HC Deb 18 June 1952 vol 502 cc1398-413
Mr. Albu

I beg to move, in page 34, line 26, to leave out "twenty-two and a half," and to insert "twenty-six and a quarter."

It may be for the convenience of the House to consider at the same time the following Amendment, in page 34, line 28, to leave out "twenty," and to insert "twenty-three and three quarters."

After the good-natured discussion we have had on points of great importance to individuals it will not be possible for me to move this Amendment without, I think, doing what one of my hon. Friends requested should be done, raising the temperature of the House. It is, I fear, impossible to discuss profits and the Profits Tax without causing the temperature to rise. The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the rate of Profits Tax on distributed profits to the rate at which it stood before the introduction of this Bill, while leaving the rate on undistributed profits at the new rate.

On the Committee stage we had considerable discussion on the levels of Profits Tax on undistributed profits, but I think the Chancellor will agree that most of the arguments were directed to the extraordinary anomalies which he had introduced into the company taxation system by his changes in Profits Tax, combined with the introduction of the Excess Profits Levy. On this occasion I am not going to address my remarks to the arguments then used, but to the question of whether it is desirable to reduce the rate of Profits Tax on undistributed profits.

The Chancellor's proposals would reduce the rate on distributed profits from a net 26¼ per cent. to 22½ per cent., a reduction of 3¾ per cent. This is not the time to make reductions in the deterrents to companies to increase dividend distribution. We are discussing the Bill at a time of extreme difficulty for the country, when great sacrifices are having to be made. In introducing his Budget last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) recognised this and proposed that there should for a period be an actual limitation on the amount of dividends that companies could distribute

The scheme of dividend limitation has been dropped by the Chancellor, although it is true that he has introduced some rather severe and extraordinary taxation by way of the Excess Profits Levy. In the Profits Tax itself he has reduced the deterrent to the distribution of dividends which existed under the old scheme. There are some extraordinary cases where, if one distributes rather more than less, one pays, on the whole, rather less tax, taking the Profits Tax and the Excess Profits Levy together.

We must consider the matter together with all the other changes made in the Bill in the taxation of income. The Chancellor has given relief by way of Income Tax concessions and also by way of concessions to director-controlled companies and to some classes of the business and professional community. Although he apparently needed the revenue—we cannot accept the argument that the Excess Profits Levy was introduced only for moral reasons; there must be some purpose in raising £100 million in taxation—during the Committee stage he made concessions costing about £28 in a full year.

So very considerable concessions one way or another have been given, at any rate in relation to what the Chancellor thought he ought to raise by way of taxation through Income Tax or company taxation. We have to consider the fact that the concessions have very largely been given at the expense of the lower-paid wage earners by reducing food subsidies and by making charges in the Health Service.

When we consider the level at which company taxation should stand, and particularly the level of distributed profits, we have to ask ourselves whether there is at this moment, or is likely to be in the near future, any justice in an increased distribution to shareholders, or, if we do not consider the question of justice, whether there are any grounds of economic expediency.

On the score of justice to shareholders, I do not deny the right to a fair return on money saved or money risked, but to some extent what is a fair return for savings is a matter very much under the control of the Chancellor. I do not know whether his recent financial operations will attract new and rather inexperienced savers or disgust old savers, the value of whose savings has been severely slashed. That remains to be seen.

That the return recently paid for risk capital, taking into account both dividends and capital appreciation, has been too high I have no doubt whatever, and I base my conclusions on some considerable study of, for instance, the number of companies going into liquidation year by year, the number failing to pay dividends, or the number having capital reduced. Over a large number of years in this country profits have been too high and the return paid for risk capital has been too high.

If we look at the matter as it has more recently been argued by Members opposite, especially when they were on this side of the House—I notice that they are less and less anxious to argue the ques- tion of return to shareholders on the basis of equity but more and more on the importance of economic expediency—I do not believe that any possible increase received at the present time by ordinary shareholders would greatly increase the supply of savings available for investment as risk capital.

We have to face the fact—I presume the Government, with the exception of a few backwoodsmen accept it—that we are living in an era of increasing social and economic equality, and if there are insufficient savings in private hands available for private investment, particularly risk investment, then the State will have to devise new methods of providing the capital for industry.

I realise that these arguments certainly do not apply to the small minority of new companies, but these companies are generally to be found among the smaller companies, nearly always owner-managed private companies, or, to be more exact, what are technically described as the exempt companies. I would not be against some means being found to distinguish these from public companies for ordinary purposes of taxation.

But when dealing with Profits Tax we are dealing very largely with the public companies that dominate the country's economy, because although there are only 12,000 of them they do something like half the nation's business. Of the private companies, only about 60 per cent. are exempt private companies, and therefore genuine private companies. The rest are subsidiaries of public companies.

It is in the case of public companies that one cannot really argue that the dividends received by the shareholders play any real part as an incentive to efficiency, output, or initiative exercised by the directors and managers. There is therefore no justification at the present time for reducing the Profits Tax on distributed profits. We are not in this Amendment proposing any change in the rate on undistributed profits. But we think that the present time, especially when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having very great difficulty in his negotiations with the T.U.C. and the trade unions on the question of wages—which is, after all, the other and main form of income in this country—is not the time to make the change which he has suggested.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present——

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Albu

I was about to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for securing a rather better audience for my speech, but I have come to the end of my remarks and am about to sit down. I am sure that in future we shall have to find some way of relating our taxation of business and industry more directly to incentive. I am quite certain at the moment it is not right to remove even in a small way deterrents to the increase of distributions by way of dividends from company profits.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I beg to second the Amendment.

The effect of this and the following Amendment, which we are discussing together, would, as my hon. Friend said, be to allow the Profits Tax on undistributed profits to remain at the new rate but so far as distributed profits are concerned, to put the tax up to what it was before the Finance Bill was introduced. The Chancellor will be familiar with the arguments which we put forward at the Committee stage about the advantages of the Profits Tax as opposed to the Excess Profits Levy.

The difference between us here—and what we are asking the Chancellor specially to turn his mind to on this point—is that, if this Amendment is not accepted, the effect of this will be to reduce the rate of tax on the distributed profits of companies whose profits have not expanded over the standard years.

If they have so expanded, E.P.L. will counter the Profits Tax reduction. If this Amendment is not made, one of the effects of the Finance Bill will be that distributed profits of companies whose profits have not recently been expanded will pay a lower rate of tax after the Finance Bill than they did before. What is the argument for doing that at the present time? That is the point to which I would ask the Chancellor to direct his reply. What is the reason for singling out this class of profits for reduction at the present time?

What is the argument for doing that rather than giving to small companies the incentive for which we asked earlier? What is the argument for doing that as against making all sorts of other concessions, such as the one concerning apprentices, which have been put forward? After all, reducing the rate of tax on distributed profits is quite an important change. I should have thought, in view of the attitude that the Chancellor has taken on other Amendments, he would not have wished to take this new step without waiting to hear the views of the Royal Commission on Taxation. I think it would hardly be courteous to Lord Radcliffe.

A little earlier we were told how fortunate we were to have Lord Radcliffe presiding over the Royal Commission on Taxation, but the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we would not have had him had it not been for the steps taken by the right hon. Gentleman for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) to see that we really did get an independent Chairman. In view of the attitude which the Chancellor has consistently taken, this is a matter which should be left to the Royal Commission before a decision is taken.

I ask whether at this stage the Government are not prepared to look at this matter again. After all, the Government have shown a willingness to change their minds quite a lot on taxation in this Bill. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) said earlier today that he had consistently supported the general design of the Budget in the Finance Bill. That was a difficult thing to do because the general design of the Budget in this Finance Bill has been changing fairly constantly. Before we leave this tax altogether I ask the Chancellor to bring before the House some convincing argument why this particular class of profits should have a lower rate of tax, or else concede our point.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I do not intend to make a long speech, because we have had three or four debates on this matter in Committee. I think it tends to lower the standard of debates in Parliament when we repeat ourselves too often, and I cannot think of any new arguments to adduce in addition to those which I adduced on the Committee stage. I will do my best to repeat some of the things which I then said.

These Amendments will not touch the undistributed profits or profits put to reserve but in the case of distributed profits they increase the rate from 22½ to 26¼ per cent. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said that our policy would reduce the deterrents to people and perhaps not check them in the distribution of larger dividends. That certainly does not represent the showers of criticism that have come my way from many directions.

All the criticism I have heard has been against me for having imposed a further burden upon the profits of industry through the Excess Profits Levy and the Profits Tax. I should have thought that if there were any justification for those criticisms it would be that a considerably heavier burden has been put upon the profits of industry, amounting in total, as a result of the Budget, to between £76 million and £80 million.

Therefore, to those who say that the Budget is not realistic in this matter I would quote that figure, which is eloquent in itself. I should also like to say to some of those who have pointed to the City and said that I have not taken a firm policy towards profits, that I should have liked them to have seen the communications I have received from quarters in which profits are made. They would then realise the pressure under which I have been, and the merit of the course which I have adopted in an effort to be fair to all sections of the community.

Without wishing to go into the matter in too much detail I feel certain that if an examination were made of the effect generally, all sections of the country, whether in organised labour or in industry, would realise that there is a considerable burden on profits at the present time. The hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) asked why we had singled out this method. The answer is that we did not single out this method, because we combined it with the imposition of the Excess Profits Levy. He might have said, "Why not leave the rate of tax on profits, whether distributed or undistributed, as high as before?" In my opinion that would represent a tax burden on industry too high for industry to bear.

I think that we will all agree that it was extremely wise to halve the tax on undistributed profits in relation to the level under the late Administration. The total tax is also now reduced to 22½ per cent. Not only was the E.P.T. in wartime extremely complicated in administration in that it was impossible to disentangle it from Profits Tax, but the combined weight of the two taxes ought not to be more than a certain amount.

The level which we have now reached, in my opinion, is high enough for industry to bear. I think it even offends against the very sensible remarks made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), namely, that there should be savings in the hands of industry, which are in themselves a form of national saving and which would, in some ways, obviate the need for so high a Budget surplus because that would be a form of corporate saving. I hope that the House will feel that we have achieved about the right balance between all the interests concerned.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I appreciate that the taxation burden on distributed profits of a company which is going to pay a good deal of E.P.L. will not be lowered, but will be increased. But, what happens in the case of a company not paying any E.P.L.? The Chancellor must accept responsibility for how his Finance Bill will affect companies in all sorts of positions. Why is it right to give such a company, which will not be paying E.P.L., a concession on its distributed profits?

Mr. Butler

The original plan, before the E.P.L. was amended, was to make the tax on distributed profits even less severe than it is now by a considerable amount. The hon. Gentleman might then have had a case for finding an anomaly between some companies which had not made profits against a standard year and which are very much relieved on the standard tax on distributed profits.

I do not think there are many anomalies in the balance that I have now struck. By and large, there are bound to be anomalies and hard cases, and that is one of the great sorrows of the E.P.L. that nobody introducing it can be absolutely fair. Taking that into consideration, and taking also into consideration the adjustment of distributed profits, it would be difficult to find a fairer system, although I very much regret that this extra burden has to be put on industry.

The only point left is the one raised by the hon. Member for Stechford, on the question of small companies. On this, we have already raised the minimum in relation to E.P.L. and we have reduced the maximum. In the case of raising the minimum, it would not be possible to go very much further. We have, under that scheme and by other alleviations, attempted to help the small companies. I hope, therefore, that we may come to a decision on this matter.

Mr. Callaghan

We have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not agree with him and he has not satisfied us. Unlike him, we think there is a great deal to be said on this question of profits which are being made. I assure him, if his ear is not closely in touch with what is being said in the country, that he should get into touch with his hon. Friends and he will find they are hearing a great deal about profits, and particularly about excess profits, at the present time.

There is one confusion which the Chancellor gets himself into every time he talks about the burden on industry, and it is worth examining. He has just spoken again about extorting a further £80 million from industry and putting a further burden upon it. Arithmetically, of course, that is true, but it will only be true if concerns make greater profits than they made in the standard years. In other words, he is not asking for an extra burden out of the same amount of income. He is asking for an additional share of their excess profits. In what sense can that be true as a burden, in the way the housewife, who is being asked to pay additional prices because of the reduction of the food subsidies, is bearing a burden?

What the Chancellor is doing is what he ought to do; that is, taking out of the additional profits which these people have been making through the high level business activities over the last few years, a share for the Treasury. He has no moral right to stand here and try to pretend—and I am sure he believes it, although it is a measure of the confusion into which he has got himself—that the sort of burden he is asking companies to bear has any relationship to the sort of burden he is asking the rest of the community to bear.

1.45 a.m.

This £80 million will be derived out of excess profits, additional profits over and above what companies would normally be making. I hope that the Chancellor, in stating his defence in the country and on any future occasions when we have to talk about this, will not put them in the same category as the other classes of the community, all of whom are, by this Budget, being asked to bear some additional burden of some sort. The only two exceptions are limited companies and those people with substantial personal incomes. These are getting relief in this Budget. Practically every other citizen is being asked to bear a higher burden.

I come to another point. The Chancellor says that no other new argument has been advanced in this debate—this side of the House is grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) for their vigorous and well informed speeches—beyond the arguments that we have canvassed and rehearsed during the last three months. Well, I will give the right hon. Gentleman an additional argument. He has been asked to meet the trade unions next week. That is an argument that he might very well consider when he is deciding what to do about the level of the Profits Tax. It is not my task, nor can I attempt, to forecast what they are going to say to him. But I put this general proposition to him, and I feel certain that it will be in their minds whether they express it or not.

The first essential for any Chancellor, if he wants a wage restraint policy, is to have a profits policy, and if there is one thing the Chancellor has not got it is a profits policy. It is because he has not got a profits policy, because he has been blown hither and thither by every wind and gale which emerged from the City of London, that he will find himself in the greatest difficulty when he accedes to the trade union leaders' request next week to meet them.

The right hon. Gentleman says he has been criticised by the City for not doing enough. They have taken a bite out of his pants. He is collecting less money now than he intended to collect. But they have not started on him yet. Let him wait till next year—if he is there. He will find that the City of London will not be content with the sort of concessions that they have got from him on this present scale.

They will be demanding something far different, far more radical and drastic in the way of reductions of taxation. And, of course, he will find himself in the difficulty of being unable to resist them because he will not have either a wages policy or a profits policy with which to confront them. He will have no economic plan that he can place in front of the industrial leaders on both sides of industry to which he can ask them to accede in the best interests of the nation.

This is the biggest condemnation of the Chancellor's Budget. It is one about which, if I may say so with respect, I warned him on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when he shook his head in derision when I suggested to him then that he was precipitating substantial wage claims by every organised body of trade unionists. So it has turned out, and so any Chancellor who had considered these economic problems would have known.

I say very strongly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we feel that he has thrown overboard here, in this matter of profits and wages, a policy that had stood the country in good stead since the late Sir Stafford Cripps inaugurated it. He has thrown it over with no gain to himself, with loss of prestige to his party and a considerable burden on the country. We shall all pay for his folly and short-sightedness during the months and years that lie ahead.

I conclude with some words that were uttered by the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion. There was then discussed something that was called the National Defence Contribution, which is roughly similar to the Excess Profits Levy. In his own inimitable way—because there had been the same sort of criticism from the same sort of lobby from the same sort of quarter of the City of London—what the present Prime Minister had to say about that tax was this: I hope that we shall not have a draggletailed, tattered tax forced through sulky lobbies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 1st June, 1937; Vol. 324, c. 897.] I think I need change only one word. I think that at this time of night it is "sleepy" Lobbies through which the right hon. Gentleman is going to force this tax. He is making a great mistake in forcing it through. He will live to regret it. When we are returned by the people to handle the affairs of the nation we shall ensure that our wages and profits policy bears some resemblance to the needs of the nation.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

I do not think that the Chancellor should be left to feel tonight that he has outdone everyone else in his taxation of profits. We wish he had taxed profits more severely, because it is necessary to consider not only the actual volume of profits but to consider the percentage of the national income that profits represent. We on this side of the House quarrel with the Excess Profits Levy only because it is a clumsy ill-considered and inefficient taxation device. The Chancellor himself has said tonight that it leads to a lot of hard cases. We say the direct type of tax, the Profits Tax, is a much fairer way of doing the job. We all know

that the Excess Profits Levy was considered in a careless moment of wooing the electorate. It has had a turbulent birth.

I want to put one point to the Chancellor. It may well be a reasonable argument to say that there should be a differential between distributed and undistributed profits, but I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that while the shareholders do not receive by way of dividend distribution their profits in a given year, those profits are accumulating for future dividends or for the enhanced capital value of their shares. That is the effect of profits put to reserve. Wages forgone through restraint of demand for increased wages are, on the other hand, forgone for ever. There is no reserve there for future benefit.

The Chancellor cannot argue that there is exactly the same relation between the taxation of profits and the forgoing of wage increases. There is a fundamental difference, and one which he would do well to bear in mind in his negotiations with the trade unions. He must show that he means that profits shall bear their fair share of the burdens the economic situation makes imperative.

Question put, "That 'twenty-two and a half' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 188.

Division No. 175.] AYES [1.54 a.m.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Bullard, D. G. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Alport, C. J. M. Burden, F. F. A. Fletcher-Cooke, C
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Butcher, H. W. Foster, John
Anstruther-Gray, Major W J. Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Gage, C. H.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Carson, Hon. E. Garner-Evans, E. H
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton) Cary, Sir Robert Godber, J. B.
Baldwin, A. E. Channon, H. Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Banks, Col. C. Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Gough, C. F. H.
Barber, Anthony Cole, Norman Graham, Sir Fergus
Barlow, Sir John Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Grimond, J.
Baxter, A. B. Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Beach, Maj. Hicks Cooper-Key, E. M. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Cranborne, Viscount Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Hay, John
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Crouch, R. F. Heald, Sir Lionel
Birch, Nigel Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Heath, Edward
Bishop, F. P. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S) Higgs, J. M. C.
Black, C. W. Deedes, W F. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Boothby, R. J. G. Digby, S. Wingfield Mill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Bossom, A. C. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A Doughty, C. J. A. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Boyle, Sir Edward Drayson, G. B. Hollis, M. C.
Braine, B. R. Drewe, C. Holt, A. F.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H Duncan, Capt. J. A. L Hope, Lord John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Brooman-White, R. C. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Browne, Jack (Govan) Fell, A. Horobin, I. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T Fisher, Nigel Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Mellor, Sir John Speir, R. M.
Hurd, A. R. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Nabarro, G. D. N. Stevens, G. P.
Hyde, Lt.-Com. H. M. Nicholls, Harmar Storey, S.
Johnson, Erie (Blackley) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Nield, Basil (Chester) Summers, G. S.
Kaberry, D. Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Sutcliffe, H.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Oakshott, H. D. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Lambert, Hon. G. Odey, G. W. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Lambton, Viscount Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Osborne, C. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Partridge, E. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Lindsay, Martin Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Linstead, H. N. Peyton, J. W. W. Tilney, John
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Touche, Sir Gordon
Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.) Pitman, I. J. Vane, W. M. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Powell, J. Enoch Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Vosper, D. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Profumo, J. D Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McAdden, S. J. Raikes, H. V. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Rayner, Brig. R. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Redmayne, M. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
McKibbin, A. J. Remnant, Hon. P. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Roper, Sir Harold Wellwood, W.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard White, Baker (Canterbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Russell, R. S. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Markham, Major S. F. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Marples, A. E. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) Wills, G.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Shepherd, William Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maude, Angus Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wood, Hon. R.
Maudling, R. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Medlicott, Brigadier F. Soames, Capt. C. Mr. Studholme and
Mr. Richard Thompson.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard de Freitas, Geoffrey Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Adams, Richard Deer, G. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Albu, A. H. Delargy, H. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Dodds, N. N. Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Donnelly, D. L. Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Awbery, S. S. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Bacon, Miss Alice Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C Janner, B.
Baird, J. Edwards, John (Brighouse) Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Bence, C. R. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Bonn, Wedgwood Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Benson, G. Ewart, R. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Beswick, F. Fernyhough, E. Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bing, G. H. C. Field, W. J. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Blackburn, F. Finch, H. J. Keenan, W.
Blenkinsop, A. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) King, Dr. H. M.
Blyton, W. R. Foot, M. M. Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Boardman, H. Ferman, J. C. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Lewis, Arthur
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Freeman, John (Watford) Lindgren, G. S.
Brockway, A. F. Freeman, Peter (Newport) MacColl, J. E.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. McGovern, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Gibson, C. W. McInnes, J.
Brown, Rt Hon. George (Belper) Glanville, James McKay, John (Wallsend)
Burton, Miss F. E. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. McLeavy, F.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S) Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Callaghan, L. J. Grey, C. F. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mann, Mrs. Jean
Chapman, W. D. Griffiths, William (Exchange) Manuel, A. C.
Chetwynd, G. R. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Clunie, J. Hall, John (Gateshead, W.) Mayhew, C. P.
Collick, P. H. Hamilton, W. W. Mellish, R. J.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hannan, W. Mitchison, G. R.
Graddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hargreaves, A. Moody, A. S.
Crossman, R. H. S. Hayman, F. H. Morley, R.
Daines, P. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Mort, D. L.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Moyle, A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Herbison, Miss M. Mulley, F. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Hobson, C. R. Murray, J. D.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Houghton, Douglas Nally, W.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hoy, J. H. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Orbach, M.
Oswald, T. Schofield, S. (Barnsley) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Padley, W. E. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Wells, William (Walsall)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Short, E. W. West, D. G.
Pannell, Charles Shurmer, P. L. E. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Pargiter, G. A. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Paton, J. Simmons, C. J, (Brierley Hill) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Pearson, A. Slater, J. Wilkins, W. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie Snow, J. W. Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Popplewell, E. Sorensen, R. W. Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Sparks, J. A. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Procter, W. T. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Rankin, John Swingler, S. T. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon) Taylor, John (West Lothian) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Rhodes, H. Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. A. Thomas, David (Aberdare) Wyatt, W. L.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Yates, V. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wallace, H. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ross, William Watkins, T. E. Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wigg.
Royle, C. Weitzman, D.