HC Deb 18 June 1952 vol 502 cc1207-25

Section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1947, shall have effect in relation to the profits lax for any chargeable accounting period ending after the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one with the substitution in subsection (1) thereof for the reference to two thousand pounds of a reference to three thousand pounds, and in subsections (2) and (3) thereof with the substitution for the references to two thousand and to twelve thousand pounds respectively of references to three thousand and twenty thousand pounds.—[Mr. Albu.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

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

This proposed Clause is an alternative version of a Clause which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) on the Committee stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, he moved the Clause at 4 o'clock in the morning, at the end of our debate, and I do not think anyone would consider that at that time the arguments put forward received very adequate consideration. There is no doubt that we had reached a time when we were all fairly exhausted and thankful to be rid of that stage of the Bill. Luckily, owing to the way things have happened, I have the opportunity of moving the Second reading of this Clause in the House at a rather more convenient time, 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

The object of the Clause is simple. It is to raise the exemption from Profits Tax from its present figure of £2,000 to a figure of £3,000 with a marginal relief up to £20,000. We have now reduced the figure moved on the Committee stage from £5,000, which is the figure to which relief is given for the purposes of Excess Profits Levy.

This proposal is one of a number of suggestions put forward during the Committee stage by my hon. Friends and myself particularly to assist small and very small companies. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation is prepared to reply on this matter. In a rather brief reply on the former occasion—no doubt he also was exhausted from his efforts—he gave two main reasons why the Government should not accept the Clause.

The first was the cost to the Exchequer which, as he pointed out, if the Clause had been accepted in its original form, would have been £4 million. If the cost to the Exchequer when the relief to be given was on a figure which was to be raised to £5,000 was £4 million, I presume that now that we propose only to raise the figure to £3,000 the cost will be very much less. I have no idea whether it is possible to work that out, but no doubt we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the cost to the Exchequer, like other arguments which are to be introduced, is not a very salient argument.

The second argument was a debating argument that last year my right hon. Friend did not grant this concession, although Amendments were put down to the same effect. The situation this year is different in at least two respects. The first respect, which is particularly relevant when considering small companies, is that the imposition of the Excess Profits Levy, which, with its effect on the marginal rate of tax, is of the order of something like 80 per cent. to 85½ per cent. according to the extent to which profits are distributed, will be disastrous to many small and rapidly expanding companies.

We are all getting fairly used—it is nothing particularly new—to hearing the voices of chairmen of banks and company chairmen, particularly the chairmen of big companies, raised from time to time in protest against the present high level of company taxation. Of course, we can all hold different views on whether or not the companies they represent are or are not able to obtain the capital they need to maintain themselves and expand as the economy requires.

There can be very little disagreement, although I may have some argument with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in a moment, that small companies, and very small companies in particular, have great difficulty in obtaining adequate finance to get themselves over their initial establishment period. Finance will always be available for the large, established, public company.

Whether or not, if it adopts a reasonably conservative dividend policy, it is able to build up sufficient reserves for maintenance and expansion I do not know, but I am certain that the large public company can always obtain additional finance up to the limit of what it is possible to do in the present situation when investment in new plant and equipment are restricted by the Government.

It is true that these large companies may not always obtain the finance on the conditions their directors would particularly like, but that is not the point we are discussing. The point is that they can obtain the finance if they want it. For the medium-sized company there are also means—the industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation, and many other finance corporations, which provide money for the established company. But, for the very small company getting over its first period of growth—for example, the company employing perhaps up to 50 employees in a manufacturing industry—the situation is extremely difficult. It is not worth while for any of the established financial bodies to provide the capital. I understand that it hardly pays them even to make investigations for the small sums which these companies want.

4.0 p.m.

When, on the Committee stage, my hon. Friends and myself introduced an Amendment to restore to some extent the initial allowances for small companies, I had rather an argument with the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He said that he thought there was no difficulty about these small companies obtaining money in one way and another. Since then he and I have had some correspondence which I think confirms what I said at the time, that these small companies find great difficulty in getting the money they require to tide them over this initial period.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I did not say that there was absolutely no difficulty, I said that there were opportunities for small companies to raise the necessary finance. Secondly, in fairness, and in view of the considerable publicity that was given to my view in the national and provincial Press, I should say that I have received only two letters from the country as a whole, both of which I have, as a matter of courtesy, shown to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). That does not represent a large body of opinion in support of his view.

Mr. Albu

I would state, purely as a matter of accuracy, that the hon. Member showed me only one letter. I have had other representations, and there is no doubt—I do not think that it is a serious matter of dispute—that small companies of this sort do have difficulties.

I hold the view that profits perform quite a different function in these small, and particularly the small owner-managed companies, from that which they perform in the large public companies the shares of which are freely transferable. They not only provide a much more direct incentive to efficiency and effort, but they are, for the reasons which I have already stated, almost essential for retention in the business, if the companies are to expand. I do not believe that that applies to companies which are able to obtain finance in the capital market in one way or another, but I am certain that for these companies it is a very important consideration indeed.

I believe that we need a continuing rate of new births of companies in order that they can grow up and tread on the heels of existing, established companies, and keep them on the alert. Also, because no one knows what is the most efficient size of business in any particular industry, it is very necessary to have a stream of companies growing up from small beginnings through medium size to bigger concerns, and so on, in order that in any particular trade or industry a company can reach the most efficient size.

It is obvious that that state of affairs cannot be attained unless there are continual new births of companies which are able to get over their infantile period. The sort of concession which we are seeking for these companies in this period, when they are being so penalised by this extraordinary tax, the Excess Profits Levy, is exactly the sort of concession which would help them most.

The other argument for doing at this moment what we ask, quite apart from the Excess Profits Levy, is the necessity to encourage a diversification of industry in areas such as Lancashire, where there is a serious trade recession, and where, it is now agreed by most people, it will be necessary to introduce new industries. That is necessary not only for the sake of Lancashire itself, where there will have to be a very considerable diversification over the next 20 or 25 years, but also because in a period of re-armament a fairly large increase of sub-contracting engineering firms and firms of that sort is needed, to which this sort of concession would be of great help.

The concession sought by the new Clause is a small one; one could almost say it is more a matter of good will than of actual cash. Nevertheless, such a concession would be of some value and would certainly give some substance to the protestations of support for small industrial concerns and for a property-owning democracy which we hear from time to time from hon. Members opposite. I believe that the concession would be of great potential value, and I hope that on this occasion the Parliamentary Secretary will agree to accept it.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I beg to second the Motion.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the views just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). It would be rather tragic if this continuing rebirth of companies and small industries were in any way prevented. We have had considerable experience of this matter in connection with the industrial estates.

The policy of those estates in England, I take it, as well as in Scotland is to provide buildings of different sizes and to give encouragement to a small company, or perhaps a person who has ideas, to start a concern in a very small way. If it develops, that company or person is automatically given the let of a bigger factory and so is enabled to move from factory to factory and is given the opportunity to build up quite a new and efficient industry.

I have seen some examples of industries that have been brought from abroad by refugees, such as, for example, the polishing and cutting of marble. That has been developed in such circumstances and has become quite a successful venture in this country. On the subject of the diversification of industry, I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It is particularly important, in cases such as the Development Areas in the West of Scotland and elsewhere, that there should be more diversity of industry. It is not enough to depend in those Development Areas on the possibility of bringing in big firms from elsewhere. The great danger of that process is that if a branch of such a firm is placed in a Development Area, it is withdrawn whenever there is any possibility of a recession, and the Development Area has to suffer.

If we can stimulate a variety of industries to take root in those areas, that danger is eliminated. I believe that the Treasury have always taken the view that they should not stifle these industries by being over-strict in the imposition of taxation. It would be very interesting if, in his reply, the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some idea of the policy of the Treasury in relation to stimulating such development.

I have a particular interest in hoping that one of these days we shall have some new industries developing in the Highlands. It is almost impossible to bring into the Highlands of Scotland industries from other parts of the country. The industries that can develop there must be indigenous in the sense of being connected with the products of the Highlands—woodwork, carpets or other products derived from wool, or even projects for the provision of tourist requirements. That can only happen if the people concerned feel that once they begin they are not going to be pushed over before they are properly on their feet.

I hope that in his reply the hon. Gentleman will give some encouragement to those people who have initiative and enterprise, and who are willing to make a start with some kind of industry, to develop their ideas, and that he will support the industrial estates, which are already giving support by means of Government money. If this Clause can do anything to help in that respect, I hope that the Treasury and the hon. Gentleman will give it sympathetic consideration.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling)

This Clause is, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has pointed out, very similar indeed to a Clause which was moved during the Committee stage by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland), who I am sorry to note is not with us today. I replied to the debate on that occasion, and I hope that the hon. Member will not take it amiss if the reply which I give today is very similar to that which I then gave. As he well knows, this is an exceedingly consistent Government, and does not vary its views from week to week on these matters of policy.

There is one point, and only one, on which the Clause differs from the one which was moved on that earlier occasion, namely, that the figure is not increased from £2,000 to £5,000 but from £2,000 to £3,000. The difference to the cost of the concession is much less than the hon. Member thought. I am advised that instead of costing £4 million, as it would have done in its original form, it would now cost about £3½ million in a full year. But that, I am afraid, means that the cost is still a very substantial item. The fact that this new Clause does not repeat the £5,000 figure from the E.P.L. provisions disposes of the argument, of which use was made in Committee, that we should have exactly the same figure in both parts of the Bill, so that argument need not be answered again.

I listened with interest to see what further arguments would be advanced by the hon. Member for Edmonton, in view of what transpired at the previous stage. The main argument used earlier was that the fall in the value of money meant that a figure of £2,000 which was reasonable in 1937, when the Profits Tax was first introduced, was unreasonable nowadays. At that time I was able to point out that this argument had been very powerfully destroyed in 1949 and 1951 by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), so I am glad that that argument did not appear again today.

We had instead two new arguments—well, one not entirely new. The first one was, of course, the absence of capital and the need of the small company to raise capital, to which reference was made earlier by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who referred to the dear money policy pursued by my right hon. Friend. Today the hon. Gentleman has added the point about the additional burden on the small company of the Excess Profits Levy. But, of course, the small company is being exempted from the Excess Profits Levy up to £5,000, which is quite a substantial figure—substantially more than £2,000.

As for the question of the dear money policy, it is true that it is often argued—and there is, no doubt, a great deal of evidence to support it—that in many cases a tight credit situation bears more heavily on a small company than on a large company, but I am certain one can go much too far in pushing that argument. It is not true to say that the bigger the company the easier it is to raise money. That just is not so. The ability of a company to raise money depends upon its credit-worthiness, and its credit-worthiness is not a function of its size. I suggest that that argument can certainly be pushed altogether too far.

The other new argument introduced today was an exceedingly interesting one, mentioned by the hon. Member for Edmonton and developed in the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn): that in order to enhance the diversification of industry it is important to encourage small businesses. That is perfectly true, and it has been true for a number of years. It was true in 1949. It was true in 1951, when a similar concession to this was turned down by the previous Government. It is not a new development. If that argument is true today, it was true then.

The point is not whether it is a good thing to help small companies. The question before the House is whether this is the right way to give additional assistance to small companies at this moment. At the end of the previous debate the right hon. Member for Battersea, North asked me whether I considered that this £2,000 limit should remain fixed for ever. I would certainly not say that for one moment. All I am saying is that, in the opinion of the Government, this is not the time to increase it.

In the debate of 1951 the then Economic Secretary said that it was not the right time to raise the concession to small companies when the tax itself was being increased. I should say, as I said on the previous occasion, that that is the time to give the small company greater concessions. The heavier the weight of tax the greater the need to give concessions or special help where special help is needed. But this year the Profits Tax is not being increased. It has been decreased. The Profits Tax itself, both the undistributed and distributed rate, has been reduced this year.

Also, concessions have been made to director-controlled companies. The hon. Member for Edmonton seems to regard the joint stock company as a form of economic vice which it is his crusade in life to destroy. I thought it was the director-controlled company and the small, as it were, family business which he was particularly concerned to assist, and it is the director-controlled company that has been given further assistance in this Finance Bill.

In those circumstances, therefore, repeating, I am afraid, very much the arguments I used before, because they seem to me as valid today as they were then, because this concession would cost another £3½ million in a full year, and because already this year valuable concessions have been made in the Profits Tax, and particularly to small director-controlled companies, my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept this new Clause.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford)

The Parliamentary Secretary began and ended by apologising to the House for addressing a rather similar argument to that which he made in reply on the Committee stage. I do not think we would have minded that if we had felt that his reply in Committee was a good one, but we did not. I am afraid that we have the same doubts about his reply at this stage.

As I understood his argument, it was based mainly on the point that this was not the time to make such a concession. He referred to remarks which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) had made on previous Finance Bills, and seemed to think that the fact that those remarks had been made in the past let the Government out from doing anything at the present time, although not necessarily, he indicated, from doing anything in the future. I should have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu), in his speech in moving the Second Reading of this new Clause, dealt in advance with that point.

This is a Finance Bill which makes certain substantial changes in the basis of company taxation, which introduces a whole new tax—the Excess Profits Levy—and which, as the hon. Gentleman was constantly pointing out, unlike previous Finance Bills with which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough was dealing, at the same time reduces the Profits Tax. The fact that there are these fairly sweeping changes, combined with the fact that we are to some extent moving into a new monetary era—an era of higher interest rates—seems to me to make this a time when this concession ought to be looked at afresh, and to make this a moment when, if a change was to be made, it would be a very good moment at which to make it.

I did not think the Parliamentary Secretary was at all convincing on the point he tried to make about a company's ability to raise money being independent of its size. He said it is a function not of its size but of its credit-worthiness. That was the phrase he used. I do not think that is the case. He did not apply his mind at all to the point my hon. Friend made earlier, that the fact that a number of small companies are eminently credit-worthy does not stand them in great stead, for the simple reason that, obviously, the facilities of public issue on the Stock Exchange are not at their disposal.

Nor is a normal finance house prepared, for good commercial reasons, to incur the costs of investigation. It just is not worth having a detailed investigation into a company which wishes to have £2,000, £3,000 or £5,000, even up to £10,000. It just is not worth it for the normal finance house. Therefore, these companies are up against great difficulty here, and I thought the Parliamentary Secretary brushed that argument aside altogether too hastily.

It cannot be said, taking the reduction in Profits Tax, not on its own but combined with E.P.L., that this is really a good Finance Bill for the small expanding company. It really is not on balance, taking the two together. It is no good just pointing to the changes in Profits Tax or the increases in directors' remuneration allowable and saying that that disposes of the needs of the small company.

The small company has a real problem at any time because of the difficulty of raising new finance. It is more of a problem now, because the burden of E.P.L. is growing, and because of the new burden which dearer money imposes. I do not think it is good enough for the hon. Gentleman to say, "It was not done by the Labour Government in the past. Therefore, why should we do it now. At some time in the future we may look at it." This is the new money era. There is in this Finance Bill a new tax on expanding businesses. Therefore, this concession ought to be looked at and granted.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I was pleased, though surprised, to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the Government claim to have shown consistency in their conduct of this Finance Bill. They have, of course, been consistent in changing their mind and in giving way to proposals made from both sides of the House. As far as consistency is concerned, I should have thought that that would have been an argument for the Chancellor thinking again about this proposal.

I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not take this matter more seriously. It is a serious proposition. The hon. Gentleman's only argument was that he rejected this proposal this year because in earlier years the party which he represents advocated it and it was rejected by the then Government. That is not a strong argument. Whatever has happened in the past, we should examine the proposal on its merits this year. The hon. Gentleman attempted to belittle the argument that the small company has special difficulty in raising new capital.

I do not think that he was convincing. Surely he ignored one point completely. It is that naturally the new company tends to be a small company. That must often, though not always, be so, for fairly obvious reasons. It is clear that the new company, especially when it is a small company, is not in such a good position to raise capital resources as the old and established company which usually has reserves built up out of past profits. That is one reason why it seems to us that where a new company is small there is a special case for this proposal.

The hon. Gentleman challenged us to put forward additional arguments to those used during the Committee stage. I will mention two. There are others. An important difference in the situation between this year and last year when my hon. Friend adduced arguments against a similar proposal—and this is the main reason why we felt unable to accept it, though candidly we were attracted by it last year—is the question of cost.

Last year was a Budget year in which, owing to the large increase in the defence programme, it being the first main Budget year of that programme, we were confronted with a heavy increase in general expenditure and an increase rather than a decrease in taxation. It was, therefore, an inappropriate year for making concessions of any kind.

But this year the situation is different. As the Chancellor pointed out in the Budget debate, he considered that the general situation of the country did not require a stiffer Budget and, by various manipulations which I will not discuss now, he was able to make large concessions in taxation. Some of those concessions we do not regard as justified. Our argument on this proposal is that it would have been better to make this concession to the small and new companies at a cost of between £3 million or £4 million, which is a small amount in comparison with the large reliefs made partially in taxation on high incomes.

I offer only one additional argument. This may be the last year in which the present Government have any opportunity to make such a concession as this. It is doubtful whether this Government will introduce another Budget. They may not have many months left. Since we have been discussing this Finance Bill, the stock of the Government has fallen lower and lower. At present the Government have hardly any friends even in the daily Press. One reads as many attacks on the Chancellor in the "Sunday Times" as one reads in the "Economist."

I doubt whether the Chancellor would like to have to go before the electorate at the next General Election, which cannot be very far away, in the position of defender of the large firm as against the small one. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid placing the Chancellor in the embarrassing position of going before the country as a protagonist of the large firm, to give serious consideration to this proposal which we regard as thoroughly justified on its merits.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

It is a little difficult for people like myself who have been associated with small businesses for many years to recognise our new allies opposite. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) believes in making the best of every possible world, even of worlds of his own imagining. His influence, which ought to be considerable within his own party, apparently had no effective result when the previous Government had the opportunity of granting some concession to the small man.

In those days, if my memory serves me lightly, the idea was that the small man should be extinguished. Persons of my character—I am a type, after all; stubborn, and difficult to extinguish—were anything but butterflies on the wheel. We were less than dust. I feel a sympathy with the hon. Member for Edmonton and with his absent friend the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) and also with the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)—these three redoubtable musketeers—in this battle they fight.

When they have fought with their Government in power, it has been a sham fight. They have had no effect upon the Treasury Bench or upon the Opposition. But when Her Majesty's Government is of a different character they come forward with a new story, these knights defending the small man. I say to these hon. Gentlemen, who are allies in this matter at their own invitation, that the small man has looked after himself for many centuries, ever since the days of the Garden of Eden. He can dispense with the assistance of hon. Gentlemen opposite at this stage.

Mr. Albu

Has not the hon. Gentleman forgotten that the previous Government raised the exemption limit for director-controlled companies?

Sir W. Darling

I have not forgotten that. It was hardly a concession eloquently pleaded for by the hon. Member for Edmonton and his supporters.

Mr. Albu

It was similar.

Sir W. Darling

I was interested in the observations about the size of companies which conduct certain businesses. This is an interesting speculation. Certain businesses are effective when they are small: they are ineffective when they grow larger. During the American slump it was pointed out to me by an American industrialist that the businesses that stood during the devastation of the slump were not the large businesses in the hands of the accountants, lawyers and bankers which employed 100,000 people or more.

Those businesses collapsed during the slump. The very small businesses—too small even to attract the attention of the hon. Member for Edmonton—employing perhaps two or three men collapsed because they had not got adequate capital. But the medium-sized business, personally managed, stood up strenuously against all the winds that blew. They had no special assistance from the Government of the United States any more than similar businesses in this country have special assistance from this Government.

Mr. Jay

Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument that in the near future under the present Administration we may expect a slump comparable to that in the United States in 1932?

Sir W. Darling

If the hon. Member thinks that that can be deduced from my argument, then he has even more perspicacity than I expected. If he can deduce that from my argument, then he can deduce almost anything whatever. That was not the argument.

There is in every business a suitable economic norm which is the effective organisation for the conduct of the business. If it is a tobacconist's business, I take it that the husband, the wife and perhaps the niece can conduct it. If it is a business conducting financial operations over the whole of the Commonwealth, obviously a much larger norm is necessary.

I join issue with the hon. Gentleman on the suggestion that there is any difficulty at any time in getting capital. I speak as one who had not the good fortune of having capital left to me or given to me by anyone. There is no exceptional difficulty for first-class competent business men in securing what capital they want at any time. I know of many businesses which have failed through incompetence, ill-judgment or misfortune and bad economic circumstances. I know of very few that have failed through lack of capital.

4.30 p.m.

That is why I believe not in the cheap money but in the dear money policy. I believe that, if money is easy to obtain, it encourages persons to engage in business who otherwise would be discouraged from doing so. On the whole, a competent person who requires capital for his business can obtain it, and, in my own experience of over half a century in different parts of the world—experience not confined to this country—I have found that a first-class business man with good ideas can get an adequate supply of the capital he requires.

When the bank manager said, "No, I will not give you £1,000 or £10,000 for that project," I went away with my fears confirmed; but when he said, "Yes, if you give me your insurance policy and a couple of guarantors from your friends, I will give you £2,000," I felt that the project was all the better and stronger by reason of that fact. I have never found any serious difficulty in getting the appropriate finance for any project in which I have engaged, and I have engaged in a great many that required finance.

Mr. Jenkins

In view of the hon. Gentleman's categorical and interesting statement that no competently managed business has difficulty in getting all the capital it needs, will he explain why he

and his hon. Friends are always saying that the present level of taxation makes it impossible for businesses to carry on and develop?

Sir W. Darling

We do not say it is utterly impossible; we say it is difficult. Contrary to the Socialist view, we say that life is difficult, and that it always will be difficult. I have never accepted the theory that, by accepting the Marxist philosophy, life would become easy. I have never believed it. It is not more difficult in finance than in love or in any other human occupations. It is not exceptionally difficult for a first-class person with first-class ideas to get all the capital he requires. The existence of a thousand businesses in this country which were started, not by bank finance, but by the personal savings of the persons who inaugurated them, is proof of my contention.

Although the Chancellor is faced with the difficult problem of restoring the solvency of our country, I hope he will resist this Clause, because the Budget must be taken as a whole. While I do not agree with many individual parts of it, I accept the general philosophy of his Budget, and I shall support him in taxing footballers, cricketers, cinemas and even small shopkeepers trying to make what they can out of the difficulties of the present situation. I shall support the Government, and I think the House would be right to do so.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 255.

Division No. 167.] AYES [4.32 p.m.
Adams, Richard Bowden, H. W. Daines, P.
Albu, A. H. Bowen, E. R. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Brockway, A. F. Davies, A, Edward (Stoke, N.)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Awberry, S. S. Brown, Thomas (Ince) de Freitas, Geoffrey
Ayles, W. H. Burton, Miss F. E. Deer, G.
Bacon, Miss Alice Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Delargy, H. J.
Balfour, A. Callaghan, L. J. Dodds, N. N.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Carmichael, J. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Barlley, P. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Edelman, M.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Chapman, W. D. Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Bence, C. R. Chetwynd, G. R. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Benn, Wedgwood Clunie, J. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Benson, G. Cocks, F. S Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Beswick, F. Coldrick, W. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Bing, G. H. C. Collick, P. H. Ewart, R.
Blackburn, F. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Fernyhough, E.
Blenkinsop, A. Cove, W. G. Finch, H J.
Blyton, W. R. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Boardman, H. Crossman, R. H. S. Follick, M.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G Cullen, Mrs. A. Foot, M. M.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McInnes, J. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) McKay, John (Wallsend) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. McLeavy, F. Slater, J.
Gibson, C. W. McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Mainwaring, W. H. Snow, J. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield, E.) Sorensen, R. W.
Grey, C. F. Mann, Mrs. Jean Sparks, J. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Manuel, A. C. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Grimond, J. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A Stokes, Rt. Hon. R R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mayhew, C. P. Strachey, Rt. Hon J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.) Messer, F. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Hamilton, W. W. Mitchison, G. R. Stross, Dr. Barnett
Hannan, W. Monslow, W. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E
Hardy, E. A. Moody, A. S. Swingler, S. T.
Hargreaves, A. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Sylvester, G. O.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Morley, R. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hastings, S. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Hayman, F. H. Mort, D. L. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.) Moyle, A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Mulley, F. W. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Herbison, Miss M. Murray, J. D. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Holman, P. Nally, W. Thurtle, Ernest
Holt, A. F. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J Tomney, F.
Houghton, Douglas Oldfield, W. H. Turner-Samuels, M.
Hoy, J. H. Oliver, G. H. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Oswald, T. Viant, S. P.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Padley, W. E. Wade, D. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Wallace, H. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Watkins, T. E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pannell, Charles Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Parker, J. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Paton, J. West, D. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Pearson, A. Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Janner, B. Peart, T. F. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Poole, C. C White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Jeger, George (Goole) Popplewell, E Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Jeger, Dr Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Porter, G. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Wilkins, W. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby) Proctor, W. T. Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Rankin, John Williams, David (Neath)
Keenan, W. Raid, Thomas (Swindon) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Kenyon, C. Reid, William (Camlachie) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Rhodes, H. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
King, Dr. H. M. Richards, R. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kinley, J. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Ross, William Wyatt, W. L.
Lewis, Arthur Schofield, S. (Barnsley) Yates, V. F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Logan, D. G. Short, E. W. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacColl, J. E. Shurmer, P. L. E. Mr. Royle and
McGhee, H. G. Silverman, Julius (Erdington) Mr. Kenneth Robinson.
Aitken, W. T. Bishop, F. P. Cooper-Key, E. M.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Black, C. W. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Alport, C. J. M. Boothby, R. J. G Cranborne, Viscount
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Bossom, A. C. Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Boyle, Sir Edward Crouch, R. F.
Arbuthnot, John Braine, B. R. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton) Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Davidson, Viscountess
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Browne, Jack (Govan) Digby, S. Wingfield
Baldwin, A. E. Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA
Banks, Col. C. Billiard, D. G. Donner, P. W.
Barber, Anthony Bullock, Capt M. Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Barlow, Sir John Bullus, Wing Commander E E Drayson, G. B.
Baxter, A. B. Burden, F. F. A. Drewe, G.
Beach, Maj. Hicks Butcher, H. W. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Duthie, W. S.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Carson, Hon. E. Erroll, F. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Cary, Sir Robert Fell, A.
Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston) Channon, H. Finlay, Graeme
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Fisher, Nigel
Bennett, William (Woodside) Cole, Norman Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Fester, John
Birch, Nigel Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Llewellyn, D. T. Russell, R. S.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Gammans, L. D. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Garner-Evans, E. H. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Scott, R. Donald
Glyn, Sir Ralph Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Shepherd, William
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. McAdden, S. J. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Gough, C. F. H. Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Gower, H. R. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Graham, Sir Fergus McKibbin, A. J. Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Gridley, Sir Arnold McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Soames, Capt. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Maclean, Fitzroy Spearman, A. C. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Speir, R. M.
Hare, Hon J. H. MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Harris, Reader (Heston) Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Stevens, G. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Storey, S.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George Markham, Major S. F. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hay, John Marples, A. E. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Maudling, R. Summers, G. S.
Heald, Sir Lionel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C Sutcliffe, H.
Heath, Edward Medlicott, Brig. F. Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Molson, A. H. E. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Higgs, J. M. C. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Teeling, W.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton) Nabarro, G. D. N. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Nicholls, Harmar Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hirst, Geoffrey Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J. Nield, Basil (Chester) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter(Monmouth)
Hollis, M. C. Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Nugent, G. R. H. Touche, Sir Gordon
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Nutting, Anthony Tweedsmuir, Lady
Horobin, I. M. Odey, C. W. Vane, W. M. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt Hon. Florence O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Vosper, D. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Osborne, C. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Hurd, A. R. Partridge, E. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.) Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Peyton, J. W. W. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Jennings, R. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Watkinson, H. A
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Pitman, I. J. Wellwood, W.
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Powell, J. Enoch White, Baker (Canterbury)
Kaberry, D. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Keeling, Sir Edward Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge) Profumo, J. D. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Lambert, Hon. G. Rayner, Brig. R. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Lancaster, Col. C. G Redmayne, M. Wills, G.
Langford-Holt, J. A. Remnant, Hon. P. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Robertson, Sir David Wood, Hon. R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Robson-Brown, W. York, C.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Roper, Sir Harold TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Linstead, H. N. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott.