§ Mr. Powell
I beg to move, in page 21, line 43, at the end, to insert:Provided that a company shall qualify as an Overseas Trade Corporation for any such year if it only fails to comply with the requirements specified in any of the foregoing paragraphs because it, or a company which is its subsidiary company, has only recently been formed, or is about to be or is being wound up, and, consequently, is not carrying on a trade outside the United Kingdom.This is a very minor Amendment, designed to deal with the case of a company which is formed or wound up during the tax year. It is a requirement for qualifying in such circumstances as an overseas trade corporation that, among other things, the company shall he carrying on trade outside the United Kingdom during the whole time that it is in existence. It will be obvious that where a company is being wound up or is just starting, one could not guarantee that it was actually conducting trade abroad either on the last day before it ceased to exist or on the first day after it came into existence. Therefore, without this proviso it might be prevented on a purely technical ground from qualifying and getting the benefit of subsection (1, a). It is to rectify that doubt that the proviso is felt to be
§ necessary and I suggest that it be added to the subsection.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Houghton
Clause 27 (2) appears to give to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue certain discretionary powers to deal with companies which have slipped up. It says thatIf it appears to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that a company would have the necessary qualifications so as to qualify as an Overseas Trade Corporation for a period but for some event over which the company had no control or some act done by the company inadvertently and that no material advantage, was obtained by the company from that event or from its act, then for the purposes of this section that event or act shall, if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in their discretion so direct, be disregarded.This seems to me to be a new and unusual power given to the Commissioners and we should invite the Financial Secretary to throw some light upon it.
Section 66 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, deals with errors and omissions and things of that kind and the rights of the taxpayer to rectify them but, as far as I know, none of the provisions of that Section enables the taxpayer to say, "I am awfully sorry but I inadvertently did something which has put me at a disadvantage according to the Income Tax Act. I really had no idea 537 that I was doing it and up to now have had no material advantage. Will you please disregard it? "We ought to know what are the conditions under which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue would be able to exercise this discretionary power.
Then again, under Section 66, in the event of the Commissioners rejecting a plea for rectification from a taxpayer, ho has certain rights of appeal to the Special Commissioners. The Committee will be reluctant to give discretionary powers to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue which may have the appearance of manipulating the law or allowing the taxpayer to manipulate the law. I am sure there is no ulterior motive in the subsection, and I have the utmost confidence in the Commissioners of Inland Revenue—at least, on everything except establishment matters. They, I am sure, will exercise these powers with discretion, but will this be fair to other taxpayers? What are the circumstances in which a taxpayer would inadvertently do something which he would be justified in asking to be disregarded?
Is it that this box of tricks in Part IV of the Bill is so complex, so full of pitfalls and stumbling blocks that at the end of this labyrinth there must be the comforting arms of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who will put him right if he stumbles through the dark thing? We want to know whether that is the object of this subsection.
After all, most overseas trade corporations will be littered with chartered accountants, astute solicitors, ingenious advisers of every kind and ilk, and they will not be without sure guidance through all the traps in Part IV of the Bill. In fact, the great worry of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is that there are so many ingenious taxpayers who are able to employ at high professional fees the most astute and imaginative professional advice which will open up all the loopholes, create those that are not there to begin with and, in the end, draw a coach and horses through it, and when the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have seen the money draining away for four or five years then the Chancellor does something about it.
538 I really think that this is so unusual that the Committee should have a full explanation of what it is intended to do. For instance, why does a company that does something inadvertently, and derives no material advantage from it, have to be put right? Why has the discretion of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be sought unless it is to put something right which will lead to an advantage to the taxpayer?
We do not want to give discretionary powers to the Administration which may be exercised in a way which this Committee and the House would not approve, and to which other taxpayers may object. I hope that the Financial Secretary will have reassurances to give upon this point, and explanations of the type of case that the Clause is put there to help. Otherwise we shall he bound to regard this with such repugnance that we must vote against it. If there is need for something of this kind, it should be put on a statutory basis, or at least the authority to exercise the discretion should be a body to which the taxpayer could go in the full light of day and have his case heard in a judicial manner.
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as I have said more than once, have the care and maintenance of the Income Tax Acts. They are part of the bureaucracy to administer one of our most complicated tax codes and they are therefore, as a rule, not an appellate body. Usually the appeal is to the General Commissioners and from them in certain circumstances to the Special Commissioners or to appeal tribunals or to the courts. I think we ought to know more about this provision. We ought to have definite assurances that it is intended for a proper purpose and that it can rarely be used, and then only in manner which would receive public approval.
§ Mr. Powell
I think all sides of the Committee approve that the conditions on which companies shall enjoy the status of overseas trade corporations shall be very narrowly and tightly drawn so as, in particular, to avoid giving a preference to one person trading and making profits in the United Kingdom as against another; and, amongst other places, these conditions are to be found in Clause 21, which has been added to the Bill. The concept is that a number of resident companies, 539 by fulfilling the conditions in Clause 21—the type of company to which the purpose of this part of the Bill is directed—will gain the status of overseas trade corporations and will in future trade under those equal terms with their competitors which this Part of the Bill provides for them.
If there were not this provision to which the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) drew attention, then on a strict intepretation of Clause 21 a single and even inadvertent action in contravention of any of the requirements, for example of Clause 21—I will give an example in a moment—would in strict law disqualify that company for the whole of that tax year from the status which it enjoyed, was intended to enjoy, and thought it was remaining qualified to enjoy. It is therefore clearly necessary that we should prevent a merely technical slip from having an effect which, given the general policy, no one intends.
Let us suppose that an overseas trade corporation is taking over a cargo free on board which it is to dispose of in its overseas trading field. Let us suppose that that ship is held up by some trouble and that the cargo, perhaps perishable, is nevertheless, after coming into the possession of the overseas trade corporation, disposed of, perhaps by the company's agents in the United Kingdom. Although that action might involve loss rather than gain to the company, under Clause 21 it would technically disqualify that company from overseas trade corporation status for the whole of that year. It is that type of irrelevant and accidental breach of the conditions, particularly of Clause 21, to which this subsection is directed.
Consequently, I can readily give the assurance which the hon. Member asked me to give. This provision is intended both to be rarely used and to be used only in cases where there can be no question of the company deliberately seeking a double advantage—the advantage of a company treated as an overseas trade corporation and the advantage of trading in contravention of some of the requirements for an O.T.C.
If it is to be dealt with in the manner which the circumstances require, this is obviously a matter in which a discretion has to be given to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue who, ex hypothesi, will 540 be entirely au fait with the trading proceedings of the company in question and will be in a position to judge the bearing of this act or event upon the trading position of the company.
I therefore suggest to the Committee that although, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, and I accept it, this is a new and unusual power which we are here entrusting to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, it is sensible and convenient and one without which the purpose of the Bill as a whole might in some entirely meritorious cases be frustrated.
§ Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)
The reply the Financial Secretary has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will be regarded in many parts of the Committee as rather extraordinary. He said that because of the possibility of inadvertence it was necessary in these cases for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to be able to exercise their discretion. That is almost without precedent in Income Tax law and administration.
The Committee and the Committees in previous years have always been very much on guard against any provisions allowing too much discretion to the tax authorities. Perhaps we have debated this far more in terms of the Board of Customs and Excise than in terms of the Board of Inland Revenue. I remember hon. Members in several parts of the Committee on a previous Finance Bill two or three years ago expressing very grave concern in connection with that very technical subject called "uplift" in which the word "mainly" or "substantially" was used. It was left in the hands of the Board of Customs and Excise. The Paymaster-General, who had something to do with those matters at that time, may recall that debate. It is very strange that this discretion is given in this way to the Board of Inland Revenue.
The Financial Secretary did not take up the point of my hon. Friend when he asked in what previous cases this has been done. My hon. Friend with his vast experience of Income Tax law finds it difficult to put his finger on any similar case. I remember hearing a very distinguished tax lawyer a couple of years ago when I was having a general discussion who said to me. "Of course, your job in the House of Commons would be 541 a great deal easier if instead of having all these vast Finance Bills and consolidation Measures you just said that Income Tax shall be paid in those cases where the Board of Inland Revenue considers it right that it should be paid. "I told him that that was something of an exaggeration and I think that I was justified in saying so when one looks at the extent to which the Board of Inland Revenue is restricted and confined in the cases in which it can tax and disallow tax.
The Financial Secretary is one who, unlike the Chancellor, on the whole wants these provisions tight, but one wonders where this will all end. Are we to have new Measures covering the whole of Income Tat and Profits Tax legislation where there are hard cases and where some chap has fallen foul of the law in some small particular where the Board of Inland Revenue shall have the power to overlook it? Is that to be a new and very important hole which will be drilled below the Revenue water line in some subsequent Finance Bill? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will assure us that the Government do not have that in mind.
In other cases where a hard luck story is produced the Revenue would never dream of accepting it and would say that it could not accept it because of the law of the land. I might mention one or two parallel cases. I am not pleading for the Revenue to have a right of discretion in these hard luck cases, but I am saying that since taxpayers have to meet the requirements of the law in every other case known to us, I do not know why there should be discrimination in this case.
As an illustration, I could refer to subventions under Section 20 of the 1953 Act. It might be that because of inadvertence a particular exchange of shares did not take place quite on the right day; it might have been thought to have been done, but not have been properly sealed or something like that, and with no gain or financial advantage resulting from the inadvertence. Perhaps they were a day late, and therefore the subsidiary or associated company did not come into the group for E.P.L., or whatever it was. That might well happen, and it probably has happened but the Board of Inland Revenue have no power at all to give a certificate of inadvertence or whatever is 542 required under the new procedure, and, we should say, quite rightly.
There are all sorts of hard cases in the field of social insurance, and every one of us knows from experience of his own constituency cases of men injured a day or two early. In my own constituency, a man was killed two days before the passage of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and, therefore ruled out from benefit. We may say that it is hard luck for a man to be killed a day or two early, and all that sort of argument might apply. The same thing applies in the case of widows whose husbands died under the appropriate age. But no one has ever suggested that the Ministry of National Insurance should have the power to grant a dispensation, and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is here, because he knows it so well.
Here is a case where it is not a question of pure bad luck but of frank mismanagement. These companies have the benefit of the most highly-paid lawyers and accountants to advise them, and if they bring cargoes into the country which they should not have brought, they should know that by doing so they put themselves outside the reliefs given by this Bill. In the sort of case which I have mentioned, the subvention case, where the Revenue hardens its heart, and rightly so, it applies the law as the law is laid down by this House in past Finance Bills.
To take another case rather nearer to the sort of thing we are talking about in Part IV of this Bill, let us consider the case where a company—and this sort of case has been mentioned many times this week—has established by one means or another a non-resident company overseas. It has appointed a local board of directors, or has seen to the appointment of a local board of controlling directors, to fulfil the local laws of the country in question. The whole of the shares are held by the British parent company, but, because control is purely shareholding control, even though they may have acted in a sense in terrorem, because this board of directors can be sacked at a moment's notice by the shareholders, even so, the Revenue have always accepted in such cases, provided that the local board of management does exercise management, that it is a non-resident company 543 outside the tax jurisdiction of this country.
We know that the services of the greatest lawyers and accountants have been used in order to ensure that the Revenue never has any excuse for suggesting that in such cases that a non-resident company is in any way controlled, and that is why every letter that goes out to them is drafted in terms suggested by lawyers. For instance, they never tell the local board of management to do anything. They say, "We suggest for your consideration that you might consider doing so and so", or "This is a matter which we should like you to consider." Of course, the local board of directors knows all the time that they are being told to do it, and that if they did go against the parent company, in due course they could be discharged under the shareholders' control.
Nevertheless, in accordance with the law, long established for 75 years or more, the Board of Inland Revenue says that if there is no control in this country, then it is a non-resident company and it is outside tax jurisdiction. But let us suppose that by inadvertence, perhaps when the director looking after this sort of business is on his summer holidays or may be listening to a debate in the House of Commons about overseas trading corporations, and he is not there, some junior person, inadvertently and without authority, perhaps sends a letter to this overseas board of management and says "It is our view that you should do so and so", or "You had better buy this or sell that", or "You are charging too much for these materials you are exporting overseas." I do not think that any gain comes to the company from that one act, but the Board would not be empowered—and I think rightly so—to waive the conditions of the Income Tax Acts in such a case. It is inadvertent, and it is only one small slip or accident. There is no direct gain to the company therefrom, but in that case inadvertence is a matter which is heavily punished, and the company might then be regarded as not being a non-resident company.
In this case, however, from the illustration given by the Financial Secretary, if there is this act of inadvertence and this little accident or slip-up, from which, as a consequence of the law, the company 544 should lose its status, the Board of Inland Revenue is empowered to be generous and overlook this little fault. We hope that the Financial Secretary is right in thinking that it will always be easy to spot the case of sheer inadvertence, and to distinguish that case from the case where a deliberate act has taken place.
But just as hon. Members on this side of the Committee feel that this part of the Bill puts an impossibly heavy load upon those having to operate a complicated system, and just as we think that the already heavily strained Inland Revenue system is being given almost impossible tasks of decision, so I think that the Financial Secretary is adding to those difficulties once he admits this principle of inadvertence and lays upon inspectors of taxes and the Board of Inland Revenue this very difficult task of having to decide whether a particular chance arrival of an allegedly perishable cargo is a piece of inadvertence or a deliberate act for the sake of some immediate gain.
Once the Clause is accepted, if there is such a chance arrival there is no doubt that the firm concerned or its accountants and lawyers will say, "We should like the Board of Inland Revenue to exercise its waiver in this respect". The Board, with such information as it has, will then have to decide, one way or the other, whether this was a piece of inadvertence, and whether there was any gain from this shipment. This will put a very heavy load upon the Board. It will greatly increase the burden upon the staff. I hope that the Government will think about this matter again. As far as we know they are creating an entirely new precedent. If not, perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us of other cases where the Board has this power of discretion.
We hope that the Government will agree to think again about this question and will put the law with regard to overseas trade corporations upon exactly the same basis as the law applying to other taxpayers. If not, by being overgenerous in this case the hon. Gentleman will be creating unfairness in all those cases where taxpayers have to suffer because they make some little slip, and where, because they fail to conform with some quite small cedilla of the law, they are landed with a heavy tax payment. 545 Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree to re-examine this question and to put this part of the law upon the same basis as that with which we have become familiar through previous Finance Bills.
§ Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 227. Noes 176.547
|Division No. 152.]||AYES||[954 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Graham, Sir Fergus||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Grant, W. (Woodside)||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Green, A.||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Crimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Marlowe, A. A. H.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Marshall, Douglas|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Gurden, Harold||Mathew, R.|
|Ashton, H.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R|
|Atkins, H. E.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Mawby, R. L.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.|
|Baldwin. A. E.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.|
|Balniel, Lord||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles|
|Barber, Anthony||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Neave, Airey|
|Barter, John||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Nugent, G. R. H.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Hesketh, R. F.||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Osborne, C.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)||Page, R. G.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Partridge, E.|
|Black, C. W.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Peyton, J. W. W.|
|Body, R. F.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Holt, A. F.||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Hope, Lord John||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Hornby, R. P.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Braine, G. R.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Horobin, Sir Ian||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Bryan, P.||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)||Profumo, J. D.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Howard, John (Test)||Raikes, Sir Victor|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Channon, Sir Henry||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Redmayne, M.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hurd, A. R.||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Cooke, Robert||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Iremonger, T. L.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard|
|Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Jennings, J, C. (Burton)||Russell, R. S.|
|Cunningham, Knox||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot||Sharples, R. C.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Keegan, D.||Shepherd, William|
|Davies. Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Kerby, Capt. R. B.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Kershaw, J. A.||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kimball, M.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Kirk, P. M.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Drayson, G. B.||Lagden, G. W.||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gtn, S.)|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Leather, E. H. C.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Leavey, J. A.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Storey, S.|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Fell, A.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Teeling, W.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||McAdden, S. J.||Temple, John M.|
|Foster, John||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Freeth, Denzil||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)|
|Gammans, Lady||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Clover, D.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Goodhart, Philip||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Gower, H. R.||Maddan, Martin||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Vickers, Miss Joan||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)||Woollam, John Victor|
|Wade, D. W.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Wall, Major Patrick||Whitelaw, W. S. I.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)||Mr. Legh and Mr. E. Wakefield.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Healey, Denis||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Parker, J.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Holmes, Horace||Parkin, B. T.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Houghton, Douglas||Peart, T. F.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Pentland, N.|
|Baird, J.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Popplewell, E.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Benson, G.||Hunter, A. E.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Beswisk, Frank||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Probert, A. R.|
|Blackburn, F.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Janner, B.||Randall, H. E.|
|Boardman, H.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Rankin, John|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Jeger, MrS. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)||Rhodes, H.|
|Bowles, F. G||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Ross, William|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Royle, C.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Short, E. W.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Champion, A. J.||Kenyon, C.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||King, Dr. H. M.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Clunie, J.||Lawson, G. M.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Coldrick, W.||Ledger, R. J.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Steele, T.|
|Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Lewis, Arthur||Stonehouse, John|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Lindgren, G. S.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Cronin, J. D.||Logan, D. G.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||MacColl, J. E.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||McInnes, J.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Deer, G.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Delargy, H. J.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Thornton, E.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Mahon, Simon||Tomney, F.|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmweh)||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Edelman, M.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Viant, S. P.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||West, D. G.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mellish, R. J.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Flenburgh, W.||Messer, Sir F.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mikardo, Ian||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mitchison, G. R.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||Monslow, W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Gibson, C. W.||Moody, A. S.||Willey, Frederick|
|Gooch, E. G.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Moyle, A.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mulley, F. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Grey, C. F.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||O'Brien, Sir Thomas||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Oliver, G. H.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Hale, Leslie||Oram, A. E.||Woof, R. E.|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Orbach, M.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Oswald, T.|
|Hastings, S.||Padley, W. E.|
|Hayman, F. H.||Palmer, A. M. F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.|