§ Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)
I beg to move, in page 16, line 32, to leave out from "to," to "any," in line 33.
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in line 34, after "1947–48,"to insert:and passed before the passing of this Act.The point which is raised here is constitutional rather than financial. It arises out of the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker on the Report stage of the Gas Bill. The House may remember that one Clause of that Bill purported to impose a charge of Income Tax on certain payments to be made under that Bill, which would not in themselves be income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts. It was necessary, therefore, if they were to be treated as income so to provide in some statutory Measure, and it was in fact provided in Clause 34—now Clause 35—of the Gas Bill. I have no complaint about the fact that the payments in question were to be subjected to a charge of Income Tax, which in itself was all quite proper. My point arises out of the point of Order which I raised with Mr. Speaker on that occasion, that the Clause purported to impose a charge of Income Tax and was not supported by a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. In reply, Mr. Speaker gave a carefully considered Ruling, the relevant part of it for present purposes being as follows:Consequently the effective provision for imposing Income Tax on these payments has to be made by the Finance Bill, and Clause 24 (2) of the Finance (No. 2) Bill does, in fact, impose tax on these payments by reference to the present Gas Bill.1162 Mr. Speaker then said:There is nothing unprecedented in this form of procedure; it was adopted without objection in the comparable cases of the Transport Act and the Electricity Act, and also in other cases affecting the incidence of the tax, which occurred in advance of the imposition of the tax itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th June, 1948, Vol. 451, c. 2192–3.]The result of Mr. Speaker's Ruling is that the Clause I am now seeking to amend, as it is a taxing provision, taxes by reference to what is stated in the Gas Bill. It will be seen that the words I seek to delete refer not only to the Gas Bill, but also to any Bill relating to agriculture during the present Session, or to any other enactment taking effect after the year 1947–48.
Although taxing by reference is not a particularly desirable thing, I do not wish at the present time to take exception to that aspect of this Clause. It may be that there are occasions when legislation by reference is the most convenient way of doing what is required. What I am objecting to here is the principle that it is possible to tax by reference to an instrument which is not yet in existence. I have no objections to taxing by reference to an existing instrument, whether it is an Act of Parliament, an Order or any other instrument, but it seems wholly wrong to do so by the terms of some document which is not in existence, or which is still liable to be amended either here or in another place.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give an illustration. Under the Wills Act, a person making a will is required to do so in a very particular manner. He has to sign the will in the presence of two witnesses, and they have to witness it in the present of each other. The purpose of that is to prevent anything in the nature of a fraud. A person making a will may include in it a reference to an existing 1163 document or an existing settlement. That is perfectly valid, because the terms of an existing document can be ascertained; but he is not allowed to make reference to a document he intends to make after the date of the will, for the very good reason that if he were allowed to do so he could avoid the stringent provisions of the Wills Act. For example, if he could say that property was to be left in accordance with a list he would make after the will, the door would be open to abuse or fraud. That is an illustration of my argument.
The Constitution provides that a taxing Measure has to follow a very special procedure, and that procedure has been worked out in the course of centuries and designed for the protection of the subject. Before the subject can be charged, legislation has to pass through a particular form, which requires the prior approval of a Resolution of Ways and Means, and it seems to me that we should not allow the Government to drive a horse and cart through that old procedure by stating in the Finance Bill that the subject shall be charged in accordance with the provisions of a Bill which may be passed after the date of the Finance Bill.
That would mean, in effect, that the Government could, if they wished, put a short Clause in a Bill to say the taxes for next year would be in accordance with whatever legislation happened to be passed during the Session, and by that procedure they would circumvent the entire system which has been built up. I am not saying that the Government have done that in this case, but it is a danger for which we should look, and it is growing. Mr. Speaker's Ruling showed that there were growing precedents, and we seek in this Amendment to say that, if the Government are to tax by reference, it must be something clearly determinable on the date that the taxing Act passes through this House. I hope the Government will indicate that if they cannot accept the Amendments as they stand, they will accept the principle of them and have suitable words inserted at another stage.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)
This is the third time we have dealt with this matter, including, of course, the very detailed and 1164 lengthy Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave on 9th June, and to which the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred. I do not know what I can say that will be of use. I can only repeat the arguments which I and others used upstairs when we dealt with this matter on the Gas Bill, and which I used again on Clause 24 of the Finance Bill during the Committee stage.
It seems to me that the Opposition are labouring under a misapprehension in this matter. Clause 34 of the Gas Bill—now Clause 35—does not impose a tax at all. Mr. Speaker makes that quite clear. All that that Clause does is to say that certain payments to be made to the stockholders and passed in due course to the holders of securities shall be deemed to be income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts. They are, in fact, final payments in lieu of dividends and interest. They are not strictly coming out of profits. They will come out of the global sums, which are there for the needs of the area boards and the Gas Council, as and when gas organisations pass to them. By common agreement upstairs they should rank as income to the recipient and, if they rank as income, they should be liable to Income Tax. The Gas Bill itself does not impose a charge or tax. If it did we agree that the matter is one for this House and not for a Standing Committee. On that Bill we only laid it down that the payments shall rank as income and be subject to the Income Tax code. This Bill imposes the tax, and even if the Gas Bill were passed, Clause 34 would be of no avail if this House did not later on agree in the Finance Bill to impose Income Tax afresh.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
The right hon. Gentleman says that if this House does not later on agree to do certain things in the Finance Bill, Clause 34 would be of no avail. Does he mean by that that he is accepting my Amendment? That is the whole effect of my Amendment.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I was not, in fairness to the hon. Gentleman going to refer to the Amendment, because, if he works the Amendment out, he will find that it means nothing whatever. If the Gas Bill is passed before the Finance Bill, the Amendments, if accepted, will not alter the effect of Clause 24 (2); if the Gas Bill is passed afterwards, it will override any alteration we may make in Clause 24.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest and Christchurch)
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that, will he say why it will override any alteration?
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read the Clause, he will see why. This Clause imposes a tax; Clause 34 of the Gas Bill links up with it. What the Finance Bill does is to impose Income Tax for the current year, because Income Tax is an annual tax; if it were not imposed, Clause 34 of the Gas Bill would be of no avail, for there would be no Income Tax to be levied. This Bill lays down that the annual Income Tax shall be levied for the year 1948–49 and that its rate shall be 9s. in the £.
The change which the hon. Member for South Hendon proposes would have no effect in any way. That is the short answer to the points which have been made from the other side of the House. When the Ways and Means Resolution was passed on the first day, it covered this matter. In the proper way upstairs, we have linked these payments in the Gas Bill to the Income Tax code and here in proper form in this Bill we impose the tax. There is nothing unconstitutional or extraordinary about that. Nothing was said when the National Insurance Act, 1946, was passed, though the same provision was made with regard to the payments which were not being made, and would not be made, until 1948. Subsequently we agreed that certain payments under that Act should rank for all purposes as income and be subject to Income Tax as and when levied. Therefore, I ask the House to reject this Amendment.
§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
I can quite appreciate that when there are two Bills passing through the House, not only in the same Session but at the same time, it is necessary to do something to make the two dovetail. This Clause as at present drafted, however, appears to go further than that. The Financial Secretary mentioned just now by way of analogy the position that arose under the National Insurance Act, 1946, and how that was dovetailed into the Finance Act of that year. I may be wrong, but if my recollection serves me right when the Finance Act, 1946, referred to the National Insurance Act, it did so in those terms. I do not think that it used 1166 the very broad expression which is used here, namely,Subject to the provisions of any Act of the present Session relating to gas or agriculture. …That brings me a stage further and arouses another doubt in my mind, which is, why are the words "or agriculture" inserted? Apart from the Agricultural Wages Bill, which, I believe, is before another place, I do not know of any Bill relating to agriculture which at this moment is passing through either House of Parliament. There are certain principles of legislation which apply to all Bills which come before us. We should try as far as possible to be consistent in dealing with those principles. The outstanding principle, of course, is that when we make laws the people who have to obey them should know exactly where they stand and we should not leave them in any state of uncertainty The very wide use of these words… any Act of the present Session relating to gas or agriculturemust create some uncertainty in the minds of those, whether they be farmers, landowners or investors, who have planned their businesses in relation to agriculture, when they study this Finance Bill. That principle—that we should try to avoid creating uncertainty in the minds of those who have to obey the laws that we make—should most particularly be applied and very conscientiously adhered to, when we are dealing with financial matters. For those reasons, I suggest that the Financial Secretary has not really answered the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I do not think the Financial Secretary has attempted to meet the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). He said that there were two real points to be met, but the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to meet either of them. He skated over the first one by saying that it was agreed upstairs that Clause 34 did not need much comment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back and remember how much comment was made on Clause 34, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken). If he is suggesting that no comment was made, may I remind him of what was said? First, there was an 1167 appeal to the Chair to rule that the Clause was out of Order. Then subsequently he said that it was agreed—and here I will use the same phrase as he used—that the matter should be referred to Mr. Speaker. In fact, the simple proposition remains that Clause 34 of the Gas Bill imposes a tax. The right hon. Gentleman says it does not, but I would remind him that it makes certain payments, particularly payments by the stockholder's representative, subject to Income Tax. That must mean that it is subject to a charge.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
To begin with, I did not say that we had an argument upstairs on Clause 34 from the constitutional point of view. I did not refer to that at all. What I said was that it was generally agreed upstairs that these payments were equivalent to income and should, therefore, be subject to taxation. I went on to quote Mr. Speaker's Ruling and said that Clause 34 does not impose a tax but brings these payments within the ambit of the Income Tax code.
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
If the right hon. Gentleman puts the point in that way, I quite agree with him, but I would remind him of the first words of Clause 34, which are:. … shall be deemed to be income for all purposes of the Income Tax Acts.Therefore, it brings these payments within the ambit of the Income Tax Acts. I hope he is right in saying that Income Tax will not be imposed next year—
§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Subsection which we are discussing refers particularly to Measures affecting gas or agriculture. Therefore, I hope that we may at least refer to the specific case that was advanced by the mover of this Amendment. All I was trying to say was that while the right hon. Gentleman says that the Clause does not impose a tax, it brings the matter within the ambit of a tax in respect of all those particular payments, and, therefore, one should be clear of the exact definition which was intended when the right hon. Gentleman used the word "impose."
1168 We were told that the crux of the matter was whether we in this House were going to admit that taxation should be made by reference; in other words, that a series of payments might be brought within the ambit of a tax before the necessary Resolutions or, alternatively, before the necessary Finance Bill has been introduced in this House. I think it will be agreed that Clause 34 was published in January; we had the Financial Resolutions in only April, and the Finance Bill is still going through this House. Yet, at the same time, all these payments have been brought within the ambit of Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the House can agree at a later date to a question of taxation. With that I thoroughly agree. All we are asking by these Amendments is that where certain payments are brought within the ambit of Income Tax, it should be left to this House later on to confirm that taxation.
As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he argued that even if the House did not accept it, these payments would still be brought within the ambit of the Income Tax Acts because of the phrasing of Clause 34 (2). I must admit that I was quite unable to follow that argument. If these Amendments are accepted, then it will be open to this House to say that payments made by the stockholders' representative shall be taxed or shall not be taxed. But if the Bill is left as it is drafted, then we are committing ourselves to taxation by reference, and we are saying that one of the most jealously guarded privileges of this House, which is that it shall impose taxation, shall be delegated to some Committee upstairs. That seems to me to be the very simple issue.
We on this side of the House have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that it is proper to bring certain payments within the ambit of the Income Tax Acts. What we dislike is that that decision should be taken by reference, long before any Measure is tabled in this House to justify or to legalise it. Therefore, I hope that before we leave this Amendment we shall have a somewhat clearer explanation of why the Government thought it necessary to adopt this procedure, and why the right hon. Gentleman has not thought fit to answer any of the objections raised by the mover of this Amendment.
§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
I was interested in the method by which the Financial Secretary tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the House on this Amendment, although he was not very successful. If I understand the position correctly, this is what is happening: the Government promise the unfortunate holders of Gas Stock that they will be given certain compensation. That compensation covers capital and a certain amount of income accruing. I think that is right, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me I will certainly give way. I think the point is that a certain amount of compensation to be paid under Clause 34 of the Gas Bill will cover income or, rather, profits which might have accrued to those stockholders.
The point, as I see it, is that not being quite certain whether what they were doing upstairs was right, the Government are seeking—to use a phrase of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer—to claw a bit more into the Treasury. The Financial Secretary has said that whatever became of these Amendments, nothing would happen, because the Gas Bill is not yet law and possibly may not be law until after this Finance Bill becomes law. Surely, that is only an argument for amending the Gas Bill in another place so as to deal with this not very honourable transaction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always telling us what a good and righteous man he is. Here is an opportunity for him to undo something which would hardly pass in ordinary business circles. Whether he will do it or not I do not know, but I rather doubt it because, although he was boasting earlier today of his consistency, he has shown that consistency by never wishing to do his best by the taxpayer. Why is agriculture mentioned in this Clause at all? The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), the intelligent representative of the leading Liberal Party, has said that so far as he knows there is no major Agriculture Bill before Parliament at the moment. Why refer to agriculture? Is this a hidden way of carrying on the Chancellor's policy of attacking agriculture? Is there another Agriculture Bill to be forced through quickly, between now and the beginning of August, which will handicap agriculture still further? If nothing of that sort is contemplated, why not take agriculture out of the Clause altogether? The words of the Clause cannot 1170 be simply mere verbiage: they must mean that there is something peculiar going on.
§ Mr. Williams
The Financial Secretary shakes his head, but I believe there is a good deal more behind these words than he is willing to admit.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The only thing behind the words is the unfortunate assumption that the hon. Gentleman does not follow the proceedings of Parliament, because there is an Agriculture (Scotland) Bill before another place which, I believe, got its Third Reading there yesterday.
§ Mr. Williams
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that I do not attend to my Parliamentary duties, but I do my best. I do not do what he repeatedly does—try to get the House to pass a Clause which he knows nothing whatever about and on which he has not got a brief. I have found the right hon. Gentleman out on many occasions, as the columns of HANSARD will show. If there is any Member of the House who is unjustified in telling others that they do not attend to their duties it is the right hon. Gentleman who, by his past performances, has shown that he does not know his own job.
Let me refer to the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill, if that is the trouble. It is not within my province to know the whole of the contents of that Bill, but it would not be beyond me to get to know something about it. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a few minutes ago I said "major Agriculture Bill." Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that through the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill the Government mean to impose harsher terms on the Scots than on the English? If there are any Scotsmen present, I hope they will take notice, because I warn them to be on the look-out for the right hon. Gentleman in his dealings with them.
Having dealt with that interruption, perhaps I may now come to the further point, why the House should be asked to accept this Clause. It is not a straight piece of legislation; it is not legislation of the ordinary type, which will enable an ordinary Member of Parliament to explain to his constituents what precisely is taxation. It is an attempt at legislation which will carry with it a curious reaction on 1171 different Bills at different times. It is an attempt by the clever people at the Treasury to get a little more money from those people who are being dispossessed of their shares in certain industries. If there is any real standard of honesty in the Treasury at present, I hope the Amendment will be accepted, because it cannot do much harm. There has been no claim from the Government that it will bring them large sums of money. This is one more of the small irritants which the Government are now placing upon industry. Until a short time ago I thought the Chancellor was a man of very high standing and I ask him, on this occasion, at any rate, to go back to that old standard, which he held for a time in the last Parliament, and help to restore British credit by accepting the Amendment, rather than shelter himself behind the rather mean little excuses which have already been put forward on behalf of the Government.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Assheton (City of London)
I think the House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for having raised this extremely interesting constitutional point. I am not myself satisfied that the answer which the Financial Secretary has given is satisfactory, because I believe the wording of the Clause is somewhat different from the Act of 1947, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He said there was a precedent, and I looked at the Act of 1947 to see what it was. I find that the words in this Bill do not find a place in the Act of 1947, Section 14 (2) of which—
§ Mr. Assheton
I am referring to the 1947 Act, which contains a similar provision:… and of any enactment which has effect only after the end of the year 1947–48.These words do not appear in last year's Act: the Bills dealing with transport and electricity were then before the House. What is the distinction between what we are asked to pass now, and what we passed last year? Does the argument on which the right hon. Gentleman based his precedent hold good, seeing that it is not the same this year as it was last 1172 year? Why is agriculture brought into this Clause at all? What part of the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill necessitates bringing the word "agriculture" into this Clause? I have not the slightest idea, and think it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what is the significance of the word "agriculture." We know the significance of "gas," because some of us have gathered what took place in the Standing Committee upstairs. Various references have been made to it since. The Agriculture (Scotland) Bill has not been nearly so much before the House and we do not know what the point at issue may be.
The main constitutional objection is that there appears to us—if we are wrong I hope that the Chancellor will tell us why—that the Government are taking power here to impose taxation otherwise than through the normal financial procedure of this House. The financial arrangements of the House are very carefully worked out and have been very carefully guarded, and it would be deplorable if, through some Bill other than the Finance Bill, taxation could be imposed. Amendments might be made in the other place, or Heaven knows what. It would be a most unfortunate development. I hope that the Financial Secretary will enlighten us.
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
What is the argument for making these words so extremely general? On the face of it, there seems to be no reason for doing so except that all Governments, and this Government more than any previous Government, are in the habit of taking powers to do not only what is in contemplation but to do that unguessable more which they may vaguely forbode as ejusdem generis. If that is the only reason for putting in these words, it is a very gross occasion for extending that error that it should be in the course of a Finance Bill and in the course of putting taxation upon the people.
Why would it not be enough in this Subsection to refer to the two specific Bills about which we already know, the Gas Bill and, as we now understand, the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill? Is it really conceivable that there should be some new Bill of which we as yet know nothing dealing with one of those two topics, and which might, between now and August, be brought in, in such a way that—well, 1173 I will not say that people would be taxed, because I do not wish to be disrespectful to the Chair? I understand that the Chair has made a distinction, which I do not quite follow, between putting a tax upon people or things, and bringing people or things within the ambit of a tax. So I will say, so as to extend the ambit of a tax. Here, presumably, if these words were omitted, or if they were less general, the result would be that some people who would otherwise pay tax, as the Bill stands, would not pay it. If that is not imposing taxation it is very difficult to know what it is—at least extending the ambit.
What I have just said is perhaps an unnecessary putting into my own words of what has already been asked. The thing which I think had not been asked by anyone else and which I venture this once to repeat is, Why the generality? Upon any of the arguments there seems no reason why the reference in line 32 should be to anything other than the existing Bills relating to gas and Scottish agriculture and not vaguely to any such Bills in the course of the present Session, the length or the shortness of which lies, I was going to say "on the knees of the gods" but really in the subconsciousness of the Lord President of the Council. Why should it be necessary to take that extension of power?
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Perhaps I can answer briefly the points which have been put in this discussion. I will take first the point made by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). He asked me, referring to last year's Finance Act, why the wordsany enactment which has effect only after the end of the yearwere inserted. The answer is that those words were put there because of the passage into law during that Session of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Part II of that Act was to come into force under an order in council. The order in council was not put into operation, so Part II did not come into effect until 1st March, 1948. Therefore, the imposition of any taxation for 1947–48 did not apply. What we sought to do, and what the Act did, was to ensure that certain payments which accrued under the terms of the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, did come within, and were reckoned for the purpose of, Income Tax. We did not 1174 levy the tax on them for 1947–48, and therefore the Bill had to make provision for Income Tax to be levied on those payments in any subsequent year.
The safeguard here is that these words are not general but pretty specific. They can only refer to any enactment passed in a particular Session and can refer to such enactment only if provision is made, by leave and order of the House, for these payments to be reckoned and, when they are paid, to—
§ Mr. Pickthorn
I think the right hon. Gentleman has twice used this odd phrase "by leave of the House," as though it were a technical phrase. What Bill is not introduced by leave of the House?
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The assertion seemed to be implied, and was quite definitely, in what the right hon. Gentleman said, that it would be possible for the Treasury or the Inland Revenue to assume that certain payments were liable to tax, and to levy taxation without the permission of this House. That is not so.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The proper financial procedure was followed when the National Insurance Act, 1946, was passed. The same thing happened then. If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1946, he will find that the same procedure was followed. It was there decided that certain payments and certain benefits, which accrued to individuals under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, should be reckoned as the income of the recipients and be liable to Income Tax for subsequent years. Those payments will not be made, will not begin to be made, until this year, 1948; yet the House, in its wisdom, was legislating in 1946 that payments to be made in 1948, as and when they were made, should be reckoned as income and be liable to be taxed under the Income Tax code.
In the following year, in the Agriculture Act, 1947, under which the Minister might take over a farm, it was laid down that certain payments which might be made should be notionally or actually considered as rent, and therefore as income, and thus become liable to Income 1175 Tax. This year the reference is to the Agriculture (Scotland) Bill, which is the Scottish counterpart of the Agriculture Act, 1947. The whole thing is perfectly simple—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I hope that, after my explanation, the House will agree that there is nothing unusual in what has been done and that it is the proper thing to do. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of his speech that these words were strictly limited. Will he say what limit there is at all as regards future legislation—we are only dealing with future legislation—on the words:to any enactment which has effect only after the end of the year 1947–43"?Is there any limit?
§ Oh, yes,—an enactment which has been passed. I have given the House the enactments which have been passed and which, by certain provisions therein, will bring them within the ambit of Clause 24.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 262; Noes, 142.1179
|Division No. 236.]||AYES||[5.32 p.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Crawley, A.||Guy, W. H.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Hale, Leslie|
|Alpass, J. H.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil|
|Attewell, H. C.||Daggar, G.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Gaines, P.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hardman, D. R.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Hardy, E. A.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Harrison, J.|
|Balfour, A.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Haworth, J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Barstow, P. G.||Deer, G.||Hicks, G.|
|Barton, C.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Holman, P.|
|Battley, J. R.||Delargy, H. J.||Holmes, H. E. (Hamsworth)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Dobbie, W.||Horabin, T. L.|
|Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Dodds, N. N.||House, G.|
|Benson, G.||Donovan, T.||Hoy, J.|
|Berry, H.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Hubbard, T.|
|Beswick, F.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Durbin, E. F. M.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Dye, S.||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)|
|Binns, J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)||Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St Pancras, S.E.)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Ewart, R.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Fairhurst, F.||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Farthing, W. J.||Keenan, W.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Fernyhough, E.||Kenyon, C.|
|Burden, T. W.||Foot, M. M.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Burke, W. A.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||King, E. M.|
|Carmichael, James||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Kinley, J.|
|Chamberlain, R. A.||Gallacher, W.||Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Champion, A. J.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.|
|Chater, D.||Gibbins, J.||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Gibson, C. W.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Gilzean, A.||Leonard, W.|
|Cobb, F. A.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Leslie, J. R.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Gooch, E. G.||Lever, N. H.|
|Coldrick, W.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Levy, B. W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Grenfell, D. R.||Lipson, D. L.|
|Collins, V. J.||Grey, C. F.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Logan, D. G.|
|Cook, T. F.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Longdon, F.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Lyne, A. W.|
|Cove, W. G.||Gunter, R. J.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|McGhee, H. G.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Tiffany, S.|
|McGovern, J.||Pritt, D. N.||Timmons, J.|
|Mckay, J. (Wallsend)||Pryde, D. J.||Titterington, M. F.|
|Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Pursey, Comdr. H.||Tolley, L.|
|McKinley, A. S.||Randall, H. E.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|McLeavy, F.||Ranger, J.||Osborne, Henry|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Rankin, J.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Reeves, J.||Viant, S. P.|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Walker, G. H.|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Rhodes, H.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Rogers, G. H. R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Marquand, H. A.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Watson, W. M.|
|Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Royle, C.||Weitzman, D.|
|Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Scollan, T.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Mellish, R. J.||Scott-Elliott, W.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Sharp, Granville||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Shurmer, P.||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Monslow, W.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)||Simmons, C. J.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Moyle, A.||Skeffington, A. M.||Wilkes, L.|
|Murray J. D.||Skinnard, F. W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Nally, W.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Neal, H. (Clay Cross)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Snow, J. W.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Strafford)||Salley, L. J.||Williams, R. W. (Wigan)|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Sorensen, R. W.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Willis, E.|
|Oliver, G. H.||Sparks, J. A.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.|
|Orbach, M.||Stross, Dr. B.||Woods, G. S.|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Stubbs, A. E.||Wyatt, W.|
|Parkin, B. T.||Swingler, S.||Yates, V. F.|
|Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Sylvester, G. O.||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Symonds, A. L.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Pearson, A.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Pearl, T. F.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Piratin, P.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Mr. Joseph Henderson and|
|Popplewell, E.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Mr. Richard Adams.|
|Porter, E. (Warrington)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)||Maclay, Hon. J. S.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)||Gammans, L. D.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Glyn, Sir R.||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Comme-Duncan, Col. A.||Marsden, Capt. A.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Grant, Lady||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)|
|Barlow, Sir J.||Granville, E. (Eye)||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Gridley, Sir A.||Mellor, Sir J.|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Grimston, R. V.||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Birch, Nigel||Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Harden, J. R. E.||Nicholson, G.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Nutting, Anthony|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Odey, G. W.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Orr-Ewing, I. L.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Osborne, C.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Hollis, M. C.||Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Byers, Frank||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Challen, C.||Hope, Lord J.||Pickthorn, K.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Howard, Hon. A.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Hurd, A.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Jarvis, Sir J.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Keeling, E. H.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|De la Bère, R.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)|
|Digby, S. W.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Robinson, Roland|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Langford-Holt, J.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Donner, P. W.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Grayson, G. B.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Drewe, C.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Savory, Prof. D. L.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)||Low, A. R. W.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Smithers, Sir W.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Spence, H. R.|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Turton, R. H.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Studholme, H. G.||Vane, W. M. F.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Sutcliffe, H.||Wadsworth, G.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Wakefield, Sir W. W.||York, C.|
|Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Teeling, William||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)||Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)||Sir Arthur Young and|
|Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)||Major Ramsay.|
|Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.||White, J. B. (Canterbury)|