HC Deb 22 June 1948 vol 452 cc1179-95
Mr. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 32 to 41.

I should point out that the following Amendment in page 22, line 4, at the end, to insert, and for the purposes of this section farming shall not include the growing of flowers, fruit and hops, the rearing of race horses, silver foxes, domestic rabbits or musk rats. is consequential on this Amendment and that both Amendments deal with the taxation of small farmers.

Under the Clause the Chancellor is forcing all farmers, however small, to keep accounts and to be assessed under Schedule D. In Committee some of my hon. Friends moved an Amendment to relieve farmers from that obligation if the annual value of their farms is under £75, and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) moved an Amendment to exempt all farms under £50 annual value. The Chancellor, in his reply, made it clear that, in his view, any idea of exempting by annual value was not to the point since profitability did not depend in those cases on yield per acre nor on the size of farms, but on the nature of the farming. He gave a graphic description of some profits which he alleged were made in the farming of silver foxes and fruit.

After a long discussion it was noticeable that the Minister of Agriculture was not present and it is noticeable today that there is no Minister present representing the agricultural Departments. This is a provision dealing with agriculture, and one would expect that when questions of agriculture and ordering farmers to keep accounts were under discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the advice and comfort of the Minister of Agriculture. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter. At the end of the Debate on the Committee stage, the Chancellor said that he would look at the problem again. We said that we would do so, in order to see how we could solve it and get over the difficulties which he put forward against the arguments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, so that we could secure that farmers who were making unduly high profits, such as the Chancellor mentioned, would be caught for tax, while the majority of small farmers would be rid of this obligation.

I think the Chancellor quite unwittingly misled the country when he quoted figures to the effect that at present 120,000 farmers pay under Schedule D and 40,000 under Schedule B and that this proposal would deal only with 40,000 farmers. In fact, this proposal that all farmers, large or small, shall have to keep accounts and be assessed under Schedule D will not deal only with 40,000 but with 130,000, because there are 250,000 farmers in the country. This proposal would exempt from Schedule D and make liable for Schedule B all small farmers engaged in bona fide farming, but would bring into Schedule D small farmers engaged in a fancy type of farming such as we have instanced in the second Amendment: flowers, fruit and hops, the rearing of race horses, silver foxes, domestic rabbits or musk rate. 5.45 p.m.

In those cases the profit does not depend on the annual value of the farm but on the nature of the husbandry. If this Amendment is successful, the sum total of inconvenience caused to the industry will be very much reduced. When the Chancellor was dealing with this problem earlier—and presumably whether he agrees or disagrees with this Amendment he will take a similar line—he used the analogy of the small shopkeeper. I want the House to realise the very great difference between assessing farms under Schedule B and assessing small shopkeepers. The small shopkeeper does not have a stock which grows or fluctuates in value throughout the year. He does not grow his own stock, and does not consume the stock he is producing. The great difference between the shopkeeper and the farmer is that usually the shopkeeper has a cash register which shows his takings every day and he has wholesalers' receipts by which he can judge his expenses.

The case of the farmer is entirely different. His stock is of lambs, calves, heifers and young ewes on which he cannot put a value, as most of them are not going, to be sold. The Chancellor nods going his head, or makes what is called a moue, but actually his Department recognises that fact by saying that the larger hill farms will not be assessed under the normal type of Schedule D but on a herd basis. It is not possible, however, to value young growing stock which has to be used for replacement in the herd. At the time of making up accounts, the animals have a very different value from that which they might fetch when actually sold. In my experience of agriculture, I have never seen cash registers on farms. It is going to be difficult for the farmer to work out all the expenses and wages, including such things as his wife's hen money and the two-way accounts of agricultural merchants. That is what the Chancellor is going to impose on farmers, unless he accepts this Amendment.

All small farmers, smallholders and, in many cases, agricultural workers who have an agricultural holding in addition to the work they do for the farmer, will be brought into the ambit of this Clause. Every pound of butter they consume from their own holding will have to be checked, valued and entered in a ledger after it has gone from the dairy to the kitchen. They will have to make up accounts daily, and at the end of the year they will have to enlist the services of an accountant to transform them into Income Tax jargon. That is the sort of life promised to the small farmer by the Chancellor's proposal. Is the Chancellor going to say today that that is not so because he has up his sleeve some administrative means of saying which small farmer is to be assessed and which is not? I think that is an untenable attitude. The Chancellor is using the urban analogy of the small shopkeeper. But with small shopkeepers profitable ventures can be distinguished from those which are unprofitable because profitability depends on turnover. The shopkeeper with a large turnover will be earning a large profit. A busy tobacconist at a street corner will earn larger profits than a small tobacconist hidden away in the middle of a back street. Similarly, a café at a seaside resort is more likely to be a taxable subject than a small shop in a remote village.

In agriculture the problem is entirely different. A pair of silver foxes or an acre of well-tended orchard in a remote area will make all the difference between profitability or the reverse. As far as I can see, the only way in which the Chancellor can efficiently sift out the taxable from the untaxable by administrative means is to bring into the countryside an army of snoopers to go round every farm, to find out those who have a profit, or are likely to have one, and those who have not. We cannot use the same methods as are applied to small shopkeepers. I hope the House will not allow this problem to be solved by Treasury snoopery. That would be a great mistake. If the Chancellor uses the snooper method, what will be the position when the snooper has discovered what he thinks is a taxable victim? He will say to him, "You ought to have kept accounts. We think you made a profit." Then he makes the assessment and the farmer will have to pay that assessment, whether it is right or wrong, unless he can produce accounts which he has not kept.

That is the dilemma in the Chancellor's idea of getting over this problem by administrative means. Unless the farmers are forced to keep accounts the problem cannot be cured administratively. The present method of assessing farmers is no secret. Where accounts are not received from a large farmer, the Special Commissioners of Income Tax levy or fix an unduly large assessment on him to induce him to produce accounts. With large farmers that is reasonably practicable. They get an accountant and eventually the accounts are produced. To harry by these methods all the small marginal farmers, small-holders and agricultural workers will be to turn the whole of agriculture into a turmoil.

It is all very well for the Financial Secretary to laugh. It may be an easy matter for him, but for his constituents in the Colne Valley, many of whom are small farmers and indulge in some of these marginal sorts of farming which might bring them into the taxable class, the circumstances will be very different. We are dealing with the men on whom we rely to produce food. We should exempt as many as possible from the necessity of keeping unnecessary accounts. Snoopery and bullying are not the right methods. Those are my reasons for moving the Amendment.

Mr. Vane

(Westmorland): I beg to second the Amendment.

I reinforce the plea of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that the arguments put forward by the Chancellor for treating the small farmer in the same way as the small shopkeeper are unfair. Without wishing to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, I think we should give him a word of welcome for Coming in at so timely a moment after such a long absence. When taxation was at a low level it mattered very little from the point of view of agriculture whether there were certain anomalies, but now that taxation appears to be stabilised at a high level, it matters a great deal whether there are anomalies in the burden of tax which falls on one farm as compared with another. Whereas I agree that the old arrangement—by which farmers whose assessment was less than £100 per annum might comfortably be taxed under Schedule B—was no longer fair, I think equally that the Chancellor's proposals will be as unfair and will cause small farmers a great deal of unnecessary work and accountancy.

This extra trouble will be caused not only to farmers, but also to the accountants who will have to prepare their accounts for them and who already, for transport and other reasons, have great difficulty in getting through their work for large farmers. Any of the officers of the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell him of the difficulties experienced in getting in Income Tax valuations and accounts except after many months' delay. With a little ingenuity, the Chancellor should find it possible to choose a form of words which will be fair to the tens of thousands of small farmers whom he is proposing to leave in the middle of a sort of Income Tax "no man's land."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps)

I am much obliged to the Opposition for putting forward this Amendment, which has been moved in words of the wildest exaggeration by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). From what he has said it would appear highly desirable that nobody should ever keep any accounts for anything—

Mr. Vane

Like the war agricultural committees.

Sir S. Cripps

—and that it was impossible to ask anybody to keep accounts of their businesses. I am quite sure that farmers are not really the ignorant, stupid people he made them out to be—at least, not those whom I have met. It is true that some of them, perhaps, do not keep their accounts in a perfect form, but nowadays there are very few of them who keep no accounts whatever. Most of them are able to say, within a reasonable figure, whether or not they make any profit on their farms.

The attempt is made here to define not by the annual value or the rent paid for the property, but by the class of agriculture which is carried on. On the Committee stage I suggested a number of illustrations of the sort of thing which could very well produce large incomes from small-holdings. It did not include by any means all the points one might have dealt with; my examples were merely illustrative. I notice that the movers of this Amendment have included most of them for the purpose of exclusion from the provision which would apply under the two Amendments—that the farm with an annual value of £100 should continue to be taxed under Schedule B. There are, of course, a great many other activities besides these which lead to exceptional profits. It would be interesting to know, for instance, whether rhubarb is included under fruit of this definition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Raspberries."] Raspberries are included under fruit, but certainly broccoli is not, and water-cress is not, and also a mass of other vegetable products.

They are not included in the Amendment because many of them are grown as farming crops and not as vegetable crops; that is to say, they are grown for animal consumption and not human consumption. For instance, a field of turnips grown for human consumption can be much more profitable than one grown for sheep. Therefore it is quite impossible to put in this definition vegetables because they are undefinable. Does the ordinary swede now used for vegetables come under it or not?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton

It the Chancellor will allow me to interrupt, he has already dealt with vegetables in the 1941 and 1942 Acts, where market gardening is excluded from this definition.

Sir S. Cripps

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the line between market gardening and farming is not very clear, but it has been defined by a number of decisions and it does not include growing mushrooms in open fields, growing broccoli or rhubarb in open fields, and so on. There might be a rotational crop of one of these on an ordinary farm—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rhubarb?"] Certainly, long-term rotation—

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

Very long-term.

Sir S. Cripps

Twenty-five years, but one would reach the cycle when that particular field was not growing rhubarb and, therefore, it could not be said that it was a rhubarb farm.

Mr. York (Ripon)

If the Chancellor knew the price at which land can be sold that is able to grow rhubarb, he would realise that rhubarb land is rhubarb land and nothing else.

Sir S. Cripps

I know it very well. I have been in many cases where claims have been made for rhubarb land. At the time when the London County Council was taking over the Dagenham area, where the land was largely covered by rhubarb, the price went up to £11,000 an acre. Therefore, one does know something about some of these things. It is quite true that rhubarb is a profitable crop, but it does not necessarily come under market gardening.

Mr. Turton

It might in that case.

Sir S. Cripps

It might in that case if that was the sole cultivation, but if it is merely one field on a farm it does not. That only points to the impossibility of getting any definition which will limit this to a particular type of growth on a particular area of land.

Therefore, having eliminated, as we all agree, the possibility of taking the annual value as the criterion, having eliminated the possibility of taking the crop as the criterion, there really is nothing left unless you take the colour of the farmer's hair, and that would not be satisfactory. Again, I think everyone was agreed in the former Debate that there was no reason why the farmer should not pay Income Tax like everybody else—he is not asking for any special privileged exclusion from Income Tax—and so the only way to ascertain it is as it is done with everybody else, find out what is his income and, if it is large enough, he pays Income Tax and, if it is not, he does not.

It is said that there may be a lot of small people who would not pay Income Tax, and everybody knows that, from the things they grow and the size of their farms. It is asked, "Do you want to put them to a lot of trouble?" What we have said is that we do there what we do in many other cases, we do not assess people if we know, or are substantially certain, that they will not be payers of Income Tax. It is not worth anybody's trouble to assess them, and that same discretion will be utilised for farmers as is for everybody else. However, we cannot make the assumption that it is wrong to assess farmers because it means they have to keep accounts. I am sure it would be much healthier for the agriculture of this country if farmers kept accounts and if they had a more accurate knowledge of what was happening to their holdings. Therefore, in so far as this has any effect, I hope it will encourage farmers to keep accounts. If it does that, apart from any question of the collection of money, it will have not an adverse but a beneficial effect upon farmers. Therefore, I regret that we cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)

If the Chancellor is at all doubtful about water-cress and rhubarb, I am sure my hon. Friend will be quite willing to add a few more words to the Amendment. The Chancellor spent all his time in telling us what difficulties there would be in accepting our Amendment, but we want him to realise what difficulty there would be in leaving the Bill as it is. The trouble about farmers keeping accounts is that they are not like the small shopkeepers, nearly all of whom have been brought up to keep accounts because they knew they had to. The Chancellors of the past have deliberately encouraged small farmers not to keep accounts, and after many years of not keeping accounts they cannot be expected suddenly to learn accountancy, any more than an accountant can be expected to milk a cow or shear a sheep. It is asking too much. Either they have to pay somebody to do the job for them, which is in many cases an impossibility, or else they have to learn, and many of them are too old to start now.

All hon. Members agree that the principle of making the large farm profit-maker pay, which the Chancellor is after, is right, and I think that the Amendment will solve all the troubles that we discussed on the Committee stage. After all, there are farmers who make no profits at all, and if it is to be left to the tax collector to decide whether they are making profits or not, farmers will be informing on their fellows, there will be unpleasantness which one does not want to encourage, and people will be trying to cause trouble just because they may be jealous of their neighbouring farmer.

The other difficulty which I must stress is that the Chancellor estimates that he may collect about £2¼ million or £2½ million out of this tax, but he did not give his estimate of what it will cost to collect. Conservatives and Socialists are all agreed that more food is wanted in the country; Conservatives are all agreed that fewer officials are wanted in the country. But as the Bill stands we shall discourage food production, encourage more officials, and have greatly increased costs. All this is being done to catch just a few people who are getting away with it. It is like an apple orchard where a few apples are stolen by an odd gang or two. It would not pay to have a policeman stationed at every orchard in the country, because the cost would be too much, and I believe that the cost and the trouble of collecting this £2¼ million will not be worth while.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

I cannot help thinking that the Treasury, in adopting the method of the small boy who put a nut under a steam roller in order to get the kernel, will get as much out of this tax as the small boy would get of the kernel after he had put it under the steam roller. This proposition will cost an immense amount of money in accountancy, in Income Tax officials, and so on, in order to catch a few people who are getting away with profit on a small acreage of land. I want to make it quite clear that we as farmers do not want to see any of our colleagues getting away with a profit and not paying Income Tax upon it. However, we want to see these small farmers getting on with their job of food production, instead of having to take up their time in keeping accounts and having to make valuations.

Let us look at it from a practical point of view. The suggestion has been made that over 200,000 farmers will be forced to keep accounts. The first thing that will have to be done by these farmers is to have an ingoing stocktaking valuation. That means that all those who have to keep accounts should now have had their stocktaking valuation made. The Chancellor is apparently determined to proceed with this proposal. He has said, and has repeated today, that he will not assess the small farmers just as he does not assess the small shopkeepers. If that is to be the case, I beg the Chancellor at once to set up machinery in every Income Tax district in order to let these small farmers who are not to be called upon to show books, know that they are not to be called upon and so make it unnecessary for them to have a stocktaking valuation. There is no reason why that should not be done.

I wonder how the Chancellor will find it so easy to decide who is and who is not making money? The Chancellor did not say who was to decide that nor did he tell us the steps which are to be taken to find out. The necessary measures should at once be taken so that farmers can ascertain what steps they have to take in order to find out whether they have to keep accounts or not. It is no use a small farmer going to a valuer in 12 months' time and asking him to take a stocktaking valuation as from the beginning of the year. That would be quite impossible.

The Chancellor has been led astray by something which he has been told about fabulous sums which some people make on a small acreage of land. He mentioned the sum of £10,000 having been made on a small acreage of land. That must be hearsay. I cannot conceive of anyone making £10,000 on a small acreage of land divulging the fact to anyone. Such a person would certainly take great care that it did not reach the ears of the Income Tax inspector. The Chancellor also spoke of rhubarb land costing about £11,000 an acre. I have seen some land sold at a good price in my time but I think that the Chancellor has been led astray by something he has been told and which is not in accordance with the facts.

If he intends to proceed with this tax I ask him an once to instruct inspectors of taxes in all districts to set up some machinery so that small farmers can at once be given a decision as to whether they have to show books or not. Not one per cent. of the men who are today assessed at £100 a year will be making more than £300 profit a year. It should be easy to let these farmers know promptly whether they are to be rid of this incubus of keeping accounts. The small farmer does not want to keep accounts. His bank balance at the end of the year will tell him fairly accurately how he has been doing.

Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)

I wish to voice my dissatisfaction at the attitude of the Chancellor to these Amendments. We have tried to take him at his word in what he said on the Committee stage. He pointed out then: it is the particular type of cultivation which really determines whether they are likely to be people who are making these sort of incomes or not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1138.] That is, large incomes in comparison with their previous tax position. We took him at his word and tried to devise in these two Amendments some types of cultivation which it might be desirable to exclude. The Chancellor has merely told us that there are plenty of other types. That is not our fault. We had hoped that as a result of the previous Debate the Chancellor would see that he was rather misguided in the line he was taking in trying to bring all this class of small farmers under the normal taxation system.

As we have not been privileged at any stage to hear the voice of any of the agricultural Ministers on this subject—although I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary's advice would always be listened to with considerable attention by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—we are left wondering why this desire for uniformity should be so strong. The Chancellor said just now that it would be healthier if everyone kept accounts. We know the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views about health matters. They are not subscribed to by everyone and I do not know that his view that keeping accounts is a healthy thing to do would necessarily be accepted by the people to whom he is directing his attention today.

6.15 p.m.

There is a difficulty which has not yet been resolved. The Chancellor says that there are a lot of small people who obviously have so small an income that no one will bother to assess them and that they will not have to pay—they will be exactly in the position in which they are today. The Chancellor having said that, someone presumably has to decide whether the profits of particular persons are so small as not to make it worth while to assess them. Who is to take that decision? That seems to me to be a point of real consequence. I can only assume that it will be the local inspector of taxes. If that is so, let me remind the Financial Secretary that up and down the country the local inspectors of taxes are already tremendously overworked. They will certainly not have the time to go about their districts, because I presume it will mean going about, by road, on foot or on bicycles or whatever form of transport it may be, to see whether small farmer A or smallholder B or little man C should not be assessed. It does not seem to me to be sense.

There the analogy of the small shopkeeper breaks down because I imagine that from the point of view of the inspector of taxes it is comparatively easy in a small town or village or wherever he may be, to decide from the general look of a small shop, and from the information which he can readily obtain about it, whether it is worth assessing or not. It is quite a different matter in the case of an outlying smallholding where the crop may be different this year from the crop last year, and where profitability one year varies greatly with the profitability another year.

I should like to have it categorically stated now what instructions are to be given to whom to decide how to assess. That seems to be the crux of the whole matter. I am afraid that the Chancellor has hardened his heart once again and that we are to get no concession or help because—[Interruption]—the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) sits and burbles the whole time. It is a great tribute to the good tea which he has no doubt had. If he has any observations to make on these somewhat technical points I should like him to make them. They are difficult and technical points, I am saying that I should like to know what instructions are to be given to whom as to the sort of grounds on which they are to decide whether they are to assess or not. I do not expect any satisfactory answer. The Chancellor has given us no hope that he will relax on this matter, and as we feel that this provision will cause unnecessary trouble all round for little money and will probably entail larger expenses than are worth while, we shall go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Mr. Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)

I wish to reinforce the question put by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) as to what instructions are to be sent out to the Income Tax inspectors. My constituency is so large that there are three or four inspectors administering Income Tax in the area and there are different Income Tax collectors. If there is not uniformity of practice one can imagine that in about 12 months time I shall be getting up in this House to ask, "Why has Income Tax inspector A put an assessment on a certain farm in a certain area and inspector B is not doing so?"

Therefore it will be as well if the Financial Secretary gave some indication

that his Department is going to get together and consult with the National Farmers' Union and others as to what type of directions or instructions are to be sent out. I have to decide whether I shall go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment. I am rather doubtful about what it is best to do. I am prepared to give the Treasury a chance to see what they can do in 12 months' time in the way of administration, but unless the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor will say that he will go into the matter and decide that a uniform practice is to be adopted, I am afraid that, for the first time, I shall have to go into the Lobby against the Government.

Sir S. Cripps

I am not in the least concerned with what the hon. Gentleman said in his last sentence, but I am concerned with answering his question. It is a courtesy which I try to extend to both sides of the House. The hon. Member asked what form of instruction will be given. Whatever form of instruction is given it will be uniform. Instructions will not be given to one district and not another, and inspectors will not assess people who obviously will not have to pay.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 287;Noes, 108.

Division No. 237.] AYES. [6.23 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Bramall, E. A. Daines, P.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Brook, D. (Halifax) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Alpass, J. H. Brown, George (Belper) Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Attewell, H. C. Brown, T. J. (Ince) Davies, Harold (Leek)
Austin, H. Lewis Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Davies, Haydn (St, Pancras, S.W.)
Awbery, S. S. Burden, T. W. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Ayles, W. H. Burke, W. A. Deer, G.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Byers, Frank de Freitas, Geoffrey
Bacon, Miss A. Carmichael, James Delargy, H. J.
Balfour, A. Chamberlain, R. A. Debbie, W.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Champion, A. J. Dodds, N. N.
Barstow, P. G. Chater, D. Donovan, T.
Barton, C. Chetwynd, G. R. Driberg, T. E. N.
Battley, J. R. Cfuse, W. S. Dugdate, J. (W. Bromwich)
Bechervaise, A. E. Cobb, F. A. Durbin, E. F. M.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Cocks, F. S. Dye, S.
Benson, G. Coldrick, W. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Berry, H. Collindridge, F. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Beswick, F. Collins, V. J. Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Colman, Miss G. M. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Bing, G. H. C. Cook, T. F. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Binns, J. Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Blenkinsop, A. Cove, W. G. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Blyton, W. R. Crawley, A. Ewart, R.
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Fairhurst, F.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Crossman, R. H. S. Farthing, W. J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Daggar, G. Fernyhough, E.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Logan, D. G. Sharp, Granville
Follick, M. Longden, F. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Foot, M. M. Lyne, A. W. Shurmer, P.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McAllister, G. Silverman, J. (Endington)
Freeman, J. (Watford) McEntee, V. La T. Simmons, C. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport) McGhee, H. G. Skeffington, A. M.
Gallacher, W. McGovern, J. Skinnard, F. W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S. McKay, J. (Wallsend) Smith, C. (Colchester)
Gibbins, J. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Gibson, C. W. McKinlay, A. S. Snow, J. W.
Gilzean, A. McLeavy, F. Solley, L. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mainwaring, W. H. Sorensen, R. W.
Gooch, E. G. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Granville, E. (Eye) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Sparks, J. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Mann, Mrs. J. Steele, T.
Grenfell, D. R. Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Stross, Dr. B.
Grey, C. F. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Stubbs, A. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Marquand, H. A. Swingler, S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Marshall, F. (Brightside) Sylvester, G. O.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Mothers, Rt. Hon. George Symonds, A. L.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden Mellish, R. J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Gunter, R. J. Messer, F. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Guy, W. H. Middleton, Mrs. L. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hale, Leslie Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Monslow, W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Moody, A. S. Thurtle, Ennest
Hardy, E. A. Morgan, Dr. H. B. Tiffany, S.
Harrison, J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Timmons, J.
Haworth, J. Murray J. D. Titterington, M. F.
Herbison, Miss M. Nally, W. Tolley, L.
Hicks, G. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Hobson, C. R. Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Turner-Samuels, M.
Holman, P. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brantford) Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Horabin, T. L. Noel-Buxton, Lady Viant, S. P.
House, G. Oldfield, W. H. Wadsworth, G.
Hoy, J. Oliver, G. H. Walkden, E.
Hubbard, T. Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Walker, G. H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Palmer, A. M. F. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Parkin, B. T. Warbey, W. N.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Watkins, T. E.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Paton, J. (Norwich) Watson, W. M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pearson, A. Weitzman, D.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pearl, T. F. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Piratin, P. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Janner, B. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Jager, G. (Winchester) Popplewell, E. Wheatley, Rt. Han. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Porter, E. (Warringten) White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Jenkins, R. H. Porter, G. (Leeds) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Pritt, D. N. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow) Pryde, D. J. Wilkes, L.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton) Pursey, Comdr. H. Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, P. Asteriey (Hitchin) Randall, H. E. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Keenan, W. Ranger, J. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Kenyon, C. Rankin, J. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Reeves, J. Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
King, E. M. Reid, T. (Swindon) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Kinley, J. Rhodes, H. Willis, E.
Kirby, B. V. Richards, R. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Woods, G. S.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) Wyatt, W.
Lee, F. (Hulms) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Yates, V. F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Rogers, G. H. R. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Leonard, W. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Leslie, J. R. Royle, C. Zilliacus, K.
Levy, B. W. Scollan, T.
Lipson, D. L. Scott-Elliott, W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Shackleton, E. A. A. Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Mr. Hannan.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Channon, H. Eccles, D. M.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Clarke, Col. R. S. Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Astor, Han M. Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Baldwin, A. E. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Barlow, Sir J. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Gammans, L. D.
Bennett, Sir P. Crowder, Capt John E. Gates, Maj. E. E.
Birch, Nigel Dodds-Parker, A. D. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Drayson, G. B. Grant, Lady
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Drewe, C. Gridley, Sir A.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Grimston, R. V.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lend.) Harden, J. R. E.
Bullock, Capt. M. Duthie, W. S. Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Mellor, Sir J. Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Molson, A. H. E. Smithers, Sir W.
Hollis, M. C. Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Spearman, A. C. M.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'cester) Spence, H. R.
Howard, Hon. A. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Hurd, A. Odey, G. W. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Studholme, H. G.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Sutcliffe, H.
Jarvis, Sir J. Osborne, C. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. Pickthorn, K. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Keeling, E. H. Pitman, I. J. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Lambert, Hon. G. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Turton, R. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Vane, W. M. F.
Langford-Holt, J. Raikes, H. V. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Ramsay, Maj. S. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Rayner, Brig. R. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Law, A. R. W. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Robinson, Roland York, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Sanderson, Sir F.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Savory, Prof. D. L. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Manningharn-Buller, R. E. Scott, Lord W. Commander Agnew and
Major Conant.
Mr. Glenvil Hall

I beg to move, in page 23, to leave out lines 1 to 10.

This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment exempting commercial woodlands which, on the Committee stage, we inserted among the provisos to Subsection (1). The definition which at present appears in the Bill will, therefore, not be necessary and we propose to delete it.

Amendment agreed to.