§ Every person carrying on a trade or a business, if required to do so by notice in writing from the surveyor, shall keep such books and forms of account relating to his trade or business as may be prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. A person on whom any such notice is served shall within the period specified in the notice (not being less than thirty days) deliver to the surveyor a declaration in writing, signed by him, that the requirements of the notice are being complied with. A person who neglects or refuses to deliver, within the time limited, such declaration or statement, or makes a declaration or statement which is false or untrue in any particular, shall forfeit the sum of twenty pounds.—[Mr. Houghton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. HoughtonI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is designed to give power to inspectors of taxes to require those who are in business on their own account—I include professional men in private practice—to keep such books and accounts as may be prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on being served with a notice to do so. If they fail or refuse to comply, there are provisions for the imposition of a penalty.
This is a new compulsion with a new penalty. We should all hesitate to impose these additional obligations upon any class of taxpayer unless we believed them to be necessary. What makes them necessary? I can rely heavily for the answer upon the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. These matters are dealt with very fully indeed in Part VII, Chapter 33, of the Report, and in particular in paragraph 1051 and the following paragraphs.
I suffer from a slight disadvantage in that I am not fortified on this occasion with the memorandum submitted by the Board of Inland Revenue to the Royal Commission. I have no doubt that the Board had something to say about this matter, and I can make a pretty good guess what it did say, but I do not happen to know. The only evidence to the Royal Commission on which I can rely is my 973 own. The Committee will permit me to say that I gave not only written evidence but oral evidence to the Royal Commission on this matter. The Commission's recommendations in paragraphs 1052 onwards follow very closely the lines of my own proposals to it.
What did the Royal Commission recommend? In paragraph 1052, it recommended
… that every person who carries on a trade, profession or vocation (for brevity, we will refer to him as a 'trader') should be placed under a statutory duty to keep records of his transactions. Unless he does so how can he ever be in a position to state at the end of the year what the figure of his profit in fact has been? The records that we regard it as essential to require are of the simplest kind: a record of all the receipts that have accrued to the trade during the year and of all the payments or other outgoings that are to be set against them, and a record of the opening and closing stock and of outstanding debtors and creditors.It suggested in paragraph 1054 that while this duty should be imposed generally upon all traders the local inspector might be givena power to dispense with observance of the duty to keep records, if application is made to him for the purpose.The Commission added:This would give some protection to those few persons to whom keeping records might be really oppressive because of the smallness of their operations or the nature of their business.In the next sentence it says:Alternatively, the scheme introduced could be confined to an obligation to keep records only after notice to that effect served by the inspector.That alternative is embodied in the proposed new Clause. I emphasise that the requirement to keep books and accounts would be in the discretion of the local inspector but that the form of books and accounts would be as prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It would not be in the power of the local inspector to decide what form the accounts should take. As the Report of the Royal Commission suggested, the records to be kept should be of the simplest kind, to contain the essentials of proper book-keeping and management.When considering the imposition of additional obligations upon the taxpayer it is only right that we should consider whether existing powers are enough. With the indulgence of the Committee I would 974 for a moment examine what the existing powers are. Section 20 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, requires a person to make a return of profits or gains arising to him. That is the common form of tax return which is required of those in business as well as of those having income from other sources. The taxpayer is not required under Section 20 to submit any accounts in support of any amount of profits or gains returned by him on the form.
Section 31 contains the second of the powers possessed by the Revenue to require the production of information. This Section was enacted as recently as 1942. It gives the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—not the General Commissioners or the Special Commissioners—power to serve a notice on a person requiring the production of accounts and books if there is failure on the part of the taxpayer to make a return of profits or gains or where the Commissioners are not satisfied with the return which has been made.
A third power resting in the hands of the General Commissioners can be exercised only on appeal by the taxpayer against an assessment made upon him. That power is contained in Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1952. It enables the General Commissioners of Income Tax, when appealed to by a taxpayer against an excessive assessment, to serve a precept upon the appellant for the production of accounts and all other books and documents which may give information having a bearing on the appeal.
That usually follows the making of an estimated assessment upon a taxpayer who has either failed to make a return of profits or gains, or has made a return which appears to be manifestly inadequate, by either the inspector or the Commissioners. In many cases an estimated assessment is made, in the absence of proper return, of such an amount that the appellant is almost forced to appeal. When he does so, the Commisioners can require the production of books and accounts in connection with the matters under appeal.
Those are the existing powers, but they neither help nor discipline the trader in the keeping of proper accounts. It must be freely acknowledged of course, that a very large number of people in business keep perfectly satisfactory books of 975 accounts and there is no complaint to be made against them. They are properly advised by professional accountants, their books are kept in accordance with the requirements of those accountants and the Inland Revenue can have no complaint whatever about them.
On the other hand, others, either by neglect or lack of the necessary skill, fail to keep proper records. There is no doubt that many of these traders who keep scrappy or unreliable records—or none at all—are a trouble to themselves and to the Inland Revenue as well. A great deal of time is spent by the Inland Revenue in trying to construct accounts out of basic information supplied by taxpayers—bank pass books, rudimentary records of transactions, invoices, notebooks and anything else that they may have kept as a sort of record of their business affairs.
A good deal of Inland Revenue manpower is spent in trying to find out what were the trading results of transactions inadequately recorded in cases where there is evidence of savings, investment, purchase, or other evidence of resources which needs explaining in connection with the taxpayer's trading activities. Back duty cases, as they are called in the Inland Revenue, are frequently tragic in their consequences to the taxpayers concerned, who suffer much mental anxiety and, in many cases, have to find not only the amount of tax estimated to be lost but substantial penalties on top.
The aim of the new Clause is to reduce the volume of those cases. I feel sure that if many such cases were dealt with early enough, these unhappy consequences could be avoided, but nothing in existing powers can require a trader—when setting up in business for the first time, for example—to keep proper records of his business activities. It is not until he makes a return to the Inland Revenue that any information is available as to how he is conducting his financial arrangements. Existing powers offer no remedy for this rather grave evil of having to deal with thousands of traders in a year who, obviously, have not the elementary basis upon which proper Income Tax assessments can be made. Usually, nothing can be done until much time has been lost which, with proper records lacking, it is very difficult to retrieve.
976 7.45 p.m.
What is the evidence of the need for this change? I must say that much of the evidence which would be available in support of the new Clause can come only from the Board of Inland Revenue. It is available only to those who can see the broad picture, who have these cases to deal with, who can add them up to a grand total of administrative difficulty, of inadequate returns and, perhaps, underassessment of the profits of traders. That is why I ask the Committee to give very full weight indeed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the matter, because it heard all the evidence—and it alone heard all the evidence. The Royal Comission recommended as it did after hearing what the Board of Inland Revenue had to say.
There is, however, certain circumstantial evidence that something is wrong. That evidence is to be found in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with reference to the number of cases of under-assessment of profits, the amount of tax recovered and of the penalties imposed.
The 1951 Finance Act imposed upon banks and others who had the custody of money held on interest an obligation to make returns of those to whom they had paid, or credited interest exceeding £15 a year. That led to a wholesale disclosure of amounts of untaxed interest which had not been put down in Income Tax returns. From page 19 of the 99th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the Committee will see the extent of the discovery of under-assessments resulting from the provisions of the 1951 Finance Act.
Nearly half a million cases have been dealt with already, with a total charge raised of £13 million. Not all came from under-assessed profits or gains—a lot was, of course, on the actual amount of interest paid—but in many cases the importance of the disclosure was that it gave the Inland Revenue a clue to the capital resources of many traders which it had no occasion to suspect from returns made of profits which, on the face of them, seemed to be reasonable, but which, when more information was revealed, were clearly understated.
In page 18 of the same Report, the bigger fish are shown. It shows 16,000 977 of them in 1956 alone, with total charge raised of £22½ million, and penalties imposed of £8½ million. Those are very substantial figures for one year's recovery of under-assessment of profits and of penalties imposed.
While I am not saying for a moment that all those cases arose from the failure of traders to keep accounts—obviously not—there is no doubt that in those figures, in pages 18 and 19, are represented a considerable number of traders and others whose affairs have got into a muddle and whose assessments have been too low following upon their failure to keep proper books and accounts. This Clause, if brought into effect, would certainly minimise the extent of underassessment due to the causes that I have mentioned.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Stevens (Portsmouth, Langstone)I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he will, I am sure, understand that I am paying close attention to the argument he is deploying; but would the keeping of books of account of itself ensure that interest from bank deposits would be included in those books of account? What steps is he proposing to ensure that those books of account are accurately kept? Surely, that must be the acid test.
§ Mr. HoughtonThe hon. Gentleman, whose close interest in this matter I always acknowledge, anticipates me by no more than a moment. I was coming to the next question, namely, will the steps proposed in the Clause be effective? What will the Clause do to bring about an improvement in the present situation?
First, the Clause will help taxpayers to keep proper accounts. It will impose a measure of statutory discipline upon them. I myself stress the help which would be given to them, and I believe that that help, accompanied by obligation, would achieve the result. I recall that, during the war, the basis of assessment on farm profits was changed from a multiple of the gross annual value for Schedule A purposes to assessment on profits under Schedule D. At that time, the Inland Revenue got out a most helpful booklet to assist farmers to keep proper accounts for assessment under Schedule D, and not only did it get out the booklet, but it devised a form of accounts which farmers could use. There 978 was no statutory obligation upon farmers to accept the advice given; all that was imposed was the normal obligation upon anyone in trade or business to render a truthful return of his profits and satisfy the Inland Revenue, as far as reasonable, that his accounts are accurate.
I suggest that the obligation to keep books and accounts might be accompanied by a brochure advising traders on the best method of keeping the simple elements of accounts for Income Tax purposes. I do not say that it would work miracles, but the Committee will appreciate, I am sure, that the Royal Commission would not have made its recommendation had it not thought, after very full consideration, that this would be an improvement on the present position.
My final question is, would the new obligations imposed upon taxpayers be objectionable from any reasonable standpoint? I know that the Royal Commission of 1920 made some observations on this proposal, which was put to them at that time, thirty-five years ago, and it felt that there were objections to it. I do not think that they are valid today. I need not recite them; they can be found in paragraph 639 of the Royal Commission's Report of 1920. The more recent Royal Commission had the earlier objections under consideration alongside current evidence. In my view, the Committee should, in these days, be prepared to accept this additional obligation on taxpayers to keep proper books and accounts. In the United States, the Bureau of Internal Revenue has powers of access to books and accounts and, in some of the larger businesses, so I am told, there are almost resident Income Tax inspectors who are able to see the books and accounts being made up as they go along, which is, no doubt, very useful to any scrutineer in these matters.
Finally, I draw the attention of the Committee to what I regard as a very puzzling distribution of profits among traders which is, I think, suggestive that something is not right. The number of Schedule D assessments on profits and gains on all levels under Cases I and II of Schedule D in 1954–55 was 1,865,000. Of those, 1,516,000 were of assessments not exceeding £1,000 a year. That seems to be an extraordinary proportion of businesses the assessable profits of which do not exceed £1,000 a year. As a matter 979 of fact, there is an astonishing proportion of those assessments which do not exceed £250 a year, and the number between £250 and £500 a year also is, I think, surprisingly small.
I find it astonishing that 1 million out of 1,865,000 Schedule D assessments under Cases I and II of Schedule D do not exceed £500 a year. I find it more astonishing how little these proportions have changed during the last five years. I am sure that profits have not been static during that time. Without detaining the Committee any longer, I would suggest to hon. Members interested that there is an interesting piece of research to be done from table 32 of the 94th Report, just to take the 1949–50 figures as a starting point, and table 30 in the 99th Report, so that a comparison can be made over five years.
The conclusion one must draw, however tentative, is that many of these assessments are too low. I know that one explanation may be that more and more traders have come to employ their wives in their businesses. That, if I may say so without offence to those concerned, is amongst the Income Tax rackets, and there is no doubt that the employment of wives in businesses is spreading at an alarming rate. I say not more than that.
The verdict, I suggest, is that some change is necessary in the present powers requiring taxpayers to keep books and accounts. This new Clause is a modest beginning, based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which I confidently submit to the Committee for approval.
§ Mr. StevensI listened with the greatest possible interest to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). My profession is one which would benefit very greatly should this new Clause prove acceptable to the Government. In a very short time after its acceptance, I should be riding in a carriage and pair; indeed, I think that I should probably have a spare carriage and an extra pair to the lend to the hon. Member for Sowerby.
§ Mr. StevensAnd for the right hon. Gentleman, also; I might even have three. I should be happy to see him in 980 his old age riding in great comfort and style.
§ Mr. StevensI can second that. The hon. Member for Sowerby simplified the problem a little too much. He indicated the extent of his oversimplification, I thought, when he gave that fantastic figure of the number of Schedule D assessments under £1,000 a year. I do not think he can have realised, and perhaps the Committee does not realise, what he has suggested. It is that every barrow boy should be required to keep proper books of account.
8.0 p.m.
I leave it to your imagination, Mr. Hynd, and to the imagination of the Committee what sort of answers one would get from barrow boys if they were told by the Government that they must keep proper double-entry books of accounts. This also applies to Mrs. Warren's profession, a very old profession. That is also assessable under Case 2 of Schedule D, and the ladies who follow that profession would also be required by the new Clause to keep books of account.
I think that the hon. Member has rather over-simplified the position, and that he is ahead of his time. It is quite true that limited companies, whether exempt private companies or any others, at present have to keep proper books of account, and I hope that I shall live long enough, with the right hon. Member for South Shields, to see the day when his hon. Friends new Clause becomes a practical possibility.
§ Mr. HoughtonHow can the hon. Gentleman suggest that I am ahead of my time when I am already two years behind the Royal Commission?
§ Mr. StevensThat is a fair question. I must admit that I was not asked to give evidence before the Royal Commission. Had I been asked, I should have said exactly what I am saying now. I think it is asking too much to expect small traders of all kinds to keep the type of books and of accounts which alone would be sufficient to support their Income Tax returns. I have very much sympathy with the hon. Member, but I suggest that he is well ahead of his time.
981 I hope that the Government will not accept the new Clause but, on the other hand, I hope that they will bear it very much in mind and that the hon. Member's speech, and the suggestion which lies behind it, will receive the maximum amount of publicity, despite the fact that this decision will have the worst possible effect upon my future income.
§ Mr. BirchThe hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) spoke about men employing their wives. I do not think that that is relevant to this new Clause; whether they keep accounts or not, they scan still employ their wives.
§ Mr. HoughtonI mentioned it as a possible explanation of the fact that the profits of the business have remained so low.
§ Mr. BirchMy hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) wondered why the Royal Commission had made this recommendation. I have no doubt that the main reason was the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sowerby, who "knows his stuff" extremely well and who pressed this point upon them.
The solution he has put forward in the new Clause is better than some solutions considered by the Royal Commission. If this were to be done at all, he is probably on the right lines, although I am advised that the new Clause is defective because it does not go quite as far as he intends; it would give power to compel a man make a declaration, but it might be held that it did not give power to make him keep the full accounts which the hon. Member wants him to keep.
The present position is that any company or partnership is bound by law to keep accounts. The practice with single traders is that if anybody is thought to be earning over £500 and not to be keeping accounts, an assessment is made upon him. If he still does not keep accounts, the assessment is increased. If he gets sick of that, as he does sooner or later, and presents accounts, and they are inspected and he is found to have been cheating, then his affairs during past years can be investigated and he can be penalised. The power in the hands of the Revenue is, therefore, very considerable.
982 Under the new Clause, we are considering the cases of people who are earning a very small amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone has made some rather distressing suggestions as to who they might be. Many people have great difficulty and trouble in keeping accounts. Consider the case, for instance, of the Welsh hill farmers with small incomes; they may not speak English at all and they do not find it easy to keep accounts. Although I do not press this point very much, to force such people to keep accounts might be held, in some cases, to be inquisitorial.
The hon. Member for Sowerby spoke about evasion and false accounts and about the "big fish" who, as Inland Revenue accounts show, have got away with a lot of money. All those people kept accounts. The trouble is that accounts are not like the tablets of stone brought down from Mount Sinai. They are prepared by extremely fallible people.
One of the difficulties about administering the hon. Member's suggestion is that it is not very much good having accounts kept unless they are examined with care. Very often these accounts—not through fraud—will be extremely defective. I am sure that the hon. Member agrees that the Revenue are not under-worked at the moment, and it is a question whether they would be spending their time very well if they were to examine rather simple and perhaps often not very good accounts put forward by people with very small incomes. I suggest to the hon. Member that, as far as the Revenue is concerned, he is in all this being plus royaliste que le roi. He is going a little further than the situation warrants.
The hon. Member put some interesting and perhaps important points about the ninety-ninth Report, and I should very much like to do as he suggests, to do some research work into it and to see as a result of this research work what, if anything, ought to be done. That research work might well be done during the coming year and we might discuss the matter again next year after the study which I will make. In the meantime, I do not think that we can accept the new Clause. It is defective in itself, and we are not completely convinced without further study that it is a necessary provision.
§ Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)I am sure that all my hon. Friends will be very glad if the profession of the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) benefits from our new Clause, but I doubt whether it is likely that his profession will benefit from the new Clause nearly as much as he envisages. I do not think that he has read the Clause carefully, because it says:
Every person carrying on a trade or business, if required to do so by notice in writing from the surveyor, shall keep such books.…The important phrase is "if required to do so." It is contemplated that this power would be necessary only in certain cases where the inspector or surveyor felt that there was some flagrant negligence or evasion. It is only in a small number of cases that the power would be necessary, and it is entirely discretionary.The Economic Secretary said that a company is already bound by law to keep accounts. The Clause is not so much concerned with this as with the quality of the accounts. The new Clause says:
such books and forms of account relating to his trade or business as may be prescribed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.The principal purpose of the Clause is to deal with the nature and quality of the accounts.The Economic Secretary is right to say that the law presupposes that accounts are kept. Obviously some form of accounts must be kept to arrive at a correct return of the gains of the year. But there is no legal compulsion to keep good, careful or even accurate accounts. These matters were gone into very carefully in the courts many years ago.
I see some of my Scottish hon. Friends here. In Scotland, which is particularly famous for its business acumen, the matter came to a head, and in the case of The Edinburgh Life Assurance Company v. The Lord Advocate, in 1920, it was authoritatively stated that the rights neither of the Crown nor of the taxpayer can be made to depend on the way in which the taxpayer's accounts have been prepared, nor do the rights of either side depend on the character of the bookkeeping. The legal position is not at all helpful to the quality of the accounts. Obviously, this matter does not really concern public companies because it is generally agreed that the accounts which are acceptable in their 984 case are those which are submitted to the annual general meeting and, of course, have been audited by accountants.
The problem here is largely that of the small firm, the small trader or professional man. Obviously, there must be in this matter a great temptation for the unscrupulous. If a man keeps vague and unsatisfactory accounts he can quite easily leave out receipts, with a greatly lessened chance of detection. To compel a trader or a professional man to keep accounts does not necessarily mean that he will therefore keep inaccurate accounts. An unscrupulous person can still make wrong entries, but if he is obliged to keep careful accounts and he makes a wrong statement, that statement has to occur periodically throughout his accounts. Very few people are completely unscrupulous and an attack on a man's conscience would be made every time he made an entry.
Another advantage of keeping accounts is that a trader or a professional man would find that his assistants, his employees or secretaries would be aware of the situation and that would be a powerful inducement not to make improper returns. One ought not to lay too much stress on evasion. I think that conscious evasion is relatively uncommon. In most cases where the Revenue is deprived of money it is the result of impaired memory or absent-mindedness. The great psychologist Freud established that people tend to forget what they do not want to remember. Therefore, it is easy to be forgetful of payments and receipts if they occurred a long time before the actual return is made to the Income Tax inspector. If one is a trader, or even a professional man, it is easy to forget the amount one receives in cash over a given period of time or the occasion when a cheque was cashed at the drawer's branch bank. It is easy to forget whether a personal expense was really an expense which could be lawfully set against income for tax purposes. A businessman might find in his desk a bill for a champagne supper in a night club. He might easily find that a certain invoice really was due to an occasion when he entertained a lady friend, but his memory might be so defective that he might think that he had entertained another business associate for the purpose of getting more business. This lapse of memory might be repeated on various occasions.
985 The obligations placed upon the taxpayer by the new Clause is not a very onerous one. Most traders keep records of some kind. The Economic Secretary was a little unfair to the improving educational standards of the country when he suggested that many people who had to pay tax would be unable to keep correct accounts.
§ Mr. BirchCertainly not. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) suggested all sorts of people who might not be able to keep accounts. I was merely suggesting that many old farmers in Wales had not learned English and were not very good at accounting. The standard of education in Wales is very much higher than the standard in England.
Mr. H. WilsonDoes the Economic Secretary, representing as he does a Welsh-speaking constituency, say that because Welsh farmers cannot speak or write English they cannot keep accounts?
§ Mr. BirchOf course not. But one might have a case of an old man who very likely would not be able to keep accounts. That is all I had in mind. Most of these old men in fact do not keep accounts.
§ Mr. CroninI am glad that the Economic Secretary has modified his statement to some extent, but it still seems to me rather unsatisfactory. The general impression left with the Committee is that the Economic Secretary thinks that Welsh hill farmers are in some way more illiterate than English, Scottish or Northern Irish farmers.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. CroninI am glad to have it put right on the record. I should not like to see the Principality attacked in any way, although I cannot claim any personal allegiance to it.
§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)Is not the trouble that the Inland Revenue and successive Governments have not gone 986 far enough in providing facilities for people who are more fluent in Welsh to make their Income Tax returns in Welsh?
§ Mr. CroninThe hon. Member has made a very fair point, but whether the Income Tax returns should be made in Welsh or in English is a very esoteric cultural matter on which I cannot give a firm opinion.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)Ought we not to have the benefit of the advice of the Minister for Welsh Affairs?
§ Mr. CroninIf I may attempt to leave the affairs of Wales, which are always very interesting, and return to the wider, global sphere, I would say that the Economic Secretary has obviously done an immense amount of research into the matter in the last few years and certainly must be aware of the large proportion of civilised countries which insist upon their taxpayers accepting the same obligation as is suggested in the proposed new Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out that the United States, Canada and Germany impose exactly this same obligation upon their taxpayers.
The new Clause would not merely be valuable to the Board of Inland Revenue, and I do not think that the Committee would recommend it solely for that reason. It obviously would be valuable to the taxpayer himself. He would be relieved of the anxiety that he might well feel that he was not paying sufficient attention to his tax returns. He certainly would be a happier man. His business would be much more efficient. As a consequence, there would be a higher tax yield eventually and there would be a general advance in the country's economy.
I think, therefore, that the new Clause would be such a valuable addition to our fiscal system that I strongly urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote in favour of it if the Economic Secretary does not accept it.
§ Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)The debate has ranged from as far as Mrs. Warren's profession via Freud to night clubs. I should have thought that the difficulty of calculating in Welsh was not insurmountable. It occurs to me that the proposed Clause places an obligation on 987 people who are primarily not the sort who would seek to avoid their obligations. It also places an obligation on people who can least afford to take steps to deal with the situation. In effect, it means that the profession of my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and other associated and allied professions would be the beneficiaries if the Clause became law.
I feel that however wise it may be for those who have small businesses to take
§ advice about their accounts, to make it essential that they should have accounts prepared in a certain way is, in effect, inflicting upon them quite a serious expense. And as it happens to do that to the type of person who can least afford it, I hope that the Committee will not accept the proposed Clause.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 220, Noes 244.
991| Division No 158.] | AYES | [8.21 p.m. |
| Ainsley, J. W. | Gibson, C. W. | Messer, Sir F. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Greenwood, Anthony | Mikardo, Ian |
| Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) | Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) | Grey, C. F. | Monslow, W. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Griffiths, William (Exchange) | Moody, A. S. |
| Bacon, Miss Alice | Hale, Leslie | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) |
| Baird, J. | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) | Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm, S.) |
| Balfour, A. | Hamilton, W. W. | Mort, D. L. |
| Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) | Hannan, W. | Moss, R. |
| Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) | Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) | Moyle, A. |
| Benson, G. | Hastings, S. | Mulley, F. W. |
| Beswick, Frank | Hayman, F. H. | Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) |
| Blackburn, F. | Healey, Denis | Oliver, G. H. |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) | Oswald, T. |
| Blyton, W. R. | Hewitson, Capt. M. | Owen, W. J. |
| Boardman, H. | Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) | Padley, W. E. |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. | Houghton, Douglas | Paget, R. T. |
| Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) | Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) | Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) |
| Bowles, F. G. | Hoy, J. H. | Palmer, A. M. F. |
| Boyd, T. C. | Hubbard, T. F. | Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Brockway, A. F. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Parker, J. |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hunter, A. E. | Parkin, B. T. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Pearson, A. |
| Brown, Thomas (Ince) | Irving, Sydney (Dartford) | Peart, T. F. |
| Burke, W. A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. | Pentland, N. |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Janner, B. | Popplewell, E. |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Prentice, R. E. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Jeger, George (Goole) | Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) |
| Carmichael, J. | Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs.S.) | Probert, A. R. |
| Chapman, W. D. | Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Johnson, James (Rugby) | Pryde, D. J. |
| Clunie, J. | Johnson, Douglas (Paisley) | Randall, H. E. |
| Coldrick, W. | Jones, Rt.Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield) | Rankin, John |
| Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) | Jones, David, (The Hartlepools) | Redhead, E. C. |
| Collins, V.J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) | Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) | Reeves, J. |
| Cove, W. G. | Jones, Jack (Rotherham) | Robens, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Cronin, J. D. | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) |
| Crossman, R. H. S. | Kenyon C. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Cullen, Mrs. A. | Ross, William | |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Royle, C. |
| Darling, George (Hillsborough) | King, Dr. H. M. | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Lawson, G. M. | Short, E. W. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lee, Frederick (Newton) | Shurmer, P. L. E. |
| Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) | Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Deer, G. | Lewis, Arthur | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| de Freitas, Geoffrey | Lindgren, G. S. | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Lipton, Marcus | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Dodds, N. N. | Logan, D. G. | Slater, J. (Sedgefield) |
| Donnelly, D. L. | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) | MacColl, J. E. | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | McGovern, J. | Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) | McInnes, J. | Sparks, J. A. |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) | McKay, John (Wallsend) | Steele, T. |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Stewart, Michael (Fulham) |
| Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) | Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Mahon, Simon | Stonehouse, John |
| Fienburgh, W. | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Stones, W. (Consett) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mann, Mrs. Jean | Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. |
| Forman, J. C. | Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. | Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) |
| Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) | Mason, Roy | Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. |
| Sylvester, G. O. | Watkins, T. E, | Williams, W. T. (Barons Court) |
| Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) | Weitzman, D. | Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Taylor, John (West Lothian) | Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Thomas, George (Cardiff) | West, D. G. | Winterbottom, Richard |
| Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) | Wheeldon, W. E. | Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A. |
| Thomson, George (Dundee, E.) | White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint) | Woof, R. E. |
| Thornton, E. | White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Yates, V. (Ladywood) |
| Timmons, J. | Wilkins, W. A. | Younger, Rt. Hon. K. |
| Tomney, F. | Willey, Frederick | Zilliacus, K. |
| Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn | Williams, David (Neath) | |
| Usborne, H. C. | Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Viant, S. P. | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) | Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price. |
| Warbey, W. N. | Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) | |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Farey-Jones, F. W. | Kimball, M. |
| Aitken, W. T. | Fell, A. | Kirk, P. M. |
| Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) | Finlay, Graeme | Lambton, Viscount |
| Amory, Rt. Heathcoat (Tiverton) | Fisher, Nigel | Leavey, J. A. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Leburn, W. G. |
| Armstrong, C. W. | Fort, R. | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. |
| Ashton, H. | Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) | Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) |
| Astor, Hon. J. J. | Freeth, Denzil | Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) |
| Atkins, H. E. | Gammans, Lady | Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) |
| Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. | Garner-Evans, E. H. | Linstead, Sir H. N. |
| Balniel, Lord | George, J. C. (Pollok) | Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) |
| Barber, Anthony | Gibson-Watt, D. | Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. |
| Barlow, Sir John | Glover, D. | Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) |
| Barter, John | Glyn, Col. R. | Lucas, P.B.(Brentford & Chiswick) |
| Baxter, Sir Beverley | Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan | McAdden, S. J. |
| Beamish, Maj. Tufton | Goodhart, Philip | Macdonald, Sir Peter |
| Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) | Gough, C. F. H. | Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry |
| Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) | Gower, H. R. | McKibbin, A. J. |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Graham, Sir Fergus | Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) |
| Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) | Grant, W. (Woodside) | McLaughlin, Mrs. P. |
| Biggs-Davison, J, A. | Green, A. | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Gresham Cooke, R. | MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) |
| Bishop, F. P. | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) |
| Black, C. W. | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) |
| Body, R. F. | Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. | Maddan, Martin |
| Bossom, Sir Alfred | Gurden, Harold | Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle) |
| Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. |
| Braine, B. R. | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Markham, Major Sir Frank |
| Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) | Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) | Marlowe, A. A. H. |
| Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd) | Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. |
| Bryan, P. | Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) | Marshall, Douglas |
| Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E. | Hay, John | Mathew, R. |
| Burden, F. F. A. | Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel | Mawby, R. L. |
| Butcher, Sir Herbert | Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. | Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. |
| Carr, Robert | Henderson-Stewart, Sir James | Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Hesketh, R. F. | Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh |
| Channon, Sir Henry | Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | Nabarro, G. D. N. |
| Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) | Hirst, Geoffrey | Nicholls, Harmar |
| Cole, Norman, | Holland-Martin, C. J. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) |
| Conant, Maj. Sir Roger | Hope, Lord John | Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) |
| Cooke, Robert | Hornby, R. P. | Nugent, G. R. H. |
| Cooper-Key, E. M. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. | Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) | O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) |
| Corfield, Capt. F. V. | Howard, John (Test) | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) | Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Hughes Hallet, Vice-Admiral J. | Osborne, C. |
| Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) | Hughes-Young, M. H. C. | Page, R. G. |
| Crowder, Petre (Ruislip-Northwood) | Hutchison, SirlanClark (E'b'gh, W.) | Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) |
| Cunningham, Knox | Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.) | Peyton, J. W. W. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Dance, J. C. G. | Iremonger, T. L. | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Davidson, Viscountess | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Pilkington, Capt. R. A. |
| D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) | Pitman, I. J. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Jennings, J. C (Burton) | Pitt, Miss E. M. |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) | Pott, H. P. |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Drayson, G. B. | Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) | Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. |
| du Cann, E. D. L. | Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) | Raikes, Sir Victor |
| Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) | Joseph, Sir Keith | Ramsden, J. E. |
| Duthie, W. S. | Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot | Rawlinson, Peter |
| Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) | Keegan, D. | Redmayne, M. |
| Elliot, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N) | Kerby, Capt. H. B. | Rees-Davles, W. R. |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Kerr, Sir Hamilton | Remnant, Hon. P. |
| Erroll, F. J. | Kershaw, J. A. | Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Robson Brown, Sir William | Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek |
| Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Wall, Major Patrick |
| Roper, Sir Harold | Taylor, William (Bradford, N.) | Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth) |
| Russell, R. S. | Teeling, W. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Sharples, R. C. | Temple, John M. | Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold |
| Shepherd, William | Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) | Whitelaw, W. S. I. |
| Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Smithers, Peter (Winchester) | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.) | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) | Thornton-Kemsley, C. N. | Wills, G. (Bridgwater) |
| Spearman, Sir Alexander | Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.) | Wood, Hon. R. |
| Speir, R. M. | Tilney, John (Wavertree) | Woollam, John Victor |
| Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.) | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. | Yates, William (The Wrekin) |
| Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.) | Vane, W. M. F. | |
| Stevens, Geoffrey | Vaughan-Morgan, J. K. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Storey, S. | Vickers, Miss Joan | Mr. Brooman-White and |
| Studholme, Sir Henry | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) | Colonel J. H. Harrison. |