HC Deb 02 July 1947 vol 439 cc1455-69

10.32 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

I beg to move, That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1182), dated 16th June, 1947, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which order was presented on 18th June, be approved. Although the time is getting on, I think that hon. Members would like me to say a few words about this Purchase Tax Order for which we seek assent tonight. All road vehicles designed to carry passengers, with certain exceptions, were made subject to the incidence of Purchase Tax at the basic rate under Schedule 7 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1940. Trams were exempted, and so were buses and trolley-buses, perambulators, ambulances, char-a-bancs, and invalid carriages. Goods vehicles, as distinct from passenger-carrying vehicles have always been exempt from the charge, and the difficulty has always been to know exactly what came under the definitions laid down by the Act to which I have referred. There is the vehicle which can be described as a goods vehicle, wholly or mainly used for the carriage of goods. There is the vehicle of another type, wholly or mainly used for the carriage of passengers; and the estate vehicle, or shooting brake, springs immediately to mind as one which is difficult to describe either as a passenger vehicle or a goods vehicle.

Such vehicles are at present free of the tax, but I think that the Committee will agree that to ride in a shooting brake, although not technically a passenger vehicle, is to ride as comfortably as one would travel in some passenger cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anyway, the fact remains that there is a gap, and it is the intention of this Order to close that gap, because the incidence or non-incidence of Purchase Tax on a vehicle amounts to some hundreds of pounds. That being so, it is desirable that where you have a vehicle which is—I will not say evading the law, because that would be incorrect—but which, though it is described as a goods vehicle, is used almost entirely as a passenger vehicle, it should be liable to Purchase Tax. At present it escapes that tax because of the law as it stands.

Since notice was given that we intended to present this Order to the House for approval, certain representations have been made to the Treasury by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. They have pointed out to us, and we agree with them, that the definition in the Order may catch a type of vehicle, or types of vehicles, which frankly we do not want to catch. The Order applies to vehicles which have, behind the driver, roofed-in space and side windows, and can seat passengers. Quite a number of vehicles —for instance hearses—can be described as roofed vehicles which have side windows. Therefore, there are vehicles other than shooting brakes which might be caught by this definition.

We are fully alive to the fact that this definition may not be quite watertight. It may be necessary, in order to exempt vehicles which properly should be exempted as goods vehicles, to make Orders subsequently which will name and define them. We are fully alive to the fact that there are certain types of vehicle which may be caught; I do not say they will be caught, but experience may show that they are caught under Schedule I giving of the definition in this Order. If this proves to be so, the Government are willing to come back at some future time and ask for the approval of a subsequent Order which will say that a certain type of vehicle which should properly be excluded is excluded. Finally, I should say that this Order has been before the Select Committee, and that they have no adverse comment to make upon it.

10.39 P.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Order, seemed in his closing observations to admit that the wording of it is faulty, and to indicate that if it is accepted by the House now it cannot be many weeks before amending Orders have to be introduced. The first point I want to make is that the Motion on the Order Paper is entitled "Purchase Tax (Charges) (Shooting brakes and similar vehicles)." Then the Motion goes on that the Purchase Tax Order made by the Treasury "be approved." I must confess that I do not understand how these words, "shooting brakes and similar vehicles," come to be in the title. There is no reference to shooting brakes in the Order before the House, and these words are of no validity whatever. There are simply put on the Order Paper, I imagine, to give the House some enlightenment as to the matter which is going to be discussed. But when one comes to look at the Order one finds that shooting brakes are, in fact, not mentioned and that the proposal before the House is to tax what are known in the trade, and to the public, as utility vehicles. I must confess that I begin to wonder why the phrase "shooting brakes" has been introduced into our proceedings at all.

I imagine that it is just an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers to have a pot shot at "the squire and his relations." That is all it amounts to, because anyone who is familiar with the use to which these utility vehicles are put knows perfectly well, that not I per cent. of these so-called utility vehicles are used as shooting brakes at all. There are very few citizens left in this country today who can afford shooting brakes, in any event, and if a vehicle is used as a shooting brake, it is only used, at the maximum, for 10 or 20 per cent. of its time in that capacity. These vehicles are, in fact, used as to 90 per cent. of the whole of their time in carrying commercial goods. These are, so far as user is concerned, commercial vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman said, explaining the principle of the Finance Act, 1940, which introduced the Purchase Tax upon passenger vehicles, that the whole purpose of the Act was to exempt from the scope of the tax commercial and goods vehicles

The old definition on which the law has been founded hitherto is that vehicles are taxed if they are constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers. It is quite proper that the test in this matter should be the purpose for which the vehicle is constructed. You obviously cannot apply the test of what the vehicle is used for, because all sorts of vehicles today, in the present shortage of motor vehicles, are used for all kinds of purposes. The test must obviously be the purpose for which the vehicle has been constructed, and that under which we have worked for the last seven years has been, was the vehicle constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers? That test obviously hits the London taxicab, for example. It is constructed mainly, although it has a platform for the carriage of goods, for the carriage of passengers. It is quite clear that the main purpose of these utility vehicles is commercial and the carriage of goods. They are, for example, limited by the Road Traffic Act to a speed of 30 m.p.h. The courts have held time and time again that these are, in fact, goods vehicles, and that anybody who exceeds 30 m.p.h. in one of them is breaking the law. Therefore, so far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, these are goods vehicles. There is no doubt about that at all.

Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says he wishes to impose a Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. upon them from 30th June. We think that it is a bad proposal for a variety of reasons For one thing, it plays ducks and drakes with the motor industry. Our motor industry does a big export trade in vehicles of this character. It is a growing trade which ought to be encouraged. It is perfectly true that vehicles for the export trade do not carry Purchase Tax, but any effort in the export trade must be based upon a sound home market. There is an immense demand for this type of vehicle in the home market at the present time. Its principal use, I believe, is upon the farm. This tax, therefore, is not only a blow to the motor industry but a blow to the agricultural interests. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the hearse would come under this definition, as I understood him—

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I believe I said that while it would be suggested perhaps that the definition would cover a hearse as having side windows, but a hearse is not constructed for the carriage of passengers.

Mr. Peake

That is precisely the purpose for which a hearse has been designed. Let me read the new definition which the right hon. Gentleman proposes should be substituted for the old. The old one was really quite simple: "Is the vehicle constructed solely or mainly for the purpose of carrying passengers?" It was not very difficult for anyone to decide that. The new definition is: Road vehicles (whether mechanically propelled or not) having, to the rear of the driver's seat, roofed accommodation lit by-side windows. That is the first part of the definition. But there is a further condition: and fitted with, or constructed or adapted for, the fitting of, seating for passengers. The right hon. Gentleman would say that people travelling in hearses do not sit. But who knows, or who can say, whether the roofed accommodation—these are words which the following words qualify —is to be fitted or constructed or adapted for the seating of passengers. It seems very funny to me that roofed accommodation should be adapted for seating, but all that appears to be affected by the definition here provided. Let me take another example. Take the Black Maria, used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, for the conveyance of passengers—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

Used on behalf of—not by.

Mr. Peake

—in a seated position, about various parts of the Metropolis. How is the Black Maria affected by this new definition? It all seems to turn upon whether or not it has side windows to the rear of the driver's seat. The right hon. Gentleman's Black Maria may have a window at the back. It can have a window at the front, but if it has windows on the side, Purchase Tax is forthwith payable. This Order is ridiculous in itself and in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is able to make it achieve anything, it will deal a blow to the motor industry, to the agricultural industry, and to a great many small commercial people who make use of these vehicles for the conveyance of goods. For those reasons we shall oppose this Order.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)

I hope that the House will reject this Order. I suppose I ought to declare my interest. I possess one of these vehicles and when it wears out I must acquire another.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify the point. One of what does he possess— Black Maria, hearse, or shooting brake?

Mr. Eccles

I possess a utility van which is occasionally used as a shooting brake. The main use of such vehicles, so far as the agricultural industry is concerned, is to go to the station and collect things that have come down quickly or—which is a growing use—to carry men about from one holding to another on a farm. In our county the weather is very patchy, and when one has to stop work on a field of hay in one part, one can get on with it elsewhere. These vehicles are a godsend to the farmer. I am told by the Rootes Group—and I think it is correct—that they have 3,000 such vehicles on order from farmers. If that is correct, and I am sure it is, the right hon. Gentleman must see that they are in a large measure an instrument for the production of food.

We began the Finance Bill in Committee by removing the tax on kerosene because it was an impediment to the production of food. Now we are putting a tax on another instrument of food production. I agree that these vehicles are sometimes used as passenger vehicles. Mine has been seen in Palace Yard, but that is because my car had broken down. I came to London in it and used it as a passenger vehicle, but only because I could not get another car. When I can, I certainly will not bring a Ford V.8 from Wiltshire to the House of Commons because it is most expensive in petrol. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to weigh this thing up. How much does he consider this type of vehicle is used in substitution for the passenger car, and how much does he think it is used as an instrument of production? It is mainly used, to my knowledge, as an instrument for the production of food. We shall have plenty of opportunity of speaking on this next week.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, when our imports are in danger, is it really sensible to put a tax on the one kind of vehicle which is of immense use in economising labour on the farm? That is what these vehicles are used for. I cannot think the Chancellor of the Exchequer really has taken the food situation into consideration. I cannot believe that he has gone to the manufacturers and asked them who are the people who have their names on their orders. If he had I believe he would have the same information as I have, namely, that it is the farmer who is largely interested in the use of these vehicles.

In conclusion I want to emphasise what my right hon. Friend said. This is rather a new kind of vehicle. When one goes abroad, especially in the European countries—and I am here thinking particularly of Portugal—it is obvious that this is the sort of vehicle which will sell very readily abroad. If it is to be developed in competition with the Ford station wagon that is being pushed over from America all the time, we must have good production lines at home. Otherwise, our prices will not be in competition with the Ford. It is fair to say that our manufacturers realise that this is a new and expanding market. That being so, I consider it a second and powerful reason for rejecting this order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has got permission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the order away so that it does not hit the agricultural industry here or the export trade. I hope he will do this. This is not a question of foreign politics. It is a silly thing that the Government are trying to do, and they ought not to do it.

10.55 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I would like also to urge the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to go into this question again with his right hon. Friend. It is not really worthy of him to introduce prejudice in this way by putting shooting brakes on the Order Paper when the order does not mention them at all. To find the reason why these things are called shooting brakes we have to go back many years. They are not mainly used for that purpose at all. The word has become used in a similar way to which "Gouties" is used for goloshes. When I went into a' shop the other day for overshoes I asked for "gouties" which is now a word in our language. "Shooting brakes" has become a sort of phrase in the language, but 90 per cent. of them are not used for that purpose at all. They are utility vehicles, and I cannot see why the Government should depart from the usual practice of making utility goods available to the public free of Purchase Tax.

These vehicles are not passenger vehicles at all. The Financial Secretary said that people could drive about in them. I suggest to him that he comes along and tries to drive about in one of them with a farmer the way that I have. They have very hard seats and are most uncomfortable. They go into all sorts of queer places and I am quite certain that he would not drive about in one for very long. They are used in the capacity of emergency vehicles on the farms and farmers are very concerned about this proposed move by the Government. In the old days when a second-hand car could be bought for a few pounds, the farmer bought one to do all these odd jobs and go into all these queer places. Today the farmer cannot buy a cheap second-hand car, for we all know the price of second-hand cars. The farmers are ordering these utility vehicles in large numbers for general farm work, and they use them for, amongst other things, carrying men about from one place to another. They are utility vehicles, and moving men about from one place to another is part of the daily work.

To suggest that there is no market for these vehicles overseas is quite wrong. At the present moment, one of the larger manufacturers is making tools for a special steel body to be produced in large quantities with a view to making a big effort to get into the market which has been referred to as the Ford station wagon market. Manufacturers are seriously concerned at the moment—and I have no doubt they told this to the Chancellor when they saw him and put their case before him—as to whether they dare go on with it under these conditions, because, as I have already pointed out, we have to ensure our overseas market by having a model we can sell at home. I suggest that not only will this Order do harm to overseas trade, but it will be a great hardship to, and to the disadvantage of, the farming community. The people who use these vehicles are those who cannot get other vehicles, and I think we should. consider them in this matter when we remember that 60 per cent. of the vehicles which we are producing are going overseas. Naturally people travel about in these vehicles, but I have explained the reasons why. This Order is unworthy of the Chancellor, apart altogether from the fact that it is badly worded. For instance, an ambulance cannot be used under this order. True,-sometimes there are stretchers in them, but on other occasions the stretchers are taken out of them and nurses are carried in them. I hope the Order will be withdrawn and that we shall never hear of it again.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Asterley Jones (Hitchin)

I was rather disappointed at the explanation which the Financial Secretary gave of the necessity for this Order. I imagined that he would tell the House that there had been widespread abuse of this ex- emption of utility vehicles from Purchase Tax through people buying them and using them purely and simply as private vehicles. He has not told us so, and I should like to know if there is any evidence that there is widespread misuse of vehicles by people who have no connection with farming, any other industry or any trade at all. If, in point of fact, these vehicles are being used by farmers and by business people for carrying their goods, there seems to be no case for subjecting them to Purchase Tax. There is one further point I would like to make. The Financial Secretary said that he was aware of the fact that there were other vehicles which might be caught under the language of this Order, but which the Treasury did not intend to catch. I would like to impress on him that there are certain types of refuse collectors which have a small compartment behind the driver's seat, and lit by windows at the side, for the men to travel in as they go from one street to another. On this Order, as worded, these refuse collectors, to the great detriment of local authorities, would also become liable to tax.

11.2 p.m.

Brigadier Mackeson (Hythe)

I happen to have one of these vehicles outside.

Mr. W. Wells

Refuse collectors?

Brigadier Mackeson

I happen to have a utility vehicle outside. I happen also to be a farmer. These vehicles happen to be made in my constituency. Therefore I am very interested in this matter and I am a little surprised that the courtesy has not been extended to me by the Chancellor of being asked to put forward the case for the company concerned. This particular vehicle, which is called a utility vehicle, is a most practical vehicle. I have myself in the last few days carried oats and furniture in one, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a most uncomfortable vehicle to use for passengers. I have been using one for the past two or three days because my car has been out of action. I had the impertinence, quite inadvertently, to take this vehicle into Hyde Park, and was turned out by a policeman and told that it was a trade vehicle. I have also been stopped when travelling at 30 m.p.h. because, I was told, the back of the vehicle was not sealed. This type of vehicle can be very useful for export. I consider the solution would be to charge half the Purchase Tax on them. I feel that this order has been rather bounced upon us, and that we have not had time to consider its implications. I hope very much the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it. These vehicles are being ordered in very large numbers. His Majesty has ordered three, and a very large number are going overseas to the Colonies and Dominions. They certainly cannot be called passenger vehicles.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I listened carefully to what has been said on both sides of the House, and the more I listened the more my feeling grew that in presenting this Order my right hon. Friend was doing the right thing. Nothing that has been said in the course of this short Debate has shaken the view of the Treasury that this Order should be made. It is true that a number of speeches were directed to the fact that many of these vehicles are used on farms and for agricultural purposes. There is nothing in this Order to prevent that use. It is easy for this type of vehicle not to have side windows, and if it has not, it will not attract the tax. Two hon. Members have admitted that when their own cars were out of order, they used these vehicles as passenger vehicles, and, frankly, it is unfair to the motor vehicle industry that people—and I can assure my hon. Friend behind me who spoke a few minutes ago that this is a growing practice—should buy these vehicles and save several hundreds of pounds, and then at their own expense transmute them into fairly comfortable passenger vehicles. It is true that the normal shooting brake is pretty hard to sit in on rough roads on an estate, but these "utility" vehicles can be made fairly comfortable vehicles, and I am sure the House will agree that this evasion should be prevented. That is all we want to do here.

I would now like to say something on the fact that on the Order Paper the words "shooting brake" were put in brackets in the title. Now right hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear me out—and one of them occupied the position I now hold— that this is quite a usual thing. It is not done to excite prejudice, but simply to explain to the House the main type of vehicle, goods or materials to which the Order in question is directed, and "shooting brake" does mean in the minds of almost everyone a particular type of vehicle. They are not thinking of "the squire" or of someone going shooting, but of a particular type of vehicle, and the purpose of the wording was no other than to explain briefly to the House the type of vehicle we had in mind when we put down this order. A friend of mine further along the Front Bench, when he heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite talking about "the squire," and saying this was an effort to prejudice him, composed the following couplet: God bless the squire and his relations, And let us away to our railway stations. And if the inclusion of the term "shooting brake" has kept them away from their railway stations, I am sorry. Nevertheless, that was the reason. Black Marias do attract Purchase Tax, but they are vehicles produced solely and mainly for the carriage of passengers, and therefore my right hon. Friend—if ever he has the bad luck—will find himself riding in a vehicle subject to Purchase Tax.

Mr. Peake

Have they got side windows?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I believe they have not. I have never ridden in one myself. I would also say to the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) that ambulances are now, in fact, exempt.

Therefore, I must ask the House to accept this because though, as the House will recollect, all taxation is obnoxious— there is no need for me to argue that— yet taxation has to be borne by individuals and levied in certain directions. At the moment one of the directions is on certain classes of motor vehicles. By general consent of the House over a large number of years, goods vehicles have been exempt, and with the approval of the House we propose to continue this exemption. Certain other types, such as ambulances and invalid carriages, are also exempt, but passenger-carrying vehicles

have borne Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. What we are doing in this Order is to close—as I have tried to explain—a gap which is undoubtedly there, of which certain people have taken advantage, but we are very anxious to exclude the bona fidegoods-carrying vehicle. As I said frankly in my opening speech, we have great difficulty in finding a definition. We shall possibly find, in spite of trying to choose words, that certain types of utility vehicles which it is desired to exempt will be caught up. If that is so, I have to tell the House that later on we will very willingly, after consultation with the trade association concerned, come to the House and ask it to agree to another Order which will let out the particular vehicles, which we are all agreed should not be covered by this Order.

Brigadier Mackeson

I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider my suggestion that half the Purchase Tax should be charged on these vehicles. I quite realise that these borderline cases are very difficult to decide. I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would consider this, because it would help both the trade and the farmers concerned.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Most certainly, but the House must remember that the mere fact that people are carrying on a farm and using that particular type of vehicle should not exempt them. They could use an ordinary motor car for work on a farm and might claim that because it is used on agricultural work, it should be exempted.

Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)

I have a constituent who is a rural dentist, and he proposes to use one of these vehicles to carry about a dental machine and a dental mechanic. Is that an ambulance?

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 52.

Division No. 293.] AYES. [11.13 p.m
Adams, Richard (Balham) Brook, D (Halifax) Comyns, Dr. L.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Brown, George (Belper) Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Brown, T J. (Ince) Corlett, Dr. J.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Buchanan, G Crossman, R. H. S
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Burden, T. W Daggar, G.
Baird, J. Burke, W. A. Delargy, H. J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Diamond, J.
Beswick, F. Callaghan, james Dodds, N. N.
Blenkinsop, A. Champion, A. J Driberg, T. E. N.
Blyton, W. R Coldrick, W. Dumpleton, C. W.
Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'pt, Exch'ge) Collindridge, F. Durbin, E. F. M.
Braddock, T. (Milcham) Collins, V. J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lang, G. Robens, A.
Fairhurst, F. Lavers, S. Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Follick, M. Lee, F. (Hulme) Soollan, T.
Foot, M. M. Leonard, W. Sharp, Granville
Forman, J. C. Lyne, A. W. Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Foster, W. (Wigan) McKinlay, A. S. Shawcross, Rt. Hr Sir H. (St. Helens)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Maclean, N. (Govan) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) McLeavy, F. Smith, S. H. (Hu'l S.W.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Snow, Capt. J. W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Mathers, G. Sparks, J. A.
Gibbins, J. Middieton, Mrs. L. Steele, T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Mitchison, G. R. Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)
Gunter, R. J. Monslow, W. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Guy, W. H. Moody, A. S. Thomas, IO. (Wrekin)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Morley, R, Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Hall, W. G. Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Nally, W. Usborne, Henry
Hardy, E A. Neal, H. (Claycross) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Weitzman, D.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwiok) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Hewitson, Capt. M. O'Brien, T. West, D. G.
Holman, P. Oliver, G. H. WhiteIey, Rt. Hon. W.
Hoy, J. Orbach, M. Wilkes, L.
hubbard, T. Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Wilkins, W. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Palmer, A. M. F. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Pearson, A. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) Peart, Thomas F. Willis, E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Popplewell, E. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Janner, B. Price, M. Philips Woods, G. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Pritt, D. N. Yates, V. F.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Proctor, W. T. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Pryde, D. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ranger, J, TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Kenyon, C. Reid, T. (Swindon) Mr. Michael Stewart and
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. Rhodes, H. Mr. Simmons.
Kinley, J. Richards, R
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Nield, B. (Chester)
Bennett, Sir P. Hogg, Hon. (J. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Hollis, M. C. Prescott, Stanley
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hope, Lord J. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G. Jennings, R Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bullock, Capt. M. Keeling, E. H. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Langford-Holt, J. Stoddart-Scott, Col M
Crowder, Capt. John E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Lucas, Major Sir J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Drayson, G. B. Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Teeling, William
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Riohmond) Mackeson, Brig. H R. Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Eccles, D. M. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Touche, G. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon, Walte: Manningham-Buller, R. E. Vane, W. M. F.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Marlowe, A. A. H. Wheatley, Colonel M J
Gage, C. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D Maude, J. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Grimston, R. V. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Mr. Studholme and
Hannan, Sir P. (Moseley) Neven-Spence, Sir B, Major Ramsay.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1182), dated 16th June, 1947, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th June, be approved.