HC Deb 22 June 1949 vol 466 cc329-43

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Birch

I think it can be said that the case against this Clause is even stronger than the case against the preceding Clause. There clearly was a certain argument on the question of costs to manufacturers of matches, but it seems to me that to put up the tax on mechanical lighters to the extent to which this Clause does is an outstanding example of the doctrine implicity believed in by all hon. Members opposite—the doctrine of equal misery. The Financial Secretary is determined that it shall always cost the same amount, however, it is done, to burn the Chancellor of the Exchequer in effigy. That is the first argument I want to put up, and I really can see no particular reason, even if the tax on matches is put up, why there should be this very steep increase in the tax upon mechanical lighters.

The second point I want to make is on subsection (3), which imposes a large increase in the tax on gas lighters, which I understand are mechanical devices permanently attached to gas fires. I do not know what is the object of this—whether it is to save tinder or to cut down the supplies of nationalised gas—but it seems a very retrograde step that an article like a mechanical lighter on a gas fire should have the tax put up to such an extent.

The third point I want to make is the high level of tax in comparison with the initial cost of the lighter. Nothing is so dangerous as to have an Excise duty amounting to many times the cost of the article, because if that is done a premium is put on evasion. I understand that a number of lighters can be manufactured at 1s. 9d. apiece. Under the Clause the tax goes up to 6s. apiece. Therefore, as against the cost of production of 1s. 9d., we have a tax of 6s. and the retail price coming out at 10s. 6d. That is a dangerous thing in principle and is liable to cause abuse. It illustrates once again how we are steadily getting beyond the limits of taxable capacity in all the taxes imposed under this Budget.

My final point is on the question of the size of the bond for the purpose of Excise duty. With a lighter which is manufactured for 1s. 9d. and on which the tax is 6s., if the Customs and Excise pursue their usual policy the size of the bond relative to the cost of the article may be extremely high and, therefore, may tax the working capital of firms engaged in making lighters. I should like to hear from the Financial Secretary or the Economic Secretary—one of the heavenly twins—what policy they intend to pursue in that respect.

Mr. Erroll

The increase of tax is particularly serious on the cheaper lighters. Now that the tax as proposed in the Bill is going up to such an extent, there is a real case for differentiating between the cheaper and the more expensive lighters, particularly in the case of those mechanical lighters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) referred—the lighters attached to gas cookers and gas fires—because they are essentially part of the appliance. They are not mobile like a box of matches; they cannot be used to light anything but the article to which they are permanently attached. There is certainly a strong case here for differential rates of duty.

In any event, the principle of raising the tax on the lighter merely because the tax is raised on matches is wrong, because it is the articles which the lighters consume rather than the lighters themselves which should be taxed. The lighter is not expendable as the box of matches is expendable. The lighter is rather the capital exquipment of the person who wishes to create a flame; it consumes petrol and lighter flints. The proper course would be, not to tax the lighter so exorbitantly, if taxes there must be, but to tax the flints which are consumed in proportion to which matches would otherwise be consumed.

The tax as it stands, therefore, is too high. It should provide for differentiation between the various categories of mechanical lighters. There are more and more categories now that the industry has expanded and diversified itself. The tax should not be levied on the capital equipment of the lighter but rather on the consumable elements which go to make up the lighter.

9.45 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

I hope the Government will reconsider the duty which is being imposed upon these lighters. A constituent of mine has written to me stating that he will be put out of business by the increased duty. The Committee will recollect that last year there was a great increase in the tax on metal furniture, which resulted in manufacturers of such furniture being put out of business and being unable to compete in a promising export trade. That is what will happen in this case unless this matter is reconsidered. The export trade which was being done will no longer be able to be done because there will be no substantial home trade to support it. A constituent of mine wrote a few days ago: I have discharged the whole of my factory staff with the exception of a skilled maintenance staff. That has been done because of the heavy duty which is being imposed on these lighters. That, as in the case of matches, is another step in increasing the cost of living, which the Chancellor and other Government spokesmen have said repeatedly they will do all in their power to reduce. It seems that the words of Ministers are exactly the opposite of their actions.

I should like to quote from another letter which constituents of mine sent to the Government: We have been manufacturing a lighter for the popular market, i.e., within the means of the working man. Our price, wholesale, is 1s. 9d. each, plus 2s. 6d. Excise duty, so that the lighter retailed at 6s. 6d. Now, with this duty, this article cannot be retailed under 10s. 6d., which puts it beyond the means of the public for whom we cater. It has been suggested by the Mechanical Lighter Association that lighters retailing at 10s. 6d. or under should be subject to only 2s. 6d. duty as formally, and that they should be marketed as a utility article and so marked. This would enable people in the lower income groups to continue to buy an article, which can no longer be classed as a luxury, at a price which they can afford. I think that is a reasonable and sensible proposal, and I hope the Government will so amend the Clause that the cost of living in respect of this article will not be increased, and that manufacturers will be able to continue in business and our export trade will not be destroyed. As it is, overseas markets are now being lost because of the competition of cheap Austrian, German and Japanese lighters. If we are to compete in overseas markets against such products, then there must be a large turnover at home. This duty will kill this large turnover, and I hope the Government will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) in thinking that this duty is more iniquitous than the raising of the duty on matches by 33 per cent. It means that the price of the cheap lighters, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) referred, and which cannot be sold at less than 10s. 6d., is increased by nearly 100 per cent. The tax on the cheap lighter is almost as bad as the tax on whisky, but unfortunately the taste for mechanical lighters is not so substantial as the taste for whisky, which means that mechanical lighters will possibly die out altogether, because people will not be prepared to pay 10s. for an article which only costs 1s. 6d. or 2s. to make. Again, if we have not got a healthy home market on which manufacturers can be assured of a big sale at home then we are going to spoil our export market, which is so vital at the present time.

There is another point altogether, Lighters are probably cheaper to use than matches. As we heard earlier this evening, a pipe smoker spends on matches probably 1d. a day, if not 2d. I have no brief for lighters myself. I find that mine usually will not work, it may be my own fault, but it is a great shame if people in this country who cannot afford matches are not to be allowed cheap lighters as a substitute.

There is also a Customs duty of 7s. on lighters. That makes the cost of imported lighters so high that people without big means can scarcely afford to use them. On the other hand, the 7s. only gives 6d. preference on the more expensive lighters made at home, which is not sufficient when we have to compete with the cheap labour of Germany, Austria and other places. There is no doubt at all that the manufacturers are going to be very severely hit over this big rise in taxes. The Economic Secretary considered that.01 per cent. was a very paltry addition to the cost of living, but to a heavy smoker who spends even only ½d. a day it is going to be 15s. a year, which is more than one per cent. of some people's income. It is the poorer classes who are going to be hit and the smoker is already paying a high duty on tobacco. There will be an increase in the cost of living and there may be more demand for wages. It is only a small item, but it is one of many, and in my opinion it is a thoroughly bad tax.

Colonel Haughton (Antrim)

As a non-smoker perhaps I may be able to approach this particular matter from an impersonal and dispassionate point of view, but in addition to that I should like to approach it from an angle from which I do not think it has been tackled up to the present. During the time I have been privileged to serve in this House I have heard condemnation by the different parties of the practice of eliminating the work of the inventor or of the research worker by big monopolies, which wish to preserve their form of manufacture. On each and every occasion the various parties have paid lip service to the idea of encouraging inventors and research workers.

It seems to me that invention has been at work and produced a lighter as cheap as 1s. 9d., and it is completely wrong that a cheap article of that sort should be assessed for Excise Duty at 6s. From the point of view of the encouragement of invention I cannot help believing that this is a thoroughly bad tax, because no one with the present knowledge of the way in which lighters work will be able to avoid paying this tax by making one for himself. It seems wrong that an article which can be manufactured for 1s. 9d. should bear a tax of 6s. Because of that fact, I shall vote against the Clause.

Mr. A. R. W. Low (Blackpool, North)

I would add my word to this protest. I have already indicated to the Financial Secretary the case of a constituent of mine who manufactures mechanical lighters and who sees himself and his workpeople being thrown out of work because he will be unable to sell his lighters at the high price which he will have to charge following the passing of this Clause. We are penalising men who are making mechanical contrivances which assist the housewife and the smoker. Why do the Government slavishly follow their practice in regard to matches by adding so much taxation to the duty on mechanical lighters?

I compute that of the cost of a 2d. box of matches, slightly more than half can be credited to taxation. In the case of mechanical lighters, which will now cost 10s., very much more than half will be due to taxation. These matters are getting wholly out of balance. I would ask the Chancellor to reconsider this matter. He must have had many protests. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has quoted a letter from a constituent. Many other hon. Members must have raised similar cases with the Government of people who are making mechanical lighters, have established their position in the home market and have a flourishing export trade, and who will be thrown completely out of business. I again ask the Government to reconsider this matter.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

I wish to stress the point of view of the manufacturer. The Government too often seem to ignore completely the export trade by spoiling the home market and putting the home manufacturer into increased difficulty. This is a very serious point. Surely the Government have some statistics of the amount of export trade being carried on today in mechanical lighters. Travelling abroad, I have formed the opinion that a fair amount of export trade is being done by manufacturers in this industry. They have established good contacts and good markets, and they have the prospect of good trade abroad. The Government must fully understand that by imposing this extra taxation they will be cutting down the rate of production by as much as 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. In any branch of manufacture that percentage would make it almost impossible to obtain a satisfactory export market.

Would the Government please give us some definite information of the amount of export trade which is being obtained and would they tell us whether they have any statistics about the estimated result of the increased taxation which we are now being asked to impose upon these lighters? My opinion is that some manufacturers will be entirely put out of business. The Government must understand a fact which is far too often ignored, that we cannot have an export trade unless we have a healthy home trade to support it. It cannot be supported financially. I hope the Government will give us definite information about what this trade means in relation to our exports. Have they looked into it seriously from the manufacturers' point of view and found out whether it means that the manufacturers of mechanical lighters will be put out of business in obtaining export markets because of the increased taxation? It is a very serious matter indeed.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams

[Interruption.] I thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for the welcome they give to the opportunity of learning something.

Mr. Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

How right the hon. Member is.

Mr. Williams

I quite agree—almost invariably. I want to emphasise what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton). When a tax is unduly and unfairly high, as this tax has become in comparison with the tax on other forms of goods except matches, it inevitably invites some form of evasion. I have never maintained that people who used to evade very high duties—smugglers—were anything like as bad as some of the professions which exist today, but on this occasion I believe that we are asking for trouble. These devices can very easily be made out of cartridge cases by reasonable mechanics, and I have no doubt that a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might be able to make adequate lighters of their own. [An HON. MEMBER: "They might not light."] If they were made by some hon. Members they might not light, but if they were made by many of the Tories in the country they would light and go on working.

What am I to say to constituents of mine who approach me about this? They will say to me, "Here is a grossly unfair tax. Are we to make our own lighters or not?" I shall certainly say, "For goodness' sake, use your ingenuity as a private individual and make your own lighter." If I give that advice, am I subject to the administration of the Attorney-General? I do not necessarily want to know the answer to that at the moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise if he followed the advice given again and again by members of his party that where the tax is 200 or 300 times the cost of the manufactured article, the tax is liable to kill itself in that people will refuse to buy the article, knowing that it is grossly overtaxed. From the Revenue point of view, it would probably be wise for the Chancellor to drop this altogether. I do not think that any harm would be done by not increasing this tax and keeping it at a level which is already very high but not so high as to invite evasion.

Mr. Jay

May I first assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who expressed anxiety about the domestic gas lighters affixed to gas fires, that lighters which are permanently attached to gas cookers and not portable lighters are not subject to tax at all. The object of this increase in duty is perfectly simple. These lighters are competitive with matches, and this duty was imposed originally to countervail the duty on matches. Because the two trades are undoubtedly competitive, they have always moved proportionately together.

Colonel Haughton

Is it then the object to eliminate competition in this way?

Mr. Jay

The purpose of both changes in tax is to ensure fair competition between the two trades and to see that the Government, by imposing the tax. do not discriminate against either the one trade or the other. As a matter of fact, on the general assumption that each lighter takes the place of not less than two gross boxes of matches, which is the accepted assumption, the duty we are now imposing gives, if anything, a slight advantage to the lighter trade over matches. The proportion is worked out in this way: that on the retail price the rise in the normal cost of the lighter will be between 30 per cent. and 35 per cent. The rise in the case of matches is from 1½d. to 2d., which is 33⅓ per cent. Therefore the rise in the retail price in the ordinary case will be just about proportionate. That is the method by which the changes in these two duties have normally been compared, and we think that is the proper criterion to follow in this case.

Mr. Low

Would the hon. Gentleman say what price lighter he is taking when he says that the rise is only about 30 per cent.?

Mr. Jay

Taking the lighter selling at present at 10s. to 12s. That is the method by which these two duties have normally been compared, and if we were not making this increase we should be discriminating unfairly against the match trade.

Sir W. Wakefield

I gave the hon. Gentleman evidence that by putting on this duty he was killing the mechanical lighter business. How, therefore, can there be competition if the business is to be killed? I suggest that the Chancellor should reconsider this in order to get competition, because there will not be any if the Government kill one side of the business.

Captain Crookshank

I am not impressed by the reply of the Economic Secretary, and I do not suppose he thought I would be. However, the fact remains that this is only the first stage of the Finance Bill, and there will obviously be another opportunity for discussing it. Therefore there is another opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor to reconsider the matter in the light of what has been said. It seems to me that the case instanced by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) about his constituent is overwhelming for reconsideration. The Government's view, apparently, is that the purpose of raising the duty on lighters is because, in the past, it has always moved up proportionately to any increase in the duty on matches. They are, therefore, adopting the old rule of what has happened in the past, but we are constantly surprised at hearing that from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, quite irrespective of the circumstances.

If hon. Members will cast their minds back to the previous argument, the reason the Matches Duty was put up was to safeguard the position of the match manufacturers, and, because the Matches Duty had to be put up in order to provide a safeguard to protect the position of the match manufacturers, therefore the duty on mechanical lighters has also to be put up in order to keep the fixed proportion. Therefore, the unfortunate person who in the past has been used—I say "used" advisedly, because many of these things go wrong and it is a question of buying more than one in a lifetime—the person who has been used to buying a cheap mechanical lighter will now find that he has to pay an enhanced price for it in order to make sure that the profits of the match manufacturers are upheld by a Socialist Government.

It is really a ludicrous position. I am sure that the Government have drifted into this position one step after another, and this is the ridiculous end-up. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter, first of all, from the point of view of the manufacturers of cheap lighters. There may be a case to be argued for a differential rate between the cheaper and the more expensive lighters, between the ordinary sort of lighter which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) says his friends could make and the gold-mounted one which one sees in expensive shops in Bond Street. There may be a case for a differential rate on the value of the lighters themselves, but I hope the Chancellor will consider the case of the manufacturer of the cheap article, because this increase is a very high increase in that range.

The second matter which I want the Chancellor to consider is that, while the duty is at the comparatively low level at which it stands now, the difference between the Customs and Excise is 1s., and, under this proposal, the difference will still be 1s., though everybody knows that the difference of 1s. as between 6s. and 7s. is a much less protective duty than was previously the case. I hope the Chancellor will also look into that point to see whether he is not throwing the balance in favour of the imported article, because of the duty remaining at the same level of 1s. as between one article and another.

I do not think we can take the matter very much further tonight, because the whole weight of the argument has been against the Government and so many examples have been put forward that I am perfectly certain that between now and the Report stage this matter will have to be reconsidered. It is quite true—and I admit it—that previously the rates on matches and lighters have gone up proportionately, but as we raise the price of one article as high as we are doing on

this occasion with mechanical lighters, I am not at all sure that the case of the need for absolute proportionate differentiation still stands, and I hope the Government will carefully take into account what has been said here today and also the representations which I am certain they must have received since the Bill was introduced. This only shows once again the great disadvantage of not having this sort of Debate on the Report stage of the Budget Resolutions so that the case could have been made and could have been considered before the introduction of the Bill, instead of being compressed into the very short time between now and the further stages of the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 139.

Division No. 168.] AYES [10.15 p.m.
Albu, A. H. Comyns, Dr. L. Hale, Leslie
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. Cook, T. F. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Corlett, Dr. J. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Alpass, J. H. Cove, W. G. Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Hardy, E. A.
Attewell, H. C. Crossman, R. H. S. Harrison, J.
Austin, H. Lewis Cullen, Mrs. Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Awbery, S. S. Daggar, G. Haworth, J.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Daines, P. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Bacon, Miss A. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Baird, J. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Herbison, Miss M.
Balfour, A. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Davies, Harold (Leek) Horabin, T. L.
Barstow, P. G. Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)
Barton, C. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hoy, J.
Bechervaise, A. E. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hubbard, T.
Benson, G. Deer, G. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Berry, H. Delargy, H. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Beswick, F. Dobbie, W. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Bing, G. H. C. Dodds, N. N. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Binns, J. Donovan, T. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Blackburn, A. R. Driberg, T. E. N. Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Blenkinsop, A. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Blyton, W. R. Dye, S. Janner, B.
Bottomley, A. G. Evans, Albert (Islington, W.) Jay, D. P. T.
Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W. Evans, John (Ogmore) Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Fairhurst, F. Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Bramall, E. A. Fernyhough, E. Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Follick, M. Keenan, W.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Foot, M. M. Kenyon, C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Forman, J. C. King, E. M.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Kinley, J.
Burden, T. W. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Kirby, B. V.
Burke, W. A. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Lang, G.
Callaghan, James Gibbins, J. Lavers, S.
Carmichael, James Gilzean, A. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Chamberlain, R. A. Gooch, E. G. Leonard, W.
Champion, A. J. Gordon-Walker, P. C. Leslie, J. R.
Chetwynd, G. R. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Levy, B. W.
Cobb, F. A. Grey, C. F. Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Cooks, F. S. Grierson, E. Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Coldrick, W. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Collick, P. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Lindgren, G. S.
Collindridge, F. Gunter, R. J. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Collins, V. J. Guy, W. H. Logan, D. G.
Colman, Miss G. M. Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Longden, F.
Lyne, A. W. Pearson, A. Swingler, S.
McAdam, W. Peart, T. F. Sylvester, G. O.
McAllister, G. Platts-Mills, J. F. F. Symonds, A. L.
McEntee, V. La. T. Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
McGhee, H. G. Porter, E. (Warrington) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
McGovern, J. Porter, G. (Leeds) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Price, M. Philips Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.) Pritt, D. N. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
McKinlay, A. S. Proctor, W. T. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Pursey, Comdr. H. Thurtle, Ennest
McLeavy, F. Randall, H. E. Timmons, J.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Ranger, J. Titterington, M. F.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Rankin, J. Tolley, L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield) Reid, T. (Swindon) Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Mann, Mrs. J. Rhodes, H. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Richards, R. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Viant, S. P.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Robens, A. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mellish, R. J. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Messer, F. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Warbey, W. N.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mitchison, G. R. Rogers, G. H. R. Weitzman, D.
Monslow, W. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Morley, R. Royle, C. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Scott-Elliot, W. West, D. G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Segal, Dr. S. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Shackleton, E. A. A. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mort, D. L. Sharp, Granville Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Murray, J. D. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Wigg, George
Nally, W. Shurmer, P. Wilkes, L.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wilkins, W. A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Simmons, C. J. Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Skeffington, A. M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby) Skinnard, F. W. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Oldfield, W. H. Smith, C. (Colchester) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Oliver, G. H. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Orbach, M. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Paget, R. T. Snow, J. W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Sorensen, R. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Willis, E.
Palmer, A. M. F. Sparks, J. A. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Pargiter, G. A. Steele, T. Wyatt, W.
Parker, J. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Parkin, B. T. Stokes, R. R.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe) Stross, Dr. B. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Paton, J. (Norwich) Stubbs, A. E. Mr. Popplewell and
Mr. Richard Adams.
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.) Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L. Lipson, D. L.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Astor, Hon. M. Foster, J. G. (Northwich) Low, A. R. W.
Baldwin, A. E. Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Lucas, Major Sir J.
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Birch, Nigel Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Gage, C. MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Boothby, R. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bowen, R. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Bower, N. Gammans, L. D. Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Gates, Maj. E. E. Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. W. Gridley, Sir A. Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Brown, W. J. (Rugby) Grimston, R. V. Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Mellor, Sir J.
Butcher, H. W. Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Carson, E. Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.) Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Channon, H. Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim) Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Head, Brig. A. H. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nutting, Anthony
Cooper-Key, E. M. Hogg, Hon. Q. Odey, G. W.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Hollis, M. C. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Hope, Lord J. Osborne, C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Howard, Hon. A. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Cuthbert, W. N. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Davidson, Viscountess Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.) Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
De la Bère, R. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Jeffreys, General Sir G. Prescott, Stanley
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Jennings, R. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Keeling, E. H. Raikes, H. V.
Drayson, G. B. Lambert, Hon. G. Rayner, Brig. R.
Drewe, C. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Duthie, W. S. Lennox-Boyd, A. T. Renton, D.
Eccles, D. M. Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Erroll, F. J. Linstead, H. N. Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.) Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Ropner, Col. L. Teeling, William White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Sanderson, Sir F. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Scott, Lord W. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Touche, G. C. Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Spearman, A. C. M. Turton, R. H. York, C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O. Wadsworth, G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Wakefield, Sir W. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. Walker-Smith, D. Commander Agnew and
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) Ward, Hon. G. R. Brigadier Mackeson.
Sutcliffe, H. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)