§ On and after the fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, there shall be allowed from the customs duty a rebate at the rate of two shillings and sixpence a gallon and from the excise duty a rebate at the rate of one shilling and threepence a gallon on the delivery of hydrocarbon oil for use in any mechanically propelled vehicle driven by diesel fuel and licensed as a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers.—[Mr. Ernest Davies.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)
It will probably be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the next two Clauses— "Rebates of customs duty and excise duty on hydrocarbon oils for use in mechanically propelled vehicles driven by diesel fuel and for use on roads," and "Rebate of customs duty and excise duty on motor spirit."
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
I think that will be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. These Clauses have been tabled because of our disappointment at the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take any action about the reduction of the Petrol Duty except to remove the extra shilling which was 983 added during the Suez crisis. Thus, the burden of tax remains as it was previously, and it is very substantial, particularly for public transport.
The three Clauses differ. The first Clause proposes simply that all public service vehicles—that is, those vehicles used for road passenger transport—should be exempt from tax in respect of diesel oil. The second Clause does the same in respect of all diesel oil used in road transport. Therefore, it applies equally to public service vehicles and road goods vehicles. The third Clause is very different. It is a straightforward proposal for a reduction of 6d. in the duty in the case of both light and heavy oil.
The reason why we suggest that there should be this discrimination in favour of diesel oil, which is commonly known as derv, is that the effect of the high tax on the cost of living in respect of fares for both road passenger vehicles and the carriage of goods by road transport generally is a direct charge, and, with the rise in other costs, the tax thus has a greater effect.
When we have previously moved Clauses similar to these we have been met with the argument that it is impracticable to have discrimination as between the users of different forms of fuel—that is, between the users of petrol and the users of diesel oil—but I would point out to the Economic Secretary that this system is pursued in every other country in Western Europe as well as some countries elsewhere. I have here a list of the differentials as between gasolene and gas oil in Western European countries. Clearly, the costs of transport in those countries are, as a consequence, less than in this country, and that puts this country at a disadvantage in the competitive market in Europe.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, for instance, where the price of petrol is roughly the same as here—being 4s. 4d. and 4s. respectively, for the regular grade —the tax on petrol is 2s. 7d. in the case of Belgium and 2s. 4d. in the case of the Netherlands. However, in the case of gas oil the tax is only 1s. 2d. instead of 2s. 7d. in Belgium, and it is practically negligible in the Netherlands, being only about ld. per gallon. The consequence is that the price of derv in Belgium is only Is. 9d. 984 compared with 4s. 3d. in this country at the present time, and in the Netherlands it is only 1s. 7d. compared with 4s. per gallon for petrol there.
In some other countries diesel oil is completely free of tax although the petrol tax may be as high as it is here. That is certainly the case in the Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Denmark where the price of petrol and the tax are roughly the same as here, but the price of derv is very much cheaper, being only Is. 10d. because it is completely free of tax. In every one of these countries of Western Europe that situation prevails, whereas in this country the tax is the same on both derv and petrol and, consequently, the price of the two oils is the same.
With regard to the advantage of the price of diesel oil being reduced, there is no question that if it encourages the consumption of diesel oil in preference to petrol a considerable economy is made. In actual fact, the lighter vehicles which are diesel-operated consume roughly only half the amount of fuel that petrol vehicles do. In other words, the mileage of a light diesel vehicle is twice that of a petrol-driven vehicle for the same quantity of fuel. The heavier diesel vehicles, which are mainly buses and coaches and heavy goods vehicles, consume anything from 25–50 per cent. less oil than do petrol-driven vehicles. Therefore, although the initial capital costs may be higher, there is a considerable saving in operating costs, which reduces transport costs generally, and there is obviously a saving in imports because if less oil is consumed, less oil needs to be imported. Another important factor is that, with the steady expansion of the Western European market and the coming of the Common Market and the Free Trade Area, and, thus, with increased competition, this country will be at a disadvantage if its transport costs are at a higher level than those of its competitors on the Continent.
One argument which has been used against these proposals by every spokesman from the Treasury Bench—although the team changes, each time we make these proposals the same brief is produced, and it is getting a little dusty—is that what is proposed is not administratively possible. If every other country in Western Europe finds it administratively 985 possible to have a differential tax as between derv and petrol, I cannot see why we cannot have it. Our Civil Service is reputed to be one of the finest in the world, and it is held to be fairly ingenious —as we have found it to be to our disadvantage on occasion. Surely it has the ability to devise a foolproof method of imposing a differential tax as between the two forms of oil used in road transport.
As a matter of fact, an opportunity exists already for evasion if it were not possible to introduce a system which prevented it. As no evasion has been suggested, it seems that there is some system in vogue at the present time which prevents the creation of a black market in respect of oil which is not taxed. The oil which is not taxed does not appear to be consumed in a way it should not be consumed; otherwise something would be known about it.
At present, the same oil is used by the railways for different purposes, some being taxed and some not. The railways use in their buses and goods vehicles diesel oil on which tax is imposed. In their diesel units and for other purposes they use precisely the same oil which is not taxed. Diesel oil is used for a great number of purposes—agriculture, heating, stationary oil motors and so on —for which it is not subject to tax. That being the case, there is discrimination at the present time, and I cannot see why it should not be possible to have differential taxes as between the two forms of oil.
We consider the first of these proposed new Clauses the most important, because it relates to public service vehicles and public transport faces considerable difficulties at this time. Costs are mounting and fares rising. There comes a point, as is well known, when the law of diminishing returns operates, when fares can no longer be increased because the higher they go the more encouragement is provided for people to desert public transport and use other forms of transport. We are all aware of the vast increase in the number of motor scooters and light motor cycles as well as the increase in the number of people who use private cars. This is a disadvantage because it causes a greater congestion on the roads. Public transport is slowed down, which makes it less efficient and causes the service to deteriorate. Costs 986 are increased, and, incidentally, the danger on the roads becomes greater.
If members of the public are driven to desert public transport, it means that those who must use it will have to pay correspondingly higher fares because there will be fewer passengers over which the cost can be spread. If this process continues, it will mean that many unremunerative services will have to be cut out. It is well known that bus undertakings subsidise one another, there is cross-subsidisation in the industry because that is the only way a large number of rural services can be provided. In a recent Report of the British Transport Commission, it is stated that 200 million car miles of unremunerative services are run each year. If costs continue to rise and it is impossible to increase fares without disastrous results, more and more of these unremunerative services, which are mainly rural services, will have to be cut out. This would prove most unfortunate because a large number of people are obliged to use public transport every day in order to get to their work. It is impossible for these people to use other forms of transport.
The acceptance of this Clause would result in considerable assistance being afforded to public service transport, because the vast majority of buses and coaches are diesel operated. A Question which I put to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation on 10th July elicited the information that of 75,000 public service vehicles no less than 62,000, which represents 82 per cent., were dieselengined, and 13,000 vehicles, or 18 per cent., were petrol driven.
The argument previously used has been that if there were a favourable differential for diesel oil it would encourage a conversion from petrol to diesel oil and the duty payable on petrol would no longer accrue to the Treasury. That is a false argument, because although there would remain nearly 18 per cent. of vehicles which are petrol driven, proportionately, they do far less mileage than the dieselengined vehicles. The 82 per cent, of diesel vehicles do about 90 per cent. of the mileage. In view of that, it is no longer convenient to advance the argument either that there would be a conversion from petrol to diesel oil and the Treasury would lose a considerable sum in duty, or that it would affect rail transport. The mileage in the rural areas 987 which is covered by petrol driven vehicles is by no means considerable, and all the time the number of diesel driven vehicles is increasing proportionately, as is shown by the number of registrations published periodically.
The costs of public transport are rising all round. There is another proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper, which is not to be selected, in which it is proposed to reduce the duty on public service vehicles. I will not discuss that, except to say that the incidence of the vehicle Excise licence on public transport is most unfair. It adds to the cost and, if it is to be retained at the present level, that is another argument, why the duty on diesel oil should be reduced. Actually, £5½ million is paid in Excise licences to the Treasury, which represents as much as a 5½d. tax on fuel, which is a considerable amount. Were the tax reduced, the incidence would not be so great.
I do not understand why the Government are so prejudiced against public transport. During the last month it has been announced that other costs are to be increased, and these are within the control of the Government. The public service licence is to go up from £4 to £6, and the cost of a certificate of fitness is to be increased from £5 to £5 10s. Orders to that effect have been laid. All these increasing costs make greater the difficulties of the operators. The cost of accepting the new Clauses would not be very great. Only one-sixth of the diesel oil consumed today is used in road passenger transport and, therefore, subject to duty. In reply to a Question, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated earlier this month that the cost of removing the duty on diesel oil used in public service vehicles would be £30 million. That is a large sum, but the removing of that amount of duty would bring considerable aid to the industry.
The cost of removing the duty on all diesel oil, as is proposed in the second new Clause, would be £68 million. The reduction of the total duty by taking off 6d. all round would, on last year's tax figures, cost about £70 million. So the cheapest of the proposals contained in these new Clauses is that in the first, which is the one we favour most and which we consider practical. I hope that 988 the Economic Secretary will not just use the old brief to which I have referred and brush this matter aside without giving any hope of some relief.
The outlook for the road passenger transport industry is pretty grim at the present time. Costs are rising and there is a new wage demand which is the subject of negotiation at the moment. Fares are almost certain to rise unless some relief is provided for the industry. If fares are increased, we shall get back again into that vicious circle of traffic being lost and losses on the services increasing. Unremunerative services will be cut out and there will be an all-round deterioration in public transport. That is the outlook which faces us. It is within the power of the Chancellor to change it and bring some relief to the industry.
§ Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)
I beg to second the Motion.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us tonight what a predecessor of his told us last year and the year before, that one of the reasons why the Treasury would not look at this reduction was that petrol-driven vehicles were primarily used in the rural areas and diesel-run vehicles were used mainly in the urban areas. I hope that the knowledge of even the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance of the public transport industry has improved since then.
The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) shows quite clearly that far and away the greatest number of public service vehicles are now driven on diesel oil, and he pointed out that the taxation on diesel oil used for public service vehicles is higher than that imposed by any other country in Western Europe. It is at present about 2s. 6d. per gallon.
The diesel-engined vehicle used in public service transport is mainly of the double-decker type, but whether double or single-deck, in the traffic conditions encountered in most parts, those vehicles do little more than 12 miles to the gallon, if as much. I have been at some pains today to check with some of the people engaged in the industry. I find that in some of the hillier parts, particularly in South Wales, vehicles do not run at much more than seven miles to the gallon but that the industry as a whole regards ten 989 miles as the average distance that can be got out of a gallon of diesel oil, whether used in a double-decker or single-decker vehicle. It is the condition of the roads rather than the size of the vehicle that primarily controls the consumption.
It obviously follows, therefore, that the first three coppers of every mile of route covered by a public service transport vehicle go automatically to the Treasury. In the past years, there has been a good deal of debate in this House about the withdrawal of rural transport services. I know of one depot in a rural area where, of more than forty routes operating, more than thirty are in rural areas and either break even or lose money. They lose money, in the main—the vehicles being diesel-engined— because of that first 3d. per mile that goes to the Treasury.
At the present moment there is a wage claim pending in the passenger transport industry. If that claim is conceded it must of necessity mean an increase in fares. It must also of necessity mean that a growing number of public service vehicle routes will become unremunerative and will need to be withdrawn. Another disturbing feature is the effect of the public service transport fares which have to be charged to men going to and from their work. I think particularly of my own constituency on Teesside, where large numbers of people travel many miles by bus each day to their work, either at I.C.I. at Billingham, the Dorman Long works at Wilton, or at the I.C.I. extension.
It costs them a good deal of money to travel return journeys of five or six miles each day of the week, and they find it more economical for four or five of them to combine to invest in a secondhand car and to abandon the public service transport. That does two things. It turns a profitable route into an unprofitable one, but much more important, it congests our narrow roads. The result is that the speed of the public service vehicles is reduced and the route becomes unremunerative.
I believe that all these difficulties can be obviated. If the Chancellor means what he says in public, if he really wants to maintain or reduce working-class family costs, this seems to be the best 990 way in which he can spread £30 million over a very large section of the working population. It is estimated that we have about 22½ million insured workers, and I would hazard a guess that about 75 per cent. of them travel to work mainly on public transport. A reduction of 3d. per mile in the operating costs as a result of accepting the first new Clause would enable large numbers of bus companies —particularly those operating workmen's services—to maintain their services.
Obviously, if their costs continue at their present level, and if other costs, including wage costs, increase, more and more will the bus companies need to apply for increased fares. One has only to look at the passenger trade journals to see the large number of applications that have been made in past months to retain the increased fares brought about by a piece of legislation introduced by the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, to get over the difficulty consequent upon Suez. I suppose it is technically true that as a result of the withdrawal of the 1s. additional tax to pay for Suez the additional charges which were imposed on fares have been theoretically withdrawn, but in actual practice what has happened is that the vast majority of bus companies, both municipally and privately owned, have applied to the licensing authorities to retain those increased fares to meet increased costs.
Any further increase in costs is bound to result in a diminution of the number of services operated to the detriment of the productivity efficiency of the people engaged in industry. If the Chancellor is anxious to demonstrate that he really means what he says outside this House, he should accept the first new Clause, which will cost him £30 million in a year. But if the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary, who are now occupying the Government Front Bench, want to be much more generous than that, there is no difficulty. They can adopt the second new Clause and give away £60 million—and there is no reason why they should not give away £60 million mainly to working folk, having regard to what they have already given to the higher income groups; or, if they want to be still more generous, they have got a third chance.
991 5.30 p.m.
Both occupants of the Treasury Bench at the moment have either a direct or indirect connection with the Principality, and there is, as both of them know, a saying in the Principality—"Three tries for a Welshman." I suggest that if they want to be really generous at this stage they can adopt the third alternative offered to them. Certainly if they want to make a gesture to the working people, in view of the very necessary costs involved to enable them to get to and from their work, the first proposed new Clause ought to be accepted.
If this Clause cannot be accepted, I hope that we shall get some real reasons why instead of falling back on the old tag that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Here is an opportunity for the Chancellor to do something to maintain stability and to anticipate increased costs in public service transport which are bound to follow in the next few weeks.
§ Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has referred to local authorities and bus companies being forced to apply for the retention of the extra fares charged during the Suez crisis, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said that companies and undertakings would soon be bound to apply for yet further increases.
I should like to give one example of an undertaking that has had to do both those things; indeed, the whole scheme has just reached a final conclusion. The figures involved are very instructive. In Birmingham, £21,000 a week is now being lost on public transport. That is an enormous figure. If there were no increase in fares at the moment, we should end 1957 with something like £1 million deficit on the transport undertaking.
The result of this has been that the Corporation has had to apply for permission to charge higher fares, and the commissioners have been bound to grant that request, so that there is to be something like a 1½d. increase on all the higher fares. Fares of 5½d., 6½d., 7½d. and so on will be increased by l½d. In a city the size of Birmingham, that matters a great deal. We have an increasing number of people moving out from the old, 992 derelict built-up areas of the city to live in the suburbs, and they are finding that their expenditure on daily travel to and from work is increasing by something like 25 per cent. The result of this will be another twist in the inflationary spiral. It will not end merely with increased fares. The next thing will be a demand by the engineering industry for increased wages to counteract the effect of the increased bus fares throughout the Black Country.
I am glad that the Chancellor has returned to the Chamber. He is looking a little more haggard than he did before the Second Reading and the early part of the Committee stage of the Bill. Perhaps that is because on the other side of the House he has become the centre of another internecine quarrel. The original Budget which was greeted with waiving Order Papers is now realised to be something which will give yet another twist to the inflationary spiral. The right hon. Gentleman ought to realise that, particularly when we deal with a proposed new Clause like this.
In 1954–55–56 after some earlier increases, in Birmingham we tried by every means possible to follow the lead of the Government to hold prices. As a result, the Birmingham undertaking was able to pay off some of its early deficiencies. But now in 1957, coinciding with the row on the other side of the House about the inflationary situation, we have had further increases. The matter does not end there. When the undertaking's fares go up, wages have to go up to enable people to pay the fares, and the whole thing starts off again.
In a circumstance like this, what a wonderful opportunity to use some of this revenue which the right hon. Gentleman has been happily distributing elsewhere to much less good effect. The tax concession of 2s. 6d. off derv, which is proposed in one of the new Clauses, would more than meet the cost of preventing Birmingham undertakings from going into the red this year. Indeed, if only the Government would meet us half way there would be no reason at all for another twist to be given to the inflationary spiral in Birmingham by increasing passenger fares by something like 25 per cent.
There is another way in which this whole procedure is farcical. The commissioners have granted the request for these 993 increases in Birmingham in the hope that this will enable the undertaking to pay off its deficit and set aside £100,000 a year for replacement of new buses, starting in 1962. What a hope. There is no hope at all, because in two years time at the very latest under the present Government they will be in the red again, because the inflationary spiral will have gone up a few more stages.
This matter becomes quite farcical, because we are continually planning to get these undertakings out of the red and then they run into the red again because of the Government's general policy of inflation. I should have thought this was a wonderful opportunity to use some of the money which the Chancellor has been distributing in this Budget to much better purpose in arresting some of the really terrible things which cause inflation in this country.
It is instructive to see how all this reacts in Birmingham. We do not have any honest appraisal of the situation by the Conservative Party; we are not told that this is the result of Government policy. The whole thing is sidetracked into a lot of nonsense about the efficiency of the undertaking. What undertaking, whatever its efficiency, is going to face an increased wages bill of £125,000 a year? What undertaking is going to cheesepare here and there, cutting down the frequency of buses and so on—which is one of the nonsensical things suggested as a solution to this problem—ending in further anxiety and industrial dislocation?
Instead of placing the fault where it lies, at the door of the Government and at the door of this kind of taxation which could very well have been relieved in this Budget, the party opposite are running around with silly stories about the nature of the efficiency of the undertaking. This is the best-run undertaking in the country. The buses are comfortable and the services are frequent. We are told to imperil all that, and we cannot get out of the Government the sort of tax concession which would enable the undertaking to operate without loss.
Generally speaking, the suggestion embodied in this proposed new Clause, together with our earlier suggestion relating to 15 per cent., 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. Purchase Tax reductions, is about the best tax concession that the Chancellor could have given in this 994 Budget. It would have really helped towards curing the terrible inflation in this country.
§ Mr. Birch
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) hoped that I would not speak from the usual Treasury brief. I have not read previous Treasury briefs, but I dare say that it will bear a family resemblance. I thought that the hon. Member's brief was of good sound vintage, because he dealt with the points normally raised on this subject.
At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) went fairly wide in his interesting discussion of the local politics of Birmingham and in his reflections on general economic policy. I understand that we are shortly to have a debate on general economic policy and, therefore, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not pursue that subject now.
We are at the moment discussing three new Clauses, all of which do rather different things, which makes the debate a little confusing to follow. There is, first, the Clause to exempt derv used in public transport, secondly, the Clause to exempt derv altogether, and, thirdly, the Clause to reduce the tax on petrol by 6d. a gallon. When we are discussing these new Clauses, we are getting into very big money indeed. If we add together what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do, it comes to £113 million. I think that he himself worked it out as a little more. But £113 million in excess of all the relief given in the Budget is a very big sum indeed. All I can say is that if we want to reduce inflation I do not think that is the way to do it.
§ Mr. D. Jones
I think the right hon. Gentleman must be a little wrong, because the first new Clause is embraced in the second, and if he accepts the second I do not suppose that he wants to add the first to it.
§ Mr. Birch
I have not done so. I did say that the first was included in the second, but adding the effect of the new Clauses together, the cost is slightly lower than that stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East. It is £113 million. We know that inflation has been described as too much money chasing too 995 few goods. Here is a device for increasing the amount of money without increasing the amount of goods. I do not think that we can do it.
§ Mr. Chapman
The right hon. Gentleman is now failing, very conveniently for his own purpose, to distinguish between the two kinds of inflation which we have always tried to distinguish. There is the one inflation of too much money chasing too few goods, but there is also the other one, which he has not mentioned, which is the wages-prices inflation, the two chasing each other in a momentum of their own, and that is the one at issue in this new Clause.
§ Mr. Birch
I do not think that a large reduction of taxation would do much to help cost inflation. All taxation is odious, and nothing would be nicer than to reduce this tax, to take 2s. 6d. off the Income Tax and to do a lot of other very desirable things which I daresay hon. Gentlemen opposite would argue would help cost inflation. I do not think that they would.
To take the second new Clause first, that dealing with the exemption of derv altogether, I do not want to plead administrative difficulties. I do not think that if we exempted derv altogether there would be much administrative difficulty, but it would be extremely costly, and it would have, as the hon. Gentleman realised, two effects. He realised the first one, at any rate. It would stimulate most actively the turnover of vehicles from petrol to derv, and therefore the cost would steadily and rapidly increase. It would have the second effect, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not intend, of being disastrous for the shale industry, because it would remove the preference, but no doubt that could be overcome by other means.
§ Mr. Ernest Davies
That is quite negligible, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will produce it as a serious argument. Will he not accept that there is already a conversion from petrol to diesel engine vehicles? This process has been going on at a progressively increasing rate for a very long period, because it is more economical for diesel engines to be employed, and, therefore, is it not desirable that there should 996 be encouragement of conversion from petrol to diesel engines?
§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Birch
I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's argument works in the direction he says. If conversion to derv is now taking place at an increasing rate, I do not see any very strong reasons for stimulating it still further.
Coming back to the first new Clause, concerning bus companies, it has been rightly said that it would cost £30 million. So far as the effect on the cost of living in general is concerned, I understand that if we remove the tax altogether it would make a difference of something under a halfpenny on a 3d. fare, which is less than one-third of a point of the cost of living index; so there is not a great deal in that argument.
We were taken to task by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones), or previous Treasury Ministers were taken to task, on the argument that it would be unfair to some public transport which worked on petrol. He is quite right in saying that the great bulk of public transport is now done on derv. It is equally true that there are many vehicles still on the road, particularly in the rural areas, which use petrol.
§ Mr. D. Jonesindicated dissent.
§ Mr. Birch
I think that my advice may be better than that of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that would be a very fair way of dealing with the situation. Once we start discriminating like that we get into administrative difficulties.
The exemption of bus companies would, I think, cause quite considerable administrative difficulties. We should also get into difficulty as to where to draw the line. If we exempt someone who wants to go by bus, why should we not exempt his essential food which has to go in a lorry. Once we start on that slope we get into a very tricky position indeed. So I would say that the overwhelming reason for rejecting this new Clause is the cost, which is quite prohibitive, and I think that we should think very carefully now before we make an exemption to a single class of user in that way.
Mr. H. Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman's arguments are again rather strange for the House to have to follow. It is, of course, true that the proposals in these 997 new Clauses, if taken together, would involve a very heavy loss of Revenue. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget only three months ago who taught us to think in terms of very big tax concessions.
Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was right when he said that if we are to give away £100 million of taxation our proposals would have a very real bearing on the problem of cost inflation and would, in fact, be very strongly disinflationary. They would, in fact, give a twist to the wages-prices spiral in a direction very different from the one which we have come to know so recently. What the Chancellor said in his arguments—I shall not now go into the question of Surtax which we are debating later—was, of course, directly provocative to the Treasury, and influences both cost inflation and demand inflation. So the right hon. Gentleman was right off the rails about that in his reply to my hon. Friend.
The argument in relation to current costs in relation to the problem of the transport undertakings, and in relation, above all, to fares and the pressure on wages was put very clearly by my two hon. Friends who moved and seconded the new Clause. All hon. Members, whatever their constituencies, have a pretty clear idea of the problems arising for their constituents as a result of higher bus fares and charges of that kind.
There is a very special problem—I speak of this with very close knowledge of my own constituency—where there is a large housing estate on the outskirts of a big town. My constituency is to a very large extent made up of Liverpool overspill housing estates. These are outside the city boundaries, which means, incidentally, that my constituents have no control over the local authority which provides the houses or the bus services or fails to provide them. However that may be, by and large, the people who dwell on these housing estates are in many cases the lower paid wage earners and are very often, because of the rules by which the houses are allocated, those with the largest families and the heaviest family costs to bear.
Many of these people—not all of them, because of what was done to provide local 998 factory employment in the area—have to travel long distances back to the city to work, to the docks and so on. Some of them have suffered from the diminution of overtime working, and some of them have been hit by short-time working. When their bus fares increase as the result of the Government's economic policy—these increases come on top of very much higher rents, for they are the highest-rented people in the area—real hardship is involved.
I will not pursue the point any further, because I want to remind the Economic Secretary—and the Chancellor, too, were he still here—of the commitments and statements made by his own side on this question in past years. We were glad to see the Chancellor pop in for a moment a few minutes ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was quite wrong to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman was looking haggard; he ought to have been, but he was not. He is far too complacent about the situation. He goes on the air and on television, under these new arrangements whereby Ministers are apparently allowed to broadcast the Government's side of the case and the Opposition is not allowed to broadcast its side, and tells the country that there is nothing to worry about.
Exports, the right hon. Gentleman says, are all right; production is all right. The only trouble is this little business of inflation. Then he tells us that this inflation has nothing to do with the Government, and he washes his hands of the whole business. As I said at the weekend, the Chancellor talks rather like a Minister of Transport who, speaking on the subject of road safety, says that if people would only drive more carefully we should have no more trouble. The Chancellor's attitude is that it is all the result of our wicked population, principally the trade unions, of course, who ask for more earnings.
The right hon. Gentleman did not use those exact words, but if my hon. Friend would study the speech he made last Wednesday, significantly at the opening of one of these vast new office blocks, and the statement which he made to the National Production Advisory Council last Friday—we have not heard 999 what the National Production Advisory Council thought of the Chancellor, of course—he will find that I did not misrepresent what the Chancellor said. For an account of what he said to the 1922 Committee, we are indebted to the Daily Express.
I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here now because I want to remind him and other right hon. Gentlemen of what members of the Cabinet have said on the very issues we are currently debating. Let us begin with the Foreign Secretary. I know that many of my hon. Friends do not know who the Foreign Secretary is, and I wish I did not; but we used to see a lot of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the time of the Suez crisis. There was a time, of course, when he used to be very much involved in Finance Bill debates. Frankly, I think that they cost the nation a great deal less than some of his activities during the last few months. In those days, when he used to keep the Committee up during the long hours of the night, he often treated us to his views on matters of taxation. One of his favourite subjects was the tax on petrol and derv, and, during the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill in 1951 he said:Now I come to one or two of the specific tax proposals, first of all the tax on petrol. That is a directly inflationary tax.That was the view of the Foreign Secretary in 1951, when petrol was selling for about 3s. a gallon. Now, the Economic Secretary tells us that this is not an inflationary tax, and to reduce it would have no bearing on the cost inflation.
That it would be inflationary to do so. Obviously, there has been no consultation between the Economic Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. I have pointed out that Ministers were obviously not speaking to one another, and that the Board of Trade did not consult the Minister of Food about the commodity markets. The Foreign Secretary went on to say:It is time that someone in the House drew attention to the enormously increased taxation which road transport has been called upon to bear during the past two years.1000 Of course, that taxation has been immeasurably increased since then. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made some observations about taxable capacity, the very thing we are talking about:The very fact that there is not that reserve of taxable capacity is proved by this tax, because the Chancellor has had to go to a tax which is, in my submission, directly inflationary in order to get the necessary amount of money." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1890–1.]I suggest that the Economic Secretary should have some discussion with the Foreign Secretary about this.
Actually, such sentiments as those were not new in the mouth of the Foreign Secretary, for he had said something similar on the subject in 1950 during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. He referred then specifically, as my hon. Friends have been doing, to the effect upon bus fares and local rates. This was in the days when the Conservatives used to be concerned about local rates. He said:That is yet another example of the way in which this impost is going to increase the burden of the cost of living upon ordinary people in this country. It is a thoroughly bad tax … I do not think that there could be a better case for not having this increase in taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 253.]That was said when petrol had gone up from 2s. 3d. to 3s. per gallon.
It is not only the Foreign Secretary who has said these things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself used to make very passionate speeches, as we all remember. His speeches were usually about analgesia or euthanasia or that kind of subject, but one of his most passionate speeches in a Finance Bill debate was on the subject of the monstrous level of taxation. This was in 1950, when petrol was 3s. a gallon, and on that occasion—I will not attempt to rival the passion which he put into the words—the right hon. Gentleman said:Every housewife, as she goes shopping and has to pay the extra 1d. in her bus fare, knows the effect of this kind of taxation. I agree with my hon. Friend who said that no tax could have been better designed to force up prices and to increase export costs.That is exactly the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, an argument which the Economic Secretary could not follow and specifically repudiated. Yet his own chief, the present 1001 Chancellor of the Exchequer, referring to the petrol tax, said thatno tax could have been better designed to force up prices and to increase export costs.The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with £100 million to give away this year, has done nothing at all in the matter of petrol tax, except to remove the impost introduced at the time of Suez in the autumn Budget of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister, who, being cleverer than the Lord Privy Seal, did not call it an autumn Budget.
The Chancellor went on to say:We believe that the whole of this tax is unnecessary"—the whole of this tax, not just the increase—is vicious, and is calculated to do all the things which the Chancellor, if he were a wise one, would not at present be attempting to do." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 267–269]Had not the Economic Secretary been told in his brief what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during those debates during 1950, or is he prepared to concede, with us, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a wise one? It has been very clear for some months. The Chancellor himself told us that no wise Chancellor would levy the tax at all, and we are proposing only a small reduction.
Of course, I do not want to leave anybody out, though I shall have to, but I might be accused of being a little selective or of being invidious were I to leave out the Lord Privy Seal. In the Budget debate in 1950, the Lord Privy Seal, referring to the tax on petrol, which raised the price to 3s. a gallon said:It is not a case of fair shares for all, but a case of those with sufficient money who can afford the petrol being able to buy it."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1950; Vol, 474, c. 153.]That was the view of the Lord Privy Seal when petrol went up to 3s. a gallon.
There were very many other right hon. Gentlemen opposite who expressed their views, There was the Minister of Supply. There was the present Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. There was, in fact, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who was one of the most powerful advocates of a reduction in petrol taxation in 1950 and 1951, but I will not embarrass him by quoting the hyperbole with which he treated the 1002 Finance Bill Committee in those years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—chiefly because I do not have the quotations with me. I did, however, look them up carefully for the purposes of our debate on 10th December last. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman a study of his speeches on that occasion.
I could keep the House going on all night with quotations from what various Parliamentary Secretaries and Whips have said on this subject, but perhaps, before I conclude, I ought to quote the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has the duty of explaining Government policy to those who do not yet understand it. Perhaps these words of his might be helpful to him in his task of explaining the meaning of the Economic Secretary's speech this afternoon.
During the Committee stage of the 1950 Finance Bill, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:I will not repeat the argument, or the expression of astonishment, that at a time when this country needs above all lower costs, at a time when this country is above all bothered by a rising cost of living"—which was then about 30 per cent. lower than it is today—there should have been selected for this particular piece of money raising an instrument which increases the cost of production and increases the cost of living to a much greater extent than right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee are prepared to admit.The right hon. Gentleman then made a bitter attack on the working of the tax, particularly in relation to medical practitioners, especially in rural areas, and this is how he concluded his comments:… it still remains what it was at the beginning, a tax on the industrial and commercial costs of this country. It is a tax which will result in an increase in the cost of living."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June. 1950; Vol. 476, c. 277–80.]That, again, as I have reminded the Committee, was when petrol was 3s. a gallon. Today, it is between 4s. and 5s. a gallon depending on the quality, or the alleged quality, of the petrol. It is at a time when all the problems that were quoted on that occasion are with us, but on an increasing scale, and when the cost of living, which was then referred to not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister of Supply, the Economic Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the rest of them, has risen and is still rising at an alarming rate.
1003 I am surprised, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has not even studied what he and his colleagues said on that occasion. If right hon. Gentlemen studied what they said, I am sure that they would be prepared to admit that it would be less inflationary to withdraw
§ some of their other concessions in the Budget and to accept the new Clause which has been introduced by my hon. Friend.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 282.1007
|Division No. 165]||AYES||[6.2 p.m.|
|Ainley, J. W.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mulley, F. W.|
|Albu, A. H.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)||Hale, Leslie||Orbach, M.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Oswald, T.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hamilton, W. W.||Owen, W. J.|
|Balfour, A.||Hannan, W.||Padley, W. E.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Paget, R. T.|
|Benton, G.||Hastings, S.||Paling, Rt.Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Beswick, Frank||Hayman, F. H.||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Healey, Denis||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Blackburn, F.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Bletikinsop, A.||Herbison, Miss M.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Parker, J.|
|Boardman, H.||Holman, P.||Paton, John|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Holmes, Horace||Pearson, A.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Houghton, Douglas||Peart, T. F.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Pentland, N.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hoy, J. H.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hubbard, T. F.||Popplewell, E.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Burke, W. A.||Hunter, A. E.||Probert, A. R.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Randall, H. E.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Rankin, John|
|Carmichael, J.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Reeves, J.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Reid, William|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &St.Pncs,S.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Clunie, J.||Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Collins,V.J.(Shoreditoh & Finsbury)||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Ross, William|
|Cove, W. G.||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Shurmer, P. L. E.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Kenyon, C.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Crossman, R. H. S||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||King, Dr. H. M.||Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Lawson, G. M.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lewis, Arthur||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Lipton, Marcus||Sorensen, R. W.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Logan, D. G.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Steele, T.|
|Dodds, N. N.||MacColl, J. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Donnelly, D. L.||MacDermot, Niall||Stonehouse, John|
|Dye, S.||Mclnnes, J.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Mahon, Simon||Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Swingler, S. T.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Fienburgh, W.||Mason, Roy||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Finch, H. J.||Mayhew, C. P.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mellish, R. J.||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Forman, J. C.||Messer, Sir F.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mitchison, G. R.||Thornton, E.|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Monslow, W.||Timmons, J.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||Moody, A. S.||Tomney, F.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mort, D. L.||Viant, S. P.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Moss, R.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Grey, C. F.||Moyle, A.||Weitzman, D.|
|Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Willey, Frederick||Woof, R. E.|
|Wells, William (Walsall, N.)||Williams, David (Neath)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|West, D. G.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Wheeldon, W. E.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)||Zilliacus, K.|
|White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Wigg, George||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)||Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.|
|Wilkins, W. A.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Duthie, W. S.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Emmet, Hon. Mrs, Evelyn||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Arbuthnot, John||Errington, Sir Eric||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Erroll, F. J.||Joseph, sir Keith|
|Ashton, H.||Fell, A.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot|
|Astor, Hon. J. J.||Finlay, Graeme||Keegan, D.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Fisher, Nigel||Kerby, capt. H. B.|
|Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Fort, R.||Kershaw, J. A.|
|Balniel, Lord||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Kimball, M.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Freeth, Denzil||Kirk, P. M.|
|Barter, John||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Lagden, G. W.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Gammans, Lady||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Lambton, Viscount|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Gibson-Watt, D.||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Glover, D.||Leavey, J. A.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Glyn, Col. R.||Leburn, W. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Godber, J. B.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Legh, Hon. peter (Petersfield)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Goodhart, Philip||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Gower, H. R.||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Black, C. W.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||Longden, Gilbert|
|Body, R. F.||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Lucas, Sir jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Green, A.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &Chiswick)|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Gresham Cooke, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Bowen, E, R. (Cardigan)||Crimond, J.||McAdden, S. J.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Macdonald, Sir Peter|
|Braine, B. R.||Grlmston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Harris, Reader (Heston)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E)||Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)|
|Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)||Hay, John||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Campbell, Sir David||Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.||Maddan, Martin|
|Carr, Robert||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)|
|Channon, Sir Henry||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hesketh, R. F.||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terenoe (Portsmth,W.)||Hioks-Beaoh, Maj. W. W.||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.|
|Cole, Norman||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Mathew, R.|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Maude, Angus|
|Cooke, Robert||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Maudling, Rt. Hon, R.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Mawby, R. L.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Corfield, Capt, F. V.||Holt, A. F.||Moore, Sir Thomas|
|Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Hope, Lord John||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hornby, R. P.||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Nicholls, Harmar|
|Crowder,Petre(Ruislip—Northwood)||Horobin, Sir Ian||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)|
|Cunningham, Knox||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Howard, John (Test)||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th.E. & Chr'ch)|
|Dance, J C. G.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||O'Neill, Hn.Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.|
|Deedes, W. F.||Hurd, A. R.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian(Hendon, N.)|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hutchison, A. M. C. (Ed'burgh, S.)||Osborne, C.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)||Page, R. G.|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Pannell, N, A. (Kirkdale)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Hyde, Montgomery||Partridge, E.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Iremonger, T. L.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Tllney, John (Wavertree)|
|Pitman, I. J.||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Pitt, Miss E. M.||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Powell, J. Enoch||Speir, R. M.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Spens Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)||Vikers, Miss Joan|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard||Wade, D. W.|
|Raikes, Sir Victor||Stevens, Geoffrey||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Ramsden, J. E.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek|
|Rawlinson, Peter||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Redmayne, M.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Remnant, Hon. P.||Storey, S.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Renton, D. L. M.||Studholme, Sir Henry||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Ridsdale, J. E.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Robertson, Sir David||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Teeling, W.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Rodgert, John (Severnoaks)||Temple, John M.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Roper, Sir Harold||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Sctiofield, Lt.-Coi. W.||Thomas, P. J. M, (Conway)||Wood, Hon. R.|
|Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Sharples, R. C.||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Shepherd, William||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Barber and Mr. Bryan.|