HC Deb 03 July 1950 vol 477 cc179-95

(1) If a person has incurred capital expenditure on the provision for the purpose of a trade or business carried on by him of temporary premises by reason of war damage to the premises previously available for that purpose a deduction equal one fifth of that expenditure shall be made in charging the profits or gains of the trade or business for the year ended the fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and for each of the following years of assessment.

(2) In this section the expression "temporary premises" means premises for the erection of which permission has been granted for a limited period only under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or any Act repealed thereby being premises which are not included in the definition of an industrial building or structure contained in section eight of the Income Tax Act, 1945.

(3) The expenditure to which this section relates is the cost to the person carrying on the trade or business in providing the temporary premises reduced by any allowance previously made to him in respect of exceptional depreciation under section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1941, as subsequently amended and reduced by any sum contributed by any public authority or by any other person than the person carrying on the trade or business towards the provision of the premises which has not already been taken into account in any claim for such exceptional depreciation. Any further expenditure incurred on the removal of the said premises reduced by any proceeds of sale of materials salvaged from the demolition of the premises shall be treated as further expenditure incurred on the provision of the premises and shall be wholly deducted in charging the profits of the year of assessment in which the demolition takes place, together with any unallowed balance of previous expenditure which has not yet been deducted in charging the said profits or gains.—[Mr. Eccles.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Eccles (Chippenham)

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

I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here because this Clause very much affects Bristol, a famous city, part of which he represents. The Clause provides for an allowance of 20 per cent. per annum for five consecutive years in respect of temporary buildings which firms or traders erected while they were waiting for permits and other facilities to re-establish their premises which had been blitzed. The House will know that in badly-blitzed areas it is in many cases very difficult to undertake reconstruction except at a slow pace. Clearly, too, dwelling-houses have often had priority in permanent construction, and I think the House will agree that that was right.

On the other hand, in order that the livelihood of a city should continue, it has been of the highest importance that bombed firms should get back into business as soon as possible, and all over the country in these blitzed areas temporary premises have been erected by firms which knew that for some time they would not be able to build permanently. These buildings, unless they are industrial buildings, do not rank for any depreciation allowance such as is given in the Income Tax Act, 1945.

Two years ago a similar Clause to that which I am now moving was moved by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), whom I am glad to see in his place. The hon. Gentleman moved that Clause in the early hours of the morning, as he will, no doubt recollect. He based his arguments rather too narrowly, I thought, on the interests of the Co-operative Societies. I am all in favour of the "Co-ops" which, no doubt, have erected temporary buildings up and down the country, getting this allowance, but I do not, like the hon. Gentleman, speak only for the "Co-ops"; I wish to speak for all those who have put up buildings of this nature.

On that occasion the Solicitor-General refused to accept the Clause on grounds of principle. He said—and quite rightly—that, of course, it would make a breach in the principle of the Income Tax Act, 1945, by allowing buildings to receive this allowance which were not industrial buildings—in other words, temporary shops; and he said that that was a principle which the Government could not go back on. Well, at a later stage we shall have an opportunity—I understand on the next Clause you are going to call, Mr. Speaker—of arguing that general principle. Therefore, 1 shall not argue it on this Clause, though I believe it to be a bad principle today.

The smaller question which is contained in this Clause is that where war damage creates special cases, it should receive special treatment. I think that the Solicitor-General was wrong two years ago to brush aside the special question of these temporary buildings, which, after all, would never have been there but for the war. One of the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used was this: If it were regarded as an exceptional reason, then equivalent reliefs would have to be accorded in the case of all other temporary buildings. Take the case of a soldier returning to civilian life. In order to build up his pre-war business he takes temporary shop premises. He would have just as strong a case"—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 7th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1822.] I do not know why the ex-soldier should be considered not fit for this allowance, but even if we disregard the ex-Service man, I still think that the arguments are very strong where a firm has had to make expenditure which it knows must come to an end quite shortly.

I believe the Solicitor-General also used the argument that the wear and tear allowance, the ordinary repairs allowance, and so on, on the building were quite good. Yes, they are; but that does not get a man back his capital so that he can be in a position to put up a permanent building; and I should think that in many cases the fact that a man has had to wait some years before he could build the permanent premises to take the place of his blitzed premises means that he has to pay more. because building costs have risen in the period of waiting—which has not been due to the man's wish, but due to the fact that the Government, for one reason or another which I shall not now go into, have not allowed him to get on with his permanent building. Therefore, the "Coop," and anybody else who has to put up these temporary buildings, requires a larger capital sum, and that is all the more reason why this allowance should now be given.

I conclude by saying this. No one on this side of the House supported the hon. Member for Ealing, North, in the early hours of the morning two years ago, and I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman why that was. It was because we had a very important Clause which we desired to argue at length coming shortly afterwards, and we decided that it was better to let his Clause go, because he had argued it from the narrow "Co-op" point of view, and to concentrate upon our own Clause which was coming afterwards. I know that he will not have such a spirit himself. I am asking for better treatment from him than we gave to him two years ago, and I am sure I can count upon his support on this occasion.

Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

I beg to second the Motion.

This is a matter in connection with which a considerable number of people feel that they are suffering an injustice, and it is not good to allow even a small number of people to go on feeling that. Of course, large establishments take this sort of expenditure for temporary buildings in their stride, but the small organisations feel it very keenly. I come from a city of small organisations, where there is a large number of small business people who are very concerned at the fact that they can get only temporary licences, and yet their expenditure will be treated eventually as permanent capital. We always have this quarrel with the Revenue who insist upon treating as real capital, money which we have had to sink and write off—money which is lost and gone for ever. They say it is still capital because it came out of the capital account originally.

These people of whom I speak are in that position. They have taken temporary premises in order to carry on and yet they are not allowed to write them off; they are not allowed the allowance for taxation purposes. I feel very strongly on this matter, because my mind has been going back to this very month ten years ago when I was given the job of creating an organisation to deal with business premises that were likely to be bombed. The House will remember that we were only just in time; we got the organisation going in July and in August the bombs started to fall. My reason for mentioning that is simply this: that I spent my time then encouraging people to take temporary premises, to do everything they possibly could to get going when they were hit. That put moral fibre back into people who were down and out; it helped their workers; it had a great psychological value. It now seems very hard that, having told those people to get on with it, not to think about anything else but to find somewhere to be able to get going at all costs, they should now be treated like this.

The Solicitor-General

I am sorry to say that we cannot accept this new Clause, and I will endeavour to give the reasons which actuate us in coming to that decision. The new Clause, of course, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) pointed out, applies only to non-industrial buildings—broadly speaking, shops and similar business premises. He also pointed out that as matters stand they already enjoy the ordinary deprecia- tion allowances, exceptional depreciation, wear and tear, and so on, so that they are not altogether without relief as the law stands.

10.30 p.m.

There are many and weighty reasons why we feel we cannot accept the Clause. To begin with, it would be impracticable not to extend it to a whole variety of different cases. The hon. Member for Chippenham referred to a speech which I made two years ago, in which I spoke of a soldier who had returned and in order to set himself up in business had opened a temporary shop. I gave that only as an example. But if we allowed this measure of relief in that case, we would have to extend it to all sorts of temporary premises if we wanted to act fairly as between one taxpayer and another. I gave only that example, but it is easy to find others in respect of which a stronger case could be put forward. Therefore, it would not be fair as between one taxpayer and another to accept the Clause as it stands.

Purely as a matter of drafting—though this could be remedied—the Clause is incomplete in that it does not provide for anything in the nature of a balancing charge in the event of the relief being shown to be too much. The main reason we cannot accept the Clause is, as I pointed out previously and as the hon. Member for Chippenham reminded the House I had pointed out before, that it would constitute a complete departure in principle from the basis of the Income Tax Act, 1945.

As the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the relief by way of initial and other allowances was limited to industrial buildings in the true sense, that is, buildings necessary for the productive industries upon which our industrial strength depends, and he carefully limited the relief which he felt able to give in the Bill to that kind of building. The position as he envisaged it at that time is, for this purpose, the same at the present day. We still feel it necessary to give the relief first where it is of most importance from the national point of view and we think, as the Chancellor thought at that time, that the great productive industries certainly should come first.

The only reason we are asked to depart from that principle is that the premises in question are temporary premises. I put it to the House that this is a wholly inadequate reason for departing from the principle of the 1945 Act. It would be quite impracticable to apportion relief on premises on the ground that they were temporary. It would be a very doubtful Income Tax principle to give relief according to whether a building is short-lived or long-lived.

Let me give an example. Take a shop which cost £1,500 and has a life of five years; the amortisation rate would be £300 a year. Then take a shop which cost £15,000 and has a life of 50 years; it would have the same annual rate of amortisation. It would be impossible, as a matter of logic or as a matter of consistency, to give relief for the shop that has the shorter life and refuse it for the shop that has the longer life. It would be altogether unjustified. The Clause would have the effect of giving relief only in the case of the shop with the short life.

There is the further objection that the expression "temporary" is far too vague to be translated into an Act of Parliament in this connection. It is well known that a number of planning authorities give permission for a limited period at first and then extend the period of permission when the first permission has expired. For example, I know of a ease where the premises cost £2,400, and a licence was given for seven years in the first place and was extended ultimately to 20 years. In that case, are the premises to be regarded as temporary or not.

Sir H. Williams

May I interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He is talking about temporary premises. We have the Minister of Health talking about temporary housing, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury talking about temporary civil servants. What is the difference between the "temporary" in those cases and the "temporary" about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking?.

The Solicitor-General

I was talking about a taxing Statute where there has to be precision. If there were no definition, no clear idea of what the premises were and whether they came within the scope of the Bill, it would lead to most impos- sible results if this sort of relief were given. That is what I meant when I said that the expression in the new Clause is hopelessly vague in that context. This, again, is a matter which I am told has been represented to the Tucker Committee, which will not doubt consider these representations, and any recommendations the Committee think proper to make will receive, as indeed all recommendations coming from that Committee would naturally do, careful consideration by the Government.

But at the moment the Government cannot see their way to accept the Clause. The basic reason is that it involves a radical departure from the principle of the 1945 Act on an inadequate ground, namely, that the premises are temporary premises, and would mean that one would have to go too far into the types of premises. It would also be unfair to different groups of taxpayers, all of whom could put forward equally strong cases with regard to the temporary premises they use, to limit it to this particular type. For those reasons, I hope the House will agree that it is not right to accept the Clause.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

The Solicitor-General has made plain that he does not want to accept the principle of our new Clause. He has chosen to disparage it on certain narrow technical grounds. Maybe it is not perfectly drafted, and maybe we have not been precise in our wording; but surely the principle of the Clause is clear beyond all reasonable doubt. Who has not gone through blitzed towns since the war and seen how the shopkeepers in those towns have got going in temporary premises, determined at all costs to carry on their trade? To suggest that relief should be given only to industrial buildings, as though they were the only buildings that mattered, is merely to use a narrow argument to defeat the principle behind our new Clause.

Suppose that these traders had decided not to set up in temporary premises but had said, "We will wait to make sure we are going to get the full tax relief before we start": suppose there had been no shops in any of the blitzed areas to replace the ones bombed; does anyone think that production would have been maintained or increased? In these days the distribution of goods efficiently and cheaply in our great industrial areas is an essential part of our production efficiency, and cannot be separated from it. It is to the great credit of the small men and traders of our industrial towns that they did not wait upon a reluctant Chancellor of the Exchequer in war-time, but seized whatever means came to their power to get going again and to supply whatever goods they could to the industrial workers and their familities in the blitzed towns.

Now they are to be told, several years after the end of the war, that they are not in the same category as productive industries, and that if they put up a building worth £1,500 with a life of only five years it would create an anomaly to compare them with the owner of a building worth £15,000 who had the good fortune not to be blitzed during the war. I suggest that this is a wholly unreasonable argument. To say that some relief has been accorded to these people is no defence against the representations which we have made, because the relief to which these traders are entitled is no more and no greater than the relief to which all traders were entitled during the war, and have been since that time. It may be that there is the problem of balancing charges, but surely that is a problem which could be overcome with goodwill on the part of the Solicitor-General and his advisers.

Finally, I should like it to be made clear that here we have a situation in which traders who suffered great loss during the war in having their premises blitzed, and losing their stocks, have now to meet the inconvenience of setting themselves up again entirely out of taxed profits. It would have been tempting for them to have put up prices in order to bring in a bigger margin to offset their increased costs; but for the most part they did not do that. They have had to rely entirely on such profits as could be made, after paying taxation, to recover the exceptional costs which they have incurred. It may be that it is some time since the damage was incurred, but the injustice remains; and it is surely up to the Government to rectify it even at this late date.

Sir H. Williams

May I, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, as none of the three Ministers from the Treasury is present?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

I should not be able to accept that Motion.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

I am glad to take part in this Debate tonight and to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had the facts in hand two years ago is here to reply. That seems to me to be quite adequate representation of the Treasury. As the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was not here two years ago, he cannot be aware of the way his party behaved on that occasion. I shall be glad to devote a moment or two to giving him one or two of the facts.

10.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has done his best to indicate to me what he considers to be my failings on this occasion, since my name is not found among those supporting this new Clause. But the hon. Member's new Clause is very different from the Amendment which I moved two years ago. I still think that there was a case for my Amendment on the basis of my experience of the Co-operative Societies. I was not excluding claims on behalf of other traders on that occasion; but I knew the Co-operative Societies' case thoroughly. I had the facts of a large number of Co-operative Societies which had been forced to erect temporary premises, at great disadvantage to themselves, because of the delays imposed upon them in connection with town planning, and so on, when they would have preferred to erect their new permanent premises.

This being a disability to them, I thought there was a case for my Amendment. I put the matter to the Government on that occasion in the hope that there could he some alleviation offered them in the form of taxation; but I found two years ago as I find tonight, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was able to show that there would be an extremely large class of claimants who would come under this head if this alteration were permitted. That did not seem to affect hon. Members of the party opposite on that occasion. They left the whole of the speaking to me, and it was 1.15 in the morning; but their energies were not exhausted, because on that occasion they talked until 6.20 a.m. and yet never found the opportunity to express—

Captain Crookshank

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? The House adjourned that night at 12 minutes past two o'clock.

Mr. Hudson

At 12 minutes past two? Well, I found it difficult to get a copy of HANSARD for that day; there would seem to be a "corner" in copies of HANSARD on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I shall have to look in different quarters.

Mr. N. H. Lever (Manchester, Cheetham)

What time was it?

Mr. Hudson

On 7th June it was 20 minutes past six in the morning. I have now a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT with my speech published in it, and it must be right. I am only trying to say that on that occasion hon. Members opposite found that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply was apparently quite satisfactory. They said nothing about it after that, especially when the hon. Member for Chippenham stated that there was some other Amendment coming later. They did not challenge a Division. They were perfectly willing to let it go; and on the present occasion, seeing that we have had a very good reply, I am perfectly willing to be led by the example of hon. Members opposite two years ago and say that there is no need on this occasion to divide the House.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing (Weston-super-Mare)

I consider that it would be most improper to delve so deeply into history as the hon. Member opposite has done, but I say that the reason which calls forth this Clause is that the whole procedure is really governed by Government policy. It is, I think, very wrong that, when the Government set out a policy and have control of that policy by saying what shall, or shall not, be built, at the same time those who have suffered under that policy should feel that the Government have failed in their duty.

I suggest that it would have been wiser if greater licence had been granted to cover exactly the sort of case which this new Clause seeks to cover. But whether it would have been wiser or not, these people for whom we are asking for this slight improvement—and it cannot be called more than a slight improvement— are those who have, in fact, suffered from the action, or inaction, of the Government; or perhaps the inability of the Government to take action. For this reason, among many others, I support this new Clause.

Captain Crookshank

We on this side are not satisfied, although the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) appears to be quite happy, with the Solicitor-General's reply. I should like also to add that we are extremely dissatisfied that once again, on an important new Clause, not one of the three Treasury Ministers should see fit to be here. The question is one which obviously has a very considerable bearing on the economic life of the country. It certainly has on the economic situation in the towns and areas where the shops and premises are situated. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in Bristol"] Considering that we have a Minister of State for Economic Affairs, it really is almost intolerable that he should not be here to listen to the arguments which my hon. Friends have so cogently put forward.

If there were no other reason, I should ask the House to divide on these grounds alone; but as a matter of fact we are not satisfied with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. After all, he is here to interpret the law, generally speaking, on the Finance Bill and not to go into policy questions, and right well he does interpret the law, until it is reversed elsewhere. For the moment, this is purely an economic question of the hardship undergone by those people who are occupying premises which were damaged during the war. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is rather difficult to say what exactly is covered by this new Clause, I would point out that the words are absolutely clear. They are … temporary premises by reason of war damage … and the expression "temporary premises" is thereafter explained in subsection (2).

My hon. Friends would be perfectly ready to admit that there may be drafting mistakes in the Clause; that is bound to be the case when Clauses are discussed for the first time on the Report stage, which is the last effective stage of the Finance Bill. On the other hand, as I said earlier, this Clause was not put on the Order Paper only this morning, and had there been a will to do anything about it, the Government could quite well have produced the necessary words to bring it into due form and order.

We think there is a case for special arrangements to be made just as the hon. Member for Ealing, North, did two years ago. At that time, the Solicitor-General was arguing that it was not good to do it because it was all a question of priorities, and that the first priority obviously had to be for industrial buildings. Granted that was so, but that was two years ago, and now that these owners of premises are suffering under an injustice and a grievance, as they think it is, it would be right for this House to go into the matter and give them some form of redress. The Government, through the mouth of the Solicitor-General, have refused to do that. I do not blame the Solicitor-General; he

is not responsible for the policy; but I do object and resent the fact that Treasury Ministers are not here, and I hope my hon. Friends will divide the House.

Mr. Hudson

On a point of personal explanation. I made a mistake in what I said in response to an interruption by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was right in his statement, and I feel it necessary to say that. I had the copy of HANSARD very late and slipped over a whole day in computing the time of the Debate.

Captain Crookshank

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. We shall have a glass of milk over it together.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 286.

Division No. 54.] AYES [10.57 p.m
Aitken, W. T. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Heald, L. F.
Alport, C. J. M. Crouch, R. F. Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley) Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Amery, J. (Preston, N.) Crowder, F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood) Higgs, J. M. C.
Arbuthnot, John Cundiff, F. W. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Cuthbert, W. N. Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.) Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Baker, P. Davidson, Viscountess Hirst, Geoffrey
Baldock, J. M. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Hogg, Hon. Q.
Baldwin, A. E. Davies, Nigel (Epping) Hollis, M. C.
Baxter, A. B. de Chair, S. Holmes, Sir J Stanley (Harwich)
Beamish, Maj. T V. H. De la Bère, R. Hope, Lord J.
Bell, R. M.
Bell, R. M. Deedes, W. F. Hopkinson, H. L. D'A
Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston) Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport) Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M Horsbrugh, Miss F.
Bennett, W. G. (Woodside) Drayson, G. B. Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth) Drewe, C. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Birch, Nigel Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bishop, F. P. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Black, C. W. Dunglass, Lord Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.(Wells) Duthie, W. S. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Boothby, R. Eccles, D. M. Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Bossom, A. C Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Bowen, R Erroll, F. J. Hyde, H. M.
Bower, N. Fisher, Nigel Jeffreys, General Sir G
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Jennings, R.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Fort, R. Johnson, Howard S. (Kemptown)
Braine, B. Foster, J. G. Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone) Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale) Kaberry, D.
Brooke, H (Hampstead) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Keeling, E. H.
Browne, J. N. (Govan) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak) Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Bullock, Capt. M. Gammans, L. D. Lambert, Hon. G.
Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh) Lancaster, Col. C. G
Butcher, H. W. Gates, Maj. E. E. Langford-Holt, J
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Carr, L. R. (Mitcham) Granville, E. (Eye) Leather, E. H. C.
Channon, H. Gridley, Sir A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead) Grimond, J. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W) Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albane) Lindsay, Martin
Colegate, A Grimston, R. V. (Westbury) Linstead, H. N.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Harden, J R E. Llewellyn, D.
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford. S.) Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Cooper-Key, E. M. Harris, F W. (Croydon, N.) Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Harris, R. R. (Heston) Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne) Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Cranborne, Viscount Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Longden, C. J. M. (Herts, S.W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C Hay, John Low, A. R. W.
Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R. Head, Brig. A. H. Lucas, Major Sir J. (Portsmouth, S.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. Osborne, C. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O. Perkins, W. R. D. Studholme, H. G
McAdden, S. J. Peto, Brig. C. H. M Summers, G S
McCallum, Maj. D. Pickthorn, K Sutcliffe, H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Pitman, I. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight) Powell, J. Enoch Taylor, W J. (Bradford, N.)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Prescott, Stanley Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
McKibbin, A. Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Thompson, K. P. (Walton)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Profumo, J. D. Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Maclean, F. H. R. Raikes, H. V. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.) Rayner, Brig. R. Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Redmayne, M. Tilney, John
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Remnant, Hon. P. Touche, G C
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Renton, D. L. M Turton, R. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E Roberts, P. G. (Heeley) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Marlowe, A. A. H. Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness) Vane, W. M. F.
Marples, A. E Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Robson-Brown, W (Esher) Vosper, D. F.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton) Roper, Sir H. Wade, D. W.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.) Ropner, Col. L. Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)
Maude, J. C. (Exeter) Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Wakefield, Sir W. W. (St. Marylebone)
Maudling, R. Russell, R S. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Medlicolt, Brigadier F Ryder, Capt R. E. D Ward, Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. Sandys, Rt Hon D. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Molson, A. H. E. Scott, Donald Waterhouse, Capt. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Shepherd, W. S (Cheadle) Watkinson, H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Smith, E. Martin (Grantham) Webbe, Sir H. (London)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester) White, J. Baker (Canterbury)
Nabarro, G Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Nicholls, H Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Nicholson, G Snadden, W. McN. Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Soames, Capt. C. Wills, G.
Nugent, G. R H Spearman, A. C. M. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nutting, Anthony Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.) Woods, Rev. G. S.
Oakshott, H. D Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.) Young, Sir A. S. L.
Odey, G. W. Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D Stevens, G. P TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.) Major Wheatley and Mr. Digby.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Storey, S.
Acland, Sir Richard Clunie, J. Evans, E. (Lowestofe)
Adams, Richard Cocks, F. S. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Albu, A. H. Coldrick, W. Ewart, R.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Collick, P. Fernyhough, E.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Collindridge, F. Field, Capt. W. J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Cook, T. F. Finch, H. J.
Awbery, S. S. Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.) Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Ayles, W. H. Cooper, J. (Deptford) Follick, M.
Bacon, Miss A. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham) Foot, M. M.
Baird, J. Cove, W. G. Forman, J. C.
Balfour, A. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J Crawley, A. Freeman, J. (Watford)
Bartley, P. Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S. Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J Crosland, C. A. R. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Benson, G. Crossman, R. H. S Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Beswick, F. Cullen, Mrs. A. Gibson, C. W.
Bing, G. H. C. Daines, P. Gilzean, A.
Blackburn, A. R. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Blenkinsop, A. Darling, G. (Hillsboro') Gordon,Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Blyton, W. R. Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Greenwood, A. W. J. (Rossendale)
Boardman, H. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Booth, A. Davies, Harold (Leek) Grey, C. F.
Bottomley A. G. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Bowden H. W. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton) de Freltas, Geoffrey Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Braddock Mrs. E. M. Deer, G. Gunter, R. J.
Brockway, A. Fenner Diamond, J. Hale, Leslie (Oldnam, W.)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Dodds, N. N. Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton) Donnelly, D. Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Donovan, T. N. Hamilton, W. W.
Brown, George (Belper) Driberg, T. E. N. Hannan, W.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J. (W. Bromwich) Hardman, D. R.
Burke, W. A. Dye, S. Hardy, E. A
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hargreaves, A.
Callaghan, James Edelman, M. Harrison, J.
Carmichael, James Edwards, John (Brighouse) Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly) Hayman, F. H.
Champion, A. J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.(Rowley Regis)
Chetwynd, G. R. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Herbison, Miss M.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Manuel, A. C. Snow, J. W
Hobson, C. R. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A Sorensen, R. W.
Holman, P. Mathers, Rt. Hon. George Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir F
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) Mellish, R. J. Sparks, J. A.
Houghton, Douglas Messer, F. Steele, T.
Hoy, J. Middleton, Mrs. L. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Hubbard, T. Mikardo, Ian Strachey, Rt. Hon J
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.) Mitchison, G. R. Strauss, Rt. Hon. G R (Vauxhall)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Moeran, E. W. Stross, Dr. B
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Monslow, W. Summerskill, Rt. Hon Edith
Hughes, Moehwyn (Islington, N.) Moody, A. S. Sylvester, G O.
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Morgan, Dr. H. B Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Morley, R. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Mort, D. L. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Moyle, A. Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)
Janner, B. Mulley, F. W. Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)
Jay, D. P. T. Nally, W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Jeger, G. (Goole) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Thurtle, Ernest
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.) O'Brien, T. Timmons, J.
Jenkins, R. H. Oldfield, W. H Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Johnson, James (Rugby) Oliver, G. H Tomney, F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Orbach, M Usborne, Henry
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Padley, W. E Vernon, Maj. W. F
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Viant, S. P.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Pannell, T. C. Wallace, H. W.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway) Pargiter, G. A. Watkins, T. E.
Keenan, W. Parker, J. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford. C.)
Kenyon, C. Paton, J Weitzman, D.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Pearson, A Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
King, H. M. Peart, T. F. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Kinley, J. Poole, Cecil West, D. G.
Lang, Rev. G. Porter, G. Wheatley, Rt. Hn John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Lee, F. (Newton) Price, M. Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) Pryde, D. J. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Pursey, Comdr. H. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Lever, N. H. (Cheetham) Rankin, J. Wigg, George
Lewis, A W. J. (West Ham, N.) Rees, Mrs. D. Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.) Reeves, J. Wilkins, W. A.
Lindgren, G. S. Reid, T. (Swindon) Willey, F. T (Sunderland)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M, Reid, W. (Camlachie) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Logan, D. G. Rhodes, H Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Longden, F. (Small Heath) Richards, R Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)
McAllister, G. Robens, A Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)
MacColl, J. E. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)
McGhee, H. G. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
McInnes, J. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Mack, J. D. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N) Wise, Major F. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend) Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Woodburn, Rt Hon. A
Mackay, R W. G. (Reading, N.) Shackleton, E. A. A. Woods, Rev. G. S.
McLeavy, F Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H Wyatt W. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Shurmer, P. L. E. Yates, V. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Mainwaring, W. H. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Simmons, C J TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.) Slater, J. Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Royle.
Mann, Mrs. J. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Question put, and agreed to.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Bill, as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.