§ (1) The increases in stamp duties charged by Part VI of the Finance Act, 1947, by reference to the heading "Conveyance or Transfer on Sale" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, shall not apply in any case where the conveyance or transfer is made or agreed to be made to an individual who purchases the property for the purpose of occupying the same himself and the consideration therefor does not exceed four thousand five hundred pounds.
§ (2) This section shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-one.—[Mr. Black.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Black (Wimbledon)
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Hon. Members may remember that last year certain of my hon. Friends and I moved an Amendment which was very much wider in scope than the Amendment which I am moving on this occasion. Last year we moved an Amendment, the effect of which would have been to reduce, in most cases to halve, the Stamp Duties payable on all transactions involving conveyances and transfers. It will be remembered that on that occasion the Government rejected the Amendment, on the ground that the cost of the concession would be in the neighbourhood of 612 millions. On this occasion the Amendment is taking a much more modest form, which would cost very much less in terms of revenue. I hope therefore it may be met with a more favourable response than was the case a year ago.
Hon. Members will bear in mind that this proposal would reduce the Stamp Duty on conveyances in the limited range of cases where two conditions can be fulfilled. First is the condition that the house which is the subject of the transaction is being purchased for the occupation of the purchaser, investment transactions being entirely excluded from this proposal. The second is that the relief would apply only where the house is being purchased for a consideration not exceeding £4,500. It may be asked why the line has been drawn at that particular figure. My answer would be that it was desired to bring within the scope of the Amendment houses of the type which, before the war, sold for up to £1,500.
1620 So it is quite clear that this Amendment relates only to small houses being purchased for occupation by persons of moderate means; and, if one bears in mind that the selling price today of houses with vacant possession is, in most cases, treble the pre-war figure, we arrive at the figure of £4,500, by trebling the pre-war figure of £1,500.
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the Stamp Duty on transactions of this character was doubled by Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1947. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Minister of Local Government and Planning, gave as his reason for doubling the Stamp Duties on that occasion the rather unusual explanation that they had not been increased for some 27 years, and therefore it was high time that they should be increased. That may possibly impress some hon. Members as being a rather unusual and altogether inadequate reason for having doubled the Stamp Duties on that occasion. But that was what, in fact, was done.
I would point out that the incidence on the purchasers of small houses is very much greater than the mere doubling of the Stamp Duty would, on the face of it, appear to suggest. I have already pointed out that houses with vacant possession are selling for about treble the pre-war price, so that doubling the Stamp Duty means that the purchaser of a house today has to pay six times the amount of Stamp Duty that would have been payable on the purchase of the same house in 1939. That is a very serious disability indeed in the case of those families compelled today to purchase their homes because there are no houses and no flats available for letting for their occupation.
May I draw the attention of the House to the enormous increase which has taken place in the cost of buying a house today, compared with the cost involved in prewar days? Let me assume again the case to which I have already referred of a house which, in 1939, was selling for £1,500, and where the purchaser finances his purchase by means of a building society mortgage of, say, 80 per cent. of the purchase price, or £1,200.
In those days the Stamp Duty and the legal costs involved in the transaction amounted to approximately only £40. Taking the same house 1621 today, selling for £4,500, and assuming again an 80 per cent. mortgage which gives a figure of £3,600, the Stamp Duty and the legal charges involved amount to approximately £161. So that to purchase the same house today as before the war involves, in costs and expenses, a total figure which is more than four times greater than the pre-war cost of Stamp Duty and legal fees.
If the Government accept this new Clause the expenses of purchase in the case which I have taken as an illustration would be reduced by about £50, a very worth-while concession and one which would be highly appreciated by families who are compelled today to buy their houses as the only means of solving their grim and difficult housing problem. I would make the point, which I think should be made, that Stamp Duty is paid by the purchaser, and not by the vendor. The purchaser, who is already having to pay an inflated price for the property, is hit and penalised again by the high rate of Stamp Duty.
If anybody has to pay a high fee in consideration of the transaction taking place surely it should be the vendor. He is the person who, in terms of justice, ought to pay much more than the unfortunate purchaser. But, by long established custom, it is the purchaser who pays, and he is penalised by the unfavourable market in which he is having to purchase his home.
Apart from the more narrow side to this question, with which I hope I have dealt adequately, I would suggest to the House that there are three social consequences which follow from the present high Stamp Duty, and which are adverse to what I believe to be the policy of the Government. First, there is the point that this excessive Stamp Duty discourages home ownership.
I am not being controversial, nor suggesting anything which will not be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, when I say that we all believe home purchase to be something beneficial to the community, and therefore to be encouraged by the State. I will draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the fact that the manifesto on which they fought the last General Election contains the interesting statement that "Labour moves towards a property owning democracy, while others talk about it." 1622 I hope we shall be moving further today towards that property owning democracy by the support which will be given by hon. Members opposite, as well as by hon. Members on this side of the House, to the Amendment which we are now considering.
Second, the difficulties and expenses involved in house purchase strike at the mobility of labour. This, I suggest, is a point well worthy of consideration by the Government and by the Treasury. At the present time it is very necessary that it should be possible, so far as can be arranged, for labour to be mobile, so that it can be moved into areas in which employment directly connected with the rearmament effort is available.
The heavy Stamp Duties, such as are at the moment imposed on the purchasers of houses, will reduce very much the willingness of a man, who may own a home in one district and who would have to purchase a home in another if he moved there, to make a change which in the national interest it might be necessary that he should make. These high Stamp Duties unquestionably strike at the mobility of labour.
The third and last point I want to make is that these high Stamp Duties restrict the free purchase and sale of houses and, therefore, directly limit the amount of Stamp Duty which the Treasury receives. If the Stamp Duties on this type of transaction were reduced, as the new Clause seeks to reduce them, it is certain that part of the cost of the concession would be met by the increased number of transactions which would take place if a lower level of Stamp Duty were in force. For these reasons, I urge that a more favourable consideration should be given on this occasion to this very limited and modest Clause than was given to the larger new Clause of last year.
§ Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)
I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) has pretty well covered every aspect of a subject which is worthy of the consideration of the Government. Last year it was discussed at some considerable length, and if we are to encourage the buying of property by would-be occupiers some reduction will have to be made in the Stamp Duty, which at the moment falls so heavily upon them.
1623 My hon. Friend has instanced the fact that on the smaller sized houses the amount is six times what it was before the war because of the incidence of high prices for houses today compared with pre-war prices. There is something wrong somewhere if the effect of such high costs is going to fall solely on the purchasers of these dwellings. I hope, after the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend and so quickly after the last concession, that the Government will meet us with a further concession in Stamp Duty on house purchase, which would be a right and proper one.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I rise to add a word or two by way of support to this new Clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) has covered the ground comprehensively and convincingly, and if I take up the time of the House for a minute or two it is because I think it worth while to show that there is no party point involved in this at all, and that the point that is being made is one that many on this side of the House would like to see the Government deal with sympathetically.
I should like to add a word or two in support of the arguments used. First of all I should like to say a word on the Chancellor's justification for the doubling of this duty in 1947. The reason that he gave then—and it was quoted this afternoon—was that as these duties had not been increased for a long time they ought to be increased. That by itself is not the fallacious argument that it sounds, because it is related to the fact that where other things go up in price there is sometimes a case for different commodities to go up in proportion to them.
In this case it was a wholly fallacious argument, because the Stamp Duty is a proportion of the purchase price. Therefore, the mere fact that the purchase price goes up forces the Stamp Duty up too, so that it would not be the case that the amount collected in Stamp Duty had not risen in proportion—and precisely in proportion—to the rise in the cost of the article. Thus, when the weight of duty was doubled we were not bringing the Stamp Duty up in relation to the increase in the cost, but we were doubling it in relation to the increase in the cost. 1624 I was a little surprised that the House accepted that argument at that time.
But since 1947 the trend in property, and particularly in small and medium class property, has continued to be on the increase. The amounts that are now collected by the Exchequer in Stamp Duty from people of very small means indeed, seeking to get some security for themselves and their families in very modest class of dwelling-house, is out of all reason and very difficult to justify.
I do not want to say anything about the three reasons founded on social policy that the hon. Member for Wimbledon gave. I think that the last was not very sound, because the case for this Clause stands on its own merits without regard to any of the implications of a general social policy that the hon. Member commented on, and it might be very well left to stand on its own merits and footing. I beg my hon. Friend to bear in mind that this will be a very just and reasonable concession and certainly a by no means unpopular one. The cost of it cannot be so large a sum that the Government cannot afford to do a measure of justice to quite a deserving class of small property owners or would-be property owners.
I have one final word to say. I gather that the hon. Member for Wimbledon was drawing from his own professional experience in what he said this afternoon. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that my own view is determined by my professional experience acting in similar matters in another field, and the amount that these people pay in Stamp Duty on a quite modest class of property is a material and substantial handicap to the acquisition of house property for one's own occupation.
§ Mr. Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
I rise to support the new Clause, which I am glad has been supported by the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman). There was a similar Amendment on the Order Paper last year, which I then supported. I thought that the increase in the Stamp Duty introduced by the Act of 1947 was not only based upon fallacious reasoning but, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has quite rightly pointed out, on a misconceived object, because the Chancellor in introducing the increase did not apply it to the lowest 1625 price of house that is to say, a house costing not more than £500.
§ Mr. Bell
I have not got the statute before me, but if the right hon. Gentle- man says so, I will accept it. I must confess that I am looking at the speech I made last year on the subject and I see that I said £500 then. I think I did look it up on that occasion. Whatever it is, it would not affect the principle of my argument. I think that it was £500, and presumably the reason for that exemption was that it would cover the smallest class of dwelling house. The fact is that it does nothing of the kind. The only sort of house which can be bought for £500 is one bought for investment with a protected tenant installed in it. One cannot buy a house with vacant possession for £500 nowadays.
We have the extraordinary position that if one is buying a modest dwelling as an investment, one pays a specially favourable rate of Stamp Duty upon it. If one is buying the house to live in it, one pays a very much higher rate of Stamp Duty. A fair comparison would be that a house which cost £3,000 with vacant possession would cost about £800 with a protected tenant installed in it. Therefore, a man buying that house as an investment would pay £8 in Stamp Duty on the deal, but if he were buying the same house to live in it, he would pay £60 in Stamp Duty, because one pays a higher rate for vacant possession.
I submit to the Economic Secretary that that alone ought to convince him that he should accept this new Clause. The position is that if two men buy houses of a similar type, the man who buys one for investment will pay about one-quarter of the Stamp Duty paid by the man who buys one in which to live, because of the premium which vacant possession puts on a house nowadays. That ought to be reflected in our taxation legislation, so that the man who buys a house to live in it should not have to pay a very much higher rate of Stamp Duty.
In passing, I would say that I am sorry that the new Clause does not propose that there should be no duty upon mort- gages for small houses. The payment of 1626 duty on mortgages for small houses is a blemish upon our present legislation. Nowadays people pay about £4,000 for houses which, before the war, would have cost perhaps £1,000. Not only do they pay duty on £4,000 instead of on £1,000, but they pay at double the rate. What is worse, whereas before the war perhaps they could have paid the £1,000, nowadays they have to raise £3,000 on mortgage and the State raises a Stamp Duty on that accordingly.
I have always thought that mortgages on small dwelling-houses should not be taxed by the State. It is the very worst way of encouraging home ownership. I throw out that suggestion in the hope that it may be the seed which will grow and bear fruit on Treasury ground. I hope that the Minister will accept the present proposal, even though it does not go as far as I should like.
§ The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Edwards)
The case for this new Clause has been argued very cogently. Nevertheless, I must resist it, and I shall try to show to the House why it would be a mistake to adopt it. I think that it is true to say that, whenever the rate of duty on conveyances of property has been increased, there has been a change in the limits applying to the different grades. When Mr. Lloyd George in 1910 increased the then existing duty from 10s. to £l, an exception was made for cases which did not exceed £500. In 1947, when the duty was doubled, exception was made for cases where the amount or value of the consideration did not exceed £1,500.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) that this figure of £1,500 is not a pre-war figure. It is a 1947 figure. The present position is that the normal rates of duty—
§ Mr. S. Silverman
Is my hon. Friend suggesting that in 1947 there was dwelling-house property to be bought in this country at £1,500?
§ Mr. Edwards
I did not imply any such thing. I was merely talking about a matter of fact. This is what happened when the rates of duty were altered. At present, the rates of duty are at 10s. where the consideration does not exceed £500: £1 per cent. where the consideration exceeds £500 but does not exceed 1,500; at different rates ranging from £1 1627 to £2 where the consideration exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £1,950; and then £2 per cent. thereafter.
§ Mr. F. Harris
Would the hon. Gentleman explain how this figure of £1,500 would be arrived at? What would be the basis on which it was decided to draw the line at £1,500?
§ Mr. Edwards
I think that at the time the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made it plain that he thought that, in circumstances where he was doubling the duty, it would be wrong not to allow the lower rate of duty to apply over a bigger field, in view of what had happened over the years. That is the view which the hon. Member for Wimbledon put forward himself.
§ Mr. Bell
Surely it is correct to say that the 1947 Act did not reduce the rate of Stamp Duty over any range of property. It merely left unchanged the Stamp Duty on the ranges below £1,500. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not be right in saying that the Chancellor wanted to extend it over a wider range.
§ Mr. Edwards
I have not suggested that. I said that when the duty was altered, the lower rates applied over a bigger field. The rates of duty were doubled on the bigger sums, but the amounts attracting the £1 duty were altered because of the change in the circumstances.
The present proposal is perfectly plain in this respect in that it seeks to restore the old rate of £1 per cent. where the consideration falls between £1,500 and £4,500. My difficulty arises when we deal with the qualification—namely, when we are concerned with whether the purchaser is buying the property for his own use. I do not think that this proposition is self-evident. The hon. Member for Wimbledon advanced three social reasons why it would be a good thing to adopt his proposal. I do not propose to follow him in what he said about those three social reasons, because the mere assertion of them does not prove the point.
I submit that, however valid those reasons may be, there are still three considerations to be taken into account. We have to consider the cost of doing this. We have to consider how practical it is administratively, and whether in fact it 1628 could be done by the authorities. Thirdly, we have to ask whether it would do what the hon. Gentleman wants, and help the purchasers of this type of property. The cost of putting into operation this new Clause would be about £2,500,000 in a full year.
On the question of the administrative practicability of this proposal, it seems to me that there are very great difficulties involved. I think that it is agreed that the hon. Gentleman is really concerned to help the person of moderate means, although in fact his proposal would not enable us to deal with the person of more than moderate means who happened to be buying house property within this range.
Also, I think the House will agree that it would be most difficult to discriminate between the genuine case of purchase for owner occupation, and the case where a person's intention changed, with the possibility of withdrawing the relief in the latter case. This would be to put upon the authorities an administrative burden which, I do not think, could be carried, and it would also place them in the position of having to take decisions which it is not in our interests to ask them to take.
I submit that there is an important point of principle here—namely, that the Stamp Duty on an instrument, affecting as it does the instrument's legal validity, ought to be ascertainable from the facts in the instrument, and we ought not, therefore, to superimpose a complicated system of relief on to an otherwise straightforward matter. Moreover, on the third point, I would take leave to doubt whether we could be sure that a reduction of the kind here proposed would necessarily accrue to the advantage of the purchaser of house property. In the present state of the house property market, no one could be sure that it would accrue to the purchaser.
§ Mr. S. Silverman
It is precisely because we have got a state of market in which the vendor is already enabled to get the highest possible price, because of the small number of properties on the market, and that he is already getting a maximum price determined by the market conditions, that there is no room for the argument that, if the Stamp Duty paid by the vendor were less, the vendor would get more.
§ Mr. Edwards
That may be so in some cases, but it does not necessarily follow. When a person who is selling house property knows that the purchaser is to be relieved of a certain amount of duty, the reduction may not in some instances—I do not say necessarily will not—accrue to the purchaser. In any event, I hope I have shown that it is administratively quite impossible, and that the cost is certainly beyond us. And I submit to the House that we should be doing a great disservice if we were to try to mix up with this Stamp Duty on legal instruments the kind of relief considerations, however valid they may be, which have been advanced.
§ Mr. Silverman
May I ask my hon Friend a question on the one point of administrative difficulty? Under the law at present, we sometimes subsidise the purchasers or repairers of property in which they live, and we provide a condition that, if they sell within 20 years, the subsidy is repayable. Why cannot some such provision be made in this case?
§ Mr. Assheton (Blackburn, West)
I am sure that both sides of the House will be very disappointed at the reply which we have just received from the Economic Secretary. I thought the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) was very fairly put, and I thought he had convinced hon. Members on both sides, because it was supported so ably by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who added weight to the arguments already put forward.
I thought that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon with regard to the cost of buying a house was very impressive. He quoted a figure of £161 as being the present total cost of legal expenses and Stamp Duty in transferring quite a small house. That really is a shocking state of affairs, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Government securities can be exchanged and purchased without any Stamp Duty, and yet the purchase of property, which surely is just as much a social benefit as the investment of money in Government securities, is taxed very heavily indeed.
The duty used to be 1 per cent.; at one time before the war it was 10s. Along came the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Local Government and 1630 Planning, and doubled it in 1947. He made use of the fallacious argument that it had not been raised for 27 years, and that, therefore, it was a good thing to double it. As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, the value of house property had increased to double or more, and therefore the duty was already doubled, so that what the right hon. Gentleman did was to multiply it by four times, which was a great mistake.
As the Economic Secretary pointed out, an exception was made for houses under the value of £1,500, but what kind of a house can be purchased today, with vacant possession, for £1,500? They are very few, and very bad. Most of the houses on the market now are only obtainable at much higher figures, and the unfortunate people who buy them are obliged to pay the 2 per cent. duty.
Three arguments were put forward by the Economic Secretary to justify his refusal to accept the new Clause. The first was that it would cost £2½ million. In view of the size of this Budget, and of the very strong line which the Government have taken so far in regard to concessions, I do not consider that that argument is overwhelming.
The second reason was that it was not practicable, and the hon. Gentleman asked how they could discriminate or be sure who was going to occupy the house. I know the sort of arguments which are likely to be in the brief which the hon. Gentleman has received. The Inland Revenue are very clever in providing Financial Secretaries and Economic Secretaries with adequate briefs on such subjects, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to say to the people in the Inland Revenue "Work out a plan to make this possible," we should find that by next week it could quite easily be done. Therefore, I do not think that that argument will convince the House.
The third argument was that, perhaps, it would not help the purchaser, after all. I do not think it is worth wasting any time on that. It did not convince a single hon. Member, and I am quite certain that it is totally fallacious. Therefore, I hope that the House will decide to accept the new Clause. I hope my hon. Friend will press it to a Division, and I am very glad to think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne will go into the Lobby with us.
§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
I should like to say a word in support of the new Clause, because this happens to be a matter in which for a very long time I have taken a considerable interest in trying to spread in every possible way, and, if possible, with the assistance of all Governments, the ownership of houses.
The Economic Secretary was in complete contrast to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), and was unsympathetic in every way to this proposal. I really do not think that either his second or third arguments have any bearing upon this matter, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman quoted only two precedents concerning the changing of the rate. One change took place when Mr. Lloyd George was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other took place under the Chancellor of 1947. The hon. Gentleman could not have chosen two worse Chancellors, or two less sympathetic to small people. He could not have chosen people who did less to increase the ownership of property in every way.
For this reason. I hope that at any rate one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite, who protest so loudly that they are in favour of the ownership of houses by those who live in them, will come into the Lobby on this occasion, which gives them a chance to do something in support of what most people believe in—the reduction of unnecessarily severe burdens on those who are trying to buy their own homes.
§ Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)
should like to add a word or two to this discussion. If, as I assume, the Opposition press this matter to a Division, I shall vote against the new Clause, but having said that, I want to put some arguments.
The Economic Secretary has been provided with an extremely bad brief; the whole thing is really scandalous. To get a decent three-bedroomed house—I do not know what my hon. Friend lives in—we now have to pay from £2,500 to £3,500. What does that mean? It means that, in respect of Stamp Duties, there is an expense of somewhere about £70, to which we can add £25 for the lawyers, and another £75 for the estate agents. The Economic Secretary actually tried to deploy the argument that, if one of these figures were reduced by £30 to £40, it 1632 would not benefit the purchaser. What sheer and utter nonsense.
§ Mr. Daines
With all respect, suppose I purchase a house from a vendor and we bargain and finally settle on the price. First, I know that the agent is going to take his pick from the vendor. Then I know what I have to pay the lawyer. Is the Economic Secretary actually trying to tell me that I do not know the difference between £50 and £75, and that if I have to pay only £25 it does not benefit me? I realise that there are some real economists penetrating into the Treasury, but that argument is really a little bit too much for us to swallow.
Let us take the other argument deployed—the difficulty of identification if the concession is made on the question of the owner-occupier. Surely, that has been in operation for years. It can easily be tied up so that, if necessary, it is recoverable. We get the same provision under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act where the position is safeguarded. I hope the Government will forgive me for having a minor revolt over this, but I have recently bought another house myself, and know what I am talking about. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman is speaking from experience."] Why not?
The trouble is that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), who moved the Amendment, is interested in property. I am not saying that his action is not above board—it probably is—but I have been a victim of the operations of many professional gentlemen, though, of course, not necessarily those in this House. For goodness sake, if we have to spin an argument, let us get a better brief next time. If not, the Government will strain my loyalty too much, and I shall not know into which Lobby I am going.
§ Captain Duncan (Angus, South)
I really think that the speech of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), should have more attention. He said that if the Opposition were going to take this new Clause to a Division he would vote against it, though the whole of his speech was a violent criticism of the Government. I think the House and the country should pay some attention to that.
§ Mr. Daines
I grant the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point, but I think it is safe to say that in a debate this week on Tshekedi Khama 85 per cent. of the Opposition went into the Lobby to vote against something in which they believed, and 85 per cent. of the Government's sup-
§ porters went into the Lobby to vote for something in which they disbelieved.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 272: Noes, 295.1637
|Division No. 153.]||AYES||[5.52 p.m|
|Aitken, W. T.||Eden, Rt. Hon. A||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Erroll, F. J.||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Fletcher, Walter (Bury)||Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)|
|Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Fort, R.||Low, A. R. W.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Foster, John||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)||Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Lucas, P. B, (Brentford)|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Astor, Hon. M. L.||Gage, C. H.||McAdden, S. J.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Galbraith, T. G. O (Hillhead)||Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)|
|Banks, Col. C.||Gammans. L. D.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Garner-Evans, E. H (Denbigh)||McKibbin, A.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Gates, Maj. E. E.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Bell, R. M||George, Lady Megan Lloyd||Maclay, Hon. John|
|Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)||Glyn, Sir Ralph||Maclean, Fitzroy|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Gridley, Sir Arnold||MacLeod, Iain(Enfield, W.)|
|Bevins, J. R (Liverpool, Toxteth)||Grimond, J.||MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)|
|Birch, Nigel||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Grimston, Robert (Westbury)||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.|
|Black, C. W.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)||Marlowe, A. A. H|
|Bossom, A. C.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marples, A. E.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Harvey, Air-Codre. A. V (Macclesfield)||Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)|
|Bracken, Rt. Hon. B||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)|
|Braine, B. R.||Hay, John||Maude, John (Exeter)|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Head, Brig. A. H||Maudling, R|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)||Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir Cuthbert||Mellor, Sir John|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Heald, Lionel||Molson. A. H. E|
|Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas|
|Browne, Jack (Govan)||Hicks-Beach, Maj W W||Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Higgs, J. M. C.||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)|
|Burden, F. A.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Mott-Radclyffe, C E|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Nabarro, G|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hirst, Geoffrey||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Hollis, M. C.||Nicholson, G.|
|Carson Hon. E.||Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)||Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P|
|Channon, H.||Hope, Lord John||Nugent, G. R. H|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.||Hopkinson, Henry||Nutting, Anthony|
|Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.||Oakshott, H. D|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence||Odey, G. W|
|Clyde, J. L.||Howard. Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon W. D|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Howard, Greville (St. Ives)||Orr, Capt. L. P. S|
|Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (llford, S.)||Hudson. Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N,)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)||Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)|
|Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Osborne, C.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.||Peake, Rt Hon. O.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hurd, A. R.||Perkins, W. R. D.|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C||Hutchinson, Geoffrey (llford, N.)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cmdr.Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Crouch, R. F.||Hutchison, Col. James (Glasgow)||Pitman, I. J.|
|Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)||Hylton-Foster, H. B.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip— Northwood)||Jeffreys, General Sir George||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)|
|Cundiff, F. W.||Jennings, R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig O|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S)||Jones, A. (Hall Green)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Davies, Nigel (Epping)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.||Rayner, Brig. R|
|de Chair, Somerset||Kaberry, D.||Redmayne, M.|
|De la Bère, R.||Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lambert, Hon. G||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Lancaster, Col. C. G||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Donner, P. W.||Langford-Holt, J.||Roberts, Maj. Peter (Heeley)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm||Law, Rt. Hon. R. K||Robertson, Sir David (Caithness.)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Leather, E. H. C.||Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Drewe, C.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H||Robson-Brown, W|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Duncan, Capt- J. A. L.||Lindsay, Martin||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Dunglaes, Lord||Linstead, H. N.||Russell, R. S.|
|Outhie, W. S.||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)||Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.|
|Eooles, D. M.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthor|
|Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.||Summers, G. S.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Savory, Prof. D. L||Sutcliffe, H||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)|
|Scott, Donald||Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)||Walker-Smith, D. C.|
|Shepherd, William||Taylor, William (Bradford, N)||Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Teeling, W.||Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)|
|Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Teevan, T. L.||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C|
|Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)||Watkinson, H.|
|Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)||Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)||Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)|
|Snadden, W. McN.||Thompson, Lt.-Cmdr. R. (Croydon, W)||Wheatley, Maj. M. J. (Poole)|
|Soames, Capt. C.||Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)||White, Baker (Canterbury)|
|Spearman, A. C. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.||Williams, Charles (Torquay)|
|Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Thorp, Brig. R. A. F||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)||Tilney, John||Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)|
|Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N Fylde)||Touche, G. C.||Wills, G.|
|Stevens, G. P.||Turner, H. F. L||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Steward, W. A. Woolwich, W)||Turton, R. H.||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)||Tweedsmuir, Lady||York, C.|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Storey, S.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)||Vosper, D. F.||Mr. Studholme and Mr. Digby.|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)||Wade, D. W|
|Acland, Sir Richard||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Houghton, D.|
|Adams, Richard||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hoy, J.|
|Albu, A. H.||Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Hubbard, T.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Deer, G.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)|
|Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)||Delargy, H. J.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)||Diamond, J.||Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington, N)|
|Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.||Dodds, N. N.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Donnelly, D.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Ayles, W H.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)||Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)|
|Baird, J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A|
|Balfour, A,||Edelman, M.||Janner, B.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J||Edwards, John (Brighouse)||Jay, D. P. T.|
|Bartley, P.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Jeger, George (Goole)|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S)|
|Benn, Wedgwood||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Benson, G.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)||Johnson, James (Rugby)|
|Beswick, F.||Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Ewart, R.||Jones, David (Hartlepool)|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Fernyhough, E.||Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)|
|Blenkinsop, A||Field, Capt. W. J.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Blyton, W. R||Finch, H. J.||Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)|
|Boardman, H.||Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)||Keenan, W.|
|Booth, A.||Follick, M.||Kenyon, C.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Foot, M. M.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W|
|Bowden, H. W.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||King, Dr. H. M.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Freeman, John (Watford)||Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Kinley, J.|
|Brook, Dryden (Halifax)||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Lang, Gordon|
|Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Gibson, C. W.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Gilzean, A.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Glanville, James (Consett)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Lewis, John (Bolton, W.)|
|Burton, Miss E.||Granville, Edgar (Eye)||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)||Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)||Lipton, Lt.-Col M|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)||Logan, D. G|
|Carmichael, J.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Longden, Fred (Small Heath)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Grey, C. F.||McAllister, G.|
|Champion, A. J.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||MacColl, J. E.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)||McGhee, H. G|
|Clunis, J.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||McGovern, J.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Gunter, R. J.||Mclnnes, J.|
|Coldrick, W||Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Mack, J. D.|
|Collick, P.||Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Collindridge, F.||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N)|
|Cook, T. F.||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coins Valley)||McLeavy, F.|
|Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)||Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)||MacMilian, Malcolm (Western Isles)|
|Cooper, John (Deptford)||Hamilton, W. W.||McNeil, Rt. Hon. H|
|Cove, W. G.||Hardman, D. R.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S)||Hardy, E. A.||Mainwaring, W. H.|
|Crawley, A.||Hargreaves, A.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)|
|Crosland, C. A. R||Hastings, S.||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Crossman, R. H. S||Hayman, F. H.||Manuel, A. C.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Tipton)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A|
|Daines, P.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. G|
|Daiton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hobson, C. R.||Mayhew, C. P|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Holman, P.||Mellish, R. J.|
|Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)||Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)||Messer, F.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L||Rees, Mrs. D.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Mikardo, Ian.||Reeves, J.||Timmons, J.|
|Mitchison, G. R||Reid, Thomas (Swindon)||Tomney, F.|
|Moeran, E. W||Reid, William (Camlachie)||Turner-Samuels, M|
|Mortslow, W.||Rhodes, H.||Usborne, H.|
|Moody, A. S.||Richards, R||Vernon, W. F|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.||Viant, S. P.|
|Morley, R.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||Wallace, H. W|
|Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)||Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)||Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)|
|Mort, D. L.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Moyle, A.||Ross, William||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Mulley, F. W||Royle, C.||Wells, William (Walsall)|
|Murray, J. D||Shackleton, E. A. A.||West, D. G.|
|Natly, W.||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.||Wheafley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh E.)|
|Heal, Harold (Bolsover)||Silverman, Julius (Erdington)||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon P J||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|O'Brien, T.||Simmons, C. J.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Oldfield, W. H.||Slater, J,||Wigg, G.|
|Oliver, G. H||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Wilcock, Group Capt, C. A. B|
|Orbach, M.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S)||Wilkes, L.|
|Padley, W. E||Snow, J. W.||Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)|
|Paget, R. T.||Sorensen, R. W.||Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Sparks, J. A.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)|
|Pannell, T. C.||Steele, T.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Pargiter, G. A||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)|
|Parker J||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Paton, J.||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxha[...])||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Pearson, A||Stross, Dr. Barnett||Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)|
|Peart, T. F.||Summerskiil, Rt. Hon. Edith||Winterbottom, 'Richard (Brightside)|
|Popplewell, E||Sylvester, G. O.||Wise, F. J.|
|Porter, G.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)||Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)||Woods, Rev. G. S|
|Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)||Thomas, David (Aberdare)||Wyatt, W. L.|
|Proctor, W. T.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)||Yates, V. F|
|Pryde, D. J.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H||Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)|
|Rankin, J.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.|