§ Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)
I beg to move, in page 11, line 45, at the end to add:Provided also that this section shall not apply to leases entered into before the ninth day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven724 The Clause was introduced in a very short reference on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but I should like to take up a little time in going at rather greater length into the problem with which the Clause deals. It deals with cases where landlords have let flats for a considerable premium of cash down.
Up to the year 1954, it had always been assumed that for Schedule A purposes those flats came within the scope of Section 109 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and that the landlord was liable for Schedule A tax in respect ofany house or building let in different apartments or tenements and occupied by two or more persons severally.No one had ever doubted that that was in fact the practice and the liability, but there also existed in the same Income Tax Act, a few Sections further on, a provision that the tenant should be charged where a house was divided into distinct properties and occupied by distinct owners or their respective tenants.
In 1954, the Revenue, for reasons which I do not know but at which I think I can guess, decided that it would be more convenient in future to assess the occupiers of flats who had paid large premiums for a long-term in the flats rather than to assess the landlord. Accordingly, without any legislation, and having regard to the fact that two comparatively conflicting provisions existed in the 1952 Act, they made an announcement that in future their practice would be to assess the tenant and not the landlord.
In 1955, came the Royal Commission, which considered the circumstances and what had happened. It took the view that the attitude which the Inland Revenue authorities had announced in 1954 they were going to take in future was probably the right one, and that in future tenants and not landlords should be assessed for Schedule A, but added certain words at the end of paragraph 915 of the Report on the possibility of amending legislation to that effect being introduced. The Royal Commission obviously thought that it was highly desirable that there should be legislation, as, indeed, I think there ought to have been in 1954. After mentioning the possibility of legislation, the Report went on to sayBut in that event, as past bargains may have been arrived at on the basis of the 725 existing law the treatment of a lessee as an 'owner' within Section 113 should apply only to cases where the lease was entered into after the commencement of the amending legislation.My Amendment would add that proviso. Meanwhile, other things have happened. A test case has been fought and has been taken right up to the House of Lords, and early this year the House of Lords decided that the old practice that the landlord was liable was the right one. Accordingly, we have the situation that, since 1954, tenants have been assessed under Section 113, and the House of Lords in 1957 has decided that the practice introduced by the inland Revenue in 1954 was wrong.
§ Mr. Niall MacDermot (Lewisham, North)
May I interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a point of correction? The decision to which he has referred was, I think, a decision of the Court of Appeal, and not of the House of Lords, in the case of Gatehouse v.Vise.
§ Sir P. Spens
I beg the Committee's pardon; it was the Court of Appeal, and I am obliged to the hon. Member. The result is that it is quite impossible now to settle the law one way or the other without doing a deal of injustice to bargains which have already been entered into. I frankly do not know which is likely to be the best way of dealing with the matter.
There is not the slightest doubt that the landlords are the people who ought to have borne Schedule A tax, according to the Court of Appeal. In fact, since 1954, owing to the attitude of the Inland Revenue, which it announced and advertised quite widely and about which I think a Question was asked and answered in the House of Commons, but without any legislative change in the law, the tenants have been assessed for this tax.
This very gravely affects a great number of cases in my constituency. This habit of paying a large sum down for a long lease in a house has grown among all classes. Not only do landlords like it, because it gives them something that is a capital sum, but people of quite small means who are about to retire take out endowment policies with the sole object of being able to pay a sum down for a long lease of a flat in a house in order 726 to provide for themselves or for their widows. It is extremely attractive for people of small means to pay a substantial sum down and know that the rent will he a very small amount which their widows will be able to pay.
That these tenants should now have to pay in addition full Schedule A tax in respect of these bargains is a very serious matter indeed. Injustice is bound to be done in respect of past bargains owing to the muddle that has been created by the fact that the Inland Revenue, without legislative authority, introduced this practice. It is one of those unfortunate accidents that happen. I do not know how best to deal with it, but my instinct as a good Conservative is that a change in the law should not apply except to bargains entered into after the date of the Finance Bill. No one can possibly assess who will have been injured by the change of law. I think that the right way to tackle the matter is to accept the Royal Commission's recommendation and add the proviso to the Clause, and I move accordingly.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) for putting this Amendment on the Order Paper and giving us an opportunity to discuss what I think is an extraordinarily difficult problem of legislation. I accept what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. Whatever we do about it we are hound to do injustice to somebody. There is no way of solving it otherwise. With that in mind, we have sought to do the least amount of injustice possible, consistent with getting the law right.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for explaining so much of how this has arisen, because it lets me off the tedium of doing it to the Committee, but I am bound to emphasise the injustice that it is sought to remedy. This is Income Tax—a tax on the annual taxable benefit. It works quite well in the case of a house, even when the tenant is paying a nominal rent because he has paid a premium. If he is paying a rack rent he can deduct the tax that he is charged as the occupier from the rent, up to the full amount of tax on his rent. If he is paying only a nominal rent, he cannot deduct the tax which he pays because the amount of his rent is not 727 enough. In between are all the cases between the nominal rent and the full rack rent. So that effectively the tax on the enjoyment of the annual taxable benefit is shared out, rightly, in proportion between lessor and tenant according to the amount of their respective enjoyment of the annual taxable benefit.
That works perfectly well for a house. The only reason it does not work for flats, and annoyingly so, is because of the old rule, now in Section 109 (1, c) of the consolidating Act. It is a rule which belongs to an age when it was not the public habit to live in flats. It relates to tenements and lodgings and such things, but it is imperative in its effect. When Section 109 (1, c) says that in circumstances where parts of the building are let out in the way that my right hon. and learned Friend was saying—in the case of a house or building let in different apartments or tenements —the landlord is the person who must be assessed. That is imperative in form and that is what makes the difficulty primarily here.
Obviously one would have desired to follow the recommendation of the Royal Commission in excepting all bargains entered into before this legislation, unless one had found very sound reasons for thinking that that would produce the wrong result. The difficulty has been that the landlord, the lessor, where there has been a letting at a nominal rent for a premium, had cogent arguments about the injustice which applying Section 109 (1, c) worked for him.
He could say, "I have used up all the premiums in paying for the very building in which you are living", or he could say, "Well, but this tenant has virtually acquired by his lease over perhaps a long-term of ninety-nine years, the whole of the taxable annual benefit for a long time to come." Or he might say, "I am not the original lessor, I am someone who has acquired a reversion from him, and I just have not got the funds to meet the Schedule A tax on the whole of the annual benefit when I am getting only £1 a year out of each flat, or some nominal rent." It was in those circumstances that the Revenue was apparently advised that the matter might be covered by the other Section to which my right hon. and 728 learned Friend referred, Section 113, which I think is a hangover from the old Inhabitated House Duty and ought not to have anything to do with Income Tax at all, but that is a speculation.
We have sought to see how best to overcome by legislation the difficulty which arises by reason of the fact that we ought not to leave the person who is not in possession of the annual taxable benefit paying the tax on it. To adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and to leave out all bargains before the legislation, seemed to us to do exactly the wrong thing, because it perpetuated the anomaly that we desire to get rid of for the full length of the existing term, which might be another ninety-nine years, and it would have to operate even in cases where the intention of the parties, at all times when they entered into their bargain, was that it was the tenant who should bear the Schedule A tax. That is because of the imperative character of Section 109 (1, c>). It works an even greater injustice against the lessor than the lessee because the tenant here is the person who will get the repair allowance—the landlord will not get them.
Then there is another difficulty. It would mean having two general rules running side by side over the whole period of the longest lease with which one is dealing. That is clearly a matter of grave public inconvenience Then, when we came to study the cases, it seemed to be a very improbable case where the landlord, parting, in effect, with the annual taxable benefit for a long time, would have intended to pay Schedule A tax all that time and to receive only a nominal rent for it. As one legal publication put it, any tenant who expected him to do so would be a very optimistic tenant. On the face of it it is an improbable case. Then there is one other test. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, it was the practice before 1954 to assess the landlord in these cases, and after the announcement of the Revenue change of practice on the advice it then had publicly announced, the practice was changed to assessing the tenant. One would have thought that if that was not believed to be in accordance with justice, and what people intended, there would have been a great many protests, but since it has assessed the tenants in these cases, 729 since the change of practice in 1954, there have been, so far as the Revenue knows, very few cases indeed—I cannot descend to the actual figures with precision, but only a very few cases—where any protest or complaint was made at all.
So it looked to us as though in the vast majority of cases of this kind dealing with a long term acquired for a premium at a nominal rent, it was, as one would expect, the intention of the parties that the tenant should be chargeable. That means that legislation of this pattern is producing the right result except for one case. That is the case where the bargain between the parties was made on the basis that it was the lessor who would be chargeable.
Obviously, if one could find a way of doing it, it would be highly desirable to find a let-out for that case. We have reluctantly come to the conclusion—and I welcome the assistance of the Committee about it—that it is not possible to devise a let-out which will work in practice. The prudent conveyancer obviously would provide for this matter in the terms of the lease, so we are concerned only with the case where the lease is silent, and if we give the tenant an opportunity of escaping, if he can show that such was the bargain between the parties, how is he to satisfy the Commissioners that that was the bargain?
The subject matter of the inquiry is entirely subjective. It is what was in the minds of the two people who perhaps never made any express reference to the matter at all? The evidence, if it is available, may be very old. The bargain may have been made some time ago. Usually it would not be the original parties to the bargain now. The reversion may have been assigned and the lease assigned and the original parties may have died. So there is even that difficulty. Further, what kind of evidence would it be? It would not be such that any court of law could admit because it would he oral evidence to add to a written bargain embodied in the lease, and I do not suppose that the Committee would think it right to allow the Commissioners to hear evidence about a bargain between the parities which a judge in a court of law would not think of admitting.
We looked at one other idea. It might have been an indication perhaps if we found a case where a landlord had been 730 assessed and had submitted to the assessment and paid without demur. But that will not do, because first of all, in this case we are looking for, the assessment might have been made on the tenant, and there is the further difficulty that the appeal might relate not to the person who is properly chargeable but to the amount. So we could not get an indication even on that. We came reluctantly to the conclusion that it was not possible to pick out this case, the one case of which we want to make exception, without making the law work the wrong way, and that any attempt to do so would simply produce more anomalies and injustices.
§ Mr. Mitchison
Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten the Committee on one point? I understand that at one stage of the proceedings the Board changed its practice. Did it apply that change to existing assessments and cases that had already been dealt with under the previous practice?
§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, it applied them to every case which could be brought within the terms of Section 113 —every case where the house, in the Board's then view, could be said to be divided into distinct properties occupied by distinct owners, irrespective of the date when the lease had been entered into. It was a firm change of practice and we have the indication that it did not produce any form of protest from the tenant except in a few exceptional cases.
Having explained our difficulties, I want to emphasise what the Clause does not do. It is in no sense retrospective. It in no way affects liability to tax for past years. It is merely an attempt to get the matter right for the future, and the open assessments on tenants will just have to be discharged. That is all that will happen.
I wish also to make the point—because it affected our minds—that if the bargain between the parties was that the lessor should pay the Schedule A there is nothing whatever in the Clause to prevent him from fulfilling his bargain or being compelled to do so. This is merely an attempt to get right the law which should cause the assessment to fall where the annual benefit is.
Sir P. Spans
I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to develop that point. As I understand it, where there 731 is an express bargain in the lease that the landlord is to pay Schedule A, none the less the tenant will still be assessed in the first instance. My right hon. and learned Friend says that the tenant will then be able to get the money out of his landlord. Where there is an express provision in a lease surely Parliament ought not to go to the length of nullifying that and casting a burden upon the other person.
§ The Solicitor-General
It does not alter the ultimate burden at all. It does not alter the question who ultimately has to pay. The difficulty is that a person may not be able to show, in some case where it is a fact, that the bargain between the parties was that the lessor should pay. No difficulty arises where there is an express provision in the lease. The parties have then dealt with the matter and there is nothing here that would alter that fact in terms of ultimate liability.
That is why we have not followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I hope that, appreciating how extremely difficult the matter is from a legislative point of view, the Committee will think that in the circumstances, this is the best provision that it is possible to make in an abominably difficult problem.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Niall MacDermot (Lewisham, North)
I rise to support the Amendment. With great respect to the Solicitor-General, I submit that the matter is very much simpler than he would have us believe. If we look, first, at the realities of the matter we see that what led to the change of policy by the Inland Revenue in 1954 was the fact that it found that there were a great many cases where properties of this kind were held under long leases and where the burden for Schedule A fell—as it had done ever since the lease began—upon the landlord, but the landlord had now become a man of straw, or possibly a company resident in Eire, whom the Revenue could not reach.
It was because the Revenue could not get its money that it decided, rather boldly, to change its interpretation of the law and say, "We have been making a mistake all this time"—and all this time 732 means since 1842—" and, really, all this time we should have been levying it on the tenant." It is a bit suspicious that they should suddenly form that interpretation of the law at a time when owing to modern conditions they find themselves in many cases unable to levy the tax on the landlords.
The only principle underlying this is the principle succinctly stated by Mr. Justice Danckwerts in this present case when it was tried in the first instance, and when he said:The rules which I have to construe are found in the group called 'Rules as to persons chargeable.' and I think that the only clearly discernable principle may be that of enabling the tax to be charged on the largest number of persons with the least exertion on the part of the officials entrusted with the duty of collecting the tax.That is the principle, the only principle, which led to this change of practice. But this change of practice, as Mr. Justice Danckwerts and the Court of Appeal decided, was a completely wrong and erroneous change of practice on the part of the Revenue. The correct position in law is the position which prevailed in practice from 1842 until 1954.
The Solicitor-General says, disarmingly, that the only cases where injustice would result if this Amendment were not accepted would be cases where the bargain was made on the basis that the lessor would be chargeable. All the bargains made from 1842 until 1954 were made on the basis that the lessor would be chargeable and this was never questioned; it was not challenged before. The Solicitor-General referred in particular to the position in the 99-year leases, a matter which concerns many people today, because these leases are beginning to fall in. Most of them were made in the years following about 1850.
This rule, which the Court of Appeal decided was right to put the burden on landlords, was formulated in the Income Tax Act of 1842. It was quite a recent piece of legislation at the time when these 99-year leases were made. It was never challenged; there was no test case in the courts about it. The Revenue interpreted it perfectly naturally, as did both the parties to the contract, the lessee and the lessor. The position was that the lessor got a lump sum and also his ground rent, and he was liable to pay the landlord's property tax, the Schedule A. It 733 is only now, because the Revenue finds itself in a position that in many cases it is unable to levy it on the landlord, that it wants to shift the burden to the tenant.
It is quite right, in one sense, to say that it is anomalous. What we are here dealing with is the case of a single property divided up into, say, four or more flats or apartments, whereas if we sad, say, a terrace of four or five houses in a similar position, the burden would fall on the tenant, although the terms of the leases may be identical. So it is right to say that to obtain consistency in the general application of the law relating to Schedule A, one should bring this class of property into line with others, and say that in the future, the burden shall fall on the tenant.
But to say that the burden shall fall on the tenant in future and make that apply to all the contracts made and all the leases in existence at the time when the law was changed, means that the burden is being transferred, quite arbitrarily, from the landlord to the tenant in cases where a bargain was made on the basis that the landlord would have to bear the burden. I should have thought that the anxiety of this Government to make uncovenanted gifts to landlords had been satiated by the Rent Bill.—[Laughter.] Government supporters laugh. Let me tell them of the case concerning a leasehold house which came to my attention only a few weeks ago.
The leaseholder under a 99-year lease having about seven years to go, approached his landlord, a property company, about eighteen months ago, and said, "May I purchase from you the reversion of the freehold?" "Certainly," said the company. "It will cost you £770."The tenant said," That is rather a lot of money. It will take a little time to raise it ", and so he went away. A short time ago he came back and said, "I have raised the £770. Now will you please convey the freehold to me?" "Ah," said the property company, "you know there has been a Rent Bill since then. The price now is £2,005.". That was the uncovenanted gift by the Rent Bill to the landlord in that case.
The effect of the Clause, if the Amendment is not accepted, will be that the capital value of the reversion on these long leases will appreciate very consider- 734 ably. The Solicitor-General referred, with tears falling from his eyes, to the possibility of properties changing hands. So be it. The price was fixed on the basis that the landlords were to be liable for this tax. If that burden is now to be shifted to the tenant the value of the reversion will be enormously enhanced, because the landlord has been relieved of the burden. That will be a tax-free capital gain to the landlord, quite apart from its being an additional burden to the tenant who may have acquired the remainder of the term of the tenancy on the basis of the landlord being liable to pay the tax. He now finds that he has a very much bigger burden. The whole weight of injustice will fall upon the tenant. The only cases where it will be the other way round will be those of the short interregnum period between 1954 and the decision of the Court of Apepal. But for that the whole weight is one way.
Then the Solicitor-General referred to the contractual position between the parties, and suggested that the Clause only affected the power of the Revenue to levy the tax. He suggested that the burden as between the parties would remain governed by the contract. Again. that is not so. The usual form of words very seldom provides that the contract will provide any indemnity. The usual form of words is that in the case of Gatehouse v. Vise. I will find it.
§ The Solicitor-General
While the hon. Gentleman is looking, would he be good enough to read out all the covenants in that case? He would agree that they were obviously copies out of a precedent book by somebody who did not bother to see whether they would mutually fit.
§ Mr. MacDermot
Yes, indeed. They were copied out of a precedent book. The references in that case were as follows:The lessees' covenants included covenants to pay the rent without any deduction 'except for landlords property tax'.That was done on the assumption that the tenant is going to pay the tax and then would be able to make a deduction from the rent. It goes on:To pay rates and taxes as therein mentioned '(landlords property tax only excepted)'.That contains the assumption that the landlord will pay the tax. That is a case 735 where, as the Solicitor-General suggested, contradictory covenants were compiled out of a precedent book, but a great many leases were entered into on the basis of the second of these references, namely, that the tenant will pay the rates and taxes but not the landlord's property tax. The contract was quite clearly entered into on the basis that the landlord would pay the tax.
In all those circumstances, I submit that in the overwhelming majority of cases of this kind the contract has been entered into on the basis that the burden would be on the landlord and very great injustice will be done if it is now suddenly and arbitrarily transferred.
Mr. H. Wilson
Surely, after that masterly and devastating statement, we must expect a reply from the Solicitor-General. While it is certainly fair to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put a very plausible case, I think that he himself, in all fairness, will be the first to admit that it has been utterly demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham. North (Mr. MacDermot).
§ The Solicitor-General
I will not accept that, even from the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). I do not suggest that our solution is satisfactory. I did not put it as high as that. I suggest it is the least unsatisfactory one which anyone can find. I should like to join in the compliments paid by the Committee to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), which I very much enjoyed. I was not intending not to reply to him, but I thought someone else was going to speak. Hence my unduly static or sedentary position of apparent somnolence.
If I may start from the last point the hon. Member made, the difficulty I do not think arises from the case where the parties have written out their bargain about the tax. It does not matter whom one assesses then because the ultimate liability is going in the right place. It does not make any difference as they are going to be able to sort it out between themselves according to their written bargain. The case we have to deal with is the case where the lease is silent and particularly, as in the case of Gatehouse v. Vise, where one could not get sense out of the covenants.
736 What is here being done does not affect the liability at all in the case where there is a written bargain which the parties can enforce as to who ultimately is to bear the burden of the tax. Of course, I agree with the hon. Member that in the ordinary way one starts with the presumption that bargains are made looking to the law as it is, even though no one knows what it is until it is subsequently declared by the Court of Appeal to be so-and-so. That would be the right presumption. It does not work here as far as we can make out because the law in this field was so uncertain—everyone would agree that it was uncertain—that we could not be confident that the parties were advised that the incidence, apart from an expressed bargain, would be in the form in which the Court of Appeal ultimately decided it should be. That would not help us to get what we thought would be the right answer here.
As to his point about the improvement of value on reversion of this assessment, once again that is confined to a case where the parties have not themselves laid down a bargain about the ultimate incidence of tax. That is a sound point if one assumes that a nominal rent only is not the badge of an intention that the ultimate burden of the tax should be borne by the tenant, but that seemed to us on the examination of cases and facts to be the ordinary to-be-presumed-to-exist case. I hope the hon. Member and the Committee will follow me. That is entirely consistent with exactly what the Court of Appeal, or two members of it, said should be in logic the incidence of this taxation, and entirely consistent with what the Royal Commission recommended should be for the future the proper incidence of taxation in relation to this annual taxable benefit.
§ Mr. MacDermot
The Solicitor-General is not suggesting that the Court of Appeal suggested it should be made retrospective in these cases?
§ 9.30 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am not suggesting that at all. I am merely suggesting that apparently I have the support of two members of the Court of Appeal in regarding the incidence of tax the other way as being anomalous in the tax system. I put it no higher than that, 737 and that is exactly what the Royal Commission said, and that is what we are trying to put right in the Clause.
The hon. Member was anxious lest the inspiration of the Revenue in this matter was merely that it had found itself unable to recover tax. I do not dare to venture into the innermost recesses of the Revenue's soul. I do not know at all. What I have observed and believe to be true, however, is that it is infinitely more convenient to the Revenue in these cases to assess from one person than a whole lot of tenants, and that is what it likes to do if it can because it is administratively more convenient.
§ The Solicitor-General
He has a building here, exhypothesi,because it is in that building that all these flats are contained; and we ought to be able to get tax out of him, whether he is in Ireland, Timbuctoo. or even another place.
I hope that, with that explanation, I have satisfied the Committee that although I do not suggest, and never have suggested, that this is a satisfactory answer, whichever way we set about it we get into worse trouble. No one can think it right to perpetuate for the totality of existing terms the anomaly which the Royal Commission thinks we ought to remedy.
Mr. H. Wilson
The lawyers have had their go, and I think the Committee is grateful for the very clear exposition of both points of view which have been put forward. [Laughter.] Well, to be fair, the Solicitor-General has put a strong argument for the point of view which he has been told to argue. He has done it extraordinarily clearly. We all have sympathy with him, because he is almost alone against all these eminent legal authorities.
§ Having heard the lawyers, I think the Committee, being composed principally of laymen, will have to decide on what it has heard tonight; and as one layman, certainly with no pretensions to being a lawyer, I must say that despite the great effort put up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I feel that the arguments adduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. MacDermot), by Lord Radcliffe and by all the legal luminaries of the Royal Commission must be judged to have won the day. On that basis the Committee should make up its mind.
§ Mr. Arbuthnot
It ill behoves another layman to say a word in this paradise for lawyers, but, having listened to the arguments from both sides, I cannot help feeling that we should be mistaken to take a definite decision tonight. I appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to say that he will have a look at the problems again.
I think we all recognise that there are hardships, on whichever side of the fence one comes down. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be the last person to wish to come down on one side of the fence or the other without having given very serious thought to the points of view which have been put forward. I hope he will say that he will look at this again to see whether it is possible to take into account the arguments which have been put forward in the sense opposite to that in which he expressed himself. We all realise the difficulties, because we are in the same difficulties ourselves, but I hope he will be able to agree to consider the matter again.
§ Question put,That those words be there added:—
§ The Committee divided:Ayes 144, Noes 192741
|Division No. 130.]||AYES||[9.35 p.m.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Braddock, Mrs, Elizabeth||Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)|
|Albu, A. H.||Brockway, A. F.||Deer, G.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Dodds, N. N.|
|Allen, Schotefield (Crewe)||Burke, W. A.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Champion, A. J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Bonn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)||Chetwynd, G. R.||Edelman, M.|
|Benson, G.||Clunie, J.||Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)|
|Beswick, Frank||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Blyton, W. R.||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)|
|Boardman, H.||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Cove, W. G.||Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Finch, H. J.|
|Fletcher, Eric||Lawson, G. M.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Ledger, R. J.||Randall, H. E.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Rankin, John|
|Gibson, C. W.||Lindgren, G. S.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Cordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Logan, D. G.||Rhodes, H.|
|Grey, C. F.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)||MacColl, J. E.||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||MacDermot, Niall||Ross, William|
|Griffiths, William (Exchange)||McInnes, J.||Royle, C.|
|Hale, Leslie||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mahon, Simon||Steele, T.|
|Hannan, W.||Mainwaring, W. H.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)|
|Hastings, S.||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.||Stonehouse, John|
|Hayman, F. H.||Mason, Roy||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Mltchison, G. R.||Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Monslow, W.||Stross, Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)|
|Holmes, Horace||Moody, A. S.||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Houghton, Douglas||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Mort, D. L.||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Moyle, A.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Mulley, F. W.||Thornton, E.|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Viant, S. P.|
|Hunter, A. E.||Oliver, G. H.||Weitzman, D.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Orbach, M.||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Paget, R. T.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Pargiter, G. A.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Parker, J.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Parkin, B. T.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Johnson, James (Rugby)||Paton, John||Woof, R. E.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Pentland, N.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Kenyon, C.||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|King, Dr. H. M.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Altken, W. T.||Cunningham, Knox||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)||Currie, G. B. H,||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Davidson, Viscountess||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount|
|Arbuthnot, John||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)|
|Ashton, H.||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Hope, Lord John|
|Atkins, H. E.||Doughty, C. J. A.||Hornby, R. P.|
|Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Horobin, Sir Ian|
|Barber, Anthony||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence|
|Barlow, Sir John||Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N)||Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)|
|Barter, John||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Howard, John (Test)|
|Beamish, Maj. Tufton||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Finlay, Graeme||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Fisher, Nigel||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Fort, R.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Black, C. W.||Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Body, R. F.||Freeth, Denzil||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)|
|Boothby, Sir Robert||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Joseph, Sir Keith|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Gibson-Watt, D.||Keegan, D.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Glover, D.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Godber, J. B.||Kershaw, J. A.|
|Braine, B. R.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan||Kirk, P. M.|
|Brooman-Whlte, R. C.||Goodhart, Philip||Lagden, G. W.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Cough, C. F. H.||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Bryan, P.||Graham, Sir Fergus||Leather, E. H. C.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Leavey, J. A.|
|Butler) Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron walden)||Green, A.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Cart, Robert||Gresham Cooke, R.||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)|
|Channon, Sir Henry||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Gurden, Harold||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Cooke, Robert C.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||McAdden, S. J.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Mckibbin, A. J.|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||McLean, Neil (Inverness)|
|Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hesketh, R. F.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfleld, W.)|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Partridge, E.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Maddan, Martin||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Storey, S.|
|Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Pott, H. P.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Marshall, Douglas||Powell, J. Enoch||Teeling, W.|
|Mathew, R.||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Temple, John M.|
|Maude, Angus||Price, Henry (Lewlsham, W.)||Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.|
|Mawby, R. L.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Thornton-Kemsley C. N.|
|Medlicott, Sir Frank||Ramsden, J. E.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Ridsdale, J. E.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Rippon, A. G. F.||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Robson-Brown, W.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Nabarro, G. D. N.||Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Nairn, D. L. S.||Roper, Sir Harold||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Neave, Airey||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &Chr'ch)||Russell, R. S.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Oakshott, H. D.||Sharpies, R. C.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Shepherd, William||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Page, R. G.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.