HC Deb 06 July 1949 vol 466 cc2231-45

Subsection (1) of section eight of the Finance Act, 1936, which enables the Treasury by licence to authorise the duty-free importation of goods for purposes connected with science, art or sport, shall have effect with the substitution for paragraphs (a) and (b) of the following paragraphs:—

  1. "(a) the goods are intended to be used in scientific or industrial research, or for a purpose connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art or the promotion of any sport;
  2. (b) the goods are not intended to be sold or to be disposed of in the course of any transaction which is substantially a commercial transaction."—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

M. R. A. Butler

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

The object of this new Clause is to exempt from import duty certain materials imported for commercial research purposes. It is a technical and, I think, important small Clause. It so happens that goods intended for scientific research are already treated in the sort of way I should like goods for commercial research and investigation to be treated. In the case of goods used for scientific research the exemption is limited to materials and goods used by academic research institutions, but goods wanted for commercial research are excluded. That does not seem a very satisfactory arrangement, because there are certain matters which could be introduced for commercial research purposes which would very much help some of our leading companies in industry at present, and which would help our production drive. I therefore very sincerely put forward this Clause for the attention of the Financial Secretary. I do not myself see, as goods for scientific research are included under suitable conditions, why the Clause should not be conceded.

The present arrangement for goods for scientific research is governed by enabling legislation. The Treasury remains the competent authority to decide on the merits of each case, and in this Clause we propose that the present enabling legislation should be extended to cover the sort of materials I have in mind; discretion as to the decision on the application should, in our view, rest with the Treasury. Our object in introducing this Clause, therefore, is not to impose an immense charge upon the Exchequer, because although I am not able to compute it I should imagine the charge was very little; nor is it with the object of helping particular people to serve their own ends, because we would intend to leave the final discretion to the Treasury. It is, however, to assist the importation of, for example, certain samples of fibres, which might be brought in for commercial research here, which might illustrate improved manufacturing techniques abroad; or examples of textile manufactures illustrating the use of fabrics and particular forms of yarn abroad; or samples of dye-stuffs which could be used and tested for commercial purposes here.

I believe this to be a new Clause to which there can be no objection in principle. If the Government have the last word I do not see how it can be abused. If we add to these two considerations my belief that the cost will not be very great I cannot see what arguments there are against it, taking into consideration the fact that we must produce absolute skill to compete in the buyers' market and to improve our general production at present. In view of the arguments that I have attempted to put forward, I hope the Financial Secretary will see his way to concede this point. I am grateful for the opportunity of discussing it on Report, because it was not a point which could be considered in Committee, which was a great disappointment to us.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

I am sorry, but I must invite the House to say "No" to this new Clause, although it has been very persuasively moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It is rather difficult to say why one type of goods can come in duty free while a bar is put up on what would appear to be almost the same type, simply because those importing the goods are, in one case, a research institute and, in the other case, a commercial firm. If I understood the argument aright, in both cases the object of the importation is that it should be used for research purposes in order to improve a particular industry or business and make it more efficient. The Clause does nothing more than include among the objects to which Section 8 (1) of the Finance Act, 1936, was designed to apply, goods which are brought in for industrial research, so we can confine our discussion to whether it is or is not possible to bring in goods of that kind without hurt.

This provision dated from 1936, when a Conservative Government were in office. When a Conservative Government, which were not hostile in any way to commercial activity or industrial business, made a provision of this kind and excluded industrial research from the provisions of the Section, we must assume that it was for a very good reason. On reflection, the House will see that that still obtains. For one thing it is very difficult, when we go outside the field of non-profit making research and step into the area of industrial research by firms eventually hoping, as the result of the processes they are carrying out, to make a profit, to know where to draw the line. Much of the equipment for industrial research that would be brought in is similar, if not identical, to the kind of equipment that is found in industrial laboratories or on premises being used for ordinary profit-making commercial purposes.

It would be difficult—I use the word advisedly—to police this concession if it were granted, because it would be impossible by definition to know what to omit and what to include. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would cost very little, and that is true. That is an argument which he advanced for permitting the concession. It is also an argument for not permitting the concession, because it is quite obvious—and we have discussed this with the Board of Trade—that industry is not really hampered by having to pay on goods imported in this way. If a case could be made out showing that it meant a great financial difference to firms to have up-to-date equipment for industrial research, and which would enable them to be more efficient, I think my right hon. and learned Friend would be willing to look at this again. It is our view—and the right hon. Gentleman underlined it by what he said—that the cost of putting such duty on such equipment is so infinitesimal that it does not seem worth while making the concession. It would open difficulties for those who have to implement this provision when the goods are imported.

In those circumstances, it would be wise for the House to stand by what the Conservative Government thought right and proper in 1936—to draw this distinction between commercial and non-commercial products or equipment coming in for profit-making purposes or for nonprofit making purposes. The equipment, when it does come in, is used in these research institutions and anything that happens as a result of the research carried out is made available to all others. Industry generally can take advantage of the results of such research, whereas if we allow any firm or industry—I am not complaining of this—to bring in these things duty free they would take advantage of it for their own commercial profit. For those reasons the House would be well advised not to accept this Clause.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I am sure my hon. Friends have been deeply touched and affected by the appeal by the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the action of a Tory Government between the wars, but the rest of his comments give rise to some criticism. First of all, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the impact of these duties upon industry would be infinitesimal. By the same token, the cost to the Exchequer of making the concession would obviously be infinitesimal. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman's speech is not only a grievous disappointment to the House but also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been here to listen to it, because it runs entirely counter to the apologia to which he treated us after Questions this afternoon. After all, what was the burden of the Chancellor's song, if it could be called a song, though unlike his predecessor he does not have a song in his heart? What was his story? It was that everything possible should be done to reduce expenditure. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman was reading from a brief which was prepared for him, but there was time for a little adjustment.

Here is something which is small, but what a gesture it would have been, coming on the same day as the Chancellor's appeal to industry, Government Departments and everyone else to realise the extreme peril of our industrial position, and to encourage the export drive. I see the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) below the Gangway, and I hope we shall be able to enlist his support for this admirable Clause, because no one has taken a greater interest than he in research matters. He is always pleading for modern research.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has appealed to the research departments of our great industries to make themselves as up to date as possible. Had he seen his way to make this concession—a minor one, in terms of revenue—for the admirable purpose of the importation of articles and goods which are required solely for research, the results of which spread not merely throughout one industry but elsewhere, and even to the Dominions, it would have been something really worth doing in view of what we have been told this afternoon.

7.30 p.m.

May I say something else to the right hon. Gentleman? This is not 1936. He claimed to support something which was done by a previous Government, in 1936, but that Government did not get into the mess with which we are now confronted. The situation is entirely different. In 1936, we were still menaced by the danger of foreign dumping in this country. The Import Duties Act of 1932 and the Ottawa Agreements which followed were all part of an economic structure to meet the danger with which the country was then confronted.

What a different picture today. We see the closing of doors all over the world against our goods, as a consequence of Socialist extravagance leading to high costs of production. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I hope hon. Members opposite will not accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer of talking nonsense. I hope they will accept the words of the Chancellor—until he is thrown overboard in a few months' time—and the fact that this country has never been in such a position, because of our costs of production. Here is a Clause which would help to reduce costs of production, at a small loss of revenue. The Financial Secretary has lost a very fine opportunity, in point of timing and psychology, to follow up what his right hon. and learned Friend said this afternoon. Hardly are the words out of the Chancellor's mouth than the Financial Secretary turns his right hon. and learned Friend down.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

The Financial Secretary resisted our proposed Clause on two main grounds. The first was that the amount of money which would be saved to individual firms would be so small as not to be of any value to them. The second was that there would be a temptation to widespread abuse. It is to those two points that I would like to direct the attention of the House.

We are up against the difficulty that if we suggest a big relief for industry we are told that the cost will be prohibitive and if we suggest a smaller relief for industry we are told that it is so small as not really to be worth bothering about. Perhaps somebody on the Government side will tell us what sort of scale of relief the Government would be prepared to consider. We could then try to prepare an amended Clause. However small the relief may be, it is a relief and should not be lightly dismissed because of its size. I hope that the suggestion will not pass without further attention.

The second matter which is of importance is the Financial Secretary's point that there would be abuse, and a temptation to manufacturers to import goods ostensibly for research but in reality to avoid the payment of Customs and Excise Duty and of Purchase Tax. The Financial Secretary does less than justice to the honesty and integrity of the business firms of this country. That is not the sort of practice which would be indulged in. It might have been done in the 19th century, before the Labour Party was in existence. I know that they are always anxious to dig up examples from the remote past. Surely the Financial Secretary knows that business firms are anxious to operate with honesty, decency and enthusiasm any system which they are called upon to operate. If he has any doubt about that, he has only to look at the way in which the business world is operating P.A.Y.E. to see that there is no dishonesty or graft there.

I cannot believe that a firm with a research department would use licences of the type that we have suggested just to get a small importation of goods duty free I do not think that is in the least likely, and I challenge the Financial Secretary to give an example from the Customs and Excise Department of a firm of repute owning a research department which would stoop to such a practice. At a time when we are depending upon the productive efforts of industry, we should be very slow to condemn of sneer at the honesty or integrity of business executives.

Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)

The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) advanced a very good and intelligent argument, but the concluding part of his speech was enough to destroy it. If it were in Order, I think we could knock him about all over the Floor of the House. I am getting a little bit mystified. I listened to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who introduced the Education Act, 1944. I have a very high regard for his conduct in connection with that Act. He has always something interesting to say. I remember his remarks last week on education, when he said that education reflected the prevailing conditions of society. That is good Marxism. On a previous new Clause this evening, he said that the crisis would force the middle classes out of existence. That is good Marxism. I would say to him: keep it up.

On this side of the House, what do we get? The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness said that the Chancellor had made a speech this afternoon saying that everything must be done to reduce costs and increase efficiency. If that should be put to the vote, everybody on this side of the House will march into the Lobby against it. We have already done something similar. At the Labour Party Conference the Lord President of the Council said: "I and my party will protect the middle classes"; and if hon. Members look at the pamphlet "Labour Believes in Britain," they will see the same thing; yet on the previous new Clause we went into the Lobby against the middle classes. I do not know what the Minister is going to do about the proposed Clause and whether he is going to accept the proposition that is made in it and give the proposed encouragement to the efficiency of industry. If he does not, and there is a Division, hon. Members on this side of the House will go marching into the Lobby to deliver, if not a knockout, at any rate a nasty blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) dealt faithfully with the two arguments of the Financial Secretary. I wish only to add a point on one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman said. I cannot understand why the Financial Secretary takes one view about the importation of goods for scientific research and another view about the importation of goods for industrial or commercial research. He seems to fear that the moment we get into the area of profit, there is a risk of one firm playing off another, or that an invidious distinction would have to be made by the Treasury. The moment we get past the importation of scientific apparatus for some central organisation which is non-profit making and, I suppose, Governmentally chaperoned, into commerce, we incur very great risks. I cannot see why that should be the case.

If we lighten a duty, everybody in commerce has the opportunity to get goods through under the lessened duty. If we give the Treasury permission, through licence, to declare certain goods exempt from duty or in a category of lower duty, it is up to the commercial firms to come forward and make their applications independently. We do not say that each separate institution should go to the Treasury and say, "I wish all my commercial research appliances to be exempted from a certain duty," and that the Treasury shall decide as between one firm and another. We suggest that a general application may be made and the Treasury shall issue an Order saying that a certain class of goods will be subject to a lower duty. Where is the invidious distinction between one firm and another?

I suggest that the reason why the Conservative Party in 1936 made a differentiation between scientific research and commercial research was that at that time, as one of my hon. Friends said, we were stepping up duties all round, but now the Conservative Party are on the other tack and we are trying to lower duties all round and free the trade of the country and the Empire. It is natural that we should wish to see individual firms given an opportunity of acquiring goods for research so that they can be in a position to compete against each other and lower their costs of production—the Chancellor invited us to do so this afternoon—and so contribute to a greater flow of trade and the better financial position of the country.

Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King's Norton)

The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will understand the motives for my saying that as the next electoral battle approaches, I find myself more and more unwilling to disagree with my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench and more and more willing to disagree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, I am this evening in the somewhat embarrassing position of giving my full support, so far as I am able, to my right hon. Friend but disagreeing entirely with all the arguments which he put forward, which were, of course, Conservative arguments introduced in 1936.

The remarks offered to the House by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) were justified. We are in a situation, as the Chancellor explained after Question Time today, in which the future of the country depends upon more efficient production. Here is a Clause designed to see that all goods for industrial research are brought into the country duty free. The only argument of substance put by my right hon. Friend was this: he said that it is impossible for us so to define goods intended for use for the purposes of industrial research, that other goods will not easily be brought within the same category by business men, thereby opening the floodgates to a large amount of goods. Surely that is only a question of getting the right definition. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is not here, but I suggest straight away that we might amend these words to read something like this, "Goods for use in scientific or industrial research." It would then be possible for the Treasury to say in relation to any item of goods, "No, these are not goods for use in scientific or industrial research."

I must tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that I find the drafting of the Clause very difficult, and that if I had to vote I could certainly find many reasons for voting against the Clause. For instance, he proposes to authorise the duty-free importation of goods for the promotion of any sport. I do not see how anybody could seriously suggest that we should exempt from duty American golf balls. American golf balls are goods for the promotion of golf, but why should they come in duty-free? There is also the category connected with the advancement of any branch of learning or art. I cannot see why industrial research should be muddled up with the advancement of art or the promotion of sport. They seem to me to be three entirely separate subjects, and the remarks I am offering this evening are limited to the problem of industrial research.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

My hon. Friend should realise that these articles must not be sold. There would be no point in American golf balls coming in if they could not be sold. They could only be used for a golf match or something of that kind.

Mr. Blackburn

I appreciate that point, but I still do not see why we should want to exempt American golf balls from duty. I do not see the connection between sport and science. It seems an extreme attitude of mind.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Eccles

The hon. Gentleman probably does not realise that these goods may be brought in for the purpose of a match. A rowing team may bring its own boat or oars, and commerce does not enter into that case. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have agreed that it is hard to levy a duty in such a case, though no doubt the money can be handed back administratively.

Mr. Blackburn

I appreciate that point, but I do not see why the three subjects are lumped together in the Clause.

Mr. Eccles

They were together in the original Act.

Mr. Blackburn

Then our legislators in 1936 must have considered atomic energy to be on a level with golf balls, although they seem to me to be entirely

separate matters and should not be lumped together.

Here is an instance which I hope will not appear to be too far-fetched. We are all very glad to know that the Mayo Institute has now developed Compound E, which is of great value in the treatment of rheumatism and rheumatic fever. Why should not those who are responsible for producing Compound E in this country—I am informed that it will be years before we can produce it here for the relief of the millions who are suffering from rheumatism today—be able to import duty-free from the United States all the apparatus which is needed for research in order to ensure that we produce Compound E at the earliest possible moment? That is an example connected with the alleviation of disease; hundreds of other examples could be given.

Mr. Gallacher

And it would increase production.

Mr. Blackburn

Yes, it would increase production, as the hon. Member has said. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member's efforts to increase our production will be echoed in future by the "Daily Worker" and the other organs which support the hon. Member's party. I hope we may discover the hon. Member and his party blazoning the way, along with the progressive Members of the House, and urging my right hon. Friend once again to show how magnanimous he is by indicating that the Treasury will take account of the views which have, been expressed on all sides of the House—by Conservative, Cummunist, Labour and, I hope, Liberal Members.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 254.

Division No. 200.] AYES [7.50 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Davidson, Viscountess Granville, E. (Eye)
Amory, D. Heathcoat De la Bèra, R. Grimston, R. V.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Digby, Simon Wingfield Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Astor, Hon. M. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Barlow, Sir J. Drewe, C. Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Bennett, Sir P. Duthie, W. S. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Eccles, D. M. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Bower, N. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Erroll, F. J. Hogg, Hon. Q.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Fox, Sir G. Hope, Lord J.
Carson, E. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Hutchison, Lt-Cdr Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Gammams, L. D. Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Darling, Sir W. Y. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Jennings, R.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Medlicott, Brigadier F. Spence, H. R.
Keeling, E. H. Mellor, Sir J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Lambert, Hon. G. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Studholme, H. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Sutcliffe, H.
Lipson, D. L. Neill W. F. (Belfast, N.) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Nield, B. (Chester) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Low, A. R. W. Noble, Comdr A. H. P. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Odey, G. W. Touche, G. C.
McFarlane, C. S. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Walker-Smith, D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
MacLeod, J. Raikes, H. V. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rayner, Brig. R. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Renton, D. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Roberts, H. (Handsworth) Yours Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Marlowe, A. A. H. Sanderson, Sir F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Marples, A. E. Shephard, S. (Newark) Major Conant and
Marsden, Capt. A. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) Colonel Wheatley.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Spearman, A. C. M.
NOES
Adams, Richard (Balham) Dodds, N. N. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Donovan, T. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Driberg, T. E. N. Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Alpass, J. H. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Keenan, W.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Dye, S. Key, Rt. Hon C. W.
Attewell, H. C. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. King, E. M.
Austin, H. Lewis Edelman, M. Kinley, J.
Awbery, S. S. Edwards, John (Blackburn) Kirby, B. V.
Ayles, W. H. Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Lang, G.
Bacon, Miss A. Evans, John (Ogmore) Lavers, S.
Baird, J. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lee, F. (Hulme)
Balfour, A. Ewart, R. Leslie, J. R.
Barstow, P. G. Fairhurst, F. Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Barton C. Farthing, W. J. Lindgren, G. S.
Battley, J. R. Ferny bough, E. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Bechervaise, A. E. Follick, M. Longden, F.
Benson, G. Foot, M. M. Lyne, A. W.
Berry, H. Forman, J. C. McAdam, W.
Bing, G. H. C. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McAlister, G.
Binns, J. Freeman, J. (Watford) McEntee, V. La T.
Blackburn, A. R. Gallacher, W. McGhee, H. G.
Blyton, W. R. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. McGovern, J.
Boardman, H. Gibbins, J. Mack, J. D.
Bottomley, A. G. Gilzean, A. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McKinlay, A. S.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Maclean, N. (Govan)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Grenfell, D. R. McLeavy, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Grey, C. F. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Grierson, E. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly) Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Burden, T. W. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Mainwaring, W. H.
Burke, W. A. Gunter, R. J. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Guy, W. H. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Callaghan, James Hale, Leslie Mann, Mrs. J.
Carmichael, James Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Champion, A. J. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Mellish, R. J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hardy, E. A. Messer, F.
Cluse, W. S. Harrison, J. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Cobb, F. A. Hastings, Dr. Somerville. Mitchison, G. R.
Cocks, F. S. Haworth, J. Monslow, W.
Coldrick, W. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Moody, A. S.
Collick, P. Herbison, Miss M. Morley, R.
Collins, V. J. Hobson, C. R. Nally, W.
Colman, Miss G. M. Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Naylor, T. E.
Cook, T. F. Horabin, T. L. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Corlett, Dr. J. Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby) Noel-Buxton, Lady
Cove, W. G. Hoy, J. Oldfield, W. H.
Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Hubbard, T. Oliver, G. H.
Crossman, R. H. S. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) Orbach, M.
Cullen, Mrs. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Paget, R. T.
Daggar, G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Daines, P. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Palmer, A. M. F.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pargiter, G. A.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A. Parker, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Janner, B. Parkin, B. T.
Deer, G. Jay, D. P. T. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jeger, G. (Winchester) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Diamond, J. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.) Pearson, A.
Dobbie, W. Jenkins, R. H. Piratin, P.
Popplewell, E. Simmons, C. J. Warbey, W. N.
Porter, E. (Warrington) Smith, C. (Colchester) Watkins, T. E.
Porter, G. (Leeds) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Watson, W. M.
Price, M. Philips Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Pritt, D. N. Sorensen, R. W. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Proctor, W. T. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)
Pryde, D. J. Sparks, J. A. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Randall, H. E. Steele, T. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Rangar, J. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth) Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Rankin, J. Stubbs, A. E. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Reid, T. (Swindon) Swingler, S. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Rhodes, H. Symonds, A. L. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Richards, R. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Robens, A. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Willis, E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Royle, C. Timmons, J. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Sargood, R. Titterington, M. F. Woods, G. S.
Scollan, T. Tolley, L. Yates, V. F.
Scott-Elliot, W. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Sharp, Granville Usborne, Henry
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Walker, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shurmer, P. Wallaco, G. D. (Chislehurst) Mr. Collindridge and
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Mr. Wilkins.