Mr. H. Wilson
I beg to move, in page 24, line 10, to leave out from the second "and" to the end of the Clause and to add:the words 'and no such advance shall be made after the end of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine' shall no longer have effect".The purpose of the Amendment is to make permanent, and not merely confine to one year, the provision introduced in the Finance Act, 1956, that borrowing by a nationalised industry should become a Treasury responsibility rather than be done by the boards themselves on the open market.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments we had in the 1956 debate. It will be recalled by those hon. Members then present that the debate began at 3 o'clock in the morning and continued until well after six o'clock. There was a 1084 Tory back bench revolt. It was an extremely virulent one, though not pursued into the Division Lobbies. In the course of the debate, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Prime Minister, gave what seemed to me, and I am sure to all except the Tory rebels, very cogent reasons why it was right for him to introduce the measure which we were then debating. He did, however, put a limit of two years on that provision. Some of his Conservative critics were opposed to the whole thing root and branch. They used it as a means of making an attack on the nationalised industries, but obviously it became necessary at the end of the two years for the then Chancellor, who is now the present Prime Minister, to decide what should be done.
Last year, in the Finance Bill, 1958, the present Chancellor rather timidly and with the pussy-footed attitude which he occasionally shows on these matters, decided to continue the Measure for one year only. He now wants in the present Finance Bill to continue it for a year only. We all know the reason. We know that the Chancellor is convinced by arguments which convinced the present Prime Minister, that this is the right way of handling this problem of financing borrowing, but he is too afraid, I think, of the criticism of his own back benchers to have the guts to come here and move a Clause which will give the Treasury permanent powers or at least lasting for some time in the future. Therefore, he carries on for a year at a time until he is finally put out of his misery.
I will briefly remind the Committee of the argument used by the Prime Minister when this proposal was first included in a Finance Bill. Until 1956, the nationalised industries operated direct. They did a lot of borrowing from the joint stock banks, and we all recall how the monthly and three-monthly figures of the joint stock banks at that time were very much distorted by the changes in the level of the overdrafts of State industries, which made it very difficult for the joint stock banks and the City to form some view of what was happening to the general level of bank overdrafts.
On top of that, the nationalised industries were permitted to issue stocks against a Treasury guarantee but with 1085 a sense of timing which, so far as we know was not completely under the control of the Treasury. Referring to that particular arrangement—that is the arrangement which had applied to all nationalised industries except the National Coal Board, which has always been Treasury financed—the then Chancellor said in a speech made with remarkable clarity and lucidity between 5.30 and 6.0 a.m. on that occasion—and I am glad that we are debating this matter tonight at a more reasonable hour—thatThere are two great disadvantages in that arrangement,"—that was the arrangement in force until the 1956 Finance Bill—particularly in the present circumstances. The first is that, by and large, official support can only he given to these stock issues by borrowing the necessary funds on Treasury Bills. That is the only way in which we can give support to those issues when they are not fully taken up in the market, and the continual issuing of Treasury Bills adds to the liquidity of the banking system, and so often to the difficulties of operating monetary control. That is the first difficulty in the present circumstances.Then the right hon. Gentleman went on:The second is that frequent issues of the stock of these boards, which are made by Statute under Treasury guarantee and therefore involve Government credit, have to be made at inconvenient times; not when it would suit the market, but at the particular time when a particular industry has reached the limit of its borrowing powers from the joint stock banks. The fact that they are going on at a time necessary to them, but not suitable for the broad management of Government credit and Government funding, prejudices the general Government programme of borrowing and refinancing and funding.I ask the Committee to accept the view that since the Exchequer has in present circumstances to bear the burden of providing at least the bulk of the capital finances of these industries, it is better, in the wider interests of the management of Government credit and funding Government debt, that the Exchequer should be in control of the whole operation.To summarise what the then Chancellor said, he agreed with the words I had used a few minutes earlier when I said that the motive in the Chancellor's mind for making this change was that it made it very difficult for the Treasury to "rig the market", and I went on to say that 1 was using the phrase in the best sense of the word.
The then Chancellor took up that phrase arid thought that it was also 1086 desirable for the Treasury to "rig the market", and he made clear that he was also using that phrase in the best sense of the word. He then summarised the position by sayingThere are, therefore, two purposes: first because at present the monetary control is made more difficult because of the method by which we have to support these borrowings, and, second, because the timing of them is inconvenient in the situation in which we are today, but from which we may hope to escape."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 527–8.]That was his summary of why it was necessary in 1956.
I ask the Chancellor, does he really feel that the situation is so different now or likely to be so different next year or the year after that it is essential to take up the time of the Committee and of the House with these one-year extensions of the powers granted by the House in 1956?
For example, taking the then Chancellor's perfectly accurate statement that as this involved a lot of borrowing on Treasury bills, official support could be given to stock issues only by borrowing on Treasury bills, does not the Chancellor agree that this is still a problem? Does he not further agree that if there were any question of going back to direct borrowing, to quote the then Chancellor:… these borrowings have to be made at inconvenient times; not when it would suit the market, but at the particular time when a particular industry has reached the limit of its borrowing powers from the joint stock banks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 527–8.]Is that not just as likely now and likely to be just as essential particularly when we are trying to treat this difficulty both between deflation, unemployment and the prevention of the growth of inflation in the future? Does not the Chancellor agree that it is essential for the Treasury to be able to "rig the market" in the best sense of the word and that the question of timing is of all importance in this matter?
The Prime Minister emphasised in 1956 that the Government were facing some fairly heavy funding operations, and from that point of view also it was essential to have control of the timing of large transfers of borrowing of this kind. Does not the Chancellor agree that he has some very heavy re-financing operations between now and the end of 1087 the present financial year? On top of that, as the Chancellor himself told us, he has a deficit of £720 million in his Budget which has to be financed. Of course, that deficit has been increased since his Budget speech by a number of additional commitments, some of which have been accepted with the support of the whole House, including £30 million for cotton.
Therefore, with this kind of problem continuing from year to year, surely the Chancellor will agree that it is essential to have this control. He told us last year that he wanted the control for a year. Now he tells us he wants it for a year again. He must recognise the problem with which this country will be faced for a long time ahead, namely, that of steering an even course between deflation and inflation. We know that the Chancellor's success in steering an even course is not always as good as he would like it to be. On behalf of this side of the Committee I express our deep sympathy on the fact that the Chancellor found himself on the rocks last Sunday. Perhaps that underlines to him the importance of the oft-repeated warning we have issued in successive economic debates about the need—whether for a motor car, a yacht, or the national economy—of both having a steering mechanism fitted and using it.
The Chancellor has always rejected this argument as regards the national economy and it looked as if he was pursuing the effects of his own philsophy last Sunday and found himself on the rocks. We were sorry, and we are glad to see him safely restored to us, but we do not want to see the national economy on the rocks as a result of not using the steering mechanism with which the economy is, or can be, provided.
It was obviously the view of the then Chancellor that this was an essential part of the steering mechanism. It is obviously equally the view of the present Chancellor. It was so a year ago, and it is so now. This is an essential part of the steering mechanism, but, as I have said in this debate, we fear that the right hon. Gentleman will be stabbed in the back by some of his terrible supporters who kept the then Chancellor out of bed until 6 o'clock in the morning. I am thinking of the noble Lord the Member 1088 for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who is not here tonight, and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who struck fear and terror into the heart of the then Chancellor. It is clear that the thought of these fearsome supporters caused the Chancellor to put down this Clause in terms of a twelve months' continuance.
If the Chancellor could convince us that he can see any immediate prospect of such a change in the situation that it will not be desirable permanently, or quasi-permanently, as an instrument of Government planning to keep this kind of control, it would not be necessary for me to move this Amendment. I hope the Chancellor will be specific in defending this Clause and will make it plain that he only wants the powers for one year.
If there were any danger that the present Chancellor will be introducing the next Budget, it would be a fair assumption to make that he will be coming along in a year's time for the same powers to be extended for twelve months more. I have just seen the Chancellor turn round uneasily to see if his fearsome friends are behind him. They are not. The chocolate soldier from Kidderminster has not turned up; he did not turn up for the Purchase Tax debate. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, is not here. In fact, if I sit down quickly and if the Chancellor will get up quickly, he might accept my Amendment quickly and relieve himself of any more stabs in the back for all time, or at any rate for as long as he is Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory)
I have not a great deal to complain of in the right hon. Gentleman's description of the situation and of the fairly narrow difference between us. If it is not out of order, I would like to thank him for his reference to my week-end exploit in investigating the bed of the sea. I think it is known in scientific circles as oceanography. As regards running on the rocks, I have always understood that one's recreational activities should be as different as possible from one's daily activities.
It would be out of order to follow this matter any further, much as I should like to do so.
I will refer to only one other small point male by the right hon. Gentleman when he was referring to the deficit following the Budget of this year. He referred to the new cotton proposal. I would not accept that all the expenditure under that proposal will appear as expenditure this year. Certainly, it will be nothing like the figure he has mentioned.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the advantages of our present procedure in present circumstances. I have no doubt that in the present circumstances the position is substantially the same, and the arguments for our present procedure are as strong as they were when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister first introduced it in 1956. But having said that, and having acknowledged that in present circumstances there is no question that this is the most convenient system, may I say that I do not regard it as perfect and that I should like to find that circumstances permitted us to have arrangements under which the nationalised industries raised their longterm finance on the market without Government guarantee. But that would not be feasible under present circumstances, and I do not know when circumstances will arise in which it would be feasible. I think that the only difference between us is whether these arrangements should be made permanent or whether we should leave them as they are for the present to permit the Committee to return to the subject next year and consider the situation then.
If the general situation then is found to be as it is now, I have little doubt that we should wish to propose that the present arrangements should continue. But at present I am not sure that it would be a sensible thing to establish them on a permanent basis until we can see the future a little more clearly. I do not think that it involves the consumption of a great deal of time on the part of the Committee for this matter to be brought before it. For those reasons, I think that again this year it would be a sensible thing that these powers should be continued for one more year and that the matter should be brought before the Committee again, 1090 and I recommend the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
Mr. H. Wilson
In a characteristically agreeable speech, and with great courtesy, the Chancellor has made my case for me far better than I succeeded in doing myself. He has spoken in favour of the Amendment. He has said that in present circumstances he feels that this is the policy which we ought to follow. He went on to build up a little pipe dream about a siutation in which the nationalised industries could do their own borrowing without Treasury guarantee. But the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that before that point could be reached the nationalised industries would have to be free from Government interference in matters of price policy. Not only the Coal Board but—this is very relevant, and becoming more relevant every day—the British Transport Commission would have to be free to charge rates which would enable it to pay its way. It would also mean the renationalisation of road haulage and other things which would make it possible for a large part of the system to pay its way. It would be out of order for me to pursue these fascinating subjects, but the Chancellor knows that perfectly well. Indeed, he has admitted it in terms, as he will see when he reads HANSARD tomorrow.
The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot see any prospect of that situation arising in the near future. I should not think he expects it to happen next year. I am certain that he does not, and if I am wrong I will give way to him. He does not expect that next year, or perhaps for some little time after that, the nationalised industries will be in a position to borrow in the open market on terms which the Government could accept. It is not making the case for going forward for another year, by which time he hopes to be able to propose something different, if it is not expected that the circumstances will change.
The only argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman for rejecting this Amendment is that perhaps someone will have thought out something new by that time. Why have not they done it? The Prime Minister certainly did not intend his original proposal to last more than two years without careful thought being given to the subject. I am sure that 1091 careful thought was given to the subject by the Chancellor and his advisers a year ago before he risked incurring the wrath of his hon. Friends from Kidderminster and Dorset, South and other hon. Members—no, his hon. Friends from Kidderminster and Dorset, South are still not in the Chamber and it is absolutely safe for the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. I do hope that he will.
We may assume that the matter was carefully thought out, and if any alternative proposal could have been worked out, I am sure it would have been by the right hon. Gentleman's extremely competent advisers at the Treasury. But they did not. They did not think of any way. The right hon. Gentleman told us last year that it was only for 12 months. This year they would have thought out an answer, surely, if an answer could have been thought out. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to find an answer to this, if there is an answer. If an answer could be found next year, I am sure that the Economic Secretary could have found one this year.
This is going on from year to year. The right hon. Gentleman is doing it, as
§ I have already stated, from fear of his Tory back benchers. I have held out to him the extremely alluring prospect that those Tory back benchers are not here tonight. The cat's away, the mouse can play. The right hon. Gentleman can accept this Amendment and so relieve himself and his successors of trouble for years to come. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this chance, which is very much in the interests, I am sure, of the Economic Secretary, who will appreciate this point. It will also be in the interests of the Treasury. We have all agreed that this is the best system in any foreseeable circumstances. I cannot see any reason why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it. If his hon. Friends were here, I could see a reason, but they are not.
§ I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say that he has been converted, if not by my eloquence at least by his own, and that he will accept the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 215, Noes 178.1095
|Division No. 127.]||AYES||[8.41 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Aitken, W. T.||Cooper-Key, E. M.||Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Green, A.|
|Arbuthnot, John||Corfield, F. V.||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)|
|Ashton, H.||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Balniel, Lord||Cunningham, Knox||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Barlow, sir John||Currie, G. B. H.||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Barter, John||Davidson, Viscountess||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)|
|Batsford, Brian||D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Deedes, W. F.||Harvie-Watt, Sir George|
|Bell, Ronald (Buoks, S.)||de Ferranti, Basil||Hay, John|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Doughty, C. J. A.||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Bidgood, J. C.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Duncan, Sir James||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Duthie, W. S.||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Body, R. F.||Errington, Sir Erie||Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Erroll, F. J.||Holland-Martin, C. J.|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Holt, A. F.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Fell, A.||Hornby, R. P.|
|Braine, B. R.||Finlay, Graeme||Horobin, Sir Ian|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert(Harrow, W.)||Fisher, Nigel||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence|
|Brewis, John||Fletcher-Cooke. C.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Freeth, Denzil||Howard, John (Test)|
|Browns, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Gammans, Lady||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.|
|Bryan, P.||Garner-Evans, E. H.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||George, J. C. (Pollok)||Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Gibson-Watt, D.||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Glover, D.||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)||Godber, J. B.||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Cole, Norman||Gower, H. R.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Nairn, D. L. S.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Nicholls Harmar||Speir, R. M.|
|Joseph, Sir Keith||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt n, S.)|
|Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Noble, Michael (Argyll)||Stanley, Capt. Hon, Richard|
|Kershaw, J. A.||Oakshott, H. D.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Kirk, P. M.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Lambton, Viscount||Osborne, C.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Leavey, J. A.||Page, R. G.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Storey, S.|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Partridge, E.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Peel, W. J.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Temple, John M.|
|Longden, Gilbert||Pitman, I. J.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Loveys, Walter H.||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Pott, H. P.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Powell, J. Enoch||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Macdonald, Sir Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.||Wade, D. W.|
|MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)||Profumo, J. D.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|McMaster, Stanley||Ramsden, J. E.||Wall, Patrick|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Rawlinson, Peter||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Maddan, Martin||Redmayne, M.||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Remnant, Hon. P||Webster, David|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Renton, D. L. M.||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Marlowe, A. A. H.||Ridsdale, J. E.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Roper, Sir Harold||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Mathew, R.||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Woollam, John Victor|
|Mawby, R. L.||Russell, R. S.|
|Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R,||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Sharples, R. C.||Colonel J. H. Harrison and|
|Morrison, John (Salisbury)||Shepherd, William||Mr. J. E. B. Hill.|
|Abse, Leo||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Finch, H. J. (Bedwellty)||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Logan, D. G.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Fletcher, Eric||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Awbery, S. S.||Foot, D. M.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Forman, J. C.||McCann, J.|
|Balfour, A.||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||MacDermot, Niall|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)||McInnes, J.|
|Benson, Sir George||Gibson, C. W.||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Beswick, Frank||Greenwood, Anthony||MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Mahon, Simon|
|Blyton, W. R.||Grey, C. F.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)|
|Boardman, H.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mann, Mrs. Jean|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mayhew, C. P.|
|Bowles, F. G.||Hale, Leslie||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Boyd, T. C.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Moody, A. S.|
|Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth||Hamilton, W. W.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hannan, w.||Mort, D. L.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hastings, s.||Moss, R.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Hayman, P. H.||Moyle, A.|
|Burke, W. A.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Mulley, F. W.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Herbison, Miss M.||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hilton, A. V.||Oliver, G. H.|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Oram, A. E.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Holman, P.||Owen, W. J.|
|Carmichael, J.||Holmes, Horace||Paget, R. T.|
|Champion, A. J.||Houghton, Douglas||Paling, Rt. Hon. w. (Dearne Valley)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Hoy, J. H.||Palmer, A. M. F.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Clunie, J.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Parker, J.|
|Coldrick, W.||Hunter, A E.||Paton, John|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Popplewell, E.|
|Cronin, J. D.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Probert, A. R.|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Jeger, George (Goole)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)||Pursey, Cmdr, H.|
|Deer, G.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)||Rankin, John|
|Delargy, H. J.||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Diamond, John||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Dodds, N. N.||Jones, T. w. (Merioneth)||Rhodes, H.|
|Donnelly, D. L.||Kenyon, C.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Ross, William|
|Edelman, M.||King, Dr. H. M.||Short, E. W.|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lawson, G. M.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson).|
|Skeffington, A. M.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Slater, J. (Sedgefield)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)||Willey, Frederick|
|Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Sorensen, R. W.||Timmons, J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Usborne, H. C.||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Steele, T.||Viant, S. P.||Willis, Eustace, (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Stones, W. (Consett)||Warbey, W. N.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.||Watkins, T. E.||Woof, R. E.|
|Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)||Weitzman, D.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Swingler, S. T.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Sylvester, G. O.||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.