HC Deb 11 July 1949 vol 467 cc47-59

Amendment proposed [6th July]: In page 7, line 27, to leave out Clause 13.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

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

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral)

With the leave of the House, I should like to say a little on this Amendment which I moved formally at our previous Sitting.

When this Clause was proposed to the House it was dealt with very briefly by the Economic Secretary. The Clause gives power to exempt from import duty certain large types of aircraft imported into the United Kingdom and the spare parts and equipment for them, but the exemption applies only to aircraft with a wing span greater than 120 feet, so that in practice it applies only, I think I am right in saying, to the Constellations and Stratocruisers of B.O.A.C. The Economic Secretary was quite frank as to the purpose of the Clause, but when I asked him to give an estimate of the cost, he replied: It will be very small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 862.] He then indicated, with his usual courtesy, that he would communicate to me what the actual cost would be. He did that. He told me, first of all verbally, that the cost would be £1 million annually. Later in a letter he said: The actual remission of duty on aircraft and aircraft spares is likely to amount to over £1,400,000 this year, with a further El million spread over eight to ten years. The latter figure covers spares imported during the lifetime of the aircraft. I think that two points arise on this matter, and the reason I move the deletion of the Clause is so that the House may have an opportunity of hearing what they are.

First, I must say, with the greatest respect, that I think it is wholly wrong for a Minister to come here to support a Clause of this sort without knowing what the cost will be, particularly when that Minister is a representative of the Treasury, because in the course of his Budget statement the Chancellor gave all Members of the House a short lecture about their duties as custodians of the public purse and defenders of the interests of the taxpayer. Well, what is sauce for the ordinary Member of the House should, it seems to me, be sauce for a Minister representing the Treasury.

The first point to which I think we must draw some attention is the fact that this expenditure of £1,400,000 should be described as being "very small." When we on these benches have frequently raised the question of public expenditure being extravagant we have been challenged, and the attitude of mind which can describe an expenditure of £1,400,000 as "very small" is indicative of the attitude of the Government towards the question of public expense. I expect I shall be met with the answer that this is only a transfer, that it is a remission of import duty, and that it will go to make the running of the nationalised airways more profitable. The fact remains that this year the taxpayer must find this £1,400,000, or at any rate forgo that amount of revenue, which means that the burden of taxation will be correspondingly higher. That is the first point with which I think the House should be acquainted.

The second point is this. It should be made quite clear that this is a substantial subsidy to the Government-operated airlines. We all know what a hullabaloo there would be if it were proposed to give any private industry a subsidy amounting to £1,400,000. I am not saying it is a wrong thing, but I am saying that it should be known and appreciated by the House and the public that as a result of this Clause the Government-operated airlines are to receive a subsidy this year amounting to £1,400,000.

Air-Commodore Harvey (Macclesfield)

There is a very large sum of money involved here in dollar expenditure. I do not want to get involved in a discussion of the set-up of the Government airline Corporations. We warned them over a long period that they would be confronted with a situation in which they would have to buy large quantities of spare parts from the United States, and I am surprised that the Chancellor ever agreed that these large orders should be placed in the first instance. Inevitably, once such an order is placed we must for many years go on purchasing both airframe and engine spares.

This remission is a form of subsidy, and I have no doubt that when the next accounts for the airline Corporations are published we shall be told that they have done very well compared with last year and with some foreign operators. I am in the aviation business myself, but that is not why I support the Amendment, because my interests are not affected in the slightest. Nevertheless, there are one or two companies in this country which possess aircraft with a wing span of 117½ feet. This Clause imposes a minimum wing span of 120 feet in qualifying for this remission, so that the poor private operator, who is helping the Government out in all their difficulties all over the world, is excluded from benefit. I believe that there are only about four aircraft involved. I hope that the Government will meet us by at any rate including multi-engined aircraft of the Skymaster type and above.

What will happen in a few years' time when the Government airline Corporations, if they still exist—which I very much doubt—come to sell this equipment in the private market? The whole business is wrong from beginning to end. I object most strongly to this form of subsidy. I object to this money in dollars being exempt from taxation for these Government Corporations which are now losing £11 million a year.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley)

The Treasury have power to use this Clause only on the recommendation of the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade make recommendations only in the national interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is true. I should have thought Members would have realised the importance of civil aviation, particularly in the earning of dollars. For that reason we have to have the type of aircraft which will help the industry, and those particularly likely to help the industry in this connection are Constellations and Stratocruisers. It is in this connection that we want to have this Clause. This is precisely the principle which has been in operation for a long time, the principle that in the national interest it is sometimes necessary to remit import duties to get necessary machines and spare parts. It is true that my hon. Friend recently said that this was a small amount, and I should have thought Members would have recognised that £2,400,000 spread over 10 years cannot be said to be a considerable figure. It is in that sense that my hon. Friend spoke of the amount as being small. As the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has said, this is really a matter of transferring something from one account to another, which means no loss to the Treasury.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

The reasons put forward by the Secretary for Overseas Trade are most misleading and most unlikely to convince the House. If this is a bookkeeping transaction, it is of a very dubious character. There is no reason why the Corporations should not pay their import duties and have them reflected in the fares charged. This is another form of subsidy. The revision of these duties will reduce the un-profitability of the Corporations—in other words, we are authorising a subsidy of £1,400,000 to be paid.

Mr. Bottomley

Would the hon. Member prevent the aircraft industry from being competitive?

Mr. Erroll

I cannot see that it can be made any more uncompetitive than it is at present. If it is necessary to subsidise the Corporations, the proper way to do it is to grant an increased subsidy and not to do it in this backhanded manner, particularly when it is not made clear to which aircraft this concession will extend. Is it intended to apply it only to aircraft owned and operated by the Government Corporations, or will the concession apply to any private companies which may have similar aircraft?

Mr. Bottomley

They will have the same facilities, subject to the same conditions which apply in the case of B.O.A.C.

Mr. Erroll

The Clause has aptly been arranged to ensure that it will not confer any benefits at all on private companies. This Clause has been cunningly devised, and it now stands revealed as a naked subsidy to the aircraft Corporations. It ought to be brought forward as such, instead of being brought in supposedly to meet the public interest. It is merely a Clause to bolster up at a cost of £1,400,000, an inefficient organisation of the Government. When we suggest some small concessions involving less than £1 million Members opposite tell us that the country cannot afford it, but when it is a matter of a subsidy to these Corporations the public coffers are as usual wide open.

I should like to know whether this concession will be extended to foreign countries in respect of spare parts for the servicing of their aircraft, and whether reciprocal facilities have been agreed to for spare parts which B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. may require for their servicing depots in other countries. We are entitled to know where we stand in this matter. If this concession is intended to apply to foreign airlines, it should also apply in the case of our airlines operating overseas. For these and other reasons I hope the House will show that it regards this as a thoroughly pernicious Clause.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard (Harrow, East)

I am at a loss to understand the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll). In the first place, he says that this £1,400,000 is a hefty amount, but only last week I heard £2 million described by Members opposite as chicken feed when they wanted some concession from my right hon. and learned Friend; indeed, a concession offered by my right hon. and learned Friend was announced as no concession at all because it amounted to a total of only £2 million. The Opposition are now arguing that the amount involved in this concession, which is to be spread over some 10 years, is an obstacle to this relief. On several occasions I have brought to the attention of the Board of Trade certain industries which wanted concessions by way of remission of duty in order to obtain spare parts from overseas to service machines producing for their export programmes. The benefits from such concessions would make the sums involved in remissions seem very small indeed. I am grateful to the Secretary for Overseas Trade for what he has done to assist in this way. I hope that the argument of Members opposite will be followed to its logical conclusion. If this is too large a sum then there is no point in arguing that numerous other additions should be made to it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)

We have not had the pleasure up to now of the company of the Secretary for Overseas Trade during our long pilgrimage on the Finance Bill. Nor have we heard from the hon. Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard), who I understand has been concentrating on tonsorial matters elsewhere. Had they been here during our previous discussions, they would not have brushed aside quite so light-heartedly the views which have been put from this side of the House. The Financial Secretary will at least recall the considerable efforts made during the Committee stage to exempt from import duties certain spare parts necessary for our export industries for machinery and alike, and that they were resisted very strongly by the Government by advancing precisely the opposite argument which has been put in the mouth of the Secretary for Overseas Trade this afternoon.

It is no good riding off with the phrase "in the national interest," because we have now come to be more than aware that what the Government mean by that is "in the nationalised interest," which is an entirely different matter. That is what they are endeavouring to do on the ground of dollar earnings, and all the arguments adduced from these benches have been rejected when we pleaded for those industries, upon whom alone lies any hope of this country holding or extending the export markets. This has been a short, revealing Debate. It shows once again that when private industry is endeavouring to make the efforts which are demanded of it—and only last Wednesday the right hon. and learned Gentleman pleaded with manufacturers to come to the nation's rescue—their demands are sternly turned down, but nationalised industries, which are floundering deeper and deeper into the mire, have only to make a request and that request is granted.

Sir Ralph Glyn (Abingdon)

I understood the Secretary for Overseas Trade to say that this concession would be available to people other than the nationalised corporations. If that is so, why has this figure of 120 feet been inserted in the Bill. It seems to me that it must be there for some reason? If the concession is going to be available generally speaking, and is not confined to the nationalised Corporations, why is it there? Someone suggested that this figure of 120 feet had some significance. I am much more interested in the fact that this is a deliberate deterrent to cut out people other than the Corporations. I understand that the Secretary for Overseas Trade denies that. He said that this is to apply to anybody, and all I am doing now is asking for information.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

I should like to support the point of view put forward by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I was responsible for moving a modest Amendment at our last Sitting on the subject of small lengths and parts that certain industries required for industrial research. We drew attention to the fact that academic research was permitted to introduce into its laboratories certain small lengths and parts at a cost almost exactly similar to that involved in this concession. We used the illustration that we should give the Board of Trade the opportunity of judging each individual case. I am certain that our point of view was sound on that occasion, and I am also certain that it was widely backed up by industry. It was put forward on behalf of industrial research as a bona fide proposal.

I was quite disgusted, therefore, when I came to the House this afternoon, and heard the Secretary for Overseas Trade using language exactly the same as I used in support of our Clause, and going on to argue that this sum of £1,400,000 should be taken from the taxpayer by remitting this duty. The little Amendment for which I was responsible was important in its own way, and would not have cost a very large sum of money. We in the Opposition have a genuine grievance here, because we have not been treated fairly. When a matter for private industry and research is brought forward and we ask the Board of Trade to decide when it is a bona fide case, it is turned down by the Government, but when a concession is asked for which will benefit the nationalised Corporations, the Government are ready to support the argument and the nationalised industries. We consider that here we have a genuine grievance, and in those circumstances we are ready to support those who wish to have this Clause deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

In this Clause the Government have followed the usual procedure. In the first place they say that this is a very small concession, but they have not given us an exact figure of what it will cost. They say that in the first year it will cost £1¼ million, and the total cost will be spread over the next ten years. The result is that an impression is given outside that this is a very small matter indeed. Such procedure has been adopted on many other occasions by this Government, and it is one of the chief reasons why the public outside do not know the true position. It is only by looking at these things bit by bit that we can hope to expose these matters, because this is quite a wrong use of money.

The point has been raised about help given to industry by means of a tariff or a duty. Before the war when this system was set up, we in our party thought it was perfectly fair that the Board of Trade should be the arbitrator in this matter between the general public and a particular industry, which might be helped by having a freer importation of certain goods. They were to decide the dispute, but they were not interested in a financial way except as a collector of taxes. Up to that point it worked fairly well, but as has been pointed out, the position now has entirely changed. The Board of Trade are part of the Government, and what they say is in the public interest, is not necessarily in the interest of trade as a whole, but in the interest of those industries which the Government have nationalised, and whose position they wish to safeguard, thereby safeguarding their own position as a Government. It is not fair that we should be in a position in which the Government, by using the Board of Trade, can remit a duty so as to give a private subsidy to their own particular industries. That is a point which ought to be emphasised again and again in this House. It has put the whole of these particular duties in a totally new position. What, in effect, they are doing here is to give a hidden subsidy to their own mismanagement. I should like to join with my hon. Friends in asking why this arbitrary figure of 120 feet has been fixed.

It is quite obvious that some mess has been made and that this Clause has been put in, regardless of the public interest and taxation, purely and simply to safeguard the Government. It is not to be inserted in the Bill to help our manufacturers or our skilled workers, but to help the Government and to hide a bad loss. I hope that we on these benches will vote against the Clause, and that we shall be joined by hon. Members on the other side, who have heard the argument and who have a belief in economy. Here they see a case where economy can be properly effected, and where it will help the industries and the workers of this country—if there is anyone on the other side of the House who cares two hoots for the workers and skilled artisans of this country.

4.30 p.m.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh. South)

I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade here, because there are three question I should like to ask him on this matter. The first is whether it is possible for someone other than the Government to import aeroplanes with more than 120 ft. wing span, and if it is, whether dollars will be made available for that purpose, provided that the transaction is in the national interest? The second question is: What steps are being taken to have these spares made in this country under licence? Will the Minister bear in mind that the Ford Company came to this country for the manufacture of spares only and that they subsequently developed from a business manufacturing spares to a total car manufacturing business. Has the Minister considered having the spares made under licence? Admittedly it would be a very costly busines, but not so costly as spending what this Clause is going to cost.

My third question to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether the licence to import spares which is justified on the ground of dollar earnings is to be extended in other directions? I am in correspondence with his Department on behalf of a constituent of mine who wants to import some spares for a piece of American agricultural machinery. Can such spares be imported under this Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

The Clause relates to the remission of Customs Duty only upon certain aircraft, and parts of equipment therefor.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

On a point of Order. Is it not in Order to ask whether the facilities which are here being made available to a nationalised industry, are also being made generally available to private enterprise?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that the inquiry of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) would really he relevant to this question.

Sir W. Darling

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I take it therefore that Clause 13 means that the Treasury are willing to facilitate the spending of dollars upon the replacement of parts and spares for certain American aircraft but not for other kinds of machinery which are also dollar earners.

Mr. Beswick (Uxbridge)

Is it not the case that the Treasury, the Government, and the National Corporations were prepared to buy British aircraft of the size mentioned in this Clause but that the British aircraft manufacturing industry could not at this time provide that type of aircraft which the air Corporation wanted? It is not true and it is not correct for any hon. Member opposite, including the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), to say that by this Clause or by any other means His Majesty's Government are favouring the American aircraft manufacturers as against the British manufacturers. The Government gave British manufacturers a perfectly good chance to produce these aircraft but the manufacturers have failed, temporarily, that is, for the time being, to provide suitable aircraft for the Corporations. It seems to me to be proper, again I hope temporarily, that the duty upon aircraft and aircraft parts of this size should be waived so that our airline operators should be competitive.

Air-Commodore Harvey

Does not the lion. Member know perfectly well that the British aircraft industry as a whole was manufacturing fighters and bombers during the war and that the American industry were manufacturing transport aircraft? What the hon. Member has said is a slur upon the British aircraft industry, who are doing their utmost to pull the industry round.

Mr. Beswick

It is not a slur on the industry. It is true that the industry was manufacturing fighters and it is also true that at the present time they are manufacturing good competitive aircraft below the figure mentioned in the Clause. That is the reason why the figure "120 feet" is mentioned in the Clause. Below that size, the British aircraft manufacturing is able to provide machines and parts that are wanted. As for there being any slur, I was only saying publicly in this House what hon. Members on the opposite side of the House say privately.

Mr. R. A. Butler

On a point of Order. Are we to get a reply from the Government, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Bottomley

Yes, Sir. With the permission of the House I should like an opportunity of speaking again and replying to what has been said. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put a very fair point. I shall try to give him an answer to satisfy him. In connection with the earlier Debates it is true that there was resistance, in the sense that he mentioned. It is for this reason: we only remit import

duty if the material, equipment or plant is not available here, or will not be available in a reasonable time. If it is shown that it will be available in a reasonable time, then we keep the duty on. In connection with this kind of aircraft it does not seem that it will be available within a reasonable time. Indeed, if they were available now, there would be no intention on the part of the Government to ask for the remission of the duty.

One other reason why we want these powers is that other civil aviation undertakings, our biggest competitors, do not have to pay this duty, which makes the position much more favourable for them. It is only so that we may be on the same terms as our competitors that we ask for the Clause. I hope that this is the answer to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn). I would now ask hon. Members opposite not to press the Amendment to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 104.

Division No. 205.] AYES [4.37 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Albu, A. H. Cove, W. G. Hardy, E. A.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Harrison, J.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Daggar, G. Haworth, J.
Alpass, J. H. Daines, P. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Attewell, H. C. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Herbison, Miss M.
Austin, H. Lewis Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hewitson, Capt. M.
Ayles, W. H. Davies, Harold (Leek) Holman, P.
Bacon, Miss A. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Balfour, A. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Barstow, P. G. Deer, G. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Barton, C. Delargy, H. J. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)
Battley, J. R. Dobbie, W. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Bechervaise, A. E. Dodds, N. N. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Benson, G. Driberg, T. E. N. Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Beswick, F. Dumpleton, C. W. Janner, B.
Bing, G. H. C. Dye, S. Jay, D. P. T.
Binns, J. Edelman, M. Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Blackburn, A. R. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Jenkins, R. H.
Blyton, W. R. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Bottomley, A. G. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W. Ewart, R. Keenan, W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Farthing, W. J. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Kinley, J.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Follick, M. Kirby, B. V.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Foot, M. M. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Gibbins, J. Longden, F.
Burke, W. A. Gibson, C. W. Lynn, A. W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McAdam, W.
Chamberlain, R. A. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) McGhee, H. G.
Chater, D. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) McGovern, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Grey, C. F. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Cluse, W. S. Grierson, E. McLeavy, F.
Cobb, F. A. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Cocks, F. S. Guy, W. H. Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Collindridge, F. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Mainwaring, W. H.
Colman, Miss G. M. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Comyns, Dr. L. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Mann, Mrs. J. Reid, T. (Swindon) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Thurtle, Ernest
Mathers, Rt. Hon George Robens, A. Tolley, L.
Mellish, R. J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Viant, S. P.
Monslow, W. Rogers, G. H. R. Walker, G. H.
Mort, D. L. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Moyle, A. Scott-Elliot, W. Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow E.)
Naylor, T. E. Segal, Dr. S. Warbey, W. N.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Sharp, Granville Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Simmons, C. J. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Skeffington, A. M. Wilkins, W. A.
Oliver, G. H. Skinnard, F. W. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Parker, J. Smith, C. (Colchester) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Parkin, B. T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Ruthcliffe) Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Paton, J. (Norwich) Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Peart, T. F. Snow, J. W. Williams, W. R. (Huston)
Piratin, P. Solley, L. J. Willis, E.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Sorensen, R. W. Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.
Popplewell, E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Wise, Major F. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington) Sparks, J. A. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Porter, G. (Leeds) Stross, Dr. B. Woods, G. S.
Price, M. Philips Stubbs, A. E. Wyatt, W.
Pritt, D. N. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith Yates, V. F.
Proctor, W. T. Sylvester, G. O.
Randall, H. E. Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ranger, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Mr. Pearson and Mr. R. Adams.
Reeves, J. Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Amory, D. Heathcoat Gates, Maj. E. E. Mott-Radclyffe. C. E.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Glyn, Sir R. Nicholson, G.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Nutting, Anthony
Baldwin, A. E. Grimston, R. V. Odey, G. W.
Barlow, Sir. J. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Pickthorn, K.
Birch, Nigel Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Prescott, Stanley
Boothby, R. Head, Brig. A. H. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Bowen, R. Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)
Bower, N. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Sanderson, Sir F.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Jeffreys, General Sir G. Smithers, Sir W.
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Keeling, E. H. Spearman, A. C. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Lambert, Hon. G. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
Bullock, Capt. M. Langford-Holt, J. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. W. Strauss, Henry (English Universities)
Carson, E. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Studholme, H. G.
Challen, C. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Sutcliffe, H.
Channon, H. Linstead, H. N. Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Teeling, William
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Lucas, Major Sir J. Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Cuthbert, W. N. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Darling, Sir W. Y. Maclay, Hon. J. S. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Davies, Rt. Hn Clement (Montgomery) MacLeod, J. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Touche, G. C.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Turton, R. H.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Marlowe, A. A. H. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Drewe, C. Marples, A. E. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Duthie, W. S. Marsden, Capt. A. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Eccles, D. M. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Erroll, F. J. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Mellor, Sir J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Commander Agnew and
Gammans, L. D. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Brigadier Mackeson.