§ As regards payments for admission to cinema entertainments held on or after the 1st day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the following rates of entertainment duty shall be substituted for those set out in Part II of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1943 (which relate to the rate of duty where the amount of payment exceeds 8¾d. and does not exceed 1s. 0½d., that is to say:—
|Rate of duty|
|Exceeds 8¾d. and does not exceed 10d.||5|
|Exceeds 10d. and does not exceed 11d.||7|
|Exceeds 11d. and does not exceed 1s. 0½d.||8½|
§ —[Mr. J. Foster.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. J. Foster
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to enable owners of cinemas to charge 1s. 3d. a seat. At the moment, owners of cinemas very curiously can only charge either 1s. or 1s. 6d. A charge of 1s. 3d., according to the existing scale, which we are seeking to change, is an impossible price. The reason for that is that in the existing scale there is a very sharp rise between the duty attributable to seats which are 8½d. net to the cinema proprietor, and those which are 10½d. net to the proprietor. Therefore, if we take a 1s. seat, the division is as follows: 8½d. for the proprietor and 3½d. for the Revenue, which makes 1s. If a charge of 1s. 6d. is made, it is 10½d. for the proprietor and 7½d. for the Revenue. If a charge of 1s. 3d. is made, there is a curious result. There is a 7½d. tax, which leaves a net return to the proprietor of 7½d., so that when a charge of 1s. 3d. is made the proprietor gets less per seat than when he charges 1s., which is absurd.
923 I understand that in the last four years the Government Front Bench has been urged to change this anomaly. The view of the proprietors is that a charge of 1s. 3d. cannot be made, because if a charge of 1s. 3d. is made a 7½d. tax is taken off, and the net price is 7½d. But the net tax on 7½d. can only be 3½d., which makes 11d., and if it is 11d. it cannot be 1s. 3d. From this there arises a very interesting academic question whether to charge 1s. 3d. and pay the Exchequer 7½d. and get a penny less for a seat, or whether to charge 1s. and get a penny more. The position is that a proprietor cannot charge 1s. 3d., because when 7½d. is taken off it is found that the Revenue has to be paid 3½d., which makes 11d., and that cannot possibly be 1s. 3d. I do not expect on this occasion to be told that the genius of England consists in illogical compromises, and that the reason the English have been so successful in history is not by applying logic to taxes, but by taking the broad view of the English way of life, which enables us to deal with anomalies in a way not understandable by foreigners. I think this is a case of Alice looking through the looking-glass.
The object of this Clause is to enable a charge of 1s. 3d. to be made so as to encourage wider attendance at cinemas. The sum of 1s. 6d. for a cinema seat is outside the range of many people's pockets, and it is felt that 1s. 3d. will attract more patronage and will increase the revenue. It is not intended, and it would not be desirable from the point of view of the cinema proprietor, to reduce the 1s 6d. seats to 1s. 3d., nor is it intended to raise the 1s. seats to 1s. 3d. except in a few instances. What is wanted is a flexible range of prices so that the cinema proprietor can charge 1s., 1s. 3d. and 1s. 6d. Those who cannot afford 1s. 6d. will pay 1s. 3d. and will get a better seat than they formerly got.
It is to be noted that cinema costs are rising, and there is, I believe, an agreement with the theatre and cinema workers which will cost about two or three millions a year extra. From that point of view, the cinema proprietor is anxious to get a slightly higher revenue and to give better service, and at any rate a better seat at 1s. 3d. Northern 924 Ireland has seen the value of this proposal, and there they have introduced what is proposed in this Clause, what is called the new "fivepenny range," which will enable the cinema proprietor to get 10d. for himself and 5d. for the Revenue out of a total of 1s. 3d.
There is one other suggestion in this Clause—that between 11d. and 1s. 0½d. the rate of duty shall be 8½d., and that between 10d. and 11d. it shall be 7d., whereas at present it is 7½d. That would enable the cinema proprietor to get an extra halfpenny on the 1s. 6d. seats. It is thought that would be an inducement not to reduce too many of the 1s. 6d. seats to 1s. 3d., and also that it would show a better graded rise in the rates of duty. Instead of the present scales which run 3½d., 7½d., and 8½d., in future they would become 3½d., a new rate of 5d., a new rate of 7d., and then 8½d., as before.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I want to say straight away that we are extremely sympathetic towards what it is hoped to do by this new Clause. I am very willing to accept the spirit of it, and between now and Report to have our experts draft a Clause in proper form. The scale of duty was drawn up in 1943, and at that time fitted what the cinema exhibitors desired. Since then it has been impossible to have seats at 1s. 3d., for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman. What we propose to do is to put down an Amendment which will not only cover cinemas, and permit seats to be sold at 1s. 3d., but also, in out view, the concession should apply to all entertainments liable to the full scale of duty, including motor racing, dog racing and horse racing. There is no comparable difficulty over the 1s. 3d. price for theatres, sports and other entertainments, so we propose to confine it to those I have mentioned.
We also propose that the concession should operate from Sunday, 31st July, instead of from 1st August, for the reason that a new accounting period then begins. We do not anticipate there will be any cost to the Exchequer. It is surmised that the loss of revenue by the loss of the ½d. duty on the 1s. 6d. seats will be offset by the extra receipts to be expected in cases where the tax of 5d. will be charged. I should like to add that it is 925 hoped and expected that smaller cinemas will benefit by this change. A substantial increase in wages has recently been given to employees in cinemas and we are told by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association that if this change is made it will enable them to meet these increased expenses, including the increases in wages to employees of the smaller cinemas.
§ 12 m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)
I think the whole Committee will share the pleasure of the mover of this new Clause in the ready acceptance which the right hon. Gentleman has given to it, because we are all aware of the doldrums in which the cinema industry is now. The Government realised that when, under the Act, they pumped some millions of pounds into the distribution and production side of the industry, but ignored the one gap left unplugged—that is, the retail trader, the cinema exhibitor, the local manager and proprietor who have to sell the goods produced in the industry.
The price of 1s. 3d. seems to be the price which the bulk of our people are willing to pay. The cinema exhibitor was faced with the problem that if he charged 1s. 6d., he lost revenue, and if he went down and charged a large number of seats at 1s., then he lost again, and the Chancellor lost as well. The Treasury was a loser, the cinema industry was a loser, and the exhibitor was a loser. I believe that with the acceptance of this Clause, we shall give a new fillip to the exhibitor in our local cinemas.
I have brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman on one or two occasions that one or two small cinemas in my constituency have already gone bankrupt. I hope these facts enabled him to come to the wise and helpful decision he has indicated tonight. I believe he has done far more by this than by the pumping of millions of pounds into the distributive and production side of the industry to give fresh vitality to the cinema industry. Therefore, I warmly welcome this concession.
§ Sir W. Wakefield
At eight o'clock one morning three years ago, after an all-night sitting, I spoke at considerable length in proposing a similar new Clause. 926 On this occasion, I do not propose to detain the Committee more than one minute. Three years ago the Chancellor of that day did not consider it desirable to do what the present Chancellor is now doing. It is satisfactory to know that, although it has taken three years for the Socialist Government to do what has been necessary for three years, at long last it has been done. We only hope that, in regard to any other constructive suggestions made from time to time from this side of the Committee—constructive suggestions of far greater importance than this one—three years will not elapse before they are adopted. We are very glad to know that on this occasion the proposal has been sympathetically received.
§ Mr. J. Foster
I do not wish to speak in any grudging spirit, but I must say that what my hon. Friend said is quite true; namely, that the Government should have done this before. I am glad that they do regret that they did not do it before, because the reasons were the same.
§ Mr. Attewell (Harborough)
Did the cinema workers receive their increase three years ago, which is part of the case tonight?
§ Mr. Foster
No, but the reasons would have been just as good, because the object of this is to increase turnover. Surely the workers in the cinematograph industry must be in favour of increased production and the larger utilisation of empty seats. Their wage claim is something apart from that. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) belongs to the school of thought which believes that restriction of production is the right weapon to use to get an increase of wages. I should have thought that increased production was the right argument to use to that end.
I wish to ask leave to withdraw this Clause on the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given. I do not call it a concession, because when that which is right is being done it is not a concession. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is just as interested in doing what is right as anyone else is, and I say that he is just belatedly doing what is right.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury)
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ Mr. Stanley
This is a debatable point, and I claim the right to speak upon it. I want to speak because I am doubtful of the wisdom of the Committee's acceding to this Motion at present. I am as anxious as any other hon. Member of the Committee to go to bed, but I am also anxious that in going to bed we do not leave for another occasion a great deal too much work to be done. I consider that it should be an object of the Government roughly to divide the amount of work on these new Clauses between tonight's Sitting and our Sitting tomorrow night. But any hon. Member who looks at the Order Paper will see that if we are to adjourn now we shall only have done a small fraction of the work which lies before us. It seems to me to be quite wrong that we should adjourn early tonight with the certainty that we are leaving ourselves so much work to do tomorrow that an exceptionally late Sitting is entailed.
I have all the greater reason for urging that the Committee should continue, in that for once we have found the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to be in a melting mood. He has given to the Committee two Clauses running. Surely hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will realise what a mistake it would be to break off now, when we have for once got the Financial Secretary in that mood. Who knows how long it may go on? There are several new Clauses coming up in which I have the greatest interest. There is one, for instance, dealing with the major product of Scotland. Surely it would be unwise for any Scotsman to miss the opportunity, which now seems to present itself, of getting a concession from the Financial Secretary while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is away.
I do not know what idea the Patronage Secretary has in regard to the amount of work which remains. But I am sure that he will not quarrel with me when I say that it would appear to me that the amount left over will mean something like an all-night sitting tomorrow. If that be so, what is the explanation of this odd division of time? One would have 928 thought that the object of the Government would have been to try to even out the sitting of the Committee on any particular Bill so that we would not ever have to sit to the extremities of the morning. I guess from the movement of the Patronage Secretary's head that he agrees that an early rising tonight inevitably means a late night sitting tomorrow, and if he agrees to that, I cannot see how he can agree to a most improvident division of the work of the Committee. I hope that hon. Members will press for some reasonable explanation of what, to me, seems quite an irresponsible decision by the Government.
§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I think that I can give that reasonable explanation—one which will seem reasonable to all reasonable men. As I think it is no secret that some of the Clauses on the Order Paper will, for one reason or another, not be called, I put that as the first point. The second is that, on this side of the Committee at any rate, if we sit much beyond midnight, we might as well sit throughout the night. I say that deliberately, and mean it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the last trains will have gone, and hon. Members, having missed their last trains, will have to sit within the precincts of the House all night, and will think, therefore, that they could make good use of the enforced time spent here.
It appears to us, looking at the Order Paper in a sensible way, that if we started discussions, as we should, at 3.30 p.m. tomorrow, we should make fairly rapid progress; if one night has to be spent out of bed, we think it would be better to wait until tomorrow night, but it might be that we should not have sufficient to keep us going. It did occur to us that it would be reasonable to spent tonight in bed in the hope that we should not have to sit late tomorrow night; but if we have to sit very much longer, we would prefer to sit right through the night, and make a really good job of it.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I think that it would be very much wiser to take the decision now to sit all night to discuss these new Clauses; and as to what the Financial Secretary says about certain new Clauses on the Order Paper not being called. I think he should know that some of us have had information as to what will and what will not be called. Many of the matters are highly technical in 929 their nature and will take a great deal of legal and technical argument to get them across, even to the Financial Secretary. I should have thought it better to have gone on through the night and, also, if necessary, to sit late tomorrow.
Why cannot the Committee spend an all-night sitting on the Finance Bill? Last year, we had two all-night sittings, and the year before, if I remember rightly, we had three. What is the objection of hon. Members opposite? Facilities are available in the House, and we should have the fullest possible discussion, listening as carefully as we can to the replies forthcoming from the Treasury Bench. Hon. Members opposite are notably lacking in guts in their Parliamentary usage; if they are not prepared to sit here to deal with the vital business of Parliament, then it is making a mockery of Parliament. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should sit tonight and, perhaps, sit through tomorrow tonight.
§ 12.15 a.m.
§ Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)
I do not think that all-night sittings are desirable. I do not think the House ever does its best work during all-night sittings. There are inevitably contests of will which must arise in a free Parliament. If all-night sittings were to be limited in any way, it could only be done by some method of guillotine or regulation which would put all the power over the time of the House in the hands of the Government. That could only be the case where one had a totalitarian Government. I am sure it would not be the wish of this Government, in its present stage of development at any rate, to take such charge of the House of Commons.
There are necessary protests at times about all-night sittings. The House gets to the point where, for the sake of keeping things going, people talk needlessly. [Interruption.] It is all very well for ironical laughter to arise from the Benches opposite. Surely it was the whole case of the Financial Secretary that if hon. Members opposite had to stay after a certain time, they might as well go on. In all-night sittings it is not just the Opposition who keep the discussion going, but Government speakers keep it going because it happens to suit their convenience.
For myself and for all of us here, working hard as all of us do, I say that it is 930 more efficient for us to get to bed at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. and start work again at 9 a.m. or 10 a.m. To do that two or three nights running is a thing which strong men can stand; whereas all-night sittings are very detrimental to the next day's work. I should not have thought that it was really the best course to curtail discussion tonight with the deliberate intention of running an all-night sitting tomorrow night. That does not seem to be a sensible division. [Interruption.] If hon. Members say "No," I will take the mind of the Committee back to what was said by the Financial Secretary. He said it was more convenient to Members opposite to stop now or to go on all night. I say it is wiser for the Committee to divide its work sensibly between the two nights.
§ Mr. Astor
I should like to say a few words on this matter because it is important. I support what the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said about all-night sittings, but the onus rests with the Government. I do not like obstructionist speeches, but, frankly, I think nearly all of them are provoked by the unwillingness of the Treasury Bench to state how long they are going on, or for some such reason. The Financial Secretary is concerned in his remarks about the way hon. Members speak. What would be far more reasonable, if we have a certain amount of work to do and the Government will not give us an extra day, would be to aim at getting through by 3 o'clock tonight, and the same time tomorrow night and the Government should have made arrangements for getting hon. Members home. The Financial Secretary cannot get away with this matter by saying there are no facilities for Members to sleep. I know personally that after 3 a.m. the standard of work inevitably tends to deteriorate in this Chamber.
§ Mr. J. Foster
Surely the over-riding principle is that the Committee should do its work properly. The proper way on this occasion is to divide the work between tonight and tomorrow. For that purpose, it is necessary to sit somewhat longer. The other principle which the Financial Secretary advanced is that Hon. Members—he said hon. Members on his side, but it applies to hon. Members on this side, too—will have to spend the night in the precincts of the Palace. I understand that, and I sympathise with 931 them, but that is not important enough to make the House of Commons do its work in a less efficient manner.
If Members opposite have to spend a night somewhat uncomfortably, one is sympathetic with them, but it is more important that there should be proper discussion up to a time when we can discuss complicated financial matters reasonably.
It is not a moral justification for Members opposite to say that because we are going to be here all night, we are, therefore, going to discuss the Finance Bill adequately all night. They know perfectly well that after 2 a.m. or 3 a.m., discussion on both sides is at a lower level, and that explanations given by right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench tend to deteriorate and become even less coherent than before.
Therefore, in the interests of good government and in the interests of the high standing of the House of Commons, it is essential that the work should be divided as far as possible so that on each night we do not go too late. The experts, taking the best view they can, estimate that we shall have to sit until 1.30 a.m. or 2.30 a.m., but it may not be necessary, of course, to sit late tomorrow. In any case, the work should be divided equally, which is much more important than the convenience of hon. Members.
§ Sir W. Wakefield
I cannot see why we should not go home right away, or why, as reasonable men, we should not go home early tomorrow. If we have not finished the Finance Bill by a reasonable hour tomorrow, why cannot another day be given later on? After all, the Whitsun holiday was rather longer than usual, presumably because the Government estimated there was plenty of time to complete the Business of the House during the remainder of the Session. There is no more important work to do, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, than carefully to study the Finance Bill during the Committee stage. Members have spoken of the inadequate way of doing our job if we go far into the night. I suggest that we pack up tonight, and that if we do not finish at an early hour tomorrow night further time be given for discussing the Finance Bill.
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone 932 (Sir W. Wakefield) has, of course, put his finger on the point, showing an easy way out of our troubles, but it seems to me that we have had an indication that the Government have decided on four days and are not prepared to make any concession. If that is so, we are back at the problem of the division of time. It really seems incredible that members of the Socialist Party are objecting to doing a lodging turn. After all, what are they trying to do with people in another industry?
§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I can make a speech without being treated like a footballer on the other side by the hon. Member cupping his hands to his mouth and shouting out. The Financial Secretary told us that a large number of these new Clauses are not going to be called. I am not in a position to know about that, but there is a formidable list of subjects that have not yet been reached which are likely to be discussed.
There is an important new Clause, which comes next, in the name of my noble Friend the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) on the subject of dependent relatives allowance. There is one on which hon. Members from Scotland will be bound to talk at length, on the Spirits Duty. It is a hardy annual, but it takes discussion. There is a large number of new Clauses on the subject of post-war credits. One at least of these will be called, presumably, and hon. Members in all parts of the House have for months past displayed anxiety on this, and are likely to wish to consider it at some length.
There is one in my own name, which has the support of both sides of the Committee, on the manner in which Income Tax demands are being made on ex-Service men relating to the years 1941, 1942 and 1943—a very important subject which many hon. Members are anxious to discuss. Then there is another new Clause seeking to exempt educational plays for Income Tax purposes and another on the double taxation of many sporting organisations such as football and cricket clubs. That is a selection from the Order Paper, without going into details. It gives us a formidable task tomorrow if we are to rise now.
933 I thought I saw an indication just now from the Patronage Secretary that he has made up his mind that there will have to be one all-night sitting. I think it is a bad division of labour, but if that is the case it might be better to have the all-night sitting when hon. Members are fresh after the weekend rather than tomorrow night. I should have thought it was unnecessary to have an all-night sitting at all. My hon. Friends who have addressed the Committee, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), made a point when they said that we should space out our work and should endeavour to work out just how far one would get if one divided the Order Paper into two. I am bound to say that I think the Committee would work more efficiently if that principle were accepted.
§ Mr. Stanley
I think that the Financial Secretary's answer was a complete justification for the fact that I did raise a question on the matter. He has laid down now the doctrine, I imagine on the authority of the Government and the Patronage Secretary, that the House of Commons either adjourns at 12 or sits to 8 a.m. and either has to scamp its work to get through by 12 or if it cannot, then, so that the people who have to be here shall have something to do, shall spin out its business, certainly under the worst possible conditions, and whatever the
§ business, until 8 a.m. I regard that doctrine put forward by the Financial Secretary as being quite destructive to the proper work of Parliament.
§ I am all for proper arrangements being made to meet the convenience of hon. Members who want to get home at a late hour, but I would remind them and the Financial Secretary that arrangements were proposed and put into effect in the early part of this Parliament, but were abandoned because not sufficient people were disposed to make use of them. Transport in the early hours was not at that time as widespread as the right hon. Gentleman would now have us believe, and if there has been some change in circumstances and if something during the last two or three years has reduced the number of cars which hon. Members are able to call on in the early hours, let us reconsider the whole question of transport. I would far sooner adopt any new proposals with regard to the provision of transport than accept willingly this new and, I believe, outrageous doctrine that either the House must scamp its work to get through by 12 or it must delay its work and go on to the early hours of the morning.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 97.935
|Division No. 182.]||AYES||[12.32 a.m.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Dye, S.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Albu, A. H.||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Anderson, A. (Motherwell)||Fernyhough, E.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Attewell, H. C.||Field, Capt. W. J.||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Baird, J.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)|
|Barton, C.||Foot, M. M.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Forman, J. C.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)|
|Beswick, F.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Gibson, C. W.||Keenan, W.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)||Gilzean, A.||Lee, F. (Hulme)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Levy, B. W.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)||Lewis, J. (Bolton)|
|Burke, W. A.||Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Longden, F.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Gunter, R. J.||McAllister, G.|
|Callaghan, James||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Mack, J. D.|
|Carmichael, James||Hale Leslie||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)|
|Collindridge, F.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)|
|Collins, V. J.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Middleton, Mrs. L.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Mikardo, Ian.|
|Crawley, A.||Herbison, Miss M.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hobson, C. R.||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Holman, P.||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)|
|Delargy, H. J.||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)|
|Diamond, J.||Horabin, T. L.||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)|
|Dobbie, W.||Houghton, A. L. N. D.||Orbach, M.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Hoy, J.||Paget, R. T.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Sharp, Granville||Warbey, W. N.|
|Parker, J.||Shurmer, P.||Weitzman, D.|
|Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||West, D. G.|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Pearson, A.||Simmons, C. J.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Peart, T. F.||Skeffington, A. M.||Wigg, George|
|Porter, G. (Leeds)||Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.||Wilkes, L.|
|Price, M. Philips||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Proctor, W. T.||Snow, J. W.||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Randall, H. E.||Sorensen, R. W.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Ranger, J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Rhodes, H.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Stubbs, A. E.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Robens, A.||Sylvester, G. O.||Willis, E.|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Symonds, A. L.||Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)||Wyatt, W.|
|Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Wadsworth, G.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Royle, C.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)||Mr. Popplewell and|
|Mr. George Wallace.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Grimston, R. V.||Nicholson, G.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Harden, J. R. E.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Nutting, Anthony|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Birch, Nigel||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Bower, N.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Raikes, H. V.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan||Hollis, M. C.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Brarthwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Howard, Hon. A.||Roberts, H. (Handsworth)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Hurd, A.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Challen, C.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Channon, H.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Keeling, E. H.||Strauss, Henry (English Universities)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Corbett, Lieut,-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Langford-Holt, J.||Teeling, William|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Low, A. R. W.||Turton, R. H.|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Drewe, C.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||McFarlane, C. S.||Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)|
|Duthie, W. S.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Eccles, D. M.||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter||MacLeod, J.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||York, C.|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Colonel Wheatley and|
|Gage, C.||Maude, J. C.||Lieut.-Colonel Bromley Davenport.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.