HC Deb 05 July 1960 vol 626 cc342-55
Mr. Diamond

I beg to move, in page 28, line 29, to leave out fifth day of April, nineteen hundred and sixty and insert: twenty-sixth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-five ". Clause 30 refers back to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1955, and the effect of the Clause is to amend that Act. I will therefore refer the Committee to Section 4 of the 1955 Act and remind them that this was the first of many occasions—no doubt there will be many more in the future—when the Committee had to deal with dividend stripping. The method then adopted was to say that the dividend should be regarded as a trading profit and be brought into account in computing profits. That has continued and there is no problem about it.

The 1955 Act limited the kind of shares on which dividends had to be so brought into profit to shares acquired after the 26th day of October, 1955, and not more than six years before the date on which the dividend becomes payable. That was the original position in 1955. We start with the date of that Act, in October, 1955, and we limit it for six years from the date on which the dividend becomes payable.

Under Clause 30 of the current Finance Bill the Government propose, very properly, to omit this reference to six years, because the Government have realised that when one is getting something for nothing it is no great privation to have to wait for six years and a day to get it. This bright thought has at last penetrated the Government's mind and they are realising that such people have been avoiding the impact of this Section by waiting for six years because when one is making a profit of the colossal dimensions involved one does not mind waiting for six years. During the Committee stage discussions I quoted one transaction involving £4 million of tax-free capital profit. From what the Chancellor says, one knows that this device has cost the Revenue something like £100 million in respect of what is already known and excluding what is not known but what will come to the attention of the Government later.

It has occurred to the Government that it is worth while for people to sit down quietly and wait for six years and a day for profits amounting to £4 million. It may be a great privation to the ordinary citizen, but he is prepared out of a patriotic sense and because he is a law-abiding citizen to wait for six years and a day to collect £4 million. The Government have realised this and, therefore, they are amending the 1955 legislation by saying that no matter how long people have to wait for a dividend, they cannot avoid the impact of the 1955 legislation by merely postponing the date; because whatever period elapses before the declaration of the dividend, it will be brought into tax.

8.45 p.m.

The Government are proposing to alter the relevant date in the 1955 Act to 5th April, 1960. In the Amendment, which I put strongly before the Committee, I suggest that the original date should stand. That is the extent of the point I am asking the Committee to be good enough to give attention to. There is no question of retrospection whatsoever if the anti-tax avoidance Clause is left in its original form as regards the date. Just be- cause the period of waiting has now been extended from six years to infinity there is no earthly reason for saying, I am sure the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), who has strong views on this topic, will agree, that there is an element of retrospection in saying that this exclusion of the six years' limit should apply only to shares acquired after the new Measure comes into force.

There is no element of retrospection because the six years will not have expired. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, six years from October, 1955, brings us to October, 1961. We are legislating for the period of 1961 onwards and we are legislating in June and July of 1960. I therefore strongly suggest, and mention this in case it should be put as a ground of reply, that there can be no element of retrospection and no justification for refusing the Amendment on those grounds.

Having dealt with it in the negative way and said that there is no case for refusing the Amendment, I say there is every case for accepting the Amendment. It was wrong of the Government in the first place to imagine for a moment that people would not be prepared to wait more than six years for such a juicy reward. Of course they are prepared to wait six years and the Government have now realised it. They should, therefore, leave it at that. The alteration of the six years' limitation was a wise one, but any further alteration is most unwise. This unwisdom would be removed by accepting the Amendment.

Sir E. Boyle

I have listened with attention to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond). I cannot agree with him that the acceptance of this Amendment would not involve retrospective legislation. It seems to me that clearly it would, in the most naked way possible. Section 4 of the 1955 Act specifically stated that these provisions were not to apply where the shares to be stripped had been held for more than six years.

We may have been right or wrong in doing that. We need not argue the past again, but that was what the Act specifically stated. Therefore, all those who acquired shares before the beginning of this year were entitled to assume that there could be no question of the application of Section 4 to the stripping operation being carried out after the six-year period had elapsed. To accept the Amendment would be certain to extend retrospection in those cases in such a way as is most objectionable to a large number of hon. Members in the Committee.

I do not propose to argue the point at length. We have argued this matter of retrospection in the past on a very large number of cases. In our view, there is a very considerable difference between the sort of retrospection which would be involved in this Amendment and the sort which would be involved in the Whitworth Park Clause of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchison

Is not this provision of the 1955 Finance Act the very one on which the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, when he was holding the office which the hon. Gentleman now holds, made an intimation which was regarded by some people at any rate as a promise of retrospective legislation in certain circumstances?

Sir E. Boyle

It was perfectly true and, as a Treasury Minister of those days, I take a special share of responsibility, that a statement was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but the Finance Bill of 1958 has intervened in the meantime and a statement was made on this matter by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on that occasion. The Government in no way want to run away from the fact, which is perfectly true and I make no apology for it, that on this matter the policy of the Government changed between the statement made by my right hon. Friend in 1955 and the Finance Bill of 1958.

Mr. Diamond

Is it not the case that the opinion of his right hon. Friend changed between the introduction of the Budget of 1958 and the introduction of the Finance Bill in 1958?

Sir E. Boyle

I am not talking about the opinion of my right hon. Friend. I am talking specifically about the policy of the Government, of which my right hon. Friend is a part. The policy of the Government on this matter was laid down clearly during the debate. I remember exactly what happened in that year, as the hon. Member will. The policy of the Government was laid down quite clearly in the Finance Bill of 1958, and it is on that policy that we take our stand now. I am bound to say that, judged by that policy, I have no doubt whatever in advising my hon. Friends to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison

The Financial Secretary may have no doubt, but nor have I in the opposite sense. As he confirmed, this is the other provision in connection with which this undertaking or intimation, call it what we will, was given by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to us on this side of the Committee, and always has seemed, to have said quite clearly that if these provisions were not sufficient, retrospective legislation would be introduced. Therefore, if this were a case of retrospective legislation, I think that we could rely on what was then said. We are told that it is a case of retrospection, because people may have made certain arrangements—I do not know what the arrangements would be—and may be entitled to expect that things would stay as they are.

Am I entitled to expect that the Estate Duty levied on my estate when I die, as no doubt I soon shall, will be that which is at present current, or am I not entitled to expect that this is a matter subject to changes of policy? If we are to found all this on what people are entitled to expect, what on earth are they entitled to expect about the Government's policy on retrospection? Let us look at the position. In 1955 the Government were prepared to introduce retrospective legislation. Then, when the matter arose in 1958 at the time of the Budget, the Government—because, after all, in these matters the Chancellor speaks for and is the Government—were prepared to introduce retrospective legislation. But when we came to the Finance Bill of that year, the policy of this weathercock Government turned right round and they were no longer prepared to introduce retrospective legislation.

We all know and always have known the reason for it. The reason was that between the Budget and the Finance Bill, the Chancellor was unable to stand up to the 1922 Committee. It is just as simple as that. If we are to found the provisions on people's expectations, what on earth are they to suppose, in this world of changing legislation, is the weight to be attributed to Governmental policy at any given minute after that show-up? I have never heard a thinner case put forward.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

The hon. and learned Gentleman must not say that again.

Mr. Mitchison

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), but the trouble lies with the Government. They put forward the thinnest possible case. I would not have thought it possible to put up a thinner one, and yet the next time they put one up, it is an even thinner case. It does not depend on me.

This seems to me to be an absolutely right and reasonable Amendment. The objections to it are completely unconvincing, even if there were no question of changes in Government policy. So far as I can see, there is no retrospective legislation involved at all, and no one in this country is entitled to assume that the current fiscal provisions will stay for ever. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide in support of this Amendment.

Mr. Milan

What the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said will apply only to those who have been indulging in this activity subsequent to 1958. Taking his argument at face value, people who indulged in this activity between October, 1955 and 1958, must have known, when they did it, that they were incurring the danger of being subject to retrospective legislation. In fact, it is not retrospective legislation at all, because the six months' period, even from October, 1955, has not expired; but at the least in those transactions between 1955 and 1958 there must have been the expectation that retrospective legislation would be introduced.m

Sir E. Boyle

Not retrospective legislation to nullify the effect of Clause 4. When my right hon. Friend in 1955 gave the warning which has been mentioned, no one had any reason to think at that time that the Government would necessarily alter the six-year rule, and it would be a totally unreasonable use of retrospective legislation, even apart from the point of principle, to use it when amending a Clause which the Government passed in the very Finance Bill to which the hon. Member referred.

Mr. Mitchison

What was said on that occasion was that, if the provisions then enacted were insufficient, others would be introduced with retrospective effect. They have proved to be insufficient, at any rate to the extent of £4 million and of the many other millions of pounds which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) mentioned.

Mr. Millan

If what my hon. and learned Friend said is correct, it seems to me that what was said in 1955 was the clearest warning to dividend strippers that if their activities could not be curbed with the six-year limitation, then retrospectively there would be put into operation legislation which would curb their activities. I read the report of the debates on the 1959 Finance Bill, and it seemed to me to be the Government's clear intention that dividend stripping, as it was taking place at that time, should be caught by the new legislation. The Government were giving the clearest warning to dividend strippers that their activity would have to cease.

If, in those circumstances, people persisted in dividend stripping, then it seems to me that it is quite disingenuous of them to look at the Finance Bill as it would be amended if this Amendment were accepted and to complain that that introduces an element of retrospective legislation. The Amendment would simply be discharging the warning which the Government gave in the clearest possible terms in 1955. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept it.

However strong in principle may be the arguments against retrospective legislation, we do well to keep in mind that we are dealing not with bona fide commercial transactions but with disreputable transactions the main aim of which is the avoidance of taxation liability. Principle apart, there is a considerable difference between retrospective legislation which is dealing with genuine commercial transactions and retrospective legislation which deals with that kind of disreputable transaction meant to be covered by the 1955 Finance Act. Bearing in mind that fact, and the kind of transaction with which we are dealing, and the warning given in 1955, I cannot see why it is not consistent for the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay

Will the Financial Secretary think again on this issue? He has told the Committee that the Government are completely on the run in the face of tax dodgers. It was a well-established principle, right up to the Finance Bill of 1958, that if a Treasury Minister gave a warning on a certain date that if a practice were continued there might subsequently be legislation to stop it retrospective to that date, then the Government wore quite justified in introducing retrospective legislation in that sense.

Sir K. Pickthorn

It was not well established.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Jay

As the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) knows, this principle was followed by Sir John Simon, as Chancellor, by Mr. Neville Chamberlain, as Chancellor before the war, and by Sir Stafford Cripps, as Chancellor after the war. I should have thought that to be good enough authority for all parties in this Committee. That principle was accepted by the present Chancellor when he introduced the 1958 Finance Bill. It was only during the Committee stage on that Bill that he went back on that well-accepted principle.

The Government are now not merely giving way on that precedent, in the face of the tax dodgers, but are going further. They now tell us that, in spite of all these warnings, if a transaction had been entered into by dividend strippers with the intention of evading the will of Parliament, and if it had been done before the passing of that Act, nevertheless it would be retrospective legislation to say that the tax should be paid at a date subsequent to the passing of the Act. That seems to be carrying the definition of retrospective legislation, even if it were not tax evaders with whom we were dealing, to absolutely fantastic lengths.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that it would be as reasonable for me to say that because, two years ago, I contracted to receive a cer- tain income from some one, and because the Government two years later raised the rate of Income Tax, it was restrospective legislation, and I should not be required to pay the tax. This has been carried to the most ridiculous lengths. It simply means that the Government are prepared to give way in the face of demands from tax dodgers that we on this side certainly cannot accept. I should like the Financial Secretary—or perhaps, the Chancellor—to tell us whether this is their considered view, and whether they are determined to resist this Amendment.

Mr. Diamond

I must say, with all the restraint I can muster, that I regard this as an utterly preposterous attitude for the Government to adopt, and in the greatest possible contrast to the helpful and co-operative attitude the Financial Secretary and the Solicitor-General have just been displaying towards the jobbers' racket with which we have just finished dealing.

We must remember—and I think that, as well, the present Minister of Housing when Financial Secretary was also involved in making the statement on this—that, at the time, there was the clearest possible intention on the part of the Government, clearly stated, to stop dividend stripping. They said that that was what they intended to stop, and that they intended to stop it in the particular way in which they introduced the legislation in 1955.

They need not rely on any question of retrospection. They said that they were out to stop dividend stripping, and later said that they would introduce retrospective legislation—and they did. Why did they run away from that retrospective legislation? "Because," said the Chancellor, "this is going outside the scope of that warning." The retrospective legislation, as introduced in a relevant Section of the 1958 Finance Act, was alleged, quite correctly, to go outside the warning because it included something in the 1955 Act and something beyond it. The two were, unfortunately, merged together. That was the justification. It was not that the Government had gone back on their warning, or that they did not want to stop dividend stripping in this way. They merely went back on their retrospection because they said that the retrospective legislation would affect something beyond the point where the warning had reference.

What are we getting to now? Let us remember what dividend stripping is about. It concerns a person who devises a method of putting a shovel into the Treasury, filling it with golden coins and bringing it out again. He creates no benefit, no wealth, no asset of any kind. He merely engages in a device as a result of which he becomes the richer and the rest of us become the poorer. It is as simple as that.

The whole country is against this. I thought that the Government were against it. Yet, notwithstanding the brave words they used at the time, they are now saying, "We think that because the burglar who came into the Treasury with his shovel, ready to push it in, had the expectation that he had only to sit on it for six years when it was full, he should be entitled to sit on his shovel and all he has to do is wait the remainder of the six years".

That is utterly preposterous. It is not sufficiently strong to put it as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done, as if it were a question of earning a salary and being promised an income. It is engaging in a transaction. It is a sordid transaction to begin with, but not quite an illegal transaction. Here the Government are upholding the rights of the perpetrator of such an action. They are upholding the rights of someone who enters into a transaction of that kind because he could rely on a six years' wait. I only wish that I had ten votes in the Division Lobby.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Question is—

Mr. Mitchison

Are we to have no answer from the Government? A good deal has been said since we had the first answer from the Financial Secretary, and we found it an unconvincing answer. Since then he has been asked several pertinent questions. The Committee is entitled to answers to those questions. Is it still said that this is retrospective legislation? Is that the defence of the Government? Do they pay no regard to what happened in 1955 and 1958, or are they so ashamed of it that they do not want to discuss it?

Sir E. Boyle

I will reply briefly to the last two questions the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me. First, we still think that this is retrospective legislation, because of the answer I gave earlier. The hon. and learned Gentleman then asked me, "What about what was said in 1955?". I will repeat what I said in an intervention when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) was speaking. The warning given by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government on that occasion was in this form: If clever people should discover ways and means of getting round this legislation — the Government will not hesitate to stop any such loophole by further legislation and to make such legislation retrospective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1955; Vol. 547, c. 1022.] In my earlier reply I said—I stand by this—that Government policy on this matter was designed in 1958, but I quite agree—I make no apology this evening for the fact; I honestly admit it—that Government policy on this matter changed between 1955 and 1958. Quite apart from that, one must remember that it was the same Clause to which my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government was referring that brought in legislatively the six-year limitation. My right hon. Friend gave that warning, but I do not believe that anybody reading the debates could reasonably be expected to think that the warning could apply to the six-year limitation.

Therefore, quite apart from the general objection which we on this side have to retrospective legislation, it would be particularly unjustified on this occasion to make this Clause retrospective. It is for those reasons that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Jay

Can the Financial Secretary tell us whether, on the principle of giving a warning and then introducing retrospective legislation, he himself agrees with the Government's policy as it was stated in 1955 or as it was stated after 1958? What is his own view?

Sir E. Boyle

I will state my own view. Government policy was quite clearly stated in 1958. As a member of the Government at that time, I took my full share of responsibility for it, as I do to this day. Quite apart from the general statement of policy which was made in that year, for the reasons I gave just now it would be particularly unjustified to make Clause 30 retrospective this year.

Mr. Jay

Does the Financial Secretary agree with Government policy as it has developed since 1958, or does he not?

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:——

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 162.

Division No. 129.] AYES [9.10 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Green, Alan Nugent Sir Richard
Allason, James Hall, John (Wycombe) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Alport, Rt. Hon. C. J. M. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Amory, Rt. Hn. D. Heathcoat (Tiv'ton) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Page, A. j. (Harrow, West)
Arbuthnot, John Harris, Reader (Heston) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Atkins, Humphrey Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Partridge, E.
Balniel, Lord Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Barber, Anthony Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Peel, John
Barlow, Sir John Hay, John Percival, Ian
Barter, John Hendry, Forbes Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Batsford, Brian Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pilkington, Capt. Richard
Beamish, Col. Tufton Hirst, Geoffrey Pitman, I. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hobson, John Pitt, Miss Edith
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Hocking, Phllip N. Powell, J. Enoch
Berkeley, Humphry Holland, Phllip Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biggs-Davison, John Holt, Arthur Prior, J. M. L.
Bingham, R. M. Hopkins, Alan Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bishop, F. P. Hornby, R. P. Proudfoot, Wllfred
Bossom, Clive Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Rawlinson, Peter
Bourne-Arton, A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Box, Donald Hughes-Young, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Brewis, John Iremonger, T. L. Robinson, sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Robson Brown, Sir William
Brooman-White, R. Jackson, John Roots, William
Browne, Percy (Torrington) James, David Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bryan, Paul Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Scott-Hopkins, James
Bullard, Denys Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Sharples, Richard
Butcher, Sir Herbert Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Shaw, M.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron walden) Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Simon, Sir Jocelyn
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Skeet, T. H. H.
Chataway, Christopher Kerby, Capt. Henry Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Kerr, Sir Hamilton Smithers, Peter
Cole, Norman Kershaw, Anthony Spearman, Sir Alexander
Collard, Richard Kirk, Peter Speir, Rupert
Cooper, A. E. Kitson, Timothy Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Leavey, J. A. Storey, Sir Samuel
Cordle, John Leburn, Gilmour Studholme, Sir Henry
Corfield, F. V. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Costain, A. P. Lilley, F. J. P. Tapsell, Peter
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Llnstead, Sir Hugh Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Litchfield, Capt. John Temple, John M.
Critchley, Julian Longbottom, Charles Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Longden, Gilbert Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Crowder, F. P. Loveys, Walter H. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Cunningham, Knox Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Curran, Charles Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Currie, G. B. H. McAddam, Stephen Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Dalkeith, Earl of MacArthur, Ian Turner, Colin
Dance, James McLaren, Martin Turton, R. Hon. R. H.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia van Straubenzee, W. R.
de Ferranti, Basil Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute & N.Ayrs.) Vane, W. M. F.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Vickers, Miss Joan
Drayson, G. B. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Wade, Donald
Duncan, Sir James McMaster, Stanley R. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Eden, John Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Elliott, R. W. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wall, Patrick
Emery, Peter Maddan, Martin Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Maginnls, John E. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Farr, John Maitland, Cdr. Sir John Watts, James
Fell, Anthony Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Wells, John (Maldstone)
Finlay, Graeme Markham, Major Sir Frank Whitelaw, William
Fisher, Nigel Mariowe, Anthony Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marshall, Douglas Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Forrest, George Marten, Neil Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Wise, A. R.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Gammans, Lady Mawby, Ray Woodhouse, C. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok) Mills, Stratton Woodnutt, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas Montgomery, Fergus Worsley, Marcus
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Morgan, William Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Goodhew, Victor Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Geraid TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside) Nicholls, Harmar Mr. Gibson-Watt and
Mr. Chichester-Clark.
NOES
Ainsley, William Hilton, A. V. Owen, Will
Albu, Austen Holman, Percy Parker, John (Dagenham)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Houghton, Douglas Paton, John
Awbery, Stan Hoy, James, H. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, Norman
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Benson, Sir George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boardman, H. Hunter, A. E. Randall, Harry
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Rankin, John
Bowles, Frank Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Redhead, E. C.
Boyden, James Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Reynolds, G. W.
Braddock, Mrs, E. M. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Janner, Barnett Ross, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Short, Edward
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Skeffington, Arthur
Chetwynd, George Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Cliffe, Michael Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Craddock, George (Bradford S.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Small, William
Cronin, John Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Sorensen, R. W.
Crossman, R. H. S. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kelley, Richard Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kenyon, Clifford Steele, Thomas
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, S. O. (Merttyr) King, Dr. Horace Stones, William
Deer, George Lawson, George Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Delargy, Hugh Ledger, Ron Summerskill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Edith
Dempsey, James Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sylvester, George
Diamond, John Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dodds, Norman Logan, David Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Donnelly, Desmond Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter McCann, John Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacColl, James Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fitch, Alan McInnes, James Thornton, Ernest
Fletcher, Eric McKay, John (Wallsend) Timmons, John
Foot, Dingle Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Forman, J. C. Manuel, A. C. Wainwright, Edwin
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mapp, Charles Warbey, William
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Marsh, Richard Watkins, Tudor
Galpern, Sir Myer Mayson, Roy Wells, Percy (Favereham)
Glnsburg, David Mayhew, Christopher Wheeldon, W. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Melliah, R. J. White, Mrs. Eirene
Gourlay, Harry Millan, Bruce Whitlock, William
Grey, Charles Mitchison, G. R. Willey, Frederick
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Monslow, Walter Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Moody, A. S. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gunter, Ray Morris, John Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hale, Leslle (Oldham, W.) Mort, D. L. Winterbottom, R. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Moyle, Arthur Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mulley, Frederick Woof, Robert
Hannan, William Neal, Harold Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Phllip (Derby, S.)
Hayman, F. H. Oliver, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Herbison, Miss Margaret Oswald, Thomas Mr. Probert and Mr. Mahon.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.