§ (1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Treasury in the exercise of their powers under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948, there shall be constituted a committee to be called the Purchase Tax Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman and not less than ten or more than twenty other members to be appointed by the Treasury from persons who have industrial and commercial experience.
§ (2) Any body of persons representing any trade or industry or, at the discretion of the committee, any person may make application to the Purchase Tax Advisory Committee stating that the tax in respect of certain goods is having an injurious effect upon that industry or is against the national interest. The committee shall take the application into consideration and may make recommendations as they think fit, taking into account the effect of the tax on the industry making the application and on other industries that may be affected by any alteration and shall in particular consider the effect on the export trade.362
§ (3) The members of the committee shall hold office for a period of three years and shall be eligible for reappointment from time to time on the expiration of their term of office. If a member becomes, in the opinion of the Treasury, unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties under this Act, the Treasury shall forthwith declare his office to be vacant and shall notify the fact in such manner as they think fit, and thereupon the office shall become vacant. Any member may at any time by notice in writing to the Treasury resign his office.
§ (4) The committee may make rules:—
- (a) for regulating the proceedings, including the quorum, of the committee; and
- (b) for authorising the delegation of any of the functions of the committee to a sub-committee consisting of members of the committee.
§ (5) The committee shall have power to take evidence on oath, and for that purpose to administer oaths.—[Mr. Peake.]
§ Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the Clause which we agreed should be postponed. It provides that we should establish a Purchase Tax advisory committee. A similar Clause was put on the Order Paper last year, but it was ruled out of order under the Budget Resolutions which were adopted last year. This is the only opportunity we shall get during the Committee stage to say anything in general terms regarding Purchase Tax and the reasons which we put forward in support of our claim that the present position is very unsatisfactory and that a body such as an advisory committee is urgently required to deal with some of the difficulties which have arisen in regard to the tax.
Purchase Tax was a war-time device—we never had it in peace-time—to induce people to postpone spending in the interests of the war effort. It was the ambition of all parties that as soon as possible after the war was ended the tax should be reduced and ultimately abolished. As recently as 7th April, 1948, the present Minister of Local Government and Planning told the House that he always took the view that Purchase Tax ought to be gradually, but not rapidly, reduced. The Opposition have gone further than that and have said that had we been in office during the last six years Purchase Tax would long ago have disappeared.
363 Nevertheless, the Chancellor now relies upon Purchase Tax for a very substantial amount of Revenue. The yield of the tax has grown from £118 million in 1945 to £310 million in the forthcoming year. It is now a Revenue tax, and it is levied on the whole field of consumer goods, with a few exceptions such as food, drink, tobacco, utility clothing and utility furniture and a certain range of household necessities. The counter-inflationary effect of the tax has been greatly diminished by the knowledge in the minds of the people that the tax has now come to stay. People now spend despite the tax and very often at the sacrifice of their savings, because at a time when the value of money is going down people prefer to own goods rather than Treasury notes.
Assuming that the tax is here to stay for some time, we must now look at its main faults and see what we can do by means of an advisory committee or otherwise to remedy or meet some of those defects. The main faults and difficulties of the tax are four. The first relates to classification. There are. so to speak, four grades of liability.
The Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948, endeavours to describe the whole range of consumer goods as at present known to mankind. Some goods are listed as exempt from ax, others as subject to the 33 per cent. rate, others as subject to the 66 per cent. rate and others as subject to the 100 per cent. rate. The distinction between the articles that fall into those different grades of liability is in many cases quite arbitrary.
Many goods fall accidentally into two grades or more. For that reason there is a provision in the Act that if goods are to be found in more than one class they shall be deemed to be in the class which bears the higher rate of tax. The Schedule to the Act of 1948 contains a great deal of mumbo-jumbo quite incomprehensible to the ordinary person. There is an example in a Schedule to the present Bill; I quote from the third paragraph of the Fifth Schedule:In Group 6, there shall be added at the end the following paragraph:—?(p) knitted unbleached cotton cloth made with at least one needle omitted in every 50 needles…'Presumably those words mean something to someone, but I must confess they mean absolutely nothing to me; nor, I suppose, 364 do they mean anything to any except a very few Members. If you, Sir Charles, read through the Schedule to the present Bill you would find a great deal which would cause you amusement but which, I am quite sure, you would not be able to understand.
This classification of goods into four divisions is carried out by the Board of Customs and Excise in conjunction with the Board of Trade. It is perfectly arbitrary and there is no appeal to anybody from their decision. I wish to tell the Committee of an example which came to my notice. A constituent of mine, a carpenter, established himself in a small way of business to make what was passed by the Board of Trade as a utility bookcase. He bought a great deal of plywood and a certain amount of machinery and put about £2,000 savings into this business. Within three months of the business being established the Board of Trade reversed their decision and said the article was no longer a utility bookcase and was subject to 33 per cent. tax. Within six months my constituent was ruined. His savings were gone and he was back as an ordinary weekly wage earner. I say it is wrong that that sort of thing should happen without there being any appeal to an impartial expert body.
The second difficulty about Purchase Tax is its effect upon the production of quality goods and upon British skill and craftsmanship. It surely must be obvious that if we are to continue to exist in this country we must have a large export trade. If we are to export we must produce goods of the very highest quality. If there is no home market allowed for goods of the highest quality, because of a crippling Purchase Tax, it is certain that sooner or later the producers of these goods will move overseas to be nearer the markets remaining to them. There have been in recent years some signs that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does appreciate the evil effects both on our export trade and upon our war potential of very high taxation on what are considered to be luxury goods, but which are in fact goods demanding great craftsmanship and skill in their manufacture.
The third point about the tax is its uncertainty, and the frequent changes in classification in the rates of tax applicable to a given article. Many of my hon. Friends can give instances where the rate 365 of tax has been moved up or down quite arbitarily five or six times in the short period which has intervened since the war. Trade can flourish if it knows what the situation is, but trade cannot flourish in the state of uncertainty to which trades are subjected by the operation of the Purchase Tax as it operates today. The fourth, and, I think, the greatest, difficulty is the Parliamentary difficulty, the difficulty in which this tax puts us in the House in giving adequate discussion to it without creating a wholly impossible situation.
Many of our constituents are affected by the tax. Many of them produce articles which are subject to the tax. It is natural that we should be subjected to pressure from groups of all kinds seeking to get the rate of tax reduced or the tax abolished upon the articles in which our constituents are interested. It seems to me, therefore, that we cannot open the whole field again, as we did up to, I think, 1949, to a full discussion of every detail of the Purchase Tax during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
What was described by my friend the late Mr. Oliver Stanley as the "annual Dutch auction" on the Purchase Tax Clauses reached its zenith in 1946, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Minister of Local Government and Planning, announced at the beginning of the debate on the Schedules that he was prepared to give away £6 million in tax reductions that year, and he invited hon. Members in every quarter of the Committee to contribute their suggestions. After that, Sir Stafford Cripps came to the conclusion that that could not go on, and I think it was in 1949 that the Budget Resolution prohibited all discussion of Purchase Tax of any sort or kind. Last year, we were allowed to discuss only the three main rates of tax, and none at all of the details. This year, we have a third device; the Chancellor allows us to discuss those groups, and then only to a limited extent, which are affected by his own Schedule to the Bill.
It seems that we really do not know where we are going in this matter of discussion of the Purchase Tax. We propose that an advisory committee should be established. Some of my hon. Friends were much attracted by the idea of making this Committee analogous to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, 366 which was established under the Import Duties Act, 1932. That small, judicial body had mainly to decide issues between one body of traders and another, those who wished to import goods free of duty and those other traders who wished to secure a measure of protection. They had to administer a 10 per cent. flat-rate tariff, with a possible higher rate in individual cases, and it was very rarely that they came up against a question where the consumer was directly interested.
I remember one occasion when the question of the tariff on electric lamp bulbs became rather an active political issue, but broadly speaking the Import Duties Advisory Committee took the question of import duties out of politics, and they were extremely successful in that way. This Committee did a great deal to reduce political pressure upon Members in particular interests.
My right hon. Friends and I do not altogether think a body of that character is quite required in the case of the Purchase Tax. The Purchase Tax problem is far more complex. There are these four grades of liability varying very widely in the incidence of the tax. Moreover, the consumer is directly affected and the issue is more one here between the consumer on the one hand and the Exchequer on the other. We therefore propose that the advisory committee should be larger and have more direct knowledge of the trades and industries of the country.
We propose a body with from 10 to 20 members, persons who have industrial and commercial experience. That clearly does not rule out the appointment of trade union representatives to the committee. I do not suggest that this Clause is perfect or that it will get rid of all the difficulties inherent in the Purchase Tax, but I do say as regards classification and description, as regards the effect of tax on the highest quality goods, and as regards questions of exemption and so on, this committee could give useful advice to the Chancellor.
It would not sit in public; the Import Duties Advisory Committee did not sit in public, but the fact of an application being made to it would be published and the committee's report would be published at the same time as any order made 367 by the Treasury in fulfilment of the advice of the committee. I say once more that I do not pretend this Clause is perfect and would welcome suggestions by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee as to what they think best for this body, but, until we get some body of this kind, we shall not get rid of the many anomalies, difficulties and hardships to which the Purchase Tax gives rise at present and we shall do nothing to get rid of the constant pressure which we feel as Members of this House.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
The right hon. Gentleman spoke in support of the new Clause in a speech of a moderate kind and freely admitted that there were certain difficulties about the particular proposal he put forward and I will try to respond in the same spirit.
He criticised the Purchase Tax on four grounds and I wish to say a few things about those criticisms. His first comment was the difficulties in which we get involved by trying to apply different rates of tax to different commodities which involve us in special complications as regards definitions, and so forth. The reason why we have different rates of Purchase Tax is fundamentally that we want to make this tax as progressive and as little regressive as possible. When the tax was originally introduced in 1940 it was a flat rate of tax and, therefore, we would argue, of a much more regressive character.
I would have thought the Committee generally would favour the broad idea of trying to limit this tax as far as possible to luxuries and if we could not limit it completely to luxuries, at least applying different rates of tax to commodities according to the degree of their essentiality. If we accept that principle, we are bound to have difficulties of this kind. The Customs are, of course, constantly trying to improve the grading to get over these difficulties, but I freely 368 confess that anomalies remain. We have never for one moment denied that, but all I say is that I do not think we can avoid them altogether if we have different rates, and I certainly would say that the tax ought to be on different rates.
His second argument concerned the repercussions which the tax had on the production of quality articles for export. I will leave that subject for a moment and return to it later as it merits special attention. Thirdly, he criticised the uncertainty. That is not something inherent in the tax. It has arisen from the fact that changes have been made, but one could perfectly well imagine a Purchase Tax without making changes so frequently as they have been made. I do not think that hon. Members opposite have complained where the tax has been reduced. The uncertainty there may have been a nuisance, but it was more welcome than the certainty of the tax remaining at the higher level. As I say, I do not think that is a fundamental criticism of the tax itself.
I want to add this. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the tax was now mainly a Revenue tax. That is perfectly true, and we should not forget that we raise over £300 million in this way and that it is not so easy to find other ways in which that money could be raised. However, in my Budget speech I pointed out that we also defended this tax on specific articles on the ground that we sometimes wished deliberately to restrict, to diminish, the home consumption of these articles. Indeed, that was our case this year for increasing the tax on a number of metal goods, the production of which, in our view, was likely to compete and conflict with the defence programme. That, no doubt, gives rise to perhaps a rather more frequent change of tax rates than would otherwise be the case.
His fourth criticism, the Parliamentary difficulty, is one which he will probably agree is not really met by the proposal in this Clause. I do not think the existence of an advisory committee composed of 10 persons drawn from industry would help the House in any way. It is quite true that it is intended to be a body of persons to whom traders and manufacturers may go and present their case, but the right hon. Gentleman has just told us that he conceives of this body as meeting in secret. There would be therefore, no 369 opportunity for public discussion of their complaints, which I should have thought was what the right hon. Gentleman primarily had in mind when he was pointing out our Parliamentary difficulties.
The general economic case for the Purchase Tax is well known to the Committee and it is not necessary for me to labour it tonight. We raise £300 million of revenue by it, and we need, in particular cases, to restrict civilian demand in the home market. It is not the only way, of course, in which demand can be restricted. We try to do that by monetary policy and by various other anti-inflationary devices, but this happens to be one way in which that effect can be achieved.
But there is here a clear conflict of view—here I come back to the second criticism made by the right hon. Gentleman—between those who say that Purchase Tax is a bad thing for the export trade and those who say, "On the contrary, Purchase Tax by keeping down deliveries and demand in the home market actually manages to boost up the export trade."
§ Mr. Gaitskell
On the contrary, I think there are powerful arguments in favour of that and, if the hon. Gentleman will listen, I will explain what I mean. The fact is that if there is only so much available in the way of production, if we are already operating under conditions of full employment—or, as some people have sometimes described it, as over-full employment; if, therefore, the total output is not to be increased any further, it seems to be fairly clear that if we increase the total consumed in the home market we shall not be able to sell so much abroad. Equally, if we cut down the amount going to the home market, provided the export demand is there, as in present circumstances for the most part it certainly is, then I do not think that there is very much doubt that the export trade benefits. If one challenges that argument, one is really challenging any attempt to restrict demand generally in the home market for consumer goods.
I should have thought that the Committee were agreed that in an inflationary period, when we were worried about our balance of payments, it was bound to be a cardinal feature of the Government's policy, and it must be right, to do every- 370 thing we can to reduce the pull of the home market to keep up exports to the maximum level. The conflict between these two points of view probably arises from the fact that, in the one case, the matter was looked at from the point of view of the individual firm only. Naturally they think, "All right, if we can have a large sale in the home market we will produce more; we will produce more for the home market and for export as well."
If there is spare capacity available, I concede that it might be possible to produce more at lower cost, but if in fact, taking that industry as a whole, no more material or labour is available, obviously we do not get the result of larger exports and larger supplies to the home market at the same time. So far as this proposal is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman has said very fairly, what is involved is not really the kind of problem which the Import Duties Advisory Committee had to deal with in the 1930's. The Purchase Tax is, after all, primarily a revenue duty. It is because of the revenue that it brings in that we are mainly interested in it from the Exchequer point of view.
Therefore, any committee concerned with this problem will not be like the Import Duties Advisory Committee, a judicial body or a semi-judicial body deciding between the different interests—between the interests of the manufacturers who are seeking protection and the interests of those who consume the products of the manufacturer. I do not think that there is any difference between us when I say that in the main it will be an issue between the producers and probably the consumers as well on the one side, and the Crown and the Exchequer on the other.
§ Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison (Glasgow, Scotstoun)
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an advisory committee consisting of business men of this kind would be valuable to him in that connection in certain trades where already he has run into the law of diminishing returns and where, if Purchase Tax was lower, the result to the Revenue would be greater?
§ Mr. Gaitskell
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait, I will come to the types of committees and what they might do.
371 This is really an issue between the producers and the consumers, on the one side, and the Crown and the Exchequer, on the other. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman draws the conclusion that a committee of the kind he indicated would be of value to us. We would never wish to neglect any sensible and helpful advice which we might receive on these matters. But I draw quite a different conclusion.
It seems to me that a committee of the kind indicated would be not much more than a kind of buffer between the Customs and the Treasury, on the one side, and the particular industries, on the other. At present the industries come to us and put their point of view and we have to decide the matter. We have to decide it in the light of the national picture as a whole. Often, there may be arguments which are strongly in favour of the industry concerned.
For example, an industry may feel that it is being adversely affected by the tax and that it will not be able to sell as much at home as it would wish to. But it may be in the national interest that it should not sell so much at home. It may be desirable that the labour, and perhaps even some of the capacity of the industry, should be turned over to defence, or the industry may be encouraged to go in for a larger sale of exports.
The committee would either be a sort of buffer between us, which seems to be unnecessary, or else it would become nothing more than—and I do not use the word in an offensive sense—a pressure group which would all the time be demanding from the Government reductions in taxation. That, no doubt, may appeal to the Opposition, but, as such, it makes no great appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The point is surely this. The issue which we have here to decide is at what level Purchase Tax should be applied to different commodities. Whether or not it should be applied to different commodities seems to me to be essentially Budgetary and policy matters, and they are, therefore, matters which the Government must decide and must defend. I do not think it would be at all appropriate that we should have a committee either to act as a buffer between us and the trade, particularly if meeting in secret, 372 or as something behind which we might hide, or again if it worked out differently, as I think it would, as a kind of pressure group upon us.
Therefore, while I do not myself agree that a standing advisory committee of the kind suggested in this Clause is suitable—indeed, I think it would do more harm than good—that does not mean that I think that no problems are involved here. I recognise that, from time to time, problems which deserve special examination may be thrown up in connection with the Purchase Tax, and I have in mind here not the tiresome but, when all is said and done, not very important problems of definition, which give us the opportunity of listening to entertaining speeches from time to time, but the really vital things which seem to call for examination.
One of these, for example, is in regard to the effects of the Purchase Tax in fields where utility schemes operate. I draw a distinction quite deliberately there from the problems to which, for instance, the F.B.I. pamphlet draws attention and which have been represented to us. What is perhaps even more important is that strong criticisms have recently been levelled at the United Kingdom by certain countries which wish to import into this country and sell their goods to us, because we have failed to exempt from Purchase Tax various goods which they produce of a similar type and quality to home-produced utility articles.
This is a matter to which we have been giving a good deal of thought for some time, and I am bound to say that the more we have thought about it the more apparent it has become that it is not easy to handle the imports problem, in particular, the problem I mentioned just now, in isolation from rather more general and wider aspects of the present system.
I mentioned just now that there had been representations from trades and industries. In particular, it has been emphasised that the sudden jump from Purchase Tax exemption on utility goods to full Purchase Tax rates on similar goods which are just above the utility range causes difficulties in manufacture and has rather specially adverse effects on the export trade. We feel that these problems do need special examination, and, although we cannot accept the kind of standing advisory committee suggested in the Clause, we have decided to set up 373 immediately a special ad hoc committee to examine the present system of Purchase Tax on those classes of goods within which utility schemes operate, to recommend how that system can be improved, both in the interests of consumers, manufacturers and exporters, and in relation to our international obligations in respect of imported goods.
I must emphasise that this is not a standing advisory committee, but an ad hoc committee for a particular inquiry, and it will be asked to examine and report on a particular problem or groups of problems. I must emphasise, too, that this work will be confined entirely to those fields within which utility schemes operate, and, last but not least, it will be instructed, in seeking a solution to these difficulties, to pay special attention to the importance of maintaining the present very great advantages of the utility scheme to consumers, which we must not forget, and which, indeed, in present circumstances, seem to me to be even more important than they were perhaps a year or two ago. Also, of course, they will have to have regard to the revenue aspect of the problem. We cannot afford, as the Committee will well understand, losses of revenue from the classes of goods in question.
§ Mr. Lyttelton rose—
§ Mr. Gaitskell
I am just finishing, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.
That, therefore, is what we have decided to do, and I hope that within a very short space of time it will be possible to announce the terms of reference and the membership of this committee. That is why I am afraid I cannot accept the proposal in the new Clause, but, as the Committee may agree, we are, in fact, proposing to do something which I think probably covers a certain number of the difficulties and problems as a result of which the new Clause was originally put down.
§ Mr. Lyttelton
I only wanted to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to say that I have no doubt it has been for the convenience of the Committee that he has deployed a number of arguments which were totally irrelevant to the subject before us. He has, in fact, used the opportunity of our Clause to propose 374 something which has nothing whatever to do with the subject now before the Committee. He has admitted that it is something quite different, and I must at this point draw the attention of the Committee to that fact. It really has nothing whatever to do with our Clause.
§ Mr. Gaitskell
Whether it has anything to do with the new Clause or not is, no doubt, for the right hon. Gentleman who drafted the Clause to say. I have no doubt myself that what we propose to do by our committee is related at any rate to some of the difficulties which have been in the minds of industry and commerce on this matter. As to the irrelevance of what I said, I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the greater part of my speech I was replying to the arguments deployed by him.
§ Mr. Black (Wimbledon)
I think the Committee will feel profoundly disappointed with the reply given by the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has pointed out, the suggestion made by the Chancellor is really no answer whatever to the scheme which we on this side of the Committee advocate, and which is outlined in the new Clause we are now debating. The reasons given by the Chancellor for his unwillingness to set up a Purchase Tax Advisory Committee may really all be summed up in the phrase that he believes the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, and that therefore there can be no value in, nor wisdom to be drawn from, the consideration of this problem by the kind of committee which we desire to see established.
The Chancellor referred to the fact that a great many of the difficulties which arise in this matter are occasioned by the different rates of Purchase Tax, namely, the three classifications of 33⅓, 66⅔ and 100 per cent. He expressed the opinion that these different rates were in the national interest and that it was the desire of the Government to use these different rates in order to make the tax a progressive one. I think that anyone listening to that statement might still feel in very great doubt as to the principles which have been applied in deciding into which category particular goods should fall, because I believe that anyone examining the Schedules in any detail will find it extremely difficult to discover any underlying principle at all.
375 I think we are entitled to ask on what principle the classification has been carried out. The Chancellor has indicated that the principle is that the more necessary and the more socially desirable goods are classified at the lower rates, while the less necessary and less socially desirable goods are classified in the higher categories. He used the phrase that the different rates of tax were consciously and purposely employed by the Government with the intention of restricting the sale of some classes of goods which it was considered in the national interest to restrict.
But I think that kind of principle is very difficult to detect in the actual classifications themselves. I think hon. Members are entitled to inquire why roulette boards carry a tax of only 33⅓ per cent. while photographic apparatus carries a rate of 66⅔ per cent. Is it that roulette boards are considered to be more necessary and more socially desirable than photographic apparatus? Again, we find that hair-waving machines—
§ The Chairman
We cannot go into the merits of all these different commodities. The question is whether a committee should be set up and what form it should take. We shall be here all night and all day tomorrow if we go into all these things.
§ Mr. Black
I appreciate the point you are making, Major Milner, but surely the whole case for the setting up of the kind of advisory committee we seek to have set up rests upon the fact that in our view there is a hopeless tangle in the present classifications and it is with a view to curing, or at any rate in part overcoming, that tangle that we have selected an advisory body as the best means of achieving that end.
I will, of course, bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but I hope you will permit me by way of illustration to take not more than two other cases, because it seems to me it is very difficult to examine this matter purely in the abstract without any reference to any particular instances. If I may content myself with taking only two further examples, I will then leave that aspect of the matter. On this principle of more essential goods carrying the lower rate of tax, why is it that hair-waving machines are taxed at 33⅓ per cent. while chin straps for treat- 376 ing double chins carry 100 per cent.? Why is it that cinematograph films containing pictures for exhibition are exempt while gramophone records carry a rate of 66⅔ per cent.
These are the very kind of cases on which we on this side of the Committee base the view that the present Purchase Tax position is one of hopeless chaos, and we arc bringing forward as a constructive measure the setting up of an advisory committee to go into these obvious inequalities and inconsistencies and to advise the Government upon them. I submit there is the strongest possible case on the ground of inconsistency in the present position for doing something of a much more useful and widespread character than the course which the Chancellor has suggested and which, as has already been pointed out, is really no answer at all to the fundamental problem.
I would ask that this matter be considered from the standpoint of the trader who is engaged in a business in which goods are being manufactured or sold which are subject to Purchase Tax. It is time that Parliament paid some little attention to the position of the trading community in all its difficulties in matters of this kind.
May I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the most important document, although not by any means the sole document, that governs this matter with which presumably every trader is expected to be thoroughly familiar, is Document No. 78, "Notice by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise." What is the character of this document? It contains 87 closely printed pages. A good deal of the matter is in heavy type in order to indicate that part of the document which deals with the statutory conditions applicable to Purchase Tax, but the major part of the document is in light type containing the explanatory notes.
§ Mr. Black
In addition to 87 pages in this very interesting document, we find on page 2, at the introduction to the explanatory note, this statement:These lists are, of course, not exhaustive and there are many articles not mentioned which are covered by the statutory headings 377 and therefore chargeable with tax. Also, articles listed as not chargeable under one Group may in some cases fall within another Group and be chargeable accordingly.I desire to take one further illustration of the difficulties to which the trading community is subjected in this matter, and I want to read a brief quotation from the Board of Trade Journal of 9th June of this year. May I point out that recently the Budget granted exemption in the case of pins of base metal. One would have thought that that was a comparatively simple and straightforward matter in respect of which to grant an exemption, but here we have a Purchase Tax announcement made in the Board of Trade Journal in the following terms:The Commissioners of Customs and Excise have had under consideration the effect of the Budget exemption for 'pins of base metal' on the treatment of hatpins, i.e., articles with sharp points whether or not protected by a removable cap, including those which serve the dual purpose of hat pins and hat ornaments. (Articles with blunt, e.g., screw, ends and articles having heads at both ends of the pin, are not regarded as hat pins.) As a con cession, on 'de minimis' grounds, the Commissioners will be prepared in future to regard the exemption as covering (in addition to hat pins which are wholly of base metal), base metal hat pins with single small heads of glass, plastic or other non-precious material, of any shape or design not exceeding half an inch in any dimension. Where the glass, etc., head is larger than half an inch in any dimension, the article will not be regarded as falling within the exemption and will be chargeable at 33⅓ per cent. or 100 per cent. under Groups 4, 26 or 29 (a) of the Tax Schedule, as appropriate.Is it reasonable at a time like this, with all the difficulties which confront the business world, for harassed and overburdened traders to have to spend a substantial amount of time in studying this continual outflow of documents dealing with this particular matter which I submit not one trader in a hundred is really capable of fully apprehending or understanding and on which it would be very difficult in many cases for him to obtain authoritative or definite advice from legal advisers whom he might consult?
I suggest that on this ground, apart from the many other grounds which have been mentioned—namely, the ground of trying to do something to help a section of the community which is already overburdened with the multifarious restrictions which afflict the business community today—the case is overwhelming for the setting up of an advisory committee to try to bring some order, some 378 clarification, some simplification into what at the moment is nothing more or less than a mass of inconsistencies. I hope the Chancellor will heed our appeal and agree to set up such a body.
§ Mr. Oakshott (Bebington)
I am sorry that the Chancellor has not so far found it possible to accept the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) and other hon. Members in favour of the formation of this committee. I should have thought that a committee of this sort could have been the greatest possible help to him and his advisers.
In considering Purchase Tax and its effects, I think we often tend—as I think the Chancellor himself did just now—to concentrate on the effect of the tax upon the consumer. This proposed committee would direct its attention to industry, to the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the retailer; and it is with regard to the distributor and retailer that I want to say a few words tonight.
The new Clause mentions matters which could have "an injurious effect upon" trade. In that connection I should like to indicate a problem which is of the sort which this committee would try to consider. They could, perhaps, try to evolve some system whereby traders could avoid loss arising from a reduction in the rate of Purchase Tax or from an exemption from Purchase Tax for certain class of goods on which they had already paid tax and which they had in stock in their shops.
It is known that this is an old grievance. Severe losses have been caused to a number of traders because so far no method has been provided whereby they could have a refund of the tax which they had already paid. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have worked on this problem in the past. There have been a series of discussions, in some of which the Financial Secretary has himself taken part. As far back as 1949 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget debates, said he would try to work out some method to meet this problem. Representatives of the Treasury and of the Department of Customs and Excise have met representatives of trades and industries to discuss the problem, and I think in the past the Government have been not unsympathetic towards them.
379 So far, however, the discussions have not achieved any noticeable success. There are, I agree, very great practical and administrative difficulties involved. The Financial Secretary has described it as a thorny problem, but that is not a good reason for perpetuating an obvious injustice whereby traders suffer losses which they cannot avoid by any means within their own control and which no amount of business foresight can prevent. All sorts of traders, both large and small, suffer from this injustice, and perhaps some of the small traders suffer most. I know of a case in my constituency where a small shopkeeper has made—
§ The Chairman
Order. We are not, of course, discussing Purchase Tax generally, but are discussing the setting up of a committee.
§ Mr. Oakshott
I was trying to give an example of the sort of thing with which a committee of this kind could try to deal. I know of a small man in my constituency who has a very small stock-in-trade, who, as a result of the reductions and exemptions in this year's Budget, has calculated that it is going to cost him something between £150 and £175 a year, so that he has to make over £3 a week through the year before he can be in the same position as that in which he would otherwise have been. In a small village shop £3 a week takes a lot of making.
The Financial Secretary on an earlier occasion—I think it was in 1949—said that it was a mistake to assume that there would be an immediate mark-down in prices if there were reductions in or exemptions from Purchase Tax. I simply cannot agree with him about that. I think that the British public are far too much on the qui vive these days over prices, and I think that the mark-down will be immediate and that prices will be reduced at once, and that shopkeepers and retailers will suffer losses, as soon as there is any reduction in Purchase Tax.
The discussions that have taken place so far on this matter have not led to anything, but we cannot leave it there. I think it is most necessary to keep on trying to find some solution of what is a real injustice and hardship to these people. I think that the type of advisory committee suggested in this new Clause is the sort of body that would have a 380 real chance of success in meeting this sort of problem, and that that is one more consideration to add to the very powerful arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North, and other hon. Members in favour of the formation of a committee of this sort. I hope that the Chancellor will reconsider the matter.
§ Mrs. Castle (Blackburn, East)
I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has resisted this proposal for a Purchase Tax Advisory Committee, and I hope that he will go on resisting it. I really am very surprised that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should expect us not to see through the political colour of this suggestion, in spite of all the technical arguments that have been brought forward in an attempt to blind us.
Surely anybody with any respect for Parliamentary institutions must agree that it would be quite intolerable to have the discussion of Purchase Tax taken from this Committee, which is representative. [Interruption.] Some hon. Gentleman says we have been muzzled, but I do not notice that hon. Gentlemen are being muzzled at this stage. Certainly their proposal would rob this Committee of any discussion whatsoever of Purchase Tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes.
The whole idea of this suggestion is that the discussion of the details of Purchase Tax should not take place on the Floor of the Committee but should take place in some secret body representative of industrial and commercial interests who would consider the Purchase Tax in the light of its effects upon their own industrial interests and upon the national interest as interpreted by them. Really, such a body would be only an annexe to the Conservative Central Office, and would be an extension in the Purchase Tax field of the aims of industry.
§ Mr. Odey (Beverley)
Would not the hon. Lady agree that this Committee has not had the opportunity of discussing the details of Purchase Tax for the last three years?
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mrs. Castle
I see upon the Order Paper a lot of details about Purchase Tax. In any case, the argument still 381 remains that it would be in this advisory committee that taxation would be discussed which falls upon all sections of the community. Surely it is quite wrong to have an industrial Star Chamber where pressure could be brought to bear by sectional interests in order to obtain alterations in taxation which directly would affect the standard of living of the mass of the people. When we get attempts to relate Purchase Tax to the needs of the mass of the community, when year after year since 1945 the Government have looked at this tax from the point of view of lifting the burden from where it should be lifted, it is obvious that alterations of that kind will cause some anomalies, particularly in the fields where they are of little importance.
We read in the daily papers and in popular Conservatively-minded magazines about Purchase Tax anomalies, in the field of fancy goods. What is this advisory committee going to do? It is going to come along and say that the 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on this or that should be removed. At this moment, when the housewives are faced with matters of urgency over necessities, are we to start bringing pressure to bear for the adjustment of anomalies on fancy goods, which might cost many millions of pounds?
This is another of the manoeuvres we have had every year by hon. Members opposite to lift Purchase Tax, not from those essential articles from which Labour Chancellors have lifted it, but from luxury goods. One of the first things about which a private committee considering recommendations on Purchase Tax on the export trade will make representations is non-utility clothing and garment cloth. Hon. Members can make a burning argument about the effect of Purchase Tax on the export trade in these goods, but that is one of the most important revenue raisers. The Treasury receive no less than £80 million a year from that item alone. Are we to have decisions of that kind made by a lot of closed-shop industrialists? That kind of discussion and that kind of decision should be taken in this Committee and nowhere else.
In conclusion, I would say, looking at the Amendments to the Schedules which we shall discuss later on, that I am very interested in the Conservative idea of 382 what is in the national interest. Apparently they think it is in the national interest to exempt from Purchase Tax fishing tackle, fishing bags, golf bags, cartridge bags and brushes and combs, not for human beings, but for animals, and in their view it is in the national interest that Purchase Tax on motorcars should not be increased.
Let us face the fact that our discussions on Purchase Tax remain primarily political discussions. We on this side have sought all along to temper the winds of post-war difficulties to those who are desperately in need. This moment of all moments is the time we should face up to these decisions in this Committee and not hand them over to industry with its private and sectional interests bringing pressure to bear on these matters.
§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Perthshire)
Before the hon. Lady sits down, may I ask her whether, if this is only an advisory committee, there can be a closed shop? If it is only to advise, where is its executive action?
§ Mrs. Castle
I am glad that question has been asked. Clearly if it is to be an advisory committee, then none of the advantages that have been brought forward will arise. If it is merely to be a body making recommendations, one gets no further forward.
§ Sir Arthur Salter (Ormskirk)
Let me say at once that the hon. Lady is completely mistaken when she suggests that we are deciding that responsibility should be handed over to the advisory committee and deprive Parliament of its present rights. She has really misunderstood the purpose of the new Clause. I thought that we were going to have an interlude in the kind of debates we have been having in the past few days and weeks, where we have been criticising certain tax proposals and principles.
Here we are doing no such thing. Here our purpose is not to say that Purchase Tax is a bad tax and ought to be abolished. We are not challenging the scope and magnitude of the tax. We are assuming that Purchase Tax is here to stay for some time and on a great scale. We really are attempting to make a contribution to what is an administrative problem. We do not for a moment propose, in suggesting a committee of this 383 kind, which is quite definitely an advisory committee and will only make recommendations, that the Government or Parliament should abrogate their powers of decision.
Nor do we think that as an advisory body it can cover every aspect of the problem of Purchase Tax. We fully realise that, apart from the difficulties of classification and anomalies on which industry and commerce are the people best able to give expert advice, there remains the question of the ultimate balance of the interest of the Revenue and the hardship imposed on the individual citizen. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to retain his responsibility and Parliament must retain its responsibilities and rights.
If the proposal were adopted, there is no occasion and no opportunity that Parliament now has under the existing procedure of pressing the interest of particular classes of housewives or other individual citizens which would be removed or impaired by our suggestion. But among the considerations and difficulties that the Chancellor must have in mind is the whole range of anomalies, of difficulties of definition and the impact of a particular kind of tax and classification, with its frontiers drawn as at present on the export trade in general and the development of production and sale.
These difficulties remain. The question really is how best they can be dealt with, and it is on that that we want to make a positive suggestion: The hon. Lady talked as if we were trying to create a Star Chamber complete with special powers because we said we thought that this body should consider in private and receive representations in private, although its recommendations should be made public with the decisions of the Treasury. But does she think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not consult representatives of different trades, industrial and commercial experts, and consult them in private? Of course, he does; he must.
Our proposal is simply that, instead of this separate, improvised consultation, there shall be something more enduring and of a wider scope. In regard to consultation which is not public at the time when it takes place, that happens 384 now, and must happen in any case. Our suggestion really is, not to propose something completely different from what is happening now, but to institutionalise one part of the advisory machinery to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer already resorts.
We all listened with great interest to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new proposal. I had been hoping that it would have been wide enough for us to say, "That covers so much of our ground that we need not press our own proposal." I have been very disappointed that what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed is so temporary in character and so narrow in scope. I do not believe that the Committee can have listened to the speeches made from this side of the Committee today without realising that there is a great number of difficulties of classification, and of the impact of a particular classification upon the export business, which did not come within the scope of his committee. As I understand it, his speech is confined to cases where there is an impact upon utility production and the utility schemes. We want something much wider.
I think that the Chancellor rather mistook our purpose when he said that my right hon. Friend had made certain criticisms of the Purchase Tax. My right hon. Friend referred to certain difficulties as the basis of his proposal for an addition to our administrative machinery. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to my right hon. Friend's points, told us that uncertainty, for example, necessarily arose when one made changes, and that no one objected when the changes were in one direction, namely, a reduction. But is it not the case that when we look back over the history of Purchase Tax we see that the movement has not been either up or down, but has been of a switchback character, and we can say that it has been unnecessarily of a switchback character.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our proposal seemed to be based upon the idea that Purchase Tax, as such, is a tax bad for exports. That was not our argument. Our argument was that, although in certain respects, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, it might even help exports, in certain other respects it discourages production and has an adverse effect upon exports.
385 The problem is very much like the problem with which the predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt when he changed the rate of tax on motorcars to encourage development of designs which would have a profitable export trade. We think that, with this advisory committee as we suggest, the right hon. Gentleman would get valuable advice about the kind of anomalies and difficulties in the Purchase Tax which are having that particularly adverse effect upon the export trade.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that he did not think that our proposal would help in the solution of the Parliamentary difficulties. We all of us realise, from our experience of recent years, that the Parliamentary difficulty of securing an adequate discussion on Purchase Tax problems in the time allowed to Parliament is very great. If the Chancellor had said that our proposal would not be a solution, then I should agree; of course, it does not cover all the problems which, in any event, cannot be taken away from Parliament. But our proposal would help the Parliamentary procedure. It would be something in the nature of a buffer between the multiplicity of all these different representations from trade and industry and their discussion in this House.
The Commons' authority would not be excluded. The House would be able to discuss the matter when a particular decision had been taken by the Treasury after the recommendations by the advisory committee; the House would then have clearly before it the Chancellor's decision, as well as the recommendations of the committee which we propose should be established. The House would retain these powers, and it would have the greater advantage of a narrower issue for decision and a basis on which the discussion should proceed.
We think that this would be a real contribution to a very real problem in Parliamentary procedure; but it is, at the same time, also a contribution to an even wider problem than that presented by Purchase Tax. The complexities of continuous economic problems have been a feature of this century. The central problem of Parliament is to adapt itself to them. We all know how immensely 386 more difficult it is to deal with these economic problems than it was for the Parliaments of earlier centuries to deal with the political problems of those days. This is no new problem. There were the proposals by the Webbs on the one hand, and by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a famous lecture of 20 years ago, on the other for something like a subordinate "economic Parliament." I only suggest this because, in relation to this particular problem of Purchase Tax, I feel that we are on the fringe of the central problem of the adjustment of Parliament in these days to its modern tasks.
Let me say in conclusion that, first of all, this is a proposal for an advisory committee. That is, in principle, the same as the proposal from the Chancellor, except that the scope of ours would be wider and our proposals would have more enduring character. It is not thrusting into secrecy that which hitherto has been in public. It is institutionalising the consultations which the Chancellor already has with industry. Further, it would help us as hon. Members of the Committee in that, when representations came from our constituents, we could say that, being allegations of damage to a particular trade or industry, they are being considered by the advisory committee.
Parliament would find itself in no way excluded because it would discuss the recommendations of the committee and the decisions of the Chancellor. A body of this kind could not take over the task falling on the Government or Parliament to anything like the extent that the Imports Advisory Committee does. It would merely contribute one important piece of help to what remains as a difficult problem which would have to be considered also by other methods in all its other aspects.
Had the Chancellor proposed a body similar to that which he has now proposed but with a scope beyond the scope of what is connected with the utility schemes and had he proposed that it should have more of an enduring existence than he seemed to indicate, we should perhaps have been content to go no further. I would say quite definitely that we do not think this is a complete solution of the Parliamentary difficulty and we are not tied to the exact detail of our proposal, and if we were in office we 387 might find we needed to modify it in some respects. But in order to mark the fact that we think that what is required is more than the Chancellor has tonight proposed, I think we shall go into the Division Lobby against the Chancellor on the subject.
§ Mr. Martin Lindsay (Solihull)
I thought what a bitter little speech the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), made just now and that it was quite unworthy of her. I was sorry she did not address her remarks to the very real anomalies in the Purchase Tax which the Chancellor mentioned exist and which show the necessity of setting up some committee such as we have in mind in this proposed Clause. We do not care for the particular type of committee which the Chancellor proposes to set up, but nevertheless I suppose we shall have to submit to it, and we can feel it will do no harm and can only hope it will do some good.
I wish to address a few remarks to the right hon. Gentleman about the terms of reference of this committee. I hope the Chancellor listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) said just now about the very real hardship which is caused to small limited companies and the one-man business which cannot recover Purchase Tax when it is removed. There is an example known to me of a company which has had Purchase Tax removed from 90 per cent. of its range of good: and it is quite impossible for a company like that to collect Purchase Tax from the public, although it is legally possible under these circumstances.
My hon. Friends and I have drawn attention to this matter for several years now and we cannot believe that it is beyond the ability of the Government to find some way of making it possible for this grave injustice to be removed and to find some means of letting these companies and small firms get back their Purchase Tax. Without wishing to take up any further time, I beg the Chancellor to include this particular subject in the terms of reference of this committee.
§ Mr. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
I hope I shall receive an ovation at the end of my speech as well. We can all, I 388 think, agree that this tax has given rise, and does give rise, to a great many of the kinds of curiosities and evils already quoted. No mention has been made yet of toothbrushes which, I believe, are a hardy annual in discussion of the Purchase Tax. Therefore, I personally have the greatest sympathy with the intention behind this proposed new Clause, but I do feel considerable doubt whether the committee proposed would do the job asked of it.
I also feel that many of these anomalies which have been quoted are really the business of the Civil Service and should be cleared up, or some of them could be cleared up, by the Civil Service without the need for setting up another advisory committee. I thought we were generally agreed in this Committee that no new committees should be set up but that the Government should do this sort of job themselves.
My view of the Purchase Tax is that it is a bad tax, first, because it is an indirect tax which, like all indirect taxes, is liable to bear very heavily on the people who can least afford it. I do not accept the view that the only goods that bear Purchase Tax are luxuries to which poorer people should not aspire. Secondly, I think it is bad because it throws upon the State the onus of making decisions which the State is not competent to make. What it says is: "We are going to tax anyone who buys anything." This is the sort of broad decision tolerable only in time of war. In war we have to subordinate our personal choice to the needs of the nation. No doubt, in those days, when this tax was introduced, it was very necessary to restrict the consumption of goods and to raise revenue.
Today the main reason for the tax—the Chancellor has told us—Is to raise revenue which is very necessary at this time of re-armament, but we should not accept this tax as permanent. What in fact it says is: "We, the Government, are going to tax everything you want to buy, and we are then going to exempt certain goods. Our reasons are that we think it is right and proper that people should buy these sorts of goods, but if they want to buy anything else, they must pay tax for it. If you prefer to spend your money on good quality, then you are doing something wrong. 389 You can buy two utility suits but if you prefer to save up and buy one good quality suit we will tax you." That seems to me the sort of decision the State should not make except in a time of emergency.
I take it that the object of this new Clause is really to get over the fundamental difficulty of putting upon the State the burden of making that sort of choice. But is the Clause satisfactory? It brings in the point of view of the manufacturer or the retailer, but, as printed, it does not, on the face of it, pay a great deal of attention to the consumer. The person suffering from the tax is the consumer. This committee is to consist of a chairman and not less than 10 or more than 20 other members to be appointed by the Treasury from persons who have industrial and commercial experience, and it is empowered to hear bodies of persons representing any trade or industry and, only at the discretion of the committee, other persons. There is not a mandatory obligation in the Clause to hear consumers at all.
Then it is left to the committee to decide what is in the national interest. On this I agree with the Chancellor; Parliament may decide the national interest, or you may have a free market in which you allow consumers to decide for themselves, but I do not think you can put the whole of that responsibility upon a committee. It is said that it will hear the case and only make recommendations but if a plea for a reduction of Purchase Tax is considered by the committee, and they recommend against it, it will make our task in Parliament very much more difficult.
Later tonight I hope to say a few words on hand-woven tweed. I must confess if it were decided by this committee that the tax on woven tweeds should be at 100 per cent. in the national interest, my answer would be that it is really not a matter for the committee to recommend in the national interest. I would go so far as to say you might very usefully have someone, perhaps in the Civil Service, who should be constantly examining the effect of the tax on every trade and industry purely from the point of view of that trade and perhaps from the point of view of the export drive. But to talk of the national interest is to bring in something that is only the business of Parliament.
390 The right hon. Gentleman has given some indication that he has seen that there are problems here. So far he has only dealt with one particular problem. I do think that there is a problem in many trades, not only so far as the export trade is concerned, but the home market, too. It has been argued that we must have a home market if we are to build up an export trade and that we must have quality production in this country. I agree with that. I would ask the Chancellor to extend his view and look at some of the other problems which this tax causes, without necessarily accepting this proposed committee in this particular form.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison
I will say straight away that the suggestion which the Chancellor has made this evening, though it does not go nearly far enough, does go some way to meet the difficulties which in everyday life are militating against the national interest. I should like to give very briefly two or three illustrations of the sort of things that are playing havoc just now owing to the particular incidence and method of Purchase Tax.
At a conference which took place recently it was pointed out that in 1947 the assay office at Sheffield hallmarked for silverware almost one million ounces, but in 1950 it had fallen to 300,000 ounces. The tax on that is 100 per cent. That sort of instance is happening all through industry where revenue and trade are being lost because of the very high rate of Purchase Tax.
In woollen cloths, the particulars of tax paid in 1949 and 1950 show that piece goods which were paying 66⅔ per cent. showed a decrease of 47 per cent., and in one concern, in three months to December, 1950. the sales showed an increase of 3.3 per cent. but the Purchase Tax payments showed a decrease of 31 per cent. Therefore, I believe that industrial problems of this kind, with which this advisory committee would be in close touch, would be able to be directed to the Chancellor's attention for anomalies of that kind which are in no way political questions.
I am glad to hear that the Chancellor proposes to set up a temporary industrial advisory ad hoc committee, hut I think the terms of reference are too narrow. If 391 he were to widen them, he would go even further in the direction which we favour. He must be aware of the number of directions from which it is being represented that our overseas trade is being permanently damaged by the loss of skill and design because we are no longer able to keep on our pay rolls the workers who have that skill.
I had the advantage of going with a productivity team to the United States of America. There we found that there was a market for textiles not of the mass-produced type at all but of special weave, special design and special widths suitable only for the American market. Our task thereafter was to try to persuade the weavers and spinners in this country to provide special facilities, special plant and plans to satisfy the American market. They replied "If we do that and if we fail to get the American market we shall not be able to sell these goods at home with Purchase Tax as it is." So the design and inventiveness and all that has meant so much to British trade is gradually being lost.
Another point on which this advisory committee might well advise the right hon. Gentleman is the curious anomaly whereby visitors to this country from
§ America get certain facilities for buying goods but other holders of dollars who have not got an American or Canadian passport get no such facilities. Why is that? Surely there is something to be examined there. A Britisher coming from the United States with dollars to spend gets none of the facilities which an American coming to Great Britain at the same time can get.
§ So I suggest that this subject is bristling with anomalies and problems. The Purchase Tax is creating them. They vary from time to time, and it is asking too much of the Treasury and the Chancellor to keep watch on them unless they are to have permanently advice from industry on the effects of this tax. I ask the Chancellor to consider the appointment of a permanent advisory committee and at any rate consider widening the terms of reference of the ad hoc committee he proposes.
§ Mr. R. J. Taylor (Lord of the Treasury) rose in claimed to move, "That be now put."
§ Question put, "That now put."
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 290: Noes, 278.395
|Division No. 143.]||AYES||[11.7 p.m|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Edwards, John (Brighouse)|
|Adams, Richard||Champion, A. J.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)|
|Albu, A. H.||Chetwynd, G. R||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Clunie, J.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Cocks, F. S.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Coldrick, W.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Collick, P.||Ewart, R.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Collindridge, F.||Fernyhough, E.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Cook, T. F.||Field, Capt. W. J|
|Baird, J.||Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Finch, H, J.|
|Balfour, A||Cooper, John (Deptford)||Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)|
|Bartley, P||Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Follick, M.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Cove, W. G.||Foot, M. M.|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Craddock, George (Bradford, S)||Forman, J. C.|
|Benson, G.||Crawley, A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)|
|Beswick, F.||Crosland, C. A. R.||Freeman, John (Watford)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Crossman, R. H. S.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Cullen, Mrs. A.||Gaitskell, fit. Hon. H. T. N.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Daines, P.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Gilzean, A.|
|Booth, A.||Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Gooch, E. G.|
|Bottomley, A. G||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Deer, G.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Delargy, H. J.||Grey, C. F.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Diamond, J.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Broughlon, Dr. A. D. D.||Dodds, N. N.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Donnelly, D.||Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Driberg, T. E. N.||Gunter, R. J.|
|Burke, W. A.||Dugdate, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)|
|Burton, Miss E.||Dye, S.||Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Edelman, M.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)|
|Cermishael, J.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Slater, J.|
|Hardy, E. A.||Manual, A. C.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Hargreaves, A.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Hastings, S.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Snow, J. W.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mayhew, C. P.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Mellish, R. J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Harbison, Miss M||Masser, F.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Steele, T.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Mikardo, Ian.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Holman, P.||Mitchison, G. R||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Moeran, E. W.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Houghton, D.||Monslow, W.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Hoy, J.||Moody, A. S.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Morlay, R.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Taylor, Barnard (Mansfield)|
|Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham. S.)||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Mort, D. L.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Moyle, A.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Mulley, F. W.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Murray, J. D.||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Janner, B.||Nally, W.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Jay, D. P. T.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.||Timmons, J.|
|Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||O'Brien, T.||Tomney, F.|
|Jenkins, R. H.||Oldfield, W. H.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Oliver, G. H.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Orbach, M.||Usborne, H.|
|Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Padley, W. E.||Vernon, W. F.|
|Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Paget, R. T.||Viant, S. P.|
|Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Keenan, W.||Pannell, T. C||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C).|
|Kenyon, C.||Pargiter, G. A||Weitzman, D.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Parker, J.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Paton, J.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E||Pearson, A.||West, D. G.|
|Kinley, J.||Peart, T. F.||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Lang, Gordon||Popplewell, E.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Porter, G.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Lever, Harold (Cheatham)||Proctor, W. T.||Wigg, G.|
|Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Pryde, D. J.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B|
|Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Pursey, Cmdr. H||Wilkes, L.|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Rankin, J.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Lipton, Lt.-Col. M||Rees, Mrs. D.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Logan, D. G.||Reeves, J.||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|McAllister, G.||Rhodes, H.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|MacColl, J. E.||Richards, R.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|McGhee, H. G.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|McGovern, J.||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|McInnes, J.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Mack, J. D.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C)|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Ross, William||Wise, F. J.|
|McLeavy, F.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon A|
|MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley||Wyalt, W. L|
|McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Yates, V. F.|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Shurmer, P. L. E.||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mallaliau, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Simmons, C. J.||Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bishop, F. P.||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Black, C. W.||Carson, Hon. E.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Channon, H.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Boothby, R.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Bossom, A. C.||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Clyde, J. L.|
|Astor, Hon. M. L||Boyle, Sir Edward||Colegate, A.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Iflord, S.)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Braine, B. R.||Cooper-Key, E. M.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthrone)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.|
|Bell, R. M.||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Bullus, Whig Commander E. E||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Burden, F. A.||Cundiff, F. W.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Butcher, H. W||Cuthbert, W. N.|
|Birch, Nigel||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lambert, Hon. G||Redmayne, M.|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. C. (Montgomery)||Lancaster, Col. C. G||Remnant, Hon. P|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Langford-Holt, J.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|de Chair, Somerset||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|De la Bere, R.||Leather, E. H. C.||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)|
|Donner, P. W.||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lindsay, Martin||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Drewe, C.||Linstead, H. N.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Llewellyn, D.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Dunglass, Lord||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Russell, R. S.|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Eden, Rt. Hon A||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Errol, F. J.||Low, A. R. W.||Scott, Donald|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Shepherd, William|
|Fort, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Foster, John||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||McAdden, S. J.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)||Spearman, A. C. M|
|Gage, C. H.||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||McKibbin, A.||Stevens, G. P.|
|Gammans, L. D.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Maclay, Hon. John||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Maclean, Fitzroy||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Storey, S.|
|Glyn, Sir Ralph||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Studholme, H. G.|
|Grimond, J.||Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Summers, G. S.|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Manningham-Buller, R. E||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Marples, A. E.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Teeling, W.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Teevan, T. L.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Maudling, R||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Head, Brig, A. H.||Medicott, Brig. F||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hn. Sir Cuthbert||Mellor, Sir John||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Heald, Lionel||Molson, A. H. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N|
|Heath, Edward||Monckton, Sir Walter||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Tilney, John|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Touche, G. C.|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)||Turner, H. F. L|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E||Turton, R. H.|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Nabarro, G.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nicholls, Harmar||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Nicholson, G.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Hollis, M. C.||Nield, Basil (Chester)||Vosper, D. F.|
|Hope, Lord John||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Nutting, Anthony||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Oakshott, H. D.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Odey, G. W.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||Watkinson, H.|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Webbe, Sir H. (London)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N,)||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Hurd, A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Osborne, C.||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Peake, Rt. Hon. D||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)||Perkins, W. R. D||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Wills, G.|
|Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Pickthorn, K.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Jennings, R.||Pitman, I. J.||Winterton, Rt. Hon Ear|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Powell, J. Enoch||Wood, Hon. R|
|Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||York, C|
|Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O|
|Kaberry, D.||Profumo, J. D||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H||Rayner, Brig. R||Major Conant and Mr. Digby.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."396
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 296.401
|Division No. 144.||AYES||[11.17 p.m.|
|Ailken, W. T.||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Marples, A. E.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Gammans, L. D.||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N)||Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Gates, Maj. E. E.||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Glyn, Sir Ralph||Maudling, R.|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Medlicott, Brig. F|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Gridley, Sir Arnold||Mellor, Sir John|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Molson, A. H. E|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Monckton, Sir Walter|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Nabarro, G.|
|Bell, R. M||Head, Brig, A. H.||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt Hn Sir Cuthbert||Nicholson, G.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Heald, Lionel||Nield, Basil (Chester)|
|Bennett, William (Woodside)||Heath, Edward||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P|
|Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nugent. G. R. H.|
|Birch, Nigel||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W||Nutting, Anthony|
|Bishop, F. P.||Higgs, J. M. C.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Black, C. W.||Hill, Dr Charles (Luton)||Odey, G. W.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh|
|Boothby, R.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.|
|Bossom, A. C.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A||Hollis, M. C.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N,)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Hope, Lord John||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B||Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Osborne, C.|
|Braine, B. R.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Peake, Rt. Hon. O|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hurd, A. R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O|
|Burden, F. A.||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Redmayne, M.|
|Carson, Hon. E||Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Channon, H.||Jennings, R.||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Clyde, J. L.||Kaberry, D.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Colegate, A.||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Iflord, S.)||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Russell, R. S.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Langford-Holt, J.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Leather, E. H. C.||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Scott, Donald|
|Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Shepherd, William|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Lindsay, Martin||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Cundiff, F. W.||Linstead, H. N.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Llewellyn, D.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)||Soames, Capt. C.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|de Chair, Somerset||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|De la Bere, R.||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)||Stevens, G. P.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Low, A. R. W.||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Donner, P. W.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Drewe, C.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Storey, S.|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||McAdden, S. J.||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)||Studholme, H. G|
|Duthie, W. S.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Summers, G. S.|
|Eccles, D. M.||McKibbin, A.||Sutcliffe, H.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon A||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Errol, F. J||Maclay, Hon. John||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Maclean, Fitzroy||Teeling, W.|
|Fort, R.||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Teevan, T. L.|
|Foster, John||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Gage, G. H.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Tilney, John||Walker-Smith, D. C.||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)|
|Touche, G. C.||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)||Wills, G.|
|Turner, H. F. L.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Turton, R. H.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Tweedsmuir, Lady||Watkinson, H.||Wood, Hon. R|
|Vane, W. M. F.||Webbe, Sir H. (London)||York, C|
|Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Vosper, D. F.||White, Baker (Canterbury)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)||Williams, Charles (Torquay)||Major Conant and Mr. Digby.|
|Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marytlbone)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Edelman, M.||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)|
|Adams, Richard||Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Keenan, W.|
|Albu, A. H.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Kenyon, C.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Kinley, J.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Ewart, R.||Lang, Gordon|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Feryhough, E.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Baird, J||Field, Capt. W. J||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Balfour, A.||Finch, H. J.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Bartley, P||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Follick, M.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)|
|Bern, Wedgwood||Foot, M. M.||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Benson, G.||Forman, J. C.||Lipton, Lt.-Col. M|
|Beswick, F.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Logan, D. G.|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Freeman, John (Watford)||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||McAllister, G.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||MacColl, J. E.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)|
|Boardman, H.||George, Lady Megan Lloyd||McGhee, H. G.|
|Booth, A.||Gibson, C. W.||McGovern, J.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Gilzean, A.||McInnes, J.|
|Bowden, H. W.||Gooch, E. G.||Mack, J. D.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||McLeavy, F.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Grey, C. F.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D||Griffifhs, David (Rother Valley)||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Grimond, J.||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Burton, Miss E.||Gunter, R. J.||Manuel, A. C.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Carmichael, J.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Hellish, R. J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Messer, F.|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Hamilton, W. W.||Middleton, Mrs L|
|Clunie, J.||Hannan, W.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hardy, E. A.||Mitchison, G. R|
|Coldrick, W.||Hargreaves, A.||Moeran, E. W.|
|Collick, P.||Hastings, S,||Monslow, W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Hayman, F. H.||Moody, A. S|
|Cook, T. F.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Morgan, Dr. H. B|
|Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Herbison, Miss M||Morley, R|
|Cooper, John (Deptford)||Hewitson, Capt. M||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Hobson, C. R.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)|
|Cove, W. G.||Holman, P.||Mort, D. L.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Moyle, A.|
|Crawley, A.||Houghton, D.||Mulley, F. W.|
|Crosland, C. A. R||Hoy, J.||Murray, J. D.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Nally, W|
|Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.|
|Daines, P.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||O'Brien, T.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Orbach, M.|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. C. (Montgomery)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Padley, W. E.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Paget, R. T.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Janner, B.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Jay, D. P. T.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Deer, G.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Pannell, T. C.|
|Diamond, J.||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Pargiter, G. A|
|Dodds, N. N.||Jenkins, R. H.||Parker, J.|
|Donnelly, D.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Paton, J|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Pearson, A.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W Bromwich)||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Peart, T. F.|
|Dye, S.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Porter, G|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)|
|Proctor, W. T.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Fran||Weitzman, D.|
|Pryde, D. J.||Sparks, J. A.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H||Steele, T,||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Rankin, J.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||West, O. G.|
|Rees, Mrs. D.||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Reeves, J.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Reid, William (Camlachie)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)||White, Henry (Derbyshiro, N E)|
|Rhodes, H.||Stross, Dr. Barnett||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Richards, R.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith||Wigg, G.|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Sylvester, G. O.||Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B|
|Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Wilkes, L.|
|Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Ross. William||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Royle, C.||Thomas, Ivor Owan (Wrekin)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Shackleton, E. A. A.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley||Thurtle, Ernest||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Timmons, J.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Shurmer, P. L. E.||Tomney, F.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||Turner-Samuels, M.||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Ungoed-Thomat, Sir Lynn.||Wise, F. J.|
|Simmons, C. J.||Usborne, H.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.|
|Slater, J.||Vernon, W. F.||Wyatt, W. L|
|Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Viant, S. P.||Yates, V. F.|
|Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)||Wallace, H. W||Younger, Rt. Hon K|
|Snow, J W.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Sorensen, R. W||Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford. C)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Delargy.|
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Churchill (Woodford)
I rise to elicit the intentions of the Government, and to put myself in order I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
I address myself particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. What are the desires and intentions of the Government at this stage in our proceedings? It seems to me that, if they wish, we could now adjourn and continue the discussion tomorrow in the ordinary way, when everything could be wound up in a decorous fashion. Certainly no one who has listened to all these debates, which I have not done—[Interruption]—I have listened by proxy to all these debates, and certainly anyone who has been in that position must feel that they have been conducted with singular calm, composure and great patience on the part of Ministers, whose manners have fully risen to the level of the occasion. We really have nothing to regret in the thorough discussion of the Budget to date.
Now we are told there is a story about buses. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have been making an examination of motor transport available. I did suggest the political levy of the trade unions might be of some assistance in this small matter. The suggestion was not accepted. Apparently it was not necessary. What with the motorcars provided at Government expense for Ministers and others, there are, I believe, a larger number of motor vehicles in attendance on the 402 Socialist Government on the morrow of their great social revolution than there are on the side of the Conservative Party, and there are comparably more vehicles available for both sides than there were in the wicked era of the Tory aristocratic days before the First World War.
I do not think that we ought to have this rather pathetic and pitiful whine that there are no more conveyances after 11.45 at night. I do not think that ought to decide our action. If it be pleaded that that is the case, I would ask the Leader of the House whether he would not think it better to turn the rest of this business over until tomorrow, and begin the Sitting in the regular way with questions and then finish the Budget—I will not say in a blaze of triumph, but at any rate in a mild perspiration of good will.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)
Not in the last phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, but, I think, by the sweat of our brow have we reached the present stage. Frankly, I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the way in which these discussions have been conducted during the last three or four days of our debates on this Bill. Like him, most of my knowledge comes by proxy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!?] I have not attended the Committee as much as usual because I have had plenty to do elsewhere in the House, and also I thought that possibly if I and the right hon. Gentlemen stayed away the decorum of the proceedings would be greatly increased.
403 I want quite wholeheartedly to pay tribute to the way in which there has been a great effort on the part of both sides of the Committee to conduct our proceedings with reasonable speed, without doing any undue injury to the necessity of properly examining the Bill before us. I regret to say I must ask the Committee to complete the Committee stage of the Bill at this Sitting. I did not expect that that remark would be received with enthusiasm on either side of the Committee.
I am disappointed that I have to ask the Committee to continue its Sitting, but it is necessary to work to a strict timetable in this matter. I desire that there shall be ample opportunity for consideration of Amendments put down for the Report stage, and I think that to take an extra day at this stage of the Bill would make that more difficult.
§ Mr. Ede
Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have to get the Bill through all its stages to comply with what is known as the Gibson-Bowles Act by certain dates. We have to get it to another place so that—
§ Mr. Lyttelton
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Third Reading of the Finance Bill took place last year on 13th July.
§ Mr. Ede
I accept the right hon. Gentleman's word for it, but that could mean that the House could be kept sitting until about 13th or 14th August. I do not know whether right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite claim to control the pace at which another place proceeds with their business, but they are entitled to a month for the consideration of a Money Bill
§ before the power of this House to insist upon the passage of a Bill becomes operative. I hope that the good will which has characterised our proceedings may continue, and that we shall be able, in a few hours from now, to complete the Committee stage of the Bill.
§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of his decision that he accepts two facts. In the first place, he accepts that the debates during the last few days have been conducted in a proper manner in order properly to discuss the Bill, but that it is the wish of the Government, even at the cost of a late Sitting, to conclude the discussion of the Bill tonight. Both these propositions are arguable ones, but I do not seek to dispute them at this moment.
All I desire to do is to express my regret that if these are the views of the Leader of the House, it is rather a pity he did not bother to communicate them to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in the message which he has sent to the Socialist candidate in the Westhoughton by-election, says:The Opposition do all they can to hamper the Government by means of late Sittings. Unable to win in Debate, they hope to exhaust physically the supporters of the Government. The long debates on Clauses in the Finance Bill designed to prevent tax-dodging are typical of those tactics.All I desire to say is that I hope that the repudiation by the Leader of the House of those statements will be noted by the electors.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 293.409
|Division No. 145.]||AYES||[11.41 p.m|
|Aitken, W. T.||Bennett, William (Woodside)||Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxtath)||Bullus, Wing Commander E. E|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Birch, Nigel||Burden, F. A.|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Bishop, F. P.||Butcher, H. W.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Black, C. W.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Carr, Robert (Mitcham)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Boothby, R.||Carson, Hon. E.|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Bossom, A, C.||Channon, H.|
|Baker, P. A. D.||Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M||Boyle, Sir Edward||Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grimstead)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Braine, B. R.||Clyde, J. L.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W)||Colegate, A.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)||Conant, Maj. R. J. E.|
|Bell, R. M.||Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Iflord, S.)|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Cooper-Key, E. M.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Browne, Jack (Govan)||Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Kaberry, D.||Redmayne, M.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Lambert, Hon. G.||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)|
|Cundiff, F. W.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Langford-Holt, J.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh. S)||Law. Rt. Hon. R. K.||Robson-Brown, W.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Leather, E. H. C.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Roper, Sir Harold|
|de Chair, Somerset||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|De la Bere, R.||Lindsay, Martin||Russell, R. S.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Linstead, H. N.||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Digby, S. Wingfield||Llewellyn, D.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Donner, P. W.||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. G. (King's Norton)||Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Scott, Donald|
|Drews, C.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Shepherd, William|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A L.||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Dunglass, Lord||Low, A. R. W.||Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)|
|Duthie, W. S.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)||Soames, Capt C.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon A||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.||Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)|
|Errol, F. J.||McAdden, S. J.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)|
|Fisher, Nigel||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Stevens, G. P.|
|Fort, R.||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of W[...])||Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)|
|Foster, John||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||McKibbin, A.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Morecambe & Lonsdale)||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Storey, S.|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Maclay, Hon. John||Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)|
|Gage, C. H.||Maclean, Fitzroy||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)||Summers, G. S|
|Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)||Sulcliffe, H.|
|Gammans, L. D.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)||Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Maitland, Cmdr. J. W.||Teeling, W.|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Manningham-Buller, R. E||Teevan, T. L.|
|Gridley, Sir Arnold||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Marples, A. E.||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)|
|Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W.)|
|Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)|
|Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S)||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maudling, R.||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.|
|Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Medlicott, Brig. F||Tilney, John|
|Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Mellor, Sir John||Touche, G. C.|
|Head, Brig, A. H||Molson, A. H. E.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hn. Sir Cuthbert||Monckton, Sir Walter||Turton, R. H.|
|Heald, Lionel||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Higgs, J. M. C.||Mott-Radclyffe, C. E||Vosper, D. F.|
|Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Nabarro, G.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Nicholls, Harmar||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nicholson, G.||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Hirst, Geoffrey||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Mollis, M. C.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Hope, Lord John||Nutting, Anthony||Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon C|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss P||Oakshott, H. D.||Watkinson, H.|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Odey, G. W.||Webbe, Sir H. (London)|
|Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Howard, Greville (SI. Ives)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N,)||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E)|
|Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Osborne, C.||Wills, G.|
|Hurd, A. R.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)||Perkins, W. R. D.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M||Wood. Hon R|
|Hutchison, Col James (Glasgow)||Pitman, I. J.||Yo-k C|
|Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Hyllon-Foster, H. B.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Jennings, R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.||Mr. Srudholme and Mr. Edward Heath|
|Johnson, Howard (Kemplown)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Bacon, Miss Alice||Beswick, F.|
|Adams, Richard||Baird, J.||Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)|
|Albu, A. H.||Barf our, A.||Bing, G. H. C.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Bartley, P,||Blenkinsop, A.|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Blyton, W. R.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Benn, Wedgwood||Boardman, H.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Benson, G.||Booth, A.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||Nally, W.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Hamilton, W. W.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hannan, W.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Hardy, E. A.||O'Brien, T.|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Hargreaves, A||Oldfield, W. H.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D||Hastings, S.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hayman, F. H.||Orbach, M.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)||Padley, W. E.|
|Burke, W. A.||Herbison, Miss M.||Paget, R. T.|
|Burton, Miss E.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)||Hobson, C. R.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Holman, P.||Pannell, T. C.|
|Carmichael, J.||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Pargiter, G. A|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A||Houghton, D.||Parker, J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Hoy, J.||Paton, J.|
|Chetwynd, G. R||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)||Pearson, A.|
|Clunie, J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Peart, T. F.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Popplewell, E.|
|Coldrick, W.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Porter, G|
|Collick, P.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire. W.)|
|Collindridge, F.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Cook, T. F.||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Pursey, Cmdr. H|
|Cooper, John (Deptford)||Janner, B.||Rankin, J.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)||Jay, D. P. T.||Rees, Mrs. D.|
|Cove, W. G.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Reeves, J.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)||Reid, William (Camlachie)|
|Crawley, A.||Jenkins, R. H.||Rhodes, H.|
|Crosland, C. A. R.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Richards, R.|
|Crossman, R. H. S||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A||Jones, David (Hartlepool)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Daines, P.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Keenan, W.||Ross, William|
|Davies, Rt. Hon. C (Montgomery)||Kenyon, C.||Royle, C.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||King, Dr. H. M.||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartey|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr E.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Deer, G.||Kinley, J.||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Diamond, J.||Lang, Gordon||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Donnelly, D.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Slater, J.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Dye, S.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Lindgren, G. S||Snow, J. W.|
|Edelman, M.||Lipton, Lt.-Col M.||Sorensen, R. W|
|Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Logan, D. G.||Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||McAllister, G.||Steele, T.|
|Evans, Abert (Islington, S.W.)||MacColl, J. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)|
|Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.|
|Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||McGhee, H. G.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Ewart, R.||McGovern, J.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Fernynough, E||McInnes, J.||Stross, Dr. Barnett|
|Field, Capt. W J||Mack, J. D.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith|
|Finch, H. J.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||McLeavy, F.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Follick, M.||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)|
|Foot, M. M||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.||Thomas, David (Aberdare)|
|Forman, J. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Freeman, John (Watford)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Manuel, A. C.||Timmons, J.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A||Tomney, F.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Gilzean, A.||Mayhew, C. P||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mellish, R. J.||Usborne, H.|
|Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Messer, F.||Vernon, W. F|
|Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Middleton, Mrs. L||Viant, S P|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)||Mikardo, Ian.||Wallace, H W|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mitchison, G. R||Watkins, T. E.|
|Grey, C. F.||Moeran, E. W.||Webb, Rt. Hon M. (Bradford. C)>|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Monslow, W.||Weitzman, D.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Moody, A. S.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Griffiths, W. (Manchester Exchange)||Morgan, Dr. H. B||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Grimond, J.||Morley, R||West, D. G.|
|Gunter, R. J||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E)|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Morl, D. L.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||Moyle, A.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mulley, F. W.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Murray, J. D.||Wigg, G.|
|Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Wilkes, L.||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)||Yates, V. F.|
|Wilkins, W A.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K|
|Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Williams, David (Neath)||Wise, F. J.||Mr. Bowden and Mr. Delargy.|
|Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A|