HC Deb 15 July 1946 vol 425 cc896-911

There shall be deducted from the profits for the purposes of the profits tax in the accounting period in which they are incurred any rehabilitation costs as defined in Subsection (5) of Section thirty-three of this Act.—[Sir A. Gridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir A. Gridley

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

This Clause, and the following Clause, are in the same form as those which were put down on the Committee stage. They were then debated together, and were then refused on the ground that to put their provisions into effect would be too costly. Rehabilitation costs are allowed by the Bill for Excess Profits Tax, and only some part of these costs will be of a capital nature. The Solicitor-General, in commenting upon these Clauses when they were brought up in Committee, said that the capital cost of alterations to buildings would be written off in 45 years by the operation of the Income Tax Act, 1945, and that, as regards plant and machinery, the period would be much shorter. I suggest that that argument is correct only so far as Income Tax is concerned, and that it hardly applies with regard to the Excess Profits Tax. That being so, the taxpayer will have to bear the whole cost of capital expenses of rehabilitation without relief from the Excess Profits Tax. Why should this be an expensive concession to make? If it is only part of the rehabilitation costs which is in question, that part which is revenue will, automatically, be allowed for Income Tax, and also for Excess Profits Tax. As the cost of making these special wartime arrangements is allowed for E.P.T. and Income Tax—the latter by way of special depreciation—the cost of undoing this special expenditure should equally be allowed for E.P.T. and Income Tax. I agree that by operation of the Income Tax Act, 1945, the cast of any special building, or alterations thereto, would be written off over 45 years, and in a shorter period in connection with plant, but 45 years is a long time to wait for relief of expenditure which is certainly attributable to the war.

The difference between the expenditure for which the Income Tax Act, 1945, gives an allowance, and the expenditure incurred on rehabilitation costs, is that the former creates an asset which is in use over the period for which the allowances are to be given. The rehabilitation costs are merely the costs of getting rid of an impediment to production, and converting wartime buildings to a peacetime layout. The money is lost as soon as it is spent; there is nothing else that could be depreciated over a period. That is an additional argument which the Solicitor-General did not meet, and I think it is right that we should now come back to further consideration of this matter.

Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)

I beg to second the Motion.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will accept this Clause, because there is a considerable amount of equity in it. The firm which has rehabilitation expenses will have to bear practically the whole of the capital account itself unless it happens to pay E.P.T., in which case it can set 6 per cent. of its expenses against E.P.T., under Clause 33. The only argument which my hon. and learned Friend used when this matter was previ- ously discussed, was that this would mean a very costly concession. In saying that, I think that he rather exaggerated. All revenue expenses are already capable of being set against profits, under the ordinary Income Tax law. All firms that pay E.P.T. will be able to set off their capital expenses for E.P.T. to the extent of 66 per cent. That leaves those firms which are not paying E.P.T. to bear the whole of the cost. There is also the additional burden which will fall on the revenue. When you come to add up the additional expenditure it will be 6 per cent. in the case of buildings or 10 per cent. in the case of machinery, in addition to the revenue allowance, the E.P.T. allowance and the initial allowance under the 1945 Act. Taking all these various deductions from the actual cost, it seems to me that the Solicitor-General was exaggerating when he said that a heavy expenditure would be involved. Much of this expenditure was incurred, if not directly under order from the Government—and some of it was, by the concentration of industry—in the national interest. There is, therefore, a strong case for seeing that those firms which do not pay E.P.T. should be put on the same footing as those which do.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

The Solicitor-General, when this matter was debated on the Committee stage, referred to its being expensive. It seems to me that justice ought not to be measured in that way. I do not think it is right for the Solicitor-General to say, "You have made a very good case, but it cannot be afforded." This is not an ordinary matter of taxation, but one of justice. Secondly, the Solicitor-General said that it is not as unfair as one might think at first sight. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has already observed that it is hardly sufficient to tell a man that everything will be all right and that things will straighten themselves out in 45 years. I feel that the Solicitor-General did not do himself justice in the arguments he used on that occasion. He promised that, having heard our statements, he would consult with the Chancellor and see whether something better could be done. As I said on the Committee stage, having been a temporary civil servant who persuaded people to do all sorts of things and assured them that they would be dealt with fairly, I find it very hard that such people should now be able to say, "Had I been a slacker and done nothing, I should have been very much better off than I am now after having obliged you." I feel that we ought to help these people and to see that they are not worse off than those who refused to help us, who got ready for the end of the war, and did nothing else. I hope the Solicitor-General will give further consideration to this matter.

The Solicitor-General

May I refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) about what said during the Committee stage? I would not like to think that I had misled hon. Members, and I did not do so intentionally. If the hon. Member will refer to my speech on that occasion, he will find that I did not say that the Income Tax Act, 1945, applied to the Profits Tax. I referred to the provisions of the Income Tax Acts; I did not intend to include that particular Act, there being a large number of others. The ordinary provisions as to wear and tear and as to revenue deduction do apply. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the Income Tax Act, 1945, does not apply to the Profits Tax.

This point was discussed in Committee and both these new Clauses were on the Order Paper in the same form as they are today, and I hope that the House, and in particular the hon. Member for Stockport, will be satisfied if, on the authority of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I give the following assurance. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say that, without commitment, he will undertake to consider the matter more fully before next year's Finance Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance. The problem is not a simple one. It is a difficult problem, and there is a great deal to be said on both sides of it. After all, it is not easy to justify, from one point of view, singling out rehabilitation expenses, and allowing them for purposes of Income Tax in one lump, when the same is not done with numerous other reconstruction expenses which an undertaking must of necessity incur in order to get back on to its feet. There is a whole range of expenses which are absolutely necessary and which any enterprise that needs to restart after the war must, of necessity, incur. The new Clause would not cover such expenses, but would single out rehabilitation expenses. I do not disagree with the view that there is possibly a stronger case with regard to rehabilitation expenses than with regard to a great many other expenses, but the matter does require careful consideration. We have had some time for consideration, but we want more time, for the matter requires careful working out. I hope the House will not think that we are considering the matter in an offhand way, or are not taking the suggestion seriously, but we will give it the thought which it deserves, and will go into it much more fully before next year. Of course, I cannot at this stage give any undertaking of any commitment, because I have no authority to do so. With the assurance I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport will think it right not to press the new Clause.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)

Will the Solicitor-General give an estimate of the cost? It is very important, if this matter is to be thought out, that we should have some idea of what it would cost. If it is only a comparatively small sum, I do not think we ought to be satisfied with being put off. I entirely agree with the Solicitor-General that there is a case for saying that rehabilitation expenses, most of which are incurred under directions from the Government, are in a special position. I know there are many other expenses which firms have, such as building up their market research and so on, but rehabilitation expenditure is of a special sort, and after all, firms will be incurring it during the next year, and it would not be very satisfactory if they had to wait for another year. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us something about the cost?

Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)

I would like to thank the Solicitor-General. I quite see the wisdom of deferring this matter until next year and giving the proposal real and proper consideration in that time. It is clearly a most difficult matter, particularly with regard to the line of differentiation between what is really a revenue expense and what is a continuing asset to the company concerned.

There is one argument which I think has not been put, and I think the Solicitor-General would wish to take it into account in the intervening period. It is the desirability for our companies in this country to have a strong balance sheet and to write off in their accounts anything which does not have a long continuing asset value. We must face the fact that the influence of the Treasury in company finance is very great. It is true that one can quite properly keep, although it may appear paradoxical, two sets of books, one for the benefit of the Inland Revenue and the other, the more conservative one, for one's shareholders; but by and large, the general effect is that if the Inland Revenue say that one must not write off this against profits, the firms do not in fact write it off, and thereby they water or inflate their capital to the extent that the regulations passed by the House make it, in effect, justifiable for them to do so. I hope that, in considering this point, the Solicitor-General will bear in mind the desirability of companies in this country, in competing with firms overseas, being in a strong balance-sheet position and not having inflated assets.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

I think we have had a most unsatisfactory reply from the Government on this new Clause. What is the position? It is that rehabilitation costs, which are defined by Clause 33 (5) of the Bill, are properly allowed against an assessment to Excess Profits Tax. These rehabilitation costs consist of three things. First, expenditure on the removal of works designed to afford protection from hostile attack, that is to say, works carried out under duress in the early years of the war in order to protect workers in factories from enemy bombing; second, the removal of a works from one place in the country to another; and, third, the adaptation of works for a different purpose during the war. All the costs properly incurred in carrying out these wartime works are to be allowed against liability to Excess Profits Tax, and all that we on this side have asked is that, that being so and these works having been undertaken under compulsion, the cost of restoring the former position should also be allowed for Income Tax purposes and for the purposes of what was formerly called national defence contribution but is now called the profits tax.

In equity I think the case is clearly made out; in fact I think this was admitted on the Committee stage by the Solicitor-General when he adduced as his primary argument against accepting the proposal the fact that it would be too expensive for the Government to adopt. We have not heard that argument repeated today, and in point of fact those who know something about this matter realise that from the point of view of cost there will be very little money in this new Clause. What happened on the Committee stage? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the Committee when the proposal was under discussion, but left it to the learned and, I may say, very courteous Solicitor-General to handle this matter. The Chancellor came in after the matter had been pressed for some time and invited us to withdraw the proposal on his undertaking that the matter would be further looked into before the Report stage. I will not bother the House with the exact words that he used but in fact the proposal was, I think, withdrawn upon the Chancellor assuring the Committee that the matter would have further attention. Something like three or four weeks have elapsed since this matter was discussed in the Committee stage. The same proposals are put down again, they are moved from these benches, they are supported in what I thought was a most reasonable and cogent speech by an hon. Member on the Government side, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), who knows a great deal about these financial questions, and what is the Government's reply?

No doubt for some good reason the Chancellor again absents himself during the discussion of this important subject. The right hon. Gentleman went out as soon as this new Clause was moved, and what is it that the House is offered by way of consolation from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General? The House is not offered this time the argument that the proposal would be too expensive; that argument has been abandoned. We are not offered arguments against this new Clause on its merits; we are simply told that the Chancellor has authorised the Solicitor-General to give an undertaking to the House to consider this matter more fully before next year's Finance Bill. I say that this is a very unsatisfactory position. The case has been made out in equity and I think the House was convinced of the fairness of these proposals nearly a month ago. There have been three or four weeks at least for this matter to be further con sidered but all we are told is that the whole thing will remain in the air for another 12 months. In the meantime these rehabilitation costs have to be incurred by many people engaged in industry. Air raid barriers and buffers of all kinds have to be taken down, works have to be moved back from one part of the country to another, wartime adaptations of plants and factories have to be undone—all this work is proceeding yet no one carrying it out will have any certainty at all that at any time will he be allowed to count for the purposes of Income Tax the costs of this work done under duress during the war. I really think that the position is most unsatisfactory and in the circumstances we on this side shall have to press the matter to a Division.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I am really amazed at a great many things in connection with this new Clause. The first is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should seek to absent himself during the discussion of a matter of such great importance as the rehabilitation of the trade and industry of the country. As I understand the position, it is that firms who have had to move during the war from one place to another, or to erect various things for the protection of their plant and machinery for purely war purposes, are encouraged to take down those impediments to their businesses but are not encouraged in any way by means of taxation under this Clause to put the thing right and to place their factory in a position to carry on their businesses.

Imagine what is going to be the effect of this kind of dual purpose project. The various things that hinder business are to be taken away, but nothing is to be done to help firms to get started again. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House goes to a place like Birmingham and tells the business people to get on with it; why does he not come down and help the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encourage them by giving them the relief which is so urgently necessary on this occasion? I think this is the strangest of those many strange examples which we are seeing at the present time. At one minute we have the Solicitor-General—although I do not pretend that he is doing it with any bad intent; he just does not know—discouraging business, while at another other hon. Members opposite say the reverse. It is a very unfortunate position, and what strikes me also is the very interesting speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. I. J. Pitman). He pointed out very clearly, on a subject of which he has very great knowledge indeed, that if, in this matter of accounting, we have a form of taxation of this kind hanging over us at the present time a firm is tempted to do this, that or the other thing. The hon. Member also pointed out that it is a great hindrance to the development of a company to have those burdens hanging over them. I will take it one step further; if the hindrances are being piled up on to the companies in this way, as was put very fairly just now, surely it would be in the interests of the Chancellor to cut his losses at the present time and to know where he is, encouraging these business people to go on, instead of saying, as he has, through the Solicitor-General, that he will think it over during the next year. What would happen if every business in the country behaved like that and said they would think things over and perhaps rebuild or do something of the kind in a year? But of course private enterprise is not so dull and would not do such a thing.

Let me come now to the Solicitor-General's quite interesting speech. I will not say "remarkable" speech because we have heard so many like it recently. In the first place the hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not accept the present proposal because of the cost; now he says he does not know what the costs are. If this House is always to be treated in this way how are we to understand whether this is a big thing or not? We do not know the cost and we have no means of ascertaining it. How can hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, in their desire to support the Government on this occasion, argue against trade and business and the employment of labour when they have not the haziest idea of what the cost is—unless they have some secret information which is not available either to the House or the learned Solicitor-General? The Government must have some sort of idea of the cost—I do not ask for anything very definite but they ought to try to meet the point of view of big business.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us to wait till next year. The Chancellor has had four or five weeks in which to think over the matter. This is a matter of considerable importance. It must have occurred to the Chancellor over and over again. I cannot imagine the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I see on our Front Bench, taking all this time to deal with the matter. Probably he would have done in 24 hours what the Government want one year, one month, and a few odd weeks, to do. This is another illustration of the refusal of the Government to put first things, first. The Government have so messed up their position that they do not know where they are. It is no good telling us to wait until next year, or saying that they do not know the cost. That is not treating the House or the country properly. I believe that the Solicitor-General will be very sorry that he did not do a little more work on this matter and try to find a solution. It is a pity, also, that the Chancellor could not have handled this matter himself and got it settled as he might very well have done.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

We are not without hope that the arrival of a representative of the usual channels upon the Front Bench opposite may be an omen of some importance, as he has been oscillating between the Front Bench and some of the distinguished representatives under the Gallery. I rise for the purpose of expressing the hope that the Solicitor-General may not have closed his mind finally on this matter. I urge upon him that another 12 months is a very long period indeed to keep this matter in suspense. In April, 1947, we shall be approximately 18 months after VJ-Day.

Reference has been made from this Front Bench to the temporary absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that does not mean that the Solicitor-General has instructions to remain entirely uninfluenced by the Debate upon the proposed new Clause. If there is no Minister who can yield to the opinions expressed on both sides of the House, and if the Solicitor-General is there merely for the purpose of ringing a bell in the Smoke Room and the Terrace Bar, it is a pity. This is the Finance Bill, which cannot be amended in another place. The Solicitor-General therefore is the arbiter of fate, on these proposals. Upon his shoulders will rest the responsibility. He has to take the decision here and now. He is evidently a man after the very heart of the Minister of Fuel and Power, who has been dealing with some of these matters during the weekend.

No speech has come from behind the Solicitor-General supporting his attitude, whilst we have had the advantage of support of an extremely well informed kind from the Government side. I hope that the Solicitor-General, conciliatory as he usually is, will not take up a harsh and unyielding attitude on this matter. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is with him and we are at a stage of the day when all that hon. Gentleman's faculties are fully awake. It is very early in the Sitting. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has followed the Debate with very great care, and I therefore appeal to him and to the Solicitor-General to make a further statement.

Captain Crookshank

I hope we are to have a further reply. I have been looking patiently round the corner for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to arrive. For some reason, as on the previous occasion, he is absent. I would like to remind hon. Gentlemen of what passed before. This matter was debated on 25th June, and not in the middle of the night, either. It was about six o'clock in the evening. Fortunately the time is shown in the columns of HANSARD. We were then discussing the Profits Tax, and after the appeals and strong arguments which were made on tins new Clause, the Chancellor said that he was caught at a certain disadvantage. He said: Although I have my own view on these matters, I have not had the benefit of hearing what has been said from the other side of the Committee. He did not tell us what his views were, but he assured us that he had them. He went on: Therefore, I do not think it would be right for me to say more now than that I will study the arguments, as this is a matter to which the Opposition attach considerable importance, and if they will not press the Clause now, I will look at the Debate in HANSARD and consider between now and the Report stage, according to such judgment as I can form about it"— bearing in mind that he had already said he had certain views on the matter.— if there is anything that can be done to meet the case which they have put. I do not think that it would be honest or sensible for me to do more than that; but that much I undertake to do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 1123.] Since then, he has done nothing at all, except absent himself once again. On that statement, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) advised his hon. Friends not to take the matter further on that day. In consequence, the Motion and Clause were withdrawn. Since then the Chancellor has had the opportunity, which he said he was going to take, of reading the Debate and of considering what he should do. What has happened? He does not come here, and he gives the Solicitor-General some little statement, which the hon. and learned Gentleman read out with great care and accuracy, to the effect that without making any commitment the Chancellor would look at the matter more fully before the next Finance Bill. Really, what has he been doing since 25th June? He told us then he would look at the matter very carefully and consider it, according to such judgment as he could form. He is doing exactly and precisely nothing. We can therefore do nothing but divide the House on the matter, to show our disapproval of his handling of the affair.

5.0 p.m.

I would ask the Solicitor-General whether he proposes to address the House again on this matter, and to explain why he has not given us any amplification of the statement that he made on 25th June on this new Clause. He then said: It will be an expensive concession—it is one which cannot be afforded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1946; Vol. 424, C. 1112.] I do not understand that statement, because no one has given us figures to show that this matter is so expensive as is suggested. On the previous occasion the Solicitor-General took the argument that so far as these expenditures were of a revenue nature they would be allowed as deductions from profits under the ordinary provisions of the Income Tax Acts. When it came to expenditure of a capital nature, he said quite a lot explaining that rehabilitation expenditure which is of a capital nature is not useless, from his point of view, to business, and indeed that it will serve as a lasting asset, and therefore the proposals which we are protesting against are not quite as harsh as hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House might think at first blush, because the asset continues after the rehabilitation has taken place. After having given that previously as a general background to the argument, the Solicitor-General goes on today to say that it will not be easy to single out rehabilitation costs in a way that we are not doing for any other expenses of reconstruction. I do not understand why that should be so. There is a definition of rehabilitation expenditure, and there is nothing to prevent that being singled out. If it turns out that there art other reconstruction expenses of somewhat like nature, perhaps they can be dealt with on a subsequent occasion. This Amendment was supported by an hon. Member behind the Solicitor-General, one who is as expert on these very technical matters as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself —

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

The hon. Member has gone, too.

Captain Crookshank

Yes, but he went after having made a valuable contribution. The Chancellor has made no contribution whatsoever, except a little slip of paper which he handed to the Solicitor-General. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) is one of the experts, and recognises the validity of the claim we are making. It would be a very great mistake for this Bill to leave us without having this Amendment in it. If it is proved to be inadequate later on, it can be added to, but it is quite certain that no one will want to take this provision out because, even if we accepted the undertaking to give further consideration during the next twelve months, the Chancellor would be bound to come down on our aide of the argument at the finish. He ought to accept the Amendment now, and remove the anxiety which exists in many quarters. It has been pointed out that by the time we get the next Finance Bill two years and more will have elapsed since the end of the war. Surely this is the time to tidy up these post-war complications.

I hope the Solicitor-General will have been moved by what has been said, though I am afraid that he is bound by the little sentence written on the piece of paper. If that is so, it would be quite possible for him to adjourn further consideration of this Clause and consult the Chancellor, if he can find him. There are still no signs of the Chancellor—.[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not far away."]. If he is not far away, it is an absolute outrage. If he is hiding behind the Chair and is visible to hon. Gentlemen opposite but not to me, it is treating the House with absolute contempt, and on these grounds alone we would be justified in taking a Division. However, it is not on those

grounds that I ask the House to support us, but because a valid argument has been made and because the time for the problem to be settled is now, and not 12 months hence.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 194.

Division No. 248] AYES [5.6 p.m.
Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) Gammans, L. D. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Amory, D. Heathcoat George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Glyn, Sir R. Pickthorn, K.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Gridley, Sir A. Pitman, I. J.
Astor, Hon. M. Grimston, R. V. Prescott, Stanley
Baxter, A. B. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Raikes, H. V.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Rayner, Brig. R.
Beechman, N. A. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Bennett, Sir P. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Birch, Nigel Hope, Lord J. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Boothby, R. Howard, Hon. A. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bowen, R. Hurd, A. Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Bower, N. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Ross, Sir R.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Savory, Prof. D. L.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Joynson-Hicks, Lt-Cdr. Hon. L. W Shephard, S. (Newark)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Keeling, E. H. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Langford-Holt, J. Smithers, Sir W.
Butcher, H. W. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R.A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Byers Lt.-Col. F. Lipson, D. L. Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Lucas, Major Sir J. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A (P'ddt'n, S.)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow) Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R. Teeling, William
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. O. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. McKinlay, A. S. Touche, G. C.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E. Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Turton, R. H.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Vane, W. M. T.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Manningham-Buller, R. E Wadsworth, G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Marlowe, A. A. H Walker-Smith, D.
Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W. Marples, A. E. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Drayson, Capt. G. B. Medlicott, F. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Mellor, Sir J. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S. Molson, A. H. E. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Eccles, D. M. Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester) York, C.
Fletcher, W. (Bury) Neven-Spence, Sir B Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone) Nicholson, G.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Orr-Ewing, I. L TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Osborne, C. Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme
Adams, Richard (Balham) Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Burke, W. A. Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Davies, Harold (Leek)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Callaghan, James Diamond, J.
Attewell, H. C. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Dobbie, W.
Austin, H. L. Chamberlain, R. A Dodds, N N.
Awbery, S. S. Champion, A. J. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. S. Chater, D. Dumpleton, C. W
Bacon, Miss A. Chetwynd, Capt. G. R Durbin, E. F. M.
Balfour, A. Clitherow, Dr. R. Dye, S
Barstow, P, G Cluse, W. S. Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Barton, C. Cobb, F. A. Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Battley, J. R Cocks, F. S. Follick, M.
Bechervaise, A. E. Coldrick, W. Foot, M. M.
Binns, J. Collindridge, F. Forman, J. C.
Bottomley, A, G. Collins, V. J. Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Colman, Miss G. M Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Comyns, Dr. L Gilzean, A.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Cook, T. F. Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Corlett, Dr. J Goodrich, H. E.
Brown, George (Belper) Crossman, R. H. S. Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Daggar, G. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Daines, P. Grenfell, D. R
Gunter, Capt. R. J. Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Guy, W. H. Monslow, W. Smith, T. (Normanton)
Hale, Leslie Montague, F. Snow, Capt. J. W.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Moody, A. S. Sorensen, R. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morgan, Dr. H. B. Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Hardy, E. A Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Sparks, J. A.
Harrison, J. Mort, D. L. Stamford, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Moyle, A. Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Haworth, J. Naylor, T. E. Swingler, S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Neal, H. (Claycross) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Hicks, G. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hobson, C. R. Noel-Buxton, Lady Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Holman, P, Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Palmer, A. M. F. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
House, G. Parker, J. Thorneycroft, H (Clayton)
Hoy, J. Parkin, Flt.-Lieut, B. T. Thurtle, E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Tiffany, S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Titterington, M. F.
Janner, B. Peart, Capt. T. F. Tolley, L.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Perrins, W. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Porter, G. (Leeds) Viant, S. P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pritt, D. N. Walkden, E.
Keenan, W Proctor, W. T. Walker, G. H.
Kenyon, C. Pursey, Cmdr. H Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)
Kinley, J. Randall, H. E. Warbey, W. N.
Kirby, B. V. Ranger, J. Weitzman, D.
Levy, B. W. Rees-Williams, D R. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton) Reeves, J. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Lewis, J. (Bolton) Reid, T. (Swindon) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
McAdam, W. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wilkes, Maj. L.
McEntee, V. La T. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wilkins, W. A.
McGhee, H. G. Rogers, G. H. R Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mack, J. D. Scollan, T Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
McLeavy, F. Shurmer, P. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Manning, G. (Camberwell, N.) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Willis, E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Simmons, C. J. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J
Martin, J. H Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Woods, G. S
Mathers, G. Skinnard, F. W.
Mayhew, C. P. Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir B. (Rotherhithe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Middleton, Mrs. L. Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bing.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)