§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Gordon Walker
We regard this Clause as a bad one. It will add lush, fresh fields of tax avoidance to our fiscal system. The purport of the Clause is to create artificial conditions under which it is pretended that two companies which are really one and the same are trading at arms length. It is trying to create artificial conditions—which do exist between distinct and separate companies—between a parent company and its hived-off subsidiary. The whole idea is that the Clause will stop phoney subterfuge prices being charged between one of the companies and the other.
On the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 7th May the Financial Secretary said that the present powers of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue contained in Section 469 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, are expanded by Clause 28. He said:The Commissioners will in fact find this power easier to exercise than their present power under Section 469…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 817.]I do not think that when he said that the hon. Gentleman could have taken into account that we were to have at our disposal the memoranda of the Board of Inland Revenue, because they deal with this precise point. At any rate, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would have said that with such ease, assurance and complacency.
A good deal has been said about the proper rôle of the Board of Inland Revenue in our affairs, and its views. Every hon. Member agrees that the views of the Board are not very important or very decisive where matters of policy are involved. Governments and the House of Commons must decide matters of policy, advised by officials, but only advised by them. But when the Board of Inland Revenue begins to talk about details of administration and the administration and enforcement of a Clause like Clause 28, then what it says begins to be fairly weighty, and it cannot be just brushed off, as the Chancellor did the 550 other day. They are arguments which must be met and faced.
It is no good the Financial Secretary simply contradicting what the Commissioners said. That is what he did in his Second Reading speech. The arguments have to be met. In paragraph 14 of Memorandum No. 109 the Commissioners refer to Section 469 of the 1952 Act. In paragraph 15 they say that cases under the Section are rare and that…there have been thirty-seven in the three years in which the Section has operated.That remark was made in 1954. I suppose there have been a small number since.
The Commissioners said that:…the main purpose of the Section was in terrorem.That is a different picture from what the hon. Gentleman gave us on Second Reading. The Commissioners said that:…it serves its purpose by deterring groups of companies from invoicing goods to each other at prices which are blatantly fictitious, but it is not, and cannot be, used as authority for challenging invoice prices"—the very opposite to what the hon. Gentleman said—which do not look unreasonable, notwithstanding that variations in price may have a very marked effect on profits and, therefore, on tax liability.I ask the hon. Gentleman to take account of this in his reply, because it absolutely contradicts what he said. This is not a view; it is the Board of Inland Revenue giving the history of the administration of Section 469. The Commissioners say in paragraph 16:It must not, therefore, be imagined that we have by experience built tip any body of practice which would help us in administering a scheme on the lines proposed.That is, on the lines of Clause 28. They add:In the case of many classes of export, there will exist no independent merchants"—This refers to the fictitious pretence of trading at arm's length—and as the rate of profit to turnover varies considerably according to the nature of the commodity there will not even be a theoretical basis for computing the merchanting profit.The memorandum says in conclusion that claims will be made under the Act when there are special reasons why the price is a little different from what might be expected, and that such claims will be impossible to check.
551 This is the absolute controversion of what the hon. Gentleman said, and unless he can put up counter-arguments these statements of the Board will hold the field. What the hon. Gentleman told us on Second Reading was that Section 469 was frightfully important and was being extended, but the Board of Inland Revenue says that it is not very important and, if extended, would be unenforceable. What reasons can the hon. Gentleman give for accepting what he told us as against what the Board of Inland Revenue is telling us—not about its views on policy and on the theory of taxation but actually giving an account of the administration of a Section of the Act which it has been administering for a number of years.
If Clause 28 is, as we think, and as the Board of Inland Revenue seems to think, unenforceable, then, of course, the whole of this part of the Bill becomes unenforceable—including Clause 21, which tries to enforce f.o.b. prices. If all that is unenforceable we shall get into terrible trouble, sooner or later, with the G.A.T.T. and with O.E.E.C. We shall be breaking all their rules, and only pretending to keep them by Clauses which sound pretty, look nice, but are unenforceable.
The whole of this part of the Bill, particularly as exports are brought in, is really a subterfuge; pretending that people are different from what they really are, that they are trading differently from the way in which they are really trading, and pretending they are charging prices different from those that they are charging in reality. There is no way, says the Board of Inland Revenue, of enforcing it. We therefore regard this Clause as extremely bad, phoney and fictitious.
§ Mr. Birch
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a bad Clause, as he has not tried to amend it, but it is, of course, a very important Clause indeed, because it is designed not only to prevent the syphoning away of profits to a place where they would not be taxed, but to meet the accusation that the overseas trade corporation conception might lead to a concealed export subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted to a certain extent from the memorandum prepared by the Board of Inland Revenue—
§ Mr. Birch
It is not an export subsidy. If an exporting company buys goods at the same price f.o.b. as any other foreign company can buy them, there is no export subsidy. We have had that out already. Quite clearly there is not one.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Board of Inland Revenue as saying that there is no point in challenging something that does not look unreasonable. That seems a very sensible thing to say. As far as Section 469 of the Income Tax Act 1952 goes, it is perfectly true that there have not been many cases where adjustments of prices have actually been made, but there are two reasons for that. One is that there may not have been many attempts at evasion. Secondly, of course, under Section 469 as it is drawn, the powers are much less great than under this Clause.
There are two differences between that Section and this Clause. First, the Clause extends the provision; that is to say the company is not to be under control and is not to be a foreign company. The reason for not making it a controlled company is that there may be cases in which a consortium may be formed by two or three companies for the purpose of setting up an overseas trade corporation, and it might be possible there to syphon away profits. We have, therefore, specifically cut out the condition of control. The second way in which it is easier under the Clause than under Section 469 is that, ex hypothesi, these overseas trade corporations are resident companies, and their accounts can, and will be examined. It is not, I think, really beyond the powers of the Inland Revenue, when examining accounts of companies, to have a fairly good idea whether cheating is going on or not.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Birch
All O.T.C.s are resident in this country, and their accounts are open to examination if necessary. It is far 553 easier to enforce this Clause than to enforce Section 469, because one has control over both sets of accounts.
We believe that the Clause can be made to work and will be worked. We think it a pity to express doubts upon the ability of the Inland Revenue to carry it through.
§ Mr. Chapman
If I may say so, this is really very unsatisfactory. When all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman the Economic Secretary has tried to deal in about three minutes with a great deal of closely reasoned argument and evidence adduced by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, wherein they say, quite frankly, that they have no experience in this sort of field. The Commissioners say:It may, as a matter of theory, be necessary to rewrite a company's accounts and to substitute for prices at which goods are actually invoiced other figures based on market prices. In fact, cases of this kind are rare.In other words, the Inland Revenue is saying from the start, "We have had no experience of this sort of thing". A little further on, referring to principles, the Memorandum says:If their actual application had to be checked closely on a large scale, there would be much difficulty in particular cases".These are sentences which I just put at the side of those already quoted by my right hon. Friend to show that the Inland Revenue is saying, quite bluntly, that we are entering upon a completely new field, and the Revenue has really not had to go into books, and vouchers or be involved in rewriting company's accounts, almost on a fictitious basis. That is, in fact, what will have to happen under the Clause.
The Economic Secretary dismisses that in a few sentences in about three minutes. It is not good enough. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) has been saying that we must not take too much account of what the Inland Revenue says, but he was not talking about this sort of section in the comments of the Inland Revenue. He will, I am sure, get up in a minute and say that this is precisely the kind of point on which the Inland Revenue is to be regarded, not disregarded. He was saying that the Revenue must not make policy and principle for us, but I am sure he will say that, when it comes to knowing something about how to evade tax, the Com 554 missioners of Inland Revenue can tell us a good deal about what is going on in this country today.
§ Mr. E. Partridge (Battersea, South)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Inland Revenue has had no experience? If so, then let us give it some.
§ Mr. Chapman
Perhaps the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) is one of those who wants a lot of people to escape the tax net in order to teach a few lessons to the Inland Revenue. I think it would be better not to start on the exercise at all. I am anxious to preserve the nation's revenue.
The argument and evidence put is very formidable indeed. It points to examples of companies, for example, where, when it comes to re-writing figures on more or less a fictitious basis, there is no basis of comparison. They are unique, producing a unique product. Who is to know what is the arms-length trade in a unique product more or less confined to one particular firm producing it for export? This sort of thing should not be dismissed in a minute or two, as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do.
How is the Inland Revenue to set about its job? After all, as I understand it at the moment, there are only very rarely-used powers in the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to enforce the actual production of vouchers, invoices and all the rest. The powers of the inspector at the moment are confined to the production of books and accounts. To go much further into the privately kept papers of the individual firm requires special authorisation by the Commissioners.
What we want to know is whether there will be a willingness on the part of the Commissioners to use powers of this sort to ferret out what will doubtless be the attempts at evasion in cases like this. We want assurance that there will be energy in application and that even our fears are shared by the Government Front Bench. I have a feeling that the right hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend this afternoon, is dismissing all this by saying, "It will not happen. We can leave it. These are wild imaginings of the Opposition and on those grounds we need not worry about it." We on this side want some effective answers to the people who know what tax evasion is when they have put before us ideas and 555 suggestions about how it will go on unless there is more thorough enforcement than is apparently the case at the moment. I regard the Minister's reply as totally unsatisfactory and I hope we shall divide against the Clause.
§ Mr. E. Fletcher
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said. It is inescapable that the Clause will fail completely to deal with the evil which it is intended to meet. The possibility is admitted that there will be traders who adopt false and fictitious prices for their exports of commodities. The attempt is made by the Clause to give the Inland Revenue power to deal with those people, but the Inland Revenue has admitted that it has no experience of dealing with such cases.
The Treasury has failed completely in attempting to deal with the problem. The Inland Revenue has admitted that it has no experience whatever in dealing with this kind of problem in applying Section 469 of the Income Tax Act. It confesses that it does not understand how to do it and has not done it.
If the Chancellor really wants to cure the difficulty, let me tell him that the people who have had considerable experience of this matter are the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, because they have had to deal with precisely this problem in reverse in connection with imports. There are plenty of cases in which English subsidiary companies of foreign parent firms, or, vice versa, try to import goods into this country at unduly low prices to avoid Customs duties. Therefore, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have had considerable experience in detecting this kind of abuse and dealing with it. They are, however, as the Chancellor should know if he has looked at the Customs Consolidation Act, given wide powers.
If the Chancellor is serious in attempting to check the practice in connection with exports, which is only the same operation in reverse, he should not have applied Section 469 of the Income Tax Act but should make sure that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have the same powers as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in dealing with imports. Everybody will recognise that nothing like the same power is being given to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The Chancellor will find that, however well-intentioned he may be in trying to 556 prevent this kind of abuse, it will almost inevitably take place and the Inland Revenue authorities will be unable to cope with it. For that reason, we oppose the Clause.
§ Mr. Roy Jenkins
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has made an extremely valuable suggestion and certainly added to the information at our disposal in considering this matter, which is more than can be said for the speech of the Economic Secretary, who dealt with the matter in the most perfunctory way. It is quite clear from the course of our debates that when we have replies from the Economic Secretary they are much more perfunctory than those we get from the Financial Secretary. When we get replies from the Chancellor, of course, they are just breathless and reckless, but have a certain engaging quality of their own. We should like to have more replies from the Chancellor. We value them when they come, even though we do not altogether agree with them.
It has emerged quite clearly that of the Treasury trio, unsupported, rather unusually, on any occasion by a Law Officer, despite the extremely complicated nature of this legislation, the only one of the three who has any real feeling for dealing with avoidance and the possibility of evasion is the Financial Secretary. Yet when we come to deal with a Clause which is the main anti-avoidance provision, it is odd that the Financial Secretary should not speak about it and that the Economic Secretary, who joins with the Chancellor in not being concerned about avoidance, being a "hundred percenter" or whatever it is, should get up and give this extremely perfunctory answer.
I should have thought that it was common ground on both sides of the Committee that the views of the Inland Revenue were extremely relevant on this matter. Last night we had a good deal of dispute as to what extent, on matters of policy, we should take account of the views of the Inland Revenue, but when we are dealing with technical, administrative and anti-avoidance problems, I have no doubt, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would agree with me, that the views of the Inland Revenue carry a great deal of weight.
557 It is no good the Economic Secretary pretending that we are dealing with a different problem here and that Clause 28 is something qualitatively different from the Section of the 1952 Income Tax Act under which the Inland Revenue had previously proceeded, because quite clearly a great part of the views that the Inland Revenue put forward in Memorandum 109 referred to what it could or could not do under a particular piece of legislation. It referred quite clearly to the extreme difficulty of anybody in any practical sense making a judgment as to what was a fair arm's length price between a manufacturing company and an exporting company.
The Inland Revenue referred to it in quite forceful language. It developed it by saying that the problem was exacerbated by the fact that in just those exports which were and are expanding most rapidly it yeas most difficult to make such a decision, because they were essentially specialised products where there can be, by their very nature, no past practice by which to go and by which to make a
§ decision on what is a market price. I certainly think, therefore, that in view of the extremely unsatisfaotory, perfunctory and brief reply by the Economic Secretary, and in view of the importance of the issue, we on this side of the Committee are bound to express our disapproval by voting against the Clause.
§ The Clause, of course, is better than nothing, but it is highly unsatisfactory. In view of the fact that we were told by the Financial Secretary, when the Bill was first introduced, that the avoidance provisions were of great importance and had been most carefully worked out, and yet when we come to examine them in detail nothing is said in support of them except some few brief sentences by the Economic Secretary, we have no recourse, unless we have a further and more satisfactory reply from the Government, but to vote against the Clause.
§ Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 160.561
|Division No. 153.]||AYES||[10.29 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Cunningham, Knox||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Currie, G. B. H.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Dance, J. C. C.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Davidson, Viscountess||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Arbuthnot, John||Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)||Hesketh, R. F.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Ashton, H.||Deedes, W. F.||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Drayson, G. B.||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Balniel, Lord||du Cann, E. D. L.||Holt, A. F.|
|Barber, Anthony||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)||Hope, Lord John|
|Barlow, Sir John||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hornby, R. P.|
|Barter, John||Elliott, R.W.(N'castle-upon. Tyne, N.)||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Errington, Sir Eric||Horobin, Sir Ian|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Howard, Hon, Greville (St. Ives)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Fell, A.||Howard, John (Test)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Finlay, Graeme||Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Fisher, Nigel.||Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Hurd, A. R.|
|Bishop, F. P.||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh. S.)|
|Black, C. W.||Freeth, Denzil||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'B'gh, W.)|
|Body, R. F.||Gammans, Lady Ann Muriel||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon, Sir Harry|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Iremonger, T. L,|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Glover, D.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Braine, B. R.||Goodhart, Philip||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Gower, H. R.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Bryan, P.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Green, A.||Keegan, D.|
|Channon, Sir Henry||Grimond, J.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Chichester-Clarke, R.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Kershaw, J. A.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Kimball, M.|
|Cooke, Robert||Gurden, Harold||Kirk, P. M.|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Lagden, G. W.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Leavey, J. A.|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesfd)||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Osborne, C.||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Page, R. G.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|McAdden, S. J.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Partridge, E.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Peyton, J. W. W.||Storey, S.|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Piokthorn, K. W. M.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Powell, J. Enoch||Teeling, W.|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Temple, John M.|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Profumo, J. D.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Maddan, Martin||Raikes, Sir Victor||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)|
|Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)||Rawlinson, Peter||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Redmayne, M.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Remnant, Hon. P.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Renton, D. L. M.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Marshall, Douglas||Ridsdale, J. E.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Mathew, R.||Rippon, A. G. F.||Wade, D. W.|
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Mawby, R. L.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Roper, Sir Harold||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Russell, R. S.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Neave, Airey||Sharpies, R. C.||Woollam, John Victor|
|Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Shepherd, William|
|Nugent, G. R. H.||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Oakshott, H. D.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||Mr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mellish, R J.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Hale, Leslie||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Moody, A. S,|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Hamilton, W. W.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Baird, J.||Hastings, S.||Moyle, A.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Hayman, F. H.||Mulley, F. W.|
|Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Healey, Denis||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)|
|Benson, G.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A, (Rwly Regis)||O'Brien, Sir Thomas|
|Beswick, Frank||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Oliver, G. H.|
|Blackburn, F.||Holmes, Horace||Oram, A. E.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Houghton, Douglas||Orbach, M.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Oswald, T.|
|Boardman, H.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Padley, W. E.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Hunter, A, E.||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Parker, J.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Parkin, B. T.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Janner, B.||Pearson, A.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Peart, T. F.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Pentland, N.|
|Champion, A. J.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)||Popplewell, E.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Price, J.T. (Westhoughton)|
|Clunie, J.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Coldrick, W.||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Probert, A. R.|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Pryde, D. J.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Kenyon, C.||Randall, H. E.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Lawson, G. M.||Rhodes, H.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Ledger, R, J,||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Ross, William|
|Deer, G.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Royle, C.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lewis, Arthur||Short, E. W.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Lindgren, G. S.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Edelman, M.||Logan, D. G.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)||MacColl, J. E.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Fienburgh, W.||McInnes, J.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Fletcher, Eric||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Stonehouse, John|
|Gibson, C. W.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Gooch, E. G.||Mahon, Simon||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Greenwood, Anthony||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Grey, C. F.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H, A.||Thornton, E.|
|Tomney, F.||Wilcock, Croup Capt. C. A. B.||Woof, R. E.|
|Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lyn||Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Warbey, W. N.||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|West, D. G.||Williams, Rt. Hon. (Don Valley)|
|Wheeldon, W. E.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)||Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.|
|White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Winterbottom, Richard|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.