HC Deb 21 June 1948 vol 452 cc1009-23

  1. (1) An individual by whom contribution is payable shall be able to discharge such payment or part thereof by offering nationalisation stock, and such stock shall be deemed to be valued at par for the purposes of such payment.
  2. (2) For the purposes of this section, nationalisation stock shall include any stocks issued in pursuance of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Transport Act, 1947, the Electricity Act, 1947, or any Gas Act passed in 1948.—[Mr. P. Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. Roberts

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

The effect of this new Clause, if it is put into the Bill, will be, briefly, that a person who has to pay a contribution under the special levy will be able to tender to the Treasury nationalisation stock, and that that stock shall be accepted as payment at par value. The House will recollect that in the nationalisation Measures which the House has passed it has been the intention of the Government, repeatedly expressed, to pay out to stockholders stock which should be valued at par, depending upon the conditions of interest and the dates of repayment. That happened in the Transport Act under Section 89 (2) and the Fifth Schedule. The doubt has been expressed from time to time from this side of the House, and it has been strongly rebutted by the Government, that there was some question of unfairness in the making up of these figures. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has given an assurance that under the Gas Bill, which is now going through Parliament, and which may become an Act during this year, that these stocks will be issued at par.

He said in the course of the Committee stage—I refer to c. 713—that he could give an assurance that there would be a reasonable rate of interest and a reasonable date for the stock. He repeated that assurance on the Report stage—c. 2213—when he said that he could not for a moment accept the assumption that the stock would sink to a discount. If that is the intention of the Government we are not far apart on this matter. I am suggesting to the House that what the Government issued at par should be taken back by them at the same rate of value.

There are three suggestions in relation to this new Clause which should commend it to the Government. First, it is a simple Clause; it is not a complicated Measure which has to be put into effect. Secondly, it is certainly a just one, whereby people having been paid out at one figure should be allowed to pay stock back to the Government at that figure. Thirdly, it will be an easy provision to work. Admittedly the Clause as it is now drafted would allow someone who had no part in nationalisation stocks before the vesting date to buy stock now in order to pay it back. That would no doubt have the effect of pushing the stock up to par very rapidly. The Government might say that this provision should apply only to people who had nationalisa- tion stock at the vesting date If the Government were to advance that argument I should be prepared to consider it.

The principle is quite clear. If this Clause is not put into the Bill what will be the effect of the Bill upon someone who before the vesting date had transport stock which was compulsorily taken away from him and he was given transport stock in its place? He had no control over that; his stock was compulsorily taken away from him by the Government. Now comes the Special Contribution, which he has compulsorily to pay. It may be that his transport stock is all he has got; he may have a large holding and nothing else. He will be forced to sell it compulsorily. It has been issued by the Government at one rate. Transport stock at present stands at 96¾ so that such a person would have to lose 3 per cent. discount on the transaction, in which he had no wish to participate. He will have been forced by the Government to participate in both cases. All I am asking is that we should have a fair arrangement in this matter and that we should, as far as possible, accede to the wishes of the Government.

During the Report stage of the Gas Bill the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated, in c. 2216, that the price paid to transport stockholders was fair. If so, surely it is fair that holders of transport stock should be allowed to hand it back to the Government. At the moment it is standing at roughly a 3 per cent. discount. That means that from the vesting date until now the stock has fallen in total by approximately £30 million. It has been alleged from this side of the House that the Government have made that amount of £30 million by issuing a stock which was not in fact at par when it was issued. The answer by the Government has always been, "You have no need to sell. You can hold on and if you do so you will at some time get par. You will certainly do so when it is redeemed." But that does not apply in the case I am posing, the case of someone who has to sell stock to pay the Special Contribution, and who is definitely faced with a loss.

I recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point that if he accepts this suggestion it will really be anti-inflationary; it will take out of circulation a certain amount of stock and put it into the hands of the Government. I have always maintained that the Special Contribution is an inflationary measure. I know the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have argued against that view on many occasions. Here is a case in which the money will come directly out of the revenue pool instead of having to go into it. For that reason this Clause should commend itself to the Government.

I admit that the wording of the Clause as it stands may not be the best possible. It may be that the Government can think out a better form of words. I am not arguing for a specific form of words; I am arguing the principle. I hope that the Government will state that they are prepared to stand by their promise—that where they issued something at par they will take it back at par, presuming that conditions are relatively the same. I believe that electricity stock has gone to par today or yesterday. So far so good, but that does not apply to transport stock. I am not asking for something whereby stockholders will be able to say, "Government securities as a whole have gone down and we can bolster up that argument, so to speak," although there are reasons why that might be considered by the Government. I am saying that where a stock has been issued at a specific date, and the general trend of Government securities has been more or less constant, it should be taken back at the rate at which it was issued.

Mr. Nigel Birch (Flint)

I beg to second the Motion.

In supporting the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), who so ably moved this Motion, I think it is important to realise that we are thinking about those holders of nationalisation stocks who are subject to the Special Contribution. They will in any case suffer because they are being assessed on incomes which in general they do not now enjoy. That is to say their incomes have been lowered by these nationalisation Measures, but they are being assessed on incomes which they now have not got, for the purpose of this Special Contribution. Therefore, they have already suffered one injustice. We feel it to be wrong that they should suffer a second one.

Clearly there is no question of the Government giving a long-term guarantee that they will be prepared to buy back such stocks as they issue, at par. That would obviously amount to altering the dates of issue of securities; it would be wrong and is not asked for. The reason I support this new Clause is that it tests the sincerity of the Government because they have said that this levy is "once only." If that is so, if it is once only, all we are asking is that over a very short period, a period which is highly relevant, someone should in fact get what the Government said they had given them, that is, fair compensation. My hon. Friend made a very strong point when he drew attention to the fact that holders of this stock may well be forced to sell and may well be forced to take less than what the Government themselves have said was a fair price.

My hon. Friend also raised the question of the difficulty that may arise because the holders are not all original holders of transport and other stock. There are perfectly good precedents for stock tenable at par being used for the payment of Death Duties. It would be perfectly reasonable in short-term—only once"—cases like this to make that condition apply, because it could be only once. It does not alter the conditions of the issue in any real degree. I would say that if this is not accepted an injustice is being done. On this whole matter it does seem that the attitude of the Government is, "We want to be fair, but really it is a case of heads I win and tails you lose," because that is how the thing is working out in all these holdings. Therefore, I hope that, for their own reputation, or such as they have left, the Government will accept this Clause.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay

The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) sought to support this Motion by arguing that holders of nationalised stock may be receiving a lower income today from their stock than before nationalisation. I think he fell into the error of forgetting that this is a charge on capital and not on income.

Mr. Birch

Oh.

Mr. Jay

Well, we take income as the measure of the assessment on what should be paid out of capital. Therefore, the fact that the income may be less, in return for which the holder has a higher valued security, is really quite irrelevant. We certainly cannot accept this Motion. There might be arguments for making a capital levy, particularly if it is a very large one, payable in securities if all securities were included. I have heard respectable arguments for that type of operation, but, whatever merits it might have, it certainly would not be anti-inflationary. I cannot accept that argument. If we leave cash in the hands of the public, rather than securities, that surely must be inflationary rather than anti-inflationary. What we could not possibly do is to select, arbitrarily, one small group of securities and say that those, and those alone, could be used in payment of tax. It is not even a question of all Government securities but of one very small group of Government securities. Even more objectionable would it be to adopt that device in the from which the hon. Member proposes, and to select a small number of already existing securities.

Mr. P. Roberts

The Economic Secretary talks about a small number. These have been given out compulsorily by the Government. Otherwise people have taken them up of their own free will, but these are the ones the Government have forced upon them.

Mr. Jay

That is quite irrelevant. Some of the holders would have bought them on the Stock Exchange since the original issue and would not have had them compulsorily handed to them at all. The application of this special privilege to these securities would enhance their value. It would give a special bonus to the contributor who happens to hold those securities, both because he might have to pay less and because the attraction of that privilege would tend to raise the price of the securities, and he has therefore an extended profit, when very likely he was not the original holder of the securities at all. I am sure, therefore, that whatever plan is adopted this would be almost the worst one of them all.

There would be a slightly stronger case for saying that certain securities should be issued in the first instance with the provision that they could be used in payment of tax. That was done at certain times during the first war. Hon. Members will recall that the Colwyn Report in 1927 came to the conclusion that that was a bad principle and that, though in the stress of war there might be something to be said for it, it was a practice which ought never to be repeated. We entirely agree with that conclusion.

Mr. Assheton

I hope I can persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think about this again. The case put by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) was a very strong one. I do not think that the Economic Secretary has done justice to it. In the first place we on this side of the House complained, I think with some justice, that stock that was issued to the holders of railway companies was issued at a price below par, and immediately dealt in below par, and it has never been possible to sell the stock at par. It is now more than 3 discount. I am happy to say that such a bad experience has not been suffered by the holders of electricity stock, which is at par. In fact, I think that today it has just risen above. Holders of railway stock have never been able on any occasion to get par for their stock and the full compensation which the Government considered to be just and adequate, and which we thought unjust and inadequate.

What this Clause seeks to do is to enable the holders of that stock—and my hon. Friend will be quite willing to limit it to the original holders—to be entitled to hand in this nationalised stock to the Revenue in payment of the Special Contribution. There is certainly simplicity and justice in that. I could not take the point which the Economic Secretary made in answer to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint that the holders of this railway stock received a larger income last year than they are receiving from transport stock this year. The holder of L.M.S. ordinary stock last year received a dividend of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. He received I think less than 30 per cent, of his capital value for his stock, and he is going to get an income of a quarter or a fifth of last year. Yet his capital is to be based on the basis of the income he received last year, because in his return on which this Special Contribution is to be based the income will be shown which he received from the railway company when he was receiving the much higher rate. When the calcula- tion is made, it is based on the income received last year. The man may have received £100 last year from the railway stock and this year is to receive only £20. His capital depends on what it is worth now, and the income of £100 he received last year is no measure whatever of the capital. Yet the hon. Gentleman argued just now that since it is capital with which we are concerned and not income, it was a good reason for refusing to accept this new Clause. I do not know whether he has any further development to that argument, but as he put it, it did not seem to me to carry us anywhere at all.

I do not think that there is anything objectionable in allowing a stock which is now standing at a small discount to be used for this purpose at par. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the stock might rise some considerable degree in consequence of this new advantage. Of course, it would not rise above par if the proposal were accepted, because the par value is the value at which it could be surrendered. If it rose above par, people would not surrender it, any more than people now surrender Victory Bonds which were frequently used in the past in payment of Death Duties. This is a fair and reasonable demand. If the Government are right in saying that they gave fair compensation to railway stockholders, let them take back that stock in payment of their debt. If what they issued was not good value for money, let them explain to the country why they issued stock which was not of proper value.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

There were two interesting points in the speech of the Economic Secretary. He said that this argument regarding loss of income did not apply and that this was a levy on capital. How often have the Government hopped from one position to another on this matter. During the long Committee stage, at one point this Special Contribution was a levy on income; at another it was a levy on capital. For the purpose of resisting this reasonable new Clause, the hon. Gentleman has taken to what I would call the capital leg of his argument. He said that it would be the worst possible plan to suggest that the Government's stocks issued at 100 are worth that price. That is a remark which, surely, will not go unnoticed in financial circles. Then he entirely by-passed the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), who said that he realised that there might be difficulties owing to stock changing hands and that he was quite prepared for that, because it could be confined to the original holders at the time of issue. That would get past one of the main objections of the hon. Gentleman.

There is a perfect precedent for this suggestion. Victory Bonds have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). At one time Victory Bonds stood at a discount infinitely more severe than that of these nationalisation stocks. At the time when the late Mr. Horatio Bottomley got into trouble with his Victory Clubs, in the year 1920 or 1922, Victory Bonds stood in the vicinity of 77 and could then be surrendered for Death Duty purposes at par. In due course, under the wise administration of Mr. Neville Chamberlain they climbed, crossed par, and now stand at a premium, as they have done for many years. But during the time when they stood at a discount, the fact that Victory Bonds were available for surrender at par for Death Duty purposes acted as a stimulus to them. They were heavily bought by people for that purpose.

The Government are losing a great opportunity here. This is a great chance to introduce an atmosphere of cheer into the depressed and declining market of nationalisation stocks—this sombre picture which one sees. Surely, to accept this most reasonable suggestion would act as a spur to the nationalisation stocks. We understand that the Government have other stocks to issue in time. What a good thing it would be, as a method of stimulating the market, if they accepted this suggestion. For whatever reason the Clause is resisted by the Government, one would like to see a little more consistency. I have not the slightest doubt that we shall find, as we go through this Report stage, that the Economic Secretary or the Chancellor already has a brief at hand to deal with some later question and that he will say, "But this is not a levy on capital at all. This deals with income and the hon. Member opposite is quite wrong in adducing those arguments." Let the Government make up their minds on which leg they intend to stand. I suggest that the acceptance of this new Clause would not only be administratively workable but valuable to them in their future financial transactions.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. McKie

I hope that even at this late stage the Economic Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think again and see the wisdom of this reasonable and moderate proposal. I hope that this Debate will be fully reported in the Press, because those affected, and indeed the investing public as a whole, will take their action on this matter as an earnest of the Government's good faith for the future. It was evident when the Transport Bill was going through its various stages in this House that the outside public was seriously disturbed as to the intentions of the Government with regard to this matter. Their point of view was most carefully made during the Committee stage of that Bill upstairs. I am sorry that the Bill was not taken on the Floor of the House. Their point of view was very much reinforced in Debate when that Measure came to be considered on Report. What has happened since to the Transport Stock has only confirmed our worst fears.

That was why, when the Gas Bill was considered upstairs in Committee and when it came back to this House for the Report stage, we made even more strenuous efforts to safeguard the investing public. I am glad that one of my hon. Friends stressed the point that the holders of Transport Stock would be the most heavily hit if our reasonable proposal that the surrender at par value of these stocks as part of the Special Contribution is not agreed to by the Government. The Economic Secretary avoided answering that argument. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) quoting the unfortunate position of the holders of L.M.S. ordinary stocks. I would supplement his remarks by pointing out that there are many in this country who have large holdings in the L.M.S. preference issues. The old 4 per cent. preference issue of that railway company had a capital of something like £118 million invested in it. Then there was a more junior stock issued by that company which, I think, always paid the full rate of interest. There were large numbers of holders of that stock, many of them quite small personages. The larger issue of £118 million was taken over at 85 and the holders had, perforce, to receive 3 per cent. on the depreciated value of the original issue.

That, by itself, is clear confirmation of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, but there was the junior issue which was taken over at 62. Holders of that stock suffered a diminution of 40 per cent. on their capital and 60 per cent. on their income. Allowing even for the more fortunate holders of other railway issues who had their capital taken over at a higher figure, there have been some very heavy losers indeed. The point has been made repeatedly that never once has the new Transport Stock stood at par value. It has always been at 3 per cent. discount. Over and over again the Government have assured us—and through us the investing public—that they desired to see a fair deal in this matter. We pressed them to give a fair deal when the various Bills were going through this House, and we have never been able to obtain any concession. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to live up to his words—and I know he is a man of the highest rectitude—here is a golden opportunity for him to make a small concession which will enable large numbers of people to meet their obligations in a fair way.

It would be all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that these, after all, are small investors, and they will get other sources of revenue which will bring up their income, so that he cannot accept the plea on behalf of the

spinster or widow. I am speaking about many people whose income may be over £2,000, but who have only small capital holdings which they hope to hand over to those who come after them. Perhaps the Chancellor thinks that this is a wrong principle, but surely he would not wish that these people, who have only small capital reserves, should be penalised by having to hand them over? They may all be in Transport Stock, and, if so, they will be the heaviest losers. I hope he will be able to accept the new Clause on behalf of these people, but, if he remains obdurate, I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will take this matter into the Division Lobby, when I will certainly give the new Clause my vote.

Mr. P. Roberts

With the leave of the House, may I say that I am particularly disappointed that the Government will not accept the new Clause, as it mentions any Gas Act that may be passed in 1948. Just about the time that this Gas Stock will come out, will be the time when people are paying this Contribution. They will find that, when the Gas Stock is at a discount, the Government will not be prepared to accept it. This shows that the Government are not prepared to stand by their bond, and I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will go into the Lobby in support of the new Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 223.

Division No. 231.] AYES. [6.53 p.m.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Duthie, W. S. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Eccles, D. M. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Astor, Hon. M. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Lipson, D. L.
Baldwin, A. E. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Bennett, Sir P. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Low, A. R. W.
Birch, Nigel Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Lucas, Major Sir J.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Bower, N. Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Gammans, L. D. Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G. Grimston, R. V. Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Butcher, H. W. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Byers, Frank Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Challen, C. Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Clarke, Col. R. S. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hogg, Hon. Q. Marlowe, A. A. H.
Crowder, Capt. John E. Hollis, M. C. Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Mellor, Sir J.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Howard, Hon. A. Molson, A. H. E.
De la Bère, R. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Digby, S. W. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Keeling, E. H. Nicholson, G.
Donner, P. W. Kendall, W. D. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Grayson, G. B. Kerr, Sir J. Graham O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Drewe, C. Lambert, Hon G. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond) Langford-Holt, J. Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Pickthorn, K. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Vane, W. M. F.
Pitman, I. J. Savory, Prof. D. L. Ward, Hon. G. R.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow) Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Price-White, Lt-.Col. D. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Ramsay, Maj. S. Spearman, A. C. M. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Rayner, Brig. R. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) Studholme, H. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Sutcliffe, H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Robinson, Roland Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Commander Agnew and
Ropner, Col. L. Turton, R. H. Major Conant.
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Fairhurst, F. Moody, A. S.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Fernyhough, E. Morley, R.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Follick, M. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Alpass, J. H. Foot, M. M. Moyle, A.
Attewell, H. C. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Murray, J. D.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Austin, H. Lewis Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ayles, W. H. Goodrich, H. E. Noel-Buxton, Lady
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Palmer, A. M. F.
Balfour, A. Grenfell, D. R. Parkin, B. T.
Barstow, P. G. Grey, C. F. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Barton, C. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Pearson, A.
Battley, J. R. Gunter, R. J. Peart, T. F.
Bechervaise, A. E. Guy, W. H. Popplewell, E.
Belcher, J. W. Hale, Leslie Porter, E. (Warrington)
Benson, G. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Porter, G. (Leeds)
Berry, H. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Price, M. Philips
Beswick, F. Hardy, E. A. Pritt, D. N.
Bing, G. H. C. Harrison, J. Proctor, W. T.
Blenkinsop, A. Herbison, Miss M. Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Blyton, W. R. Hicks, G. Randall, H. E.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Hobson, C. R. Ranger, J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Holman, P. Rees-Williams, D. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Reeves, J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Horabin, T. L. Reid, T. (Swindon)
Bramall, E. A. House, G. Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Hoy, J. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Brown, George (Belper) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Rogers, G. H. R.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Royle, C.
Burden, T. W. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Scott-Elliot, W.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Jay, D. P. T. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Callaghan, James Jeger, G. (Winchester) Sharp, Granville
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Champion, A. J. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Simmons, C. J.
Chater, D. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Skinnard, F. W.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Cobb, F. A. Keenan, W. Snow, J. W.
Cocks, F. S. Key, C. W. Solley, L. J.
Collins, V. J. Kinley, J. Sorensen, R. W.
Colman, Miss G. M. Kirby, B. V. Soskice, Sir Frank
Comyns, Dr. L. Lang, G. Sparks, J. A.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J. Steele, T.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Lee, F. (Hulme) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Cove, W. G. Leslie, J. R. Stross, Dr. B.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Lewis, J. (Bolton) Stubbs, A. E.
Daggar, G. Lindgren, G. S. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Daines, P. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Sylvester, G. O.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Longden, F. Symonds, A. L.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Lynn, A. W. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek) McEntee, V. La T. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGhee, H. G. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Deer, G. McGovern, J. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Mack, J. D. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Delargy, H. J. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Thurtle, Ernest
Dodds, N. N. McLeavy, F. Tolley, L.
Driberg, T. E. N. Macpherson, T. (Romford) Turner-Samuels, M.
Dumpleton, C. W. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Dye, S. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Viant, S. P.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mann, Mrs. J. Walker, G. H.
Edelman, M. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Edwards, John (Blackburn) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Warbey, W. N.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Mellish, R. J. Watkins, T. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Messer, F. Weitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Middleton, Mrs. L. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Mikardo Ian West, D. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Mitchison, G. R. Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Ewart, R. Monslow, W. White C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston) Zilliacus, K.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Wilkins, W. A. Woods, G. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland) Wyatt, W. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) Yates, V. F. Mr. Hannan.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan) Young, Sir R. (Newton)