In computing the amount of the profits or gains of any person for the purpose of assessment to income tax under Case r of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act,1918, there shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3 of the Rules applicable thereto, he allowed as a deduction from those profits any legal or other professional costs and other expenses incurred in any year in connection with any successful appeal affecting the computation of profits chargeable to excess profits tax or the national defence contribution of any trade or business carried on by that person.
The provisions of this section shall with any necessary modifications apply equally to the computation of expenses of management in respect of which repayment of income tax is or may be made under section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1918.— [ Mr. C. S. Taylor.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."I apologise for the technical character of this Clause but the structure of taxation has become so complicated that even learned judges have found it difficult to determine some of the points of law brought before them on taxation matters. In fact, I feel that I should add my humble protest to the difficulty of understanding tax law. One learned judge observed in court that the Income Tax law was "quite enough to puzzle one's head off," while another said it was a crying scandal that legislation by which a subject is taxed should appear on the Statute Book in such an unintelligible form. That was Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the case of Lionel Sutcliffe Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. These taxation difficulties are not confined to the rich and prosperous companies, they equally concern the little man who carries on a business just round the corner, in fact they concern both the millionaire and the small man. Therefore I claim that though the wording of this Clause is technical, it concerns in many ways the smallest taxpayer. This Clause which is the first of two on the Paper dealing with this matter, is designed to give an allowance in computing Income Tax under Schedule D. Case I liabilities, claims for legal or professional costs and other expenses incurred by the taxpayer in prosecuting successful cases—and I ask the Committee to remember the word "successful" because it is a very material word in the new Clause—before Special Commissioners or the Board of Referees and if necessary the courts in respect of taxpayers' liability to assessment for Excess Profits Tax, and national defence contributions. The second Clause, which I understand is not to he called, but on which I understand discussion is allowable, is designed to give a similar allowance in computing the actual liability of the taxpayer to these taxes. Until now, it has been the practice of the Inland Revenue to disallow as deductions from profits for Income Tax purposes the costs and other expenses of appeals on the ground that such expenses are not expenses of earning profits, and thus they fall within—I am sorry to bore the Committee with lots of Schedules and Rules and this, that and the other—the prohibitions in the rules applicable to cases 1 and 2 of Schedule D. Income Tax Act 1918, and in particular Rule 3 which reads as.follows:
"In computing the amount of profits or gains to be charged, no sum shall be deducted in respect of—
I apologise as I say for the technical nature of this Clause but not for the necessarily technical wording and I look forward to the day when that wording can be simplified so that hon. Members can understand it. I must mention, however, that the Inland Revenue do allow deductions from profits for normal recurring professional costs, charges and expenses incurred by the taxpayer in settling his taxation liability with the Inland Revenue officials. It is also Revenue practice to allow costs on appeal to the Board of Referees where the taxpayer is successful in those cases which deal with the non-distribution of income by companies for Surtax purposes, and that is dealt with under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922. I feel that it is at least justice to allow, as a deduction in computing liability to income tax, any legal and professional charges, costs and other expenses in ascertaining the liability to Excess Profits Tax or National Defence Contribution, in the same way as such deductions are allowed in claims or actions relating to the settlement of war damage claims, deferred repairs claims or disputes about goods or services rendered, If a dispute occurs between a manufacturer and a customer about the type or quality of goods supplied, and the matter is not settled amicably outside the courts but is referred to the courts, the legal and professional costs of both the manufacturer and the purchaser of those goods are allowed for tax purposes. In the same way, if an engineer carries out a contract and the contract is not satisfactory, the customer can bring an action against the engineer, and again the costs of both the customer and the manufacturer are allowed as far as tax is concerned. Hon. Members will realise that this Clause is confined to successful appeals only, and the reason for confining it to successful appeals is to prevent a spate of frivolous appeals being made to the courts, which would take up a great deal of time and be a great expense. This is purely confined to the person who claims successfully and wins his action, and the costs of the action are allowed in regard to Excess Profits Tax or Defence Contribution assessment. The fact that appeals are often disallowed deters especially the smaller taxpayer, even though he and his legal advisers know that he has a good case, from making an appeal further, because he knows that the Inland Revenue, with their unlimited resources, can take him to the House of Lords and he may, in the costs incurred, lose all the benefit that his successful action may bring him.(a) any disbursements or expenses not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation."
It often happens that the taxpayer is compelled, willy-nilly, to agree to the decision of some official of the Treasury or of the Inland Revenue. He may be compelled to agree to a ruling which may at a later date be reversed or revised completely. I can assure the Committee that if hon. Members study the cases that have been successful before the Appeal Tribunal or before the courts, they will find that a great many taxpayers have been successful in prosecuting their claims against the Inland Revenue. For instance, there is a case I must mention of someone called Terence Byron which was before the courts. The plaintiff complained that he was not allowed to consider as working capital a cinema which had been bombed. He was successful all through the courts, and eventually, for E.P.T. purposes, he was allowed to consider the value of the cinema as capital employed in his own business, even though the cinema had been bombed at some previous date. He was still permitted to say that that cinema, or the original value of the cinema, was capital employed in his business, as far as E.P.T. purposes were concerned.
Turning to the second of the proposed new Clauses, which I understand it will be in Order to discuss with the first, it seems not only reasonable but quite equitable that with short-term taxes—we all hope that E.P.T. and N.D.C. will be short-term taxes—relief or allowance should be granted in respect of the ascertainment of taxpayers' liability, especially as it is governed by such complicated and, to the layman, quite unintelligible provisions. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer should welcome a certain number of appeals on these matters, as they might help to clarify the present unclear position about matters of taxation, and even if they relieved some of his officials from the voluminous work to which they are subjected at the present time.
I apologised at the beginning by saying this was a difficult matter. I will put it, if I may, very simply in this way: If a company makes £ 100 or £1,000 in E.P.T., or if a company is assessed at the rate of £100 or £1,000 for E.P.T. purposes, and if that company disagrees with the Assessors, that company has the right to appeal. The Inland Revenue with its great resources may take that company, sup- posing the preliminary appeals are.successful, up to the House of Lords. Surely, it is right that if that company is successful in the courts it should have the right to charge the legal and professional expenses against the E.P.T. assessment.
I support the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Clause. I have sat here today and yesterday watching the faces of the hon. Members on the Government side. I am very glad, indeed delighted, to see some representatives from Manchester, the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), and many other people who represent business interests—
Oh, no, I do not; I represent the working classes.
Unfortunately, a number of Members have gone nut, as they have done in the past undoubtedly, to tea, and this time I believe the tea party is in Downing Street. However, they come back at the call of the bell. They come back to the Division, and several of them at any rate are passing into the Lobbies on the instruction of the Government, who are quite determined that in no circumstances are they going to give way on any point in this Finance Bill. I hope, however, that they may do so in this case, largely because of the looks of sheer boredom that I see on the faces of so many Members opposite—sheer boredom with such difficult Clauses as the one which has been discussed during the last few minutes. Unfortunately, the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have not been able to see the looks on the faces of their back benchers.
On a point of Order. Has the speech to which we are listening any reference to the Clause under discussion?
I was hoping the hon. Gentleman would very shortly come to the point.
:I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to Come as quickly as possible to this particular point, which if it is difficult to the hon. Gentlemen on the Govern-Benches is obviously just as difficult to the ordinary back bencher and the ordinary citizen. They are themselves more confused today over Income Tax questions, than over anything else. The position is that any one who wishes to take up a case against the Government is concerned with the chances and the possibilities of winning the case, and is just as worried, trying to understand the vast number of Clauses and regulations connected with Income Tax. Is it not understandable that most persons, including big business and small business people, realise that even though they may be in the right, they may not be able to afford to take the risk of the Treasury suddenly raising a point which they would have to fight right up to the House of Lords.My hon. Friend who moved this Clause has shown us the complications of the situation and given details of the difficult problems which have to be dealt with. Surely the Government will feel that it is possible that something should be done in order to allow people to take up these cases, especially in regard to Excess Profits Tax. In regard to new Taxes judges themselves have said how difficult is the situation. Some one has to start a case and some one has to make a ruling. Why should not businesses be encouraged to bring up points on which a ruling would make things clearer. Another point is that these Clauses are not going to last for very much longer. I hope the Financial Secretary will answer me on the point whether the Excess Profits Tax provisions are going to last very long. If they are not going to last very long, we should get these things decided quickly, and the Government ought to encourage cases to be brought so that decisions can be made. All we ask is that the Government shall give the possibility that if a person succeeds in his appeal he will be left in a position in which he can claim the expenses against his liability for tax. That is what we are worrying about. I want to warn the Committee of the position into which we are being led. Finance is at the present time the most important thing in the country, and in a sense the Treasury governs the whole country. In the years before the war, I had an opportunity of studying very closely, for different bodies in this country, developments abroad, especially in Germany. I remember a well-known Social Democrat, who happened to be in Nazi pay, saying to me: "My position is this: I dare not do anything because I am not allowed enough money for myself, and if I try to be in any way independent, I shall be dismissed." We are slowly and surely being led into that situation. We are being caught financially so that nobody feels that he can afford to appeal against the Government. Soon nobody will be in a position in which he can actually take an independent line. If the Government are really serious in wanting this country to be free, independent and democratic, they should leave us the chance and opportunity of trying, if possible. to win cases and make things clear for the future.
:I earnestly appeal to the Solicitor-General to give consideration to a point which I think can be shorn of all technicality and put simply and shortly as a point of human justice. Here is a case in which a man is forced into extra expenditure, not by his own will, but by something which is proved afterwards to have been a mistake of the Government, and to an ordinary human being it would certainly seem that in that case a man should be allowed to charge that extra expense which has been forced upon him against the taxation which would otherwise be due. I think the strongest case lies in the second New Clause upon which, although we are allowed to discuss it, we are not going to Divide. Let us take a simple case. A man claims that his profit during the year has been £1,000, but the Treasury say it has been £2,000. The matter has to go through the process of law. In the course of that, out of that profit of £1,000 the man spends £500, or if he is particularly frightened about the case and employs the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), he probably spends the whole £1,000. What happens in the end? Thanks to the professional skill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he wins his case. It is established that £1,000 was the right profit. The Treasury then say, "We will let bygones be bygones, and still pretend you have got the £1,000 profit with which you started." In fact, the whole of that profit, or part of it, has been dissipated in proving against the Treasury that that was the profit. I am sure the Solicitor-General will have a magnificent legal defence. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be full of Treasury principles but I do not think the ordinary man would understand the reason for this action on the part of the Government which, if it were action taken by one section of the community against some other section, would be regarded as the very height of meanness.
This position has existed over a numberof years, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why previous Administrations, extending over some 40 or 5o years, have not seen fit to introduce such a just rectification in their Budgets.
Is this the new Socialist spirit? Are these the people who are going to put everything right? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If it has not been put right, make a start now.
If I may point what has been said, I would remind the Committee that the Act we are discussing is the Income Tax Act, 1918, and that that Act has remained unchallenged until today since 1918 so far as this particular feature is concerned. Now this matter is put forward as one of great injustice, and it is said that it is the urgent duty of a Socialist Government to reverse the position.
:We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at once. The Solicitor-General.
:Will the Solicitor General—
It is too late.
:So many of the appeals which have been launched this afternoon have been appeals on behalf of the small man, but this relates to the costs of an appeal in respect of Excess Profits Tax and—I want to be fair—National Defence Contribution as well. I would point out that the Rules under which these costs are not allowed as a deduction are the Rules which are embodied in the Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918. They lay down the principle, and the principle has never been challenged by any Conservative Government. The short answer to the case is that in this matter there is no sufficient reason for turning the Income Tax Act inside out and departing entirely from the principles contained in it. The hon. Member who moved the new Clause called attention to the fact that in one very special case, under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, the costs of appeals were allowed. That is a special case depending on its own circumstances. It relates to the case of a one-man company which has hoarded its profits and not paid them out. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to costs of appeals in actions between traders in relation to accounts. They are entirely different in principle from the costs of this sort of appeal.The reason why the cost of a successful, or indeed, an unsuccessful, appeal in relation to Excess Profits Tax is disallowed is because it is held, in accordance with the principle embodied in the rules, that it is not an expense which is incurred in getting the profit, whereas the expense of appeal in relation to a dispute between one trader and another is in a completely different category. Therefore, it is logical and reasonable in the one case that there should be a deduction and in the other case there should not. I Would remind the Committee that the very wide canvas upon which the picture was painted is wholly disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem. If you go to court and when you get to the Revenue judge or go to the Court of Appeal, or in the rare cases in which you do so, to the House of Lords, if you are successful, you are given an Order for taxed costs which should be reasonable, if not a complete reimbursement of expenditure, a very substantial part, and the greater part of them. You get them from the other side, and as the other side has the revenue, you have a very substantial defendant out of whom to get costs. I will put the case to the Committee in this way. If you allow costs of this sort on appeal under Excess Profits Tax, are you going to allow costs of an appeal in relation to claims under Schedules A, B, D and E? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] You cannot, as will appear from the 1918 Act, which has stood so long unchallenged, substitute a new one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is entirely in conflict. I listened with great attention to the speeches of those who support the Motion and the only arguments I heard were based on a very emotional claim. They were pressed on the footing that there was a gross injustice. There are many injustices but the Income Tax Act, 1918, is not the Act in which to remedy them. The remainder of the argument appeared to be that this was designed to protect the poor citizen, the lower income category citizen.
I did not mention anything with regard to the poor as against the rich citizen. I brought this forward as a point of justice, and I believe—hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not—that the rich are equally entitled to justice with the poor.
I want to make a further appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is nothing new. It has existed for years and has been a cause of great complaint in all quarters of the British community, whether they be rich people or poor. We have often heard of rich men obtaining an advantage over poorer people, in cases which have to go to the courts, by taking them, first of all, to one court where the rich person has lost his case; then taking them to the court of appeal, where the rich man has again lost his case; and then telling the poorer man, "I am now going to take you to the House of Lords." Although the poorer man has won his case in two courts, one after the other, the threat of going to the House of Lords and the expense involved has led to him abandoning his case. I put it to the learned Solicitor-General that that is precisely what happens under the present law. The Inspector of Taxes assesses a certain company to a larger extent than they believe they are entitled to be assessed. They appeal against it, and they win their appeal. It is taken to the second court, and again they win their appeal, but still the matter may go to the House of Lords, and they cannot go on with it. It is simply a matter of common justice, and it is only where an appeal is successful that there is any chance of it being used wrongly. In decency, it should be allowed.
:I only want to say a very few words in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. With regard to the threat of the House of Lords he is 15, 16 or 17 years out of date because you cannot go to the House of Lords with-out the leave of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords. Invariably, if the Revenue authorities want to take a matter to the House of Lords, to clear it up, they have to pay the costs. This is really the only Clause which has led to real passion on the other side. Apart from that, let us put it into its proper shape. If you go to the Court of Appeal, and, perhaps, even to the House of Lords, and you win, you will get your taxed costs. If you employ a reasonable, ordinary solicitor and counsel, the difference between the taxed costs and the actual bill will be small, and the cost of such appeals to the Justices are very small, relatively, when large sums are in issue, if you go about it in the ordinary way. lf, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for West Bristol (Colonel Stanley) was good enough to suggest, you employ extravagant counsel, then the passionate appeal from the other side is that the Government should finance your extravagance. I am not questioning them asking for it, but to talk about justice and decency is absurd.
The interlude to which we have listened seems to have very little relevance to the matter. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Clause under discussion. The only answer I could gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman who replied on behalf of the Government to the allegation that the Finance Bill is proposing to perpetuate an injustice, was that because an injustice had existed for some time it was no part of the Government's business to alter it. I do not think that is an argument which is acceptable to this Committee, and I very earnestly appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, if he cannot think of any better answer than that, whether he will not take the matter into consideration again. It is all very well for him to say the 1918 Finance Act has never been challenged. I should like to ask him the definition of the word "challenged "as used in that particular instance. It is quite true that it has not been amended in this respect, but it has been the subject of very many complaints at different times and in different circles, and, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) may say, this is a matter of substance and also of principle.The particular instances actually covered by the new Clause are matters of substance. We know more about it than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith because we only bring cases to his attention as a last resort, if we are not able to deal with them ourselves. I have never been able to understand what is the principle or the right of justice where by the Inland Revenue are entitled to make an assessment upon a taxpayer of this country, be. he large or small, and when it is ultimately proved, whether by going to the courts or by negotiations and convincing the Treasury, to be entirely without foundation, that there is no recompense and no recovery in any shape or form for the expense to which the taxpayer has been put in order to obtain the most elementary justice. Therefore, there is a matter of principle in this question and a matter of substance. The Government have given us no answer whatsoever, and I submit that the one analogous instance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause quoted was adroitly, though I am quite sure innocently, avoided by the hon. and learned Gentleman who replied for the Government—the instance of the War Damage Compensation case. You cannot argue that a war damage claim, the expenses in connection with which, I think I am right in saying, are allowable as expenses which have been incurred in making out the claim for war damage compensation, is a capital issue, and there is a precedent in that connection. There is the analogy, and the right hon. Gentleman particularly failed to deal with the one precedent, which is a precedent for this particular point, and I therefore ask him, in all seriousness, as a matter of right, justice and common sense, and of good legal argument, to reconsider the whole question.
I entirely disagree with what.has been said by hon. Members apposite in relation to this Clause, and I support the contention put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). First, I would like to point out that, in so far as any action is concerned, there would be not the slightest doubt that by far the major portion of the costs would be re-covered, and it would be absurd, of course, to suggest that those costs should not only be recovered but should be allowed for Income Tax purposes or other purposes relating to taxation. There would be a double deduction, and there is nothing in the Clause which suggests that that portion of costs which is recovered should still not be allowable in the calculation of the tax. Secondly, I want to point out that the comparison which has been drawn between the cost of recovery of war damage compensation and this particular case does not hold at all. In the main, the costs entailed in the preparation of accounts is allowed for tax purposes. The only difference that would exist, and does exist, is a difference between the amount that would be allowed on taxation and the amount that would be payable in respect of solicitors' and clients' costs, and of course, it is up to me, my hon. Friends and others in the profession to see that these are kept down as far as we can. There is one other point. The Clause, as a whole, as I am quite certain the hon. Member who proposed it will realise, cannot possibly stand, but will have to be amended in order to comply with the suggestion I have made myself that some of the costs are already allowable, and I am afraid that it is obvious that it is such a small matter that it should not be considered and the Clause should not be supported.
I rise to reinforce what has been said on this side of the Committee and to express surprise at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the course of this evening we, on this side of the Committee, seem to have been doing work which one would have thought would be welcomed by hon. Members opposite. In the past, when there has been talk about the courts of law being freely open to everybody, hon. Members opposite have not hesitated to say that they were about as free as the Ritz Hotel.
Does the hon. Member's party propose that this principle of payment of the costs of interpretation of an Act of Parliament should apply generally, and not merely to Income Tax cases, which involve, for the most part, the rich part of the community?
What is proposed in the Clause is printed on the Order Paper. What is being opposed by the Front Bench opposite is the principle behind this Clause, and the principle behind it is that it should not he the man with the longest pocket, who is able to get decisions in the courts of law. The remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr.Pritt)frankly gave me the impression that hon. Members opposite believe that no substantial injustice is being done in these taxation cases at the present time.I gave an example of the sort of thing which is happening now and which can put the taxpayer in a very difficult situation. A constituent of mine was having a dispute with the Special Commissioners of Income Tax on the point whether a sum of money could be regarded as income for one year, or as income spread over a number of years. It meant a matter of £50 to him. Apparently, the case had arisen both in Scotland and in England. In Scotland, it had found its way to the Court of Session, where a decision had been given unfavourable to my constituent. In England, in the same circumstances, the case had gone to the Court of Appeal, where a decision was given favourable to my constituent. These two courts and decisions mutually cancelled one another out, and it was only the House of Lords which could determine that case. The Special Commissioners chose to adopt the Scottish decision, which was favourable to the Treasury and unfavourable to the taxpayer. As my constituent said, in other circumstances, they might have chosen to adopt the English decision in a case in which it might be favourable to the Treasury, and unfavourable to the taxpayer. In this sort of circumstance, the ordinary citizen is faced with an absolute impasse that can only be determined by the House of Lords, and there should be means by which this sort of case can he determined at the expense of the State, and that is the point of view which we desire to urge on the Solicitor-General this evening.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 229.
Division No. 38.
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)||Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.||Pitman, I. J.|
|Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.||Haughton, S. G.||Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry).|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.||Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.|
|Baxter, A. B.||Herbert, Sir A. P.||Raikes, H. V.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland|
|Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel||Hollis, Sqn-Ldr. M. C.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley||Ross, Sir R.|
|Boothby, R.||Howard, Hon. A.||Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.|
|Bower, N.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Keeling, E. H.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.||Kerr, Sir J. Graham||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lambert, G.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Carson, E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Sulcliffe, H.|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.||Linstead, H. N.||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.|
|Cuthberl, W. N.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.|
|Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield||Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.||Turton, R. H.|
|Dodds-Parkar, Col. A. D.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Drayson, Capt. G. B.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Marples, Capt. A. E.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Erroll, Col. F. J.||Marsden, Comdr. A.||Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)||Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.|
|Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)||Maude, J. C.||Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)|
|Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir l. (Lonsdale)||Mellor, Sir J.||Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.|
|Gage, Lt.-Col. C||Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)||Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Gates, Maj. E. E.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.||Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.|
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
|Gridley, Sir A.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.||Mr. Drewe and|
|Grimston, R. V.||Osborne, C.||Major Mott-Radclyffe|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.|
|Adamson, Mrs. J. L.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Daines, P.||Hardy, E. A.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Alpass, J. H.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Haworth, J.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hewitson, Captain M.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Holman, P.|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.||Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Deer, G.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Baird, Capt. J.||Delargy, Captain H. J.||Hyr.d, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Balfour, A.||Dobbie, W.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Barstow, P. G.||Dodds, N. N.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.|
|Barton, C.||Douglas, F. C. R.||Janner, B.|
|Battley, J. R.||Driberg, T. E. N.||Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)|
|Belcher, J. W.||Dumpleton, C. W.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)|
|Berry, H.||Durbin, E. F. M.||Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitehin)|
|Beswick, Fit-Lieut. F.||Dye, S.||Keenan, W.|
|Binns, J.||Ede, Rt. Hon. j. C.||Kenyon, C.|
|Bfenkinsop, Capt. A.||Edwards, John (Blackburn)||Key, C. W.|
|Bottomley, A. G.||Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.|
|Bowden, Flg-OfTr. H. W.||Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||Kirby, B. V.|
|Bowen, R.||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Lang, G.|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Ewart, R.||Lavers, S.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exchge)||Fairhurst, F.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Farthing, W. J.||Levy, B. W.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Foot, M. M.||Lindgren, G. S.|
|Burden, T. W.||Foster, W. (Wigan)||Lipson, D. L.|
|Burke, W. A.||Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)||Lyne, A. W.|
|Byers, Lt.-Col. F.||Gaitskell, H. T. N.||McEntee, V. La T.|
|Champion, A. J.||Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Mack, J. D.|
|Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.||Gibson, C. W.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)|
|Clitherow, R.||Gitzean, A.||McLeavy, F.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Gooch, E. G.||Macpherson, T. (Romford)|
|Cobb, F. A.||Grenfell, D. R.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)|
|Cocks, F. S.||Grey, C. F.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)|
|Collick, P.||Grierson, E.||Mayhew, Maj. C. P.|
|Collindridse, F.||Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)||Messer, F.|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Mrddleton, Mrs. L.|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K.. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Gunter, Capt. Ft. J.||Mikardo, Ian|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)||Mitchison, Maj. G. R.|
|Monslow, W.||Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.||Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)|
|Montague, F.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Thomas, John R. (Dover)|
|Moody, A. S.||Rhodes, H.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Richards, R.||Thorneycroft, H.|
|Morley, R.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.||Tiffany, S.|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Robens, A,||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)||Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)||Rogers, G, H. R.||Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.|
|Murray, J. D.||Royle, C.||Walkden, E.|
|Nally, W.||Sargood, R.||Walker, G. H.|
|Neal, H. (Claycross)||Scott-Elliot, W.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Segal, Sq. Ldr. S||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.||Weitzman, D.|
|Noel-Buxton, Lady||Shurmer, P.||Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)|
|Oldfteld, W. H.||Silverman, J. (Erdington).||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Oliver, G. H||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Orbach, M.||Simmons, C. J.||Wigg, G. E. C.|
|Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Skeffington, A. M.||Wilkes, Maj. L.|
|Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Palmer, A. M. F.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Pargiter, G. A.||Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)||Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)|
|Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T..||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Paton, J. (Norwich)||Smith, T. (Normanton)||Willis, E.|
|Pearson, A.||Snow, Capt. J. W.||Wise, Major F. J.|
|Peart, Capt. T. F.||Soskice, Maj. Sir F.||Woodburn, A.|
|Perrins, W.||Sparks, J. A.||Wyatt, Maj. W.|
|Piratin, P.||Stamford, W.||Yates, V. F.|
|Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.||Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)||Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.|
|Popplewell, E.||Strachey, J.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Porter, G. (Leeds)||Strauss, G. R.|
|Pritt, D. N.||Swingler, Capt. S.|
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—
|Proctor, W. T.||Symonds, Maj. A. L.||Mr. Robert Taylor and|
|Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)||Mr, Joseph Henderson,|
|Ranger, J.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|