a limited obligation and that limited obligation has to be read together with Clause 42 (5). Then one reads that subject to the further limitation as to the taking of criminal proceedings which is contained in the Fifth Schedule, paragraph (1) of Part II, because it is only persons who are in or resident in who contravene the Measure and can be proceeded against criminally under the provisions of that Part.

Mr. H. Strauss

It is no addition.

The Solicitor-General

Yes, it is. One has first the limitation in Clause 5. That imposes a limitation on the general scope of Clause 42 (5), so that there is no general obligation in so far as Clause 5 is concerned which is imposed upon anybody anywhere in the world. It is the specific limited obligation contained in Clause 5. One then turns to the Fifth Schedule to see upon whom the criminal liability is imposed in terms of the Fifth Schedule. I submit to the House that that is a perfectly sensible construction of the Measure, and I ask the House to say that it does not involve the consequences that were indicated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead and the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in their speeches in support of the Amendment; and inasmuch as the Amendment, if it were accepted, would completely wreck Clause 5 and make it quite impossible to work it, because of the opportunities which it would afford for evasion, which I indicated when first I addressed the House, I ask the House to say that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman

I want to put a question to the Solicitor-General and I hope he will give me a straightforward answer. In a particular case he alleged that evasion would take place. He instanced the case of an American company in this country, which had considerable balances. Would not the answer to that be that under Clause 41 an American company would be held by the Treasury to be resident in this country?

The Solicitor-General

Not it the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Pitman

Yes, if the Amendment were accepted it would apply to people who are resident in the country, and the Treasury then defines as a resident in the country, that particular American subsidiary, or branch, for the purposes of the Bill. That does not seem at all unreasonable, having regard to the way in which American companies which are subsidiaries of British companies, are not regarded as American companies. The other point with which I am concerned is when a company would transfer notes to some traveller going outside. That company would immediately be caught by Clause 5, so that for that transaction a company would be caught twice under this Clause.

Mr. H. Strauss

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

We cannot have two speeches from the hon. and learned Member, who has already spoken on this matter. If he desires, however, he can put a short question.

Mr. Strauss

I want to put a question. I fully appreciate the Solicitor-General's point that a limitation arises in the Schedule as well as in the Clause. My point is that the same limitation is created by the meaning of that phrase, "in the United Kingdom" in both places. The people to whom this applies can be decided both in the Schedule and in the Clause by a direction of the Treasury under Clause 41 (2).

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 86; Noes. 232.

Division No. 44.] AYES. [4.24 p.m.
Adams, Richard (Balham) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Gilzean, A. Noel-Buxton, Lady.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Glanville, J. E. (Corsett) Orbach, M.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Gordon-Walker, P. C. Parker, J.
Allighan, Garry Granville, E. (Eye) Parkin, B. T.
Alpass, J. H. Greenwood, A.. W. J. (Heywood) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Grey, C. F. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Grierson, E. Peart, Capt. T. F.
Attewell, H. C. Gunter, R. J. Perrins, W.
Austin, H. L. Guy, W. H. Piratin, P.
Awbery, S. S. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Popplewell, E.
Ayles, W. H. Hale, Leslie Porter, G. (Leeds)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Hall, W. G. Price, M. Philips
Bacon, Miss A. Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R. Proctor, W. T.
Barstow, P. G. Harrison, J. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Barton, C. Hastings, Dr. Somervillie Randall, H. E.
Battley, J. R. Haworth, J. Ranger, J.
Baxter, A. B. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Rankin, J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Harbison, Miss M. Rees-Williams, O. R.
Bing, G. H. C. Hewitson, Capt. M. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Blackburn, A. R. Hobson, C. R. Richards, R.
Boardman, H. Holman, P. Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Bottomley, A. G. Holmes. H. E. (Hemsworth) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Braddook, T. (Milcham) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Bramall, Major E. A. Irving, W. J. Royle, C.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Scollan, T.
Brown, George (Belper) Jay, D. P. T. Scott-Elliot, W.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley) Sharp, Granville
Buchanan, G. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Shurmer, P.
Burden, T. W. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Burke, W. A. Kinley, J. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Callaghan, James Kirby, B. V. Skeffington, A. M.
Champion, A. J. Kirkwood, D. Smith, C. (Colchester)
Chater, D. Lee, F. (Hulme) Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Cobb, F. A. Lever, Fl. Off. N. H. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Cocks, F. S. Levy, B. W. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Coldrick, W. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Snow, Capt. J. W.
Collick, P. Lindgren, G. S. Sorensen, R. W.
Collindridge, F. Lipson, D. L. Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Collins, V. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Sparks, J. A.
Colman, Miss G. M. Legan, D. G. Stamford, W.
Comyns, Dr. L. Longden, F. Stephen, C.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Lyne A. W. Stewart, Capt Michael (Fulham, E.)
Corlett, Dr. J. McAdam, W. Stubbs, A. E.
Cove, W. G. McEntee, V. La T. Swingler S.
Daines, P. McGhee, H. G. Symonds, A. L.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) McKay, J. (Wallsend) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Maclean, N. (Govan) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.) McLeavy, F. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Macpherson, T. (Romford) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Deer, G. Mann, Mrs. J. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R (Ed'b'gh, F)
Delargy, Captain H. J. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Thurtle, E.
Diamond, J. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Tiffany, S.
Dodds, N. N. Mathers, G. Timmons, J.
Donovan, T. Messer, F. Titterington, M. F.
Driberg, T. E. N. Mikardo, Ian Tolley, L.
Durbin, E. F. M. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Turner-Samuels, M.
Dye, S. Monslow, W. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Edelman, M. Moody, A. S. Viant, S. P.
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Morley, R. Wadsworth, G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Walkden, E.
Evans, John (Ogmore) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Farthing, W. J. Moyle, A. Warbey, W. N.
Field, Captain W. J. Murray, J. D. Weitzman, D.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Nally, W. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Naylor, T. E. West, D. G.
Gallacher, W. Neal, H. (Claycross) Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Ganley, Mrs. G. S. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Wilkes, L.
Wilkins, W. A. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Willis, E. Zilliacus, K
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) Wise, Major F. J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath) Woods, G. S TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Yates, V. F. Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.
NOES
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Hare, Hon. j. H. (Woodbridge) Prescott, Stanley
Barlow, Sir J. Haughton, S. G. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Beamish, Maj. T. V H Head, Brig. A. H. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Beechman, N. A. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Reid, Rt. Hon. J S. C. (Hillhead)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hollis, M. C Renton, D.
Boothby, R. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Roberts, Maj P G (Ecclesall)
Bower, N. Hops, Lord J. Ropner, Col. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Howard, Hon. A. Sanderson, Sir F
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Scott, Lord W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G, T. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Butcher, H. W. Jennings, R. Snadden, W. M
Butler Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Keeling, E. H. Spence, H. R.
Challen, C. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S Lambert, Hon. G. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd'ton, S)
Cuthbert, W. N. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Teeling, William
Darling, Sir W. Y Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
De la Bère R. Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Thorp, Lt.-Col. RAF
Digby, S. W. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Turton, R. H.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster) Vane, W. M. F.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) MacLeod, Capt. J. Wakefield, Sir W. W
Drayson, G. B. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Walker-Smith, D.
Drewe, C. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S. Marlowe, A. A. H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Mellor, Sir J. York, C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Nicholson, G. Young, Sir A. S L. (Partick)
Comma-Duncan, Col. A G Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Grant, Lady Nutting, Anthony TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gridley, Sir A Pickthorn, K. Commander Agnew and
Grimston, R. V Pitman, I. J. Major Conant.
Division No. 45.] AYES [5.32 p.m.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Grimston, H. V. Prescott, Stanley
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Head, Brig. A. H. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Renton, D.
Boothby, R. Hollis, M. C. Ropner, Col. L.
Bower, N. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir. J. A.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Howard, Hon. A. Sanderson, Sir F.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.) Scott, Lord W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Butcher, H. W. Jennings, R. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Challen, C. Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W. Snadden, W. M.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Spence, H. R.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lambert, Hon. G. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Stuart, Rt. Hon J. (Moray)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Sutcliffe, H.
Cuthbert, W. N. Lloyd, Selwyn Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd'ton, S.)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Turton, R. H.
Digby, S. W. Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight) Vane, W. M. F.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Walker-Smith, O.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Maclean, Brig F. H. R. (Lancaster) Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Drayson, G. B. Manningham-Buller, R. E. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Drewe, C. Marlowe, A. A. H. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Duthie, W. S. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Mellor, Sir J. York, C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon W. E. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Erroll, F. J. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Pete, Brig. C. H. M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Pickthorn, K. Commander Agnew and
Gridley, Sir A. Pitman, I. J. Major Ramsay.
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Jay, D. P. T.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Davies, Harold (Leek) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Alpass, J. H. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kenyon, C.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Deer, G. King, E. M.
Attewell, H. C. de Freitas, Geoffrey Kinley, J.
Austin, H. L. Delargy, Captain H. J. Kirkwood, D.
Awbery, S. S. Diamond, J. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ayles, W. H. Dodds, N. N. Levy, B. W.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Driberg, T. E. N. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Bacon, Miss A. Durbin, E. F. M. Lewis, J, (Bolton)
Balfour, A. Dye, S. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Barstow, P. G. Edelman, M. Longden, F.
Barton, C. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) McAdam, W.
Battley, J. R. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) McEntee, V. La T.
Bechervaise, A. E. Farthing, W. J. McGhee, H. G.
Berry, H. Foot, M. M. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Gallacher, W. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Bing, G. H. C. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Maclean, N. (Govan)
Binns, J. Gilzean, A. McLeavy, F.
Boardman, H. Glanville, J. E. (Cornell) Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Granville, E. (Eye) Mann, Mrs. J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epning)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Grey, C. F. Mathers, G.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Grierson, E. Mayhew, C. P.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Messer, F.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Guy, W. H. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Buchanan, G. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Burke, W. A. Hale, Leslie Monslow, W.
Callaghan, James Hall, W. G. Moody, A. S.
Champion, A. J. Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R. Morley, R.
Chater, D. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Cluse, W. S. Harrison, J. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Cobb, F. A. Hastings, Dr. Somerville Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Cocks, F. S. Haworth, J. Moyle, A.
Coldrick, W. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Murray, J. D.
Collick, P. Herbison, Miss M. Nally, W.
Collindridge, F. Hewitson, Capt. M. Naylor, T. E.
Collins, V. J. Hobson, C. R. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Colman, Miss G. M. Holman, P. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Comyns, Or. L. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Cooper, Wing Comdr. G. Hubbard, T. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Noel-Buxton, Lady.
Corlett, Dr. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pargiter, G. A.
Cove, W. G. Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.) Parker, J.
Crawley, A. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Parkin, B. T.
Crossman, R. H. S. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Irving, W. J. Paton, J. (Norwich)
Peart, Capt. T. F. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Turner-Samuels, M.
Perrins, W. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Piratin, P. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Viant, S. P.
Porter, G. (Leeds) Snow, Capt. J. W. Wadsworth, G.
Proctor, W. T. Solley, L. J. Walkden, E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H. Sorensen, R. W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Randall, H. E. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Ranger, J. Sparks, J. A. Warbey, W. N.
Rankin, J. Stamford, W. Weitzman, D.
Rees Williams, D. R. Stephen, C. Wells, W. T (Walsall)
Reeves, J. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) West, D. G.
Reid, T. (Swindon) Stokes, R. R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Richards, R. Stubbs, A. E. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Symonds, A. L. Wilkes, L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Wilkins, W. A.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Royle, C. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Sargood, R. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Scollan, T. Thomas, John R. (Dover) Williamson, T.
Scott-Elliot, W. Thomas, George (Cardiff) Willis, E.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) Wise, Major F. J.
Sharp, Granville Thurtle, E. Woods, G. S.
Silverman, J, (Erdington) Tiffany, S. Yates, V. F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Timmons, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Simmons, C. J. Titterington, M. F. Zilliacus, K.
Skeffington, A. M. Tolley, L.
Smith, C. (Colchester) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Dames.