§ Section fifty-two of the Finance Act, 1947 (which provides, among other things, that the stamp duties chargeable on a conveyance or transfer shall, as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, be double the duties which would have been chargeable immediately before that day), shall be amended by the omission of the words "Conveyance or Transfer on sale."—[Mr. Hay.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ Mr. John Hay (Henley)
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to effect an amendment of the law as contained in Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1947, and to make a provision that from now on the Stamp Duty on conveyances of land and property should revert to the position obtaining prior to the Finance Act of that year. I should 164 like to take the House back to the position as it existed in 1947. The provision, which it is now sought to amend, was introduced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget of 1948. It was the heyday of the cheap money policy, and a great deal of money was then, as now, being spent by the Government. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), in bringing in this provision, decided that this would be a very convenient way of raising a little revenue to offset certain concessions which he then granted. He gave as a reason for doubling the stamp duties the rather unusual one that they had not been doubled for some 27 years, and therefore, it was high time that they were doubled. This is what he said in his Budget statement:I turn next to the Stamp Duties, in which there has been no important change since the late Mr. Austen Chamberlain, as he then was, doubled most of the rates in his Budget of 1920, two years after the first World War. I now propose, following his example, at this corresponding point after the second World War, to double a number of the Stamp Duties, which I shall specify in a moment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 81.]As it turned out, the doubling of the Stamp Duties has created a very unsatisfactory position in this country. The duty on the purchase price of a house between £500 and £1,500 remains at the same rate, but between £1,500 and £2,000 it graduates up to a total of £2 per cent. Above £2,000 the rate is £2 per cent., which is double what it previously was. This has caused very severe hardship. As the Government housing policy has continuously failed, houses which previously were selling at £1,000 or less—the ordinary small two or three bedroom houses—have become more and more in demand and more and more expensive. The consequence is that houses which were selling pre-war at £1,000 now bring in £3,000 and often more.
The pre-war Stamp Duty on a £1,000 house was only £10, being £1 per cent. Today the Stamp Duty on the same house changing hands at about £3,000 has gone up to £60. I am sure the economists in the Treasury Bench will understand me when I say that it seems to be a case of a "law of expanding returns," because the higher the prices rise the greater the amount which the right hon. and learned 165 Gentleman receives. He is now profiteering in Stamp Duty, which is a most reprehensible position for him to be in.
To come back to the example 1 gave if the Stamp Duty remained at 1 per cent., the house which now changes hands at £3,000 would pay a Stamp Duty of only £30, but by doubling the rate the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets £60. In other words, three times is not good enough for him; he has to have six times. We have put this new Clause down hoping we shall be able to secure a reduction back to the old value, because by increasing the amount of Stamp Duty in that way, we think a very grave impediment has been imposed on those who wish to own their own houses.
There is universal agreement on both sides of the House that we should give as much encouragement as we can to house ownership, particularly to those people who want to own their own dwelling-house. The increase of Stamp Duties has made house owning difficult, and people have been grievously deterred from owning houses. For that reason we are proposing the new Clause and we hope that the House will pass it. It is an acid test of the Government's sincerity when they talk about house ownership. I hope that they will agree that we are proposing a step which they can take to make it easier for people to own their own houses. By reducing these duties they will not only be giving an earnest of their sincerity but because since 1947 they have been profiteering in Stamp Duty, that practice would cease forthwith.
§ Mr. Black (Wimbledon)
I beg to second the Motion.
In accordance with the practice of this House, I should at the outset declare my interest because I happen to be concerned in companies which own properties. Therefore I may be regarded as having some personal interest in the Clause. In any event, it will do no harm for me to declare my interest.
I would emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) about the importance of encouraging house ownership. The enormous rise in costs incidental to the purchase of a house is proving a big deterrent to families from becoming owners of their homes. I accept the view 166 put forward by my hon. Friend that it is probably as good an estimate as can be made that small houses with vacant possession are selling today for at least three times what they fetched in 1939. Even if, as we seek to persuade the Government to do, Stamp Duties were reduced to where they were prior to the Finance Act, 1947, the Government would still be collecting three times the amount of Stamp Duty in the average case of house transfer to what they collected in 1939. I should have thought that increase was sufficient for the Exchequer without doubling the amount and charging six times the 1939 figure.
I would bring to the notice of the House the enormous increase in the costs incidental to the purchase of a house. On a house which sold for £1,000 in 1939 and on which the purchaser borrowed £750 from a building society, the legal costs, including Stamp Duties, were about £36. Today, if the same house sells for £3,000 and the purchaser borrows £2,250, the legal costs, including Stamp Duties, are about £137. Obviously this tremendous increase must be a deterrent to many families who can acquire a house only by purchase because there are no houses available for them to rent.
The House will also realise that the Stamp Duty on the transfer of the property is payable not by the vendor, who is receiving a large price for the house, but by the purchaser, who is compelled to pay the heavy rate of Stamp Duty on top of paying a largely increased price for the property he is to acquire. I hope that there is general agreement on both sides of the House on the desirability of encouraging families to buy their own homes. I would draw the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the fact that the programme on which they contested the recent General Election contains this statementLabour moves towards a property-owning democracy while others talk about it.I suggest that the acceptance or rejection of this new Clause may very well be regarded as the acid test of the sincerity or otherwise of that particular assertion. We shall have an opportunity tonight to see to what extent there is a sincere desire to bring about a property-owning democracy because one of the most sure and certain ways of bringing that about 167 is to facilitate the purchase of homes by members of the community.
The encouragement of home ownership, and quite clearly it is encouraged by a reduction in the costs incidental to purchase, is one of the surest ways of encouraging the saving habit which is so very necessary today because the purchaser of his home is prepared to work harder and to save harder to bring the ownership of his home within his grasp. Therefore, I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider most favourably the points which we have endeavoured to bring to his notice with a view to seeing whether he can accept this new Clause.
§ Mr. Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
My hon. Friends have put the case for this new Clause on the right basis, namely, the encouragement of home ownership. I should like the Solicitor-General to consider the effect which the increases introduced in 1947 have had upon the purchase of homes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) rightly pointed out, the market cost of houses has risen to three times the pre-war figure. He might have pointed out, but naturally did not, that his own profession has been quite content with the increased reward derived from that increase in market value, whereas the Treasury has greedily wanted to double that natural increase. It is open to the Solicitor-General to argue that the lower-priced houses have not had that additional impost levied upon them, but what kind of house does one buy nowadays for home ownership for £500. or indeed £1,000?
If the matter is carefully considered, it appears that what has really been done by this steepening of the graduation in 1947 is that if a house is bought for investment with a protected tenant in possession, then the purchaser pays a very low and favourable rate of Stamp Duty; but if the purchaser buys the house to live in, then the Government "milks" him good and proper. I think it would be fair to say that for a house worth £3,000 with vacant possession, about £800 is paid for investment; that is to say, if the house would fetch £3,000 vacant, it would fetch £800 on sale with a protected tenant installed. If a man is buying that house to live in, he would 168 pay to the Revenue duty of £60, but if he was buying an investment, which I should have thought hon. Members opposite might have considered rather more wicked—and I of course do not consider either action to be wicked—in that case he would pay duty of £8.
What reason is there for the change introduced in 1947 which penalises the man who buys a house to live in and, I will not say subsidises but at least encourages, the man who buys it for an investment? I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will direct his mind to that point when answering that argument on this new Clause which would merely restore the status quo ante 1947 by which the tax was graduated, but not so harshly graduated as it is now.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am sorry, but I cannot accept this new Clause. As it is drafted, it would have the effect not only of going back to the pre-1947 rate in the case of the conveyance of a house, but it would also, as drafted, apply to the transfer of stock. In any case it would be incomplete as a piece of drafting, because if one wished to make that change at all, and if it were acceptable, a number of other changes would have to be made in the 1947 Act which are not made by this Clause.
For example, one would have to make a corresponding change in the duty on the transfer of marketable securities, the property in which is transferred on delivery. So purely as a piece of drafting this new Clause does not achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman who moved it had in mind, because it extends to something which he, and the hon. Member who seconded it, apparently did not contemplate in the least. Even taking it on its face value, it is incomplete as a piece of drafting. I think the House would agree that, that being so, it would be quite impossible to accept it.
When the Clause was put down, we considered what it would cost, as obviously a consideration in deciding what attitude to adopt to it. The cost of the Clause as it stands would be no less than £12 million which is, of course, a sum of money we could not contemplate with regard to this matter. The House may ask how much of the £12 million is attributable to the transfer or conveyance of houses? Frankly, I have not that figure with me, for the simple reason that 169 the Clause covered not only the conveyance of houses but the transfer of stock as well.
§ The Solicitor-General
I intended to say, as I think I did say, that the Clause as drafted, that is to say, including the transfer of stock and the conveyance of houses, would cost £12 million. I gave that figure because we took steps to ascertain what would be the cost of the Clause as it stood. I have not the figure in the case of the conveyance of houses only because I did not know when I saw the Clause on the Order Paper that the hon. Gentleman's only object was to reduce the duty on conveyance of houses; but I am endeavouring to ascertain that figure. Obviously £12 million is a very substantial sum of money and we would need a strong case to justify making this concession; but apart from that, even if one considers the object which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, it would hardly be likely to be achieved.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we are now in a sellers' market for houses. As he will know, the duty upon the transfer of houses is, generally speaking, paid by the purchaser. If we have a sellers' market and if we reduce the duty on transfer, it is likely that the only result will be, not that the purchaser gets the house at a lesser cost, but simply that the reduction in cost will be a reason seized upon by the seller for increasing his price—not expressly, but he will increase his price. It is a matter for speculation or conjecture. I should very much doubt whether the object hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind would be accomplished if the duty were reduced in this way.
Be that as it may, the Clause as it stands goes much further than those who moved it wish it to go. It is incomplete; it would be too expensive and, although it would not cost £12 million, it would cost a substantial sum of money even if one excluded transfers of stock. Finally, it is most doubtful whether, if we reduced the duty on the transfer of houses, it would make much difference 170 to the buyer, because in a sellers' market it is, broadly speaking, the seller who says what the price will be.
§ Mr. Hay
Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether he looked at the title of the new Clause which says:Reduction of stamp duties on conveyances"?The word "conveyances" is usually accepted in the legal profession as referring to the conveyance of house property. Was the right hon. Gentleman really taken so much by surprise?
§ The Solicitor-General
I took the new Clause at its face value as it stood on the Order Paper. I read it and compared it with the Section in the 1947 Act to see what its effects would be. It was in that light that I considered the arguments which one might think could be advanced in favour of it and the points which would constitute objections to its acceptance. We cannot see our way to accept the new Clause.
§ Captain Crookshank
The case of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) was briefly and cogently put. It dealt only with the small point with regard to conveyances in the case of sales of houses. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little ingenuous. I cannot help thinking that he did not really imagine that in this Clause we were attempting to deal with the transfer of securities and all the rest of it. As my hon. Friend said, the title of the Clause refers to "conveyances" and he, being a solicitor, presumed that the Solicitor-General would take the word to have the same meaning.
If there had been any dubiety on the matter, I would point out that the Clause has been on the Order Paper for some time, and it is not uncommon for a Treasury Minister—none of whom are present and, therefore, I excuse the Solicitor-General—to find out its purpose from those whose names have been attached to it. There is always a certain amount of give and take in that way in this House. The Solicitor-General has chosen to argue the matter meticulously and no doubt correctly on the actual wording of the Clause. In point of fact, that is not what was intended.
If he had ascertained that the point of the new Clause was to deal with house 171 sales and conveyances, had the Government been so minded, they could perfectly well have amended this proposal or put down another Clause to cover the same point. There would have been no difficulty about that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has held out no hope that that was ever in the mind of the Government. On the other hand, we think that it would be a very wise action to take, for the reasons already expressed with which I will not trouble the House. If my hon. Friend is so minded, I shall be pleased to follow him into the Lobby.
§ Sir H. Williams
Before we vote on this new Clause, may I say that I was rather pleased with the speech of the learned Solicitor-General, who was abandoned by his Wykehamist friends and left to carry a baby worth £12 million? My hon. Friend who moved the new Clause thought that it dealt with house property, but, according to the learned Solicitor-General, he was dealing with stocks and shares. I am delighted; I think that Stamp Duties are dreadful, and I always have held that view. All Stamp Duties on these transactions are evil and bad, because it is only another form of Purchase Tax. When the Solicitor-General says that, when a fellow buys a house, he goes into the most elaborate calculations about the Stamp Duty, I do not think that he has ever either bought or sold a house. I have not been concerned in many of these transactions, but I have never yet met a person who, being engaged in a deal about a house, either in buying or selling, thought for one moment—
§ Mr. Speaker
We are not discussing the merits or demerits of Stamp Duties, but only their reduction.
§ Sir H. Williams
The Solicitor-General led me astray, because he said very definitely that, if this new Clause was carried reducing the amount of Stamp Duty on the sale of a house, all that would happen would be that the seller would charge more for the house to the extent of the reduction of the Stamp Duty, and that was all that I was arguing about. I have not had many transactions of this kind, but I know a great many of my friends who have, and I have never met one who thought this was an important factor.
I shall have the greatest pleasure in following into the Lobby my right hon. 172 and gallant Friend who spoke last. I think that on this issue the Government have been quite stupid. We want people to be able to buy their own houses as cheaply as possible, and the Government do not want them to do that. They want everybody to become council tenants, and that is what is behind the opposition to this new Clause. We want people to be free and own their own houses. The Government do not want that, because they know perfectly well that, when a man owns his own house, he is likely to be free-minded, and they do not want free-minded people.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson (Ilford, North)
I am sure the House will not feel satisfied with the reply which the learned Solicitor-General has given to this discussion. Part of his case comes to this—that the Government, apparently, are making a very substantial sum out of these Stamp Duties on conveyances and transfers. They are making something like £12 million, and that clearly is in addition to the purchase price of the house, whether it comes out of the possible seller or the possible buyer. In times like the present, there is a very widespread demand for houses at reasonable prices. It will come as a very great disappointment to persons trying to accommodate themselves with moderately priced houses to know that the Government are making something less than £12 million—
§ Mr. Speaker
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak up, because I have not heard a single word he has said?
§ Mr. Hutchinson
I was saying that I am sure that the reply which the learned Solicitor-General gave to my hon. Friend's point will be a very great source of disappointment to many persons who are today trying to accommodate themselves in reasonably priced premises. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that these Duties on conveyances and transfers represent a very substantial sum, and, whether that sum is to come from the pocket of the buyer or that of the seller, it has to be added to the price of the house. That means that this £12 million, or something less, which represents the duty on conveyances, will have 173 to be paid by the person who eventually buys the House. I should have thought that at the present time—
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Hamilton (Fife, West)
On a point of order. As the hon. Gentleman's speech might well turn the tables, may I appeal to him to speak up so that we may hear his argument?
§ Mr. Hutchinson
I apologise to the House, but I am doing my best.
The Solicitor-General was anxious to say that so far as the transfer of securities was concerned, there was really no case for any remission of these duties. Very much the same argument applies to the transfer of securities as applies to the transfer of houses. The duties, at the rates which the Government intend to maintain, on transfers are just as much a hardship to persons interested in the transfer of small investments, such as those involved in the distribution of small estates on death, as in the conveyance of small house property. I really do not know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be so anxious that no concession should be given in the case of the transfer of securities, although he seems prepared to say that something might be done in the case of the transfer of house property.
These duties on conveyances and transfers represent a substantial hardship to a large number of persons of comparatively modest means. I should have hoped that, in view of the difficulties which persons in all ranges of incomes are experiencing at the present time, this modest concession, at least, might have been made, and that the Stamp Duty restored to something more reasonable than the rate at which it is apparently proposed to maintain it.
§ Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)
I was not fully and enthusiastically converted to the wisdom of this Clause until I heard the speech of the Solicitor-General. He convinced me that it was a good thing. I could not quite see why we should differentiate between conveyances and transfers, but now that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to fight the issue on the reduction of Stamp Duties on transfers as well as on conveyances, I think it is an admirable thing that we should do so. It may be that there is some technical difficulty in the drafting of 174 the Clause, but if the House makes clear its wishes in the matter, that is a matter which the Government can very easily overcome.
There is not the slightest doubt that if transfers of property, whether real or personal property, can be facilitated, as they will be facilitated, as a result of the reduction in Stamp Duties which are envisaged in this Clause, it will be an exceedingly good thing for trade and business as a whole, and will redound and reflect to the advantage of the community at large. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said, Stamp Duties are a distinct hindrance to trade and business in all respects with regard to real estate or personal estate. I very much hope that the House will come to the conclusion that the Clause should be accepted in the way it has been interpreted by the Solicitor-General.
§ Mr. C. Williams
I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a personal favour, to read the Solicitor-General's speech tomorrow. The Solicitor-General put forward the interesting, and, from a free trade point of view, completely wrong argument that if tax is lowered on an article, the cost of the article is likely to rise. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks worried, but he is nothing like as worried as I was and as everyone else was when trying to understand the Solicitor-General's argument. But I ask the Chancellor to read his right hon. and learned Friend's speech and I ask that in future we do not have people getting up and telling us that by reducing taxation the cost of houses may rise.
My second point is that the Government's attitude to housing is shown in their refusal to accept any amendment of this Clause so as to make it apply only to the purchase of houses. It is most interesting that in these times the Government are absolutely dead against helping people to get their own houses. That is a point that it would be well to emphasise.
The third point is that, quite clearly and obviously, the intention of the Government in retaining the Bill in its present form, and in refusing this new Clause, is to do everything possible to heighten 175 the cost of houses and to make it more difficult for people to obtain their own houses at present. I shall have very great pleasure in telling that to my constituents, and I hope it will reach Bristol and
§ that this will put out a large number of the Socialist Party.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 290.179
|Division No. 53.]||AYES||[10.10 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T||Dulhie, W. S.||Lindsay, Martin|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Eccles, D. M.||Linstead, H. N.|
|Amery, J. (Preston, N.)||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Llewellyn, D.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Erroll, F. J.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Fisher, Nigel||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Baker, P.||Fort, R.||Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S.W.)|
|Baldock, J. M.||Foster, J. G.||Low, A. R. W.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)||Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.|
|Bell, R. M.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||McAdden, S. J.|
|Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)||Gammans, L. D.||McCallum, Maj. D.|
|Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)||Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Gates, Maj. E. E||Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)|
|Birch, Nigel||Glyn, Sir R.||McKibbin, A.|
|Bishop, F. P||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Black, C. W.||Granville, E. (Eye)||Maclay, Hon. J. S.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Gridley, Sir A.||Maclean, F. H. R.|
|Boothby, R.||Grimond, J.||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Bossom, A. C||Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Bowen, R.||Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Bower, N.||Harden, J. R. E.||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon Brendan||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Braine, B.||Harris, R. R. (Heston)||Marples, A. E.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.||Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)|
|Bromley-Devenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Harvey, I. (Harrow, E.)||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)|
|Brooke, H. (Hampstead)||Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S||Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)|
|Browne, J. N. (Govan)||Hay, John||Maude, J. C. (Exeter)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Head, Brig. A. H||Maulding, R.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Heald, L. F.||Medlicott, Brigadier F.|
|Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Mellor, Sir J.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)||Higgs, J. M. C.||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.|
|Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)|
|Channon, H.||Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grimstead)||Hinchigbrooke, Viscount||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.|
|Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Nabarro, G.|
|Colegate, A.||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Nicholls, H.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Hollis, M. C.||Nicholson, G.|
|Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Nobel, Comdr. A. H. P|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hope, Lord J.||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Hopkinson, H. L. D'A||Nutting, Anthony|
|Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)||Horsbrugh, Miss F||Odey, G. W.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Howard, S G. (Cambridgeshire)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lawisham, N.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Osborne, C|
|Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Peto, Brig, C. H. M|
|Cundiff, F. W.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Hyde, H. M.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)||Jeffreys, General Sir G||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Jennings, R.||Prescott, Stanley|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Johnson, Howard S (Kemptown)||Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.|
|de Chair, S.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W||Profumo, J. D.|
|De la Bère, R.||Kaberry, D.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Keeling, E. H.||Rayner, Brig, R.|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Redmayne, M.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Donner, P. W.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roberts, P. G. (Hesley)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M||Lancaster, Col. C. G||Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)|
|Drayson, G. B||Langford-Holt, J.||Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Drewe, C.||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Leather, E. H. C.||Roper, Sir H.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Russell, R. S.||Summers, G. S||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.||Sutcliffe, H.||Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Scott, Donald||Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)||Waterhouse, Capt. C.|
|Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)||Watkinson, H.|
|Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)||Thompson, K. P. (Walton)||Webbe, Sir H. (London)|
|Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)||Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)||Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)|
|Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)||Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)||White, J. Baker (Canterbury)|
|Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Snadden, W. McN.||Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Soames, Capt. C.||Tilney, John||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)|
|Spearman, A. C. M.||Touche, G. C.||Wills, G.|
|Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Turton, R. H.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)||Vane, W. M. F.||Young, Sir A. S. L.|
|Stevens, G. P.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)||Vosper, D. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Storey, S.||Wade, D. W.||Mr. Studholme and|
|Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)||Brigadier Mackeson.|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)||Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Holman, P.|
|Adams, Richard||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)|
|Albu, A. H.||Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Houghton, Douglas|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hoy, J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hubbard, T.|
|Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)||Deer, G.||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)|
|Attlee, Rt Hon. C. R.||Delargy, H. J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Diamond, J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Ayles, W. H.||Dodds, N. N.||Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N.)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Donnelly, D.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Baird, J.||Donovan, T. N.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Balfour, A.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)|
|Bartley, P.||Dye, S.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Janner, B.|
|Benson, G.||Edelman, M.||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Beswick, F.||Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Jeger, G. (Goole)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Boardman, H.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)|
|Booth, A.||Ewart, R.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S).|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Fernyhough, E.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Bowden, H. W.||Field, Capt. W. J.||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Finch, H. J.||Keenan, W.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Kenyon, C.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Follick, M.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Foot, M. M.||King, H. M.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Forman, J. C.||Kinley, J.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Lang, Rev. G.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Freeman, J. (Watford)||Lee, F. (Newton)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Burke, W. A.||Gaitskeff, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Lever, N. H. (Cheetham)|
|Callaghan, James||Gibson, C. W.||Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)|
|Carmichael, James||Gilzean, A.||Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Champion, A. J.||Gordon. Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)||Logan, D. G.|
|Clunie, J.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||Longden, F. (Small Health)|
|Cooks, F. S.||Grey, C. F.||McAllister, G.|
|Coldrick, W.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||MacColl, J. E.|
|Collick, P.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)||McGhee, H. G.|
|Collindridge, F.||Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)||McInnes, J.|
|Gunter, R. J.||Mack, J. D.|
|Cook, T. F.||Hale, J. (Rochdale)||Mckay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W)||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)|
|Cooper, J. (Deptford)||Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)||McLeavy, F.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)||Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne v'll'y)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Cove, W. G.||Hamilton, W. W.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Hannan, W.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Crawley, A.||Hardman, D. R||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.||Hardy, E. A.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Hargreaves, A||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Grossman, R. H. S.||Harrison, J.||Mann, Mrs. J.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Manual, A. C.|
|Dagger, G.||Hayman, F. H.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A|
|Daines, P.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Mathers, Rt. Hon. George|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Herbison, Miss M.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Darling, G. (Hillsboro')||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Messer, F.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Hobson, C. R.||Middleton, Mrs. L.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Richards, R||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G|
|Mitchison, G. R||Robens, A.||Tomney, F.|
|Moeran, E. W.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Usborne, Henry|
|Monslow, W||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Vernon, Maj. W. F|
|Moody, A. S.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Viant, S. P.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)||Wallace, H. W|
|Morley, R.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Royle, C||Webb, Rt. Han. M. (Bradford. C.)|
|Mort, D. L.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Weitzman, D.|
|Moyle, A.||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Mulley, F. W||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Nally, W.||Silverman, J (Erdington)||West, D. G.|
|Noel-Baker, Rt Hon. P. J||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|O'Brien, T.||Simmons, C J||White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)|
|Oldfield, W. H||Slater, J.||White H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Oliver, G. H||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Orbach, M.||Snow, J. W.||Wigg, George|
|Padley, W. E||Sorensen, R. W||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir P||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Pannell, T. C||Steele, T.||Willey, F. T (Sunderland)|
|Pargiter, G. A||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Willey, O. G (Cleveland)|
|Parker, J.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Paton, J||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Pearson, A||Strauss Rt. Hon. G. R (Vauxhall)||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Peart, T. F||Stross, Dr. B||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)|
|Poole, Cecil||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith||Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)|
|Porter, G.||Sylvester, G O||Winterbottom, R. E. (Brights de)|
|Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Pryde, D. J||Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A|
|Pursey, Comdr. H||Thomas, D E (Aberdare)||Woods, Rev. G. S|
|Rankin, J.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Rees, Mrs. D||Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)||Yates, V. F.|
|Reeves, J.||Thomas, I R. (Rhondda, W.)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Reid, T. (Swindon)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Reid, W. (Camlachie)||Thurtle, Ernest||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Rhodes, H||Timmons. J||Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Sparks.|