Skip to main content

New Clause—(Valuation Of Assets)

Volume 439: debated on Monday 23 June 1947

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

(1) For the purpose of providing a proper and uniform basis of accounts, every Electricity Board shall, within twelve months after the vesting date, carry out a valuation of all the capital assets vested in the Board by or under this Act.

(2) The Minister shall, by regulations made before the vesting date, prescribe the principles upon which the valuations required by the last foregoing subsection are to be carried out.

(3) The regulations made in accordance with the last foregoing subsection shall prescribe rates of depreciation to be applied to the capital assets of every Electricity Board, and may prescribe different rates for assets of different classes.—[ Mr. R. S. Hudson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

On various occasions in the Standing Committee, and upon a later occasion to which it would be out of Order now to refer in detail, the Minister has, in effect, accepted the principle that the accounts of the new Central Authority and of its area boards should be presented in accordance with the best industrial and commercial practice. This new Clause is an attempt to complete the picture. We believe that if the public and Members of this House—and of future Houses, for that matter—are to carry out their duties intelligently and are to be able to assess properly the results not only from year to year but over a period of years—which is perhaps equally important—of the working of the experiment embodied in this legislation, the first essential is that we should know the value of the assets which are taken over by the authority when it starts. We should also know that proper arrangements are made for annual depreciation. A great many undertakings, especially those of local authorities, proceed by means of a sinking fund to pay off their loan charges. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is about to agree that it would be much more satisfactory if proper scales of depreciation were laid down and prescribed by the Ministry. We believe it is a sound idea that the assets should be valued. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that this would be a very long and never-ending job.

We have received the report of a committee which inquired into the gas industry, an analogous case. I have heard hon. Members opposite, when it has suited their purposes, quoting from this document. If the Parliamentary Secretary has read and digested it, he will remember that it made definite recommendations on the need for capital expenditure accounts being set out upon a uniform basis. It also went into the question whether or not valuations should be made at the commencement of the operation of a gas authority and the contributory area boards, and whether the valuation of those assets would be a very long job. The answer of that committee is:
"Inventories will require to be in considerable detail, but this is not a difficulty, since the only method of making the valuations is to work from the detail upwards to the total figure. The completion of these records is not such a monumental task as is sometimes supposed, and an established technique is available."
Fortified, therefore, with this definite opinion, we have put down the proposed new Clause. We earnestly hope that the Minister will see his way to accept it.

I support my right hon. Friend in his plea to the Government. This is a very big question. It is of vital importance not only that the accounts of nationalised undertakings should tell the truth, but that they should be known to have told the truth, and that people should know exactly on what basis the accounts are compiled. Any one with experience of compiling company accounts will know that a perfectly honest accountant, conforming to the best commercial standards, can make the accounts of a company look very different if he makes different assumptions when he values the assets, or applies different rates of depreciation.

All companies in this matter have different practices. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, certain rates of depreciation are allowed for Income Tax purposes, but it is unusual for a company in its published accounts to depreciate exactly at that rate. Most companies hold that the allowances given by the Income Tax Acts are not sufficient. They depreciate at a rate more than the allowances given, under those Acts. Some companies obviously have depreciated more than others. Therefore, the Electricity Authority will be faced with the situation that they will take over assets of precisely equal intrinsic value which are valued in different balance sheets upon quite different bases. It is perfectly correct by the best commercial standards to depreciate at a greater rate than one is allowed under the Income Tax Acts. Many companies would have gone "bust" if they had not done so.

As I understand it, in the case of municipal electricity undertakings, rates of depreciation are laid down by the Minister of Health, different rates being laid down according to the precise thing that is being depreciated. We are anxious that the assets taken over shall be valued upon a uniform basis and that that basis shall be generally known, that annual rates of depreciation shall be laid down at appropriate rates, and that those rates shall be known. Everyone in the country will then be able to find out how the accounts are drawn up and will know that the truth is being told—or at any rate they will know on what basis the accounts are drawn up. If that is not done, there will be great variation between the rates of earnings shown by some boards, as some of them will take over assets at a lower valuation than others. We shall have no true comparison between the boards.

I do not believe that to secure this uniform basis will be an intolerable task. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the Heyworth Report, and particularly to paragraph 282, where stress is laid upon the necessity for capital expenditure accounts being set out on a uniform basis. That can be done only if there is a valuation of the capital assets. It is particularly important that earnings shall be given upon a uniform basis; that can be done only if depreciation is on a uniform basis.

The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) rightly quoted my right hon. Friend as having declared himself strongly in favour of the clearest possible presentation of accounts. Indeed, full provision for that is made in the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We go rather further than the mere presentation of accounts, because there is laid down in Clause 40 in some detail—perhaps not as great detail as some hon. Members would like—the practice which is to be pursued in the matter of charges to revenue account. The proposed new Clause is not concerned simply with proper presentation. It proposes three things: that within 12 months of the vesting date every electricity board shall carry out a valuation of its capital assets; that the principles of such valuation are to be laid down by the Minister in regulations made before the vesting date; and that those regulations shall prescribe the rates of depreciation to be applied to the capital assets of the board, though not necessarily the same rates for all of them.

The question we have to consider is whether this new Clause is necessary and practicable. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has a charming way of saying, when he knows one is going to argue something, that he hopes one will not do so. He is quite entitled to do that, but I am bound to say in all seriousness that the task of a complete physical valuation of all the assets in this industry is far more formidable than the right hon. Gentleman and his friends seem to appreciate. In my view it is quite out of the question that any valuation of this kind could possibly be done within a year. If one is to judge by our experience in the transfer of the coal industry assets, certainly it is a far longer job than that. I do not imagine that the Opposition would be satisfied—no one would be—with merely accepting the book value of the assets as they stand in the existing balance sheets. Obviously that would be very little guide in the matter. If one went further and called in outside experts to place precise values on everything in the industry or to adopt some standard rate of depreciation and apply it to the cost of the assets, it would mean a most formidable task. It would mean researches into the original cost of everything and into what was spent on it. That would happen in connection with every little item in every undertaking. There can be no doubt that this would involve a most tremendous use of manpower. At the end of it should we really have gained a great deal?

I concede to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that it is desirable that the position of the different area boards in relation to one another should be made as clear as possible. I do not think there is any quarrel between us about the desirability of introducing in due course standard rates of depreciation to be applied by the area boards. That is probably a desirable thing, but I am bound to say that I do not see that it is necessary to have this tremendous elaboration of assets in order that we may have the proper comparison which has been mentioned. If the hon. Member was thinking in terms of comparison with the final financial position of the different area boards, one has obviously to take into account not only the extent to which they depreciate their assets but also, for instance, the amount which they are expected to pay to the Central Authority by way of a contribution to servicing of stock which will have been issued by way of compensation and by way of meeting the local authority loans.

I do not feel that there is really any necessity for anything as elaborate as this. I am advised—we do not decide these matters without expert advice—that there is no need for this elaborate valuation at once of the capital assets in order that the accounts may be properly kept. In any case, I do not see how we can possibly decide precisely what policy to adopt in this matter, at least until after the vesting date. It would be extremely difficult for us to make regulations at this stage when we do not know precisely what all the practices are in this industry which would be satisfactory. This is essentially a matter—I put it in all seriousness to the Opposition—which must be left until after the vesting date and which should be left not to the Minister—this is a case where I feel my right hon. Friend had better be kept in the background—but to the Central Authority to decide when they know what the practices are—there are many different practices—and let them lay down, if they wish, the principles which the various area boards should follow.

5.45 P.m.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is like when he is being funny, but he has just told us that he is "in all seriousness." What does the hon. Gentleman mean by his last two or three sentences. He is assured by the experts. He says that there is no need for this. What are they experts in? Are they experts in law or in the production of electricity, or what is it that they are experts in?

Experts in accountancy are not really relevant to the main point here. The main point here is that we are engaged in what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen continually tell us is a great social and Socialist experiment. That experiment is quite worthless unless one knows early before one begins the experiment what one has to pay for the crucible. Of course, it is going to be easy enough for anybody in two or three years' time to say, "Look, how well we are running this"—whatever "this" is. In the case of electricity it is easy to see that if one starts off with assets which are down on one's books at a price only half what they are really worth, the whole experiment will be quite worthless. One really must know what the values of the assets are on the vesting date. How he can tell us in all seriousness that though this ought to be done, it certainly ought not to be done before the vesting date, I really cannot understand. The whole experiment ceases to have any value unless it is before the vesting date that we find out what are the things and what are the money values of the things that have been taken over by the new concern.

That is what the new Clause asks for. Nothing the hon. Gentleman said has any relevance to that request. It is all very well to say that the task of valuation is far more formidable than was suggested from this side of the House, but unless the task of valuation is possible, the experiment cannot have any meaning at all. No doubt the task is formidable—the hon. Gentleman said it would take a year—and perhaps the most formidable thing about it would be guessing the value of the Dalton £as the year went on. I did not understand at all—here I apologise; when I say that I did not understand, I do not mean anything ironic—what was meant by saying that this could not be done until we had been in the concern a long time and fully understood the practices. I think the hon. Gentleman meant the practices of various electricity producing and supplying companies about depreciation. I do not see how that is necessary preliminary knowledge to what we are asking here. One does not have to know at what rate things have been depreciated in the previous five years in order to value what things are worth now and to decide at what rate they shall be valued in the next five years. I agree that it would be a simple matter of arithmetic to value if depreciation had been uniform and if all the prices were known. One would only have to work out what it cost to buy things and it would be a simple arithmetical sum. But nobody from this side of the House has suggested that. Therefore the argument that it cannot be done until hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in the industry a long time and learnt the practices does not seem to have any relevance at all.

The main point with which I began and with which I will now finish is this. Surely it has to be reasonable, and nobody would think it was reasonable for anybody else except the State to start on a great producing and trading venture without making them get quite clear to themselves and to those to whom they have to be responsible at the beginning what are the assets they start with and what is the value of those assets. Nobody would for a moment suggest that any other organisation should start off without that and, so far, we have really had no serious argument why the State should be given this privileged position.

The Parliamentary Secretary made out that, this valuation would be a formidable affair and if it were to start a year after the vesting date, it might be, but what happens on the vesting date? The Authority takes over these statutory undertakings. They are listed in the new Schedule which the right hon. Gentleman introduced. They are all known companies, they have all operated electricity undertakings for a great number of years, and they have all kept books. Nobody has ever suggested that any of them are irresponsible and do not know the value of their assets. What is easier than to take over the books of those concerns, as they are taken over, and make a summation of the whole thing over the course of the succeeding year, writing down where necessary on a proper rate of depreciation, to achieve the result asked for in this new Clause, namely, the valuation of assets a year from the vesting date? There is no formidable task in that. The accounts are there, and valuations are all made, and every item of equipment, which the hon. Gentleman said will have to be looked up by the Electricity Authority to see where it came from, is already in the accounts. I should not think there was six weeks' work in it. Why not look at it from that point of view? It is a perfectly reasonable new Clause, and the Government ought to examine it afresh.

Of the many speeches I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, I have never heard one which seemed to me to go so completely outside any reasonable argument. In the first instance, he more or less admitted to this House, in refusing to accept this Clause, that the Government have no idea of what assets they are taking over. They have no idea of the value or the extent of them, and all they could offer was that they would be able to tell us in two or three years' time what they had bought. If any arguments could be produced to show the folly of trying to take over an industry like this on Stock Exchange values, the argument advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon demonstrates it beyond all possible cavil. Here he is telling this House that, just because of this method of breaking all traditional commercial practice, he has now to admit that some £700 million of our money is to be spent on acquiring assets of which the Government have no definite knowledge whatever. If that is a creditable statement to make to this House, I do not know what is a discreditable one.

If the Minister is serious that accounts will be kept in the best commercial standards, how can he do that unless he knows what he owns? How is it possible for him to present any accounts to this House which will bear five minutes investigation if he says, "These are all based on the assumption that something I have is worth what I may be able to confirm to you in several years' time, but, for the moment, this is the best we can do." Is that the way in which to treat these millions of pounds of public capital to be invested in electricity?

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to mention Clause 40 of the Bill and to say that at least, as far as the revenue account was concerned, a great many extra stipulations beyond what we demand, were made. Can he tell me one of those which is possible to undertake unless the capital value of the assets taken over is known? I would draw his attention to lines 31 and 32 of page 51 of the Bill which say:
"for depreciation and obsolescence of assets or renewal of assets."
How can any board make proper provision for obsolescence or depreciation unless it knows the value of the assets? On the face of it, it is a clear contradiction in terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) said that many companies adopted different practices. That is true, depending on their expansion programme and on many other things. It will be found, when the Government come to take over these companies, that there are many different standards. Assets in one company and another will bear no relation to each other simply because of the conditions of the particular company. How will any area board correlate those assets and get a standard rate of depreciation and obsolescence? Unless some such Clause as this is put in the Bill it makes an absolute mockery of what the Minister has said on Clause 41, that accounts will be laid in accordance with the best commercial standards, and above all, it makes an absolute mockery of the whole of this Bill, because the Government are simply saying, "We are spending several hundred millions. We do not know what we are buying but we will let you know in three years' time." If that is what is happening, the sooner we put in a Clause like this, the better.

Perhaps i may intervene, having had some experience of electrical supply companies. I cannot help thinking that the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion has not been well advised. After all, the accounts of most of the authorised undertakings of this country are subject to two audits—one by their own appointed chartered accountants, and the second by auditors appointed by the Minister. The Electricity Commissioners for years past have had a standard schedule of rates of depreciation with which the undertakings have been supposed to comply. If they have complied with those depreciation rates, then the book value of the assets in their accounts today is beyond reproach. On the other hand, if the sum set aside for depreciation is not equal to the Commissioners' schedule, then presumably that figure is down and the balance not provided for can be written off the assets. Those are the facts, and I should have thought that of all the undertakings in the country, electricity supply undertakings were about the easiest of all to take over for the reasons I have given.

The difficulties that may arise appear to be these. Take the cost of Battersea and the Barking Power Station, and compare them with what Bankside will cost. There will be in three or four years' time perhaps 200,000 kilowatts in each of those two stations built at a most of £20 a kilowatt and, at Bankside, perhaps costing £50 a kilowatt. They will have very wide valuations for the same amount of current capacity, and if you were to replace today the generating set in any one of the existing power stations, say Manchester, with one of larger capacity, the new set might be installed at more than twice the capital cost of the old one. That is one difficulty about valuations: what is the replacement value of the existing stations today? There is a second difficulty, as I see it, which is this: under the terms of acquisition the State may be acquiring one undertaking for which it is going to pay in electricity stock, we will say, £4 million. Its written-down value in the books on the basis I have described may be £6 million.

6.0 p.m.

How are those assets to be valued? There might be another case in which electricity stock has amounted to £4 million, but the assets may have been written down to £3 million. How are they to be valued? Those are the difficulties, not the difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out. It is "as easy as pie," if I may use a vulgar expression, to value the assets held by an electricity undertaking today. There is no difficulty whatever in doing so. I would undertake, if the books were presented to me, to present a valuation of all the electricity undertakings in the country in the next six weeks. If I were asked to say what is the true present day value of those undertakings, that is quite another story. We come back to this matter in the later Clauses of the Bill, but I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we must have a better explanation of the difficulties in arriving at an earlier valuation than he has given us this afternoon. I say that to him, with great respect.

I am in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) on the question of the valuation of the assets. I do not think that there will be a great deal of trouble there, nor need it take a long time. So far as the power companies are concerned, it should be quite simple; the records are very full. I really cannot understand how we are to proceed with proper accounts unless we know the value of the assets we are taking over. What figure is to be taken? Is it to be the price that was paid to the particular undertaking, or is it to be the value appearing in the books at the time they were taken over? It is necessary to be able to calculate what depreciation is, and that cannot be done unless the starting point is known. The only way is to have a complete valuation, as suggested in the new Clause. Otherwise how is it to be ascertained whether the particular undertaking or area is being run profitably or not? It cannot be done unless the valuation of the assets at the start is known.

Division No. 270.]


[0.5 p.m.

Amory, D HeathcoatGrimston, R. V.Nicholson, G
Astor, Hon. MHannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Noble, Comdr A H. P.
Baldwin, A EHare, Hon. J H (Woodbridge)Nutting, Anthony
Baxter, A. B.Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt Hon Sir CPeake, Rt Hon O
Beechman, N A.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountPeto, Brig C H M
Birch, Nigelhope, Lord JPickthorn, K
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Walls)Hudson, Rt Hon R S. (Southport)Prior-Palmer, Brig O.
Boothby, RHutchison, Lt -Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)Raikes. H V
Bower, NJeffreys, General Sir GRamsay Maj S
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L WReed, Sir S (Aylesbury)
Bracken, Rt Hon. BrendanKeeling, E. HRobinson Wing Comdr Roland
Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. GKerr, Sir J. GrahamRoss St. R D (Londonderry)
Buchan-Hepburn P. G TLambert, Hon GSavory, Prof. D. L.
Byers, FrankLancaster, Col C. GShepherd, W S. ()
Challen, CLindsay, M (Solihull)Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Channon, HLipson, D L.Smith E P (Ashferd)
Clarke, Col. Lucas, Major SirSpearman, A. C M
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. GLucas-Tooth, Sir HStanley, Rt Hon O
Conant, Maj. R J. E.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon OStoddart-Scott, Col M
Corbett, Lieut -Col U (Ludlow)McCallum, Maj. DStrauss, H G. (English Universities)
Crosthwaite.Eyre, Col O EMacdonald Sir P (I of Wight)Sutcliffe, H
Crowder, Capt John EMackeson, Brig. H RTaylor. Vice Adm E A (P'dd'l'n. S.)
Darling, Sir W YMcKie I H (Galloway)Thorp, LI -Col (A F
Digby, S WMacLeod, JTouche, G ii
Dodds-Parker, A DMacmillan, Rt Hon Harold (Bromley)Wadsworth, G
Duthie. W SMacpherson, N (Dumfries)Walker-Smith, D
Eiliot, Rt Hon WalterManningham-Buller, R EWard, Hon. G. R
Fraser H C P (Stone)Marples, A. EWheatley Colonel M o
Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)Marshall, D (Bodmin)Willoughby de Eresby Lore
Galbraith, Cmdr T DMarshall, S. H (Sutton)
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)Mellor, Sir JTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, LadyMorris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.
Gridley, Sir ANeven-Spence. Sir B

Again, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, there is the question of replacement. Unless the assets are valued at the vesting date, there will be a terrific jump in charges sometime later, and that will not be a very happy position for anyone to be in. I cannot imagine how any reasonable accounts are to be prepared unless there is this valuation. I would come back to the question I asked previously: What figure is to be taken? There has to be some figure. What figure have the Government in mind? I hope that the Government will not dodge this issue, because if they do, a very obvious conclusion will be drawn from that. The Government are taking over these undertakings at Stock Exchange prices. We know very well they are getting a very good bargain, and an even better bargain out of the municipalities. Unless the Government are prepared to face this issue, the country will know, without anything more having to be said, that not only have the shareholders and the stockholders of the power companies been swindled, but that so also have the municipalities.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes. 215.


Adams, Richard (Balham)Hardy, E. A.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Alpass, J. HHamson, JRegers, G H S
Attewell, H. CHasting, Dr SomervilltRoyle, C.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. RHerbison, Miss MSargood, R
Austin, H. LewisHicks GScollan, T
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Hobson, C RScott-Elliot, W
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. JHolman, PStackleton, E. A. A
Barstow, P. G.Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)Sharp, Granville
Barton, C.House, G.Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)
Bcchervaise A. Hoy, JSkinwell Rt Hon E
Berry, H.Hudson, J H. (Ealing W.)Shurmer P
Beswick, FHughes, Hector (Aterdeen, N.)Silverman, J (Erdington)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Hughes, H D (Wolverhampton, W)Simmons, C. J
Blackburn, A. RHynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Skeffington-Lodge, T G
Blenkinsop, A.Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)Skinnard, F W
Blyton, W R.Janner, B.Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Bottomley, A. G.Jay, DPTSmith, S H. (Hall, SW.)
Bowden, Flg.Offr. H. WJeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, SE)Snow, Capt. J. W
Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)Jones, Rt. Hon. A C (Shipley)Sorensen, R. W
Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)Jones, D T (Hartlepools)Soskice Maj. Sir
Braddock, T (Mitcham)Keenan, WSparks, J A
Stamford, W
Bramall, E. A.Kinley, J.Stephen, C.
Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)Laver, S.Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Brown, George (Belper)Leonard, WStross, Dr. B.
Brown, T J (Ince)Leslie, J R.Stubbs, A E.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. TLewis, A. W J (Upton)Summerskill, Dr Edith
Burden, T WLindgren, G. SSwingler, S.
Butler. H W. (Hackney, S)Lipton, Lt. Col MSylvester, G. O.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.Longden, F.Symonds, A L.
Chamberlain, R. AMcAdam, W.Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)
Champion, A. J.McEntee, V. La T.Taylor, R J. (Morpath)
Chater, D.McGhee, H GTaylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Chetwynd, G. RMack, J D.Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)
Cobb, F. A.McKay, J. (Wallsend)Thomas, I O (Wrekin)
Cocks, F SMackay, R W G (Hull, N W)Thorneycroft, Harrty (Clayton)
Collindridge, F.McLeavy, FThurtle, Ernest
Colman, Miss G MMacpherson, T. (Romford)Titterington M
Comyns, Dr. L.Mainwaring, W HTolley, L
Daggar, GMallalieu, J P. WTurner-Samuels, M
Daines, PMartin, J H.Usborne, Henry
Davies, Ernest (Enfield;Mathers, S.Vernon, Maj W. F
Davies. Harold (Leek)Medland, H. MViant, S. P.
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S. W)Mellish, R. JWallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)Messer, FWallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E)
Deer, GMiddleton, Mrs. Warbey, W. N.
Diamond, J.Mikardo, IanWeitzman, D
Dodds, N. NMitchison, G. RWells P L. (Faversham)
Donovan, TMoody, A SWells, W. T (Walsall)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwieh')Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham. E)Westwood, Rt. Hon J
Dumpleton C WMoyle, AWhiteley, Rt. Hon W
Dye S.Neal, H (Claycross)Wigg, Col G. E.
Edelman, MNichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B
Edwards, A (Middlesbrough E)Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Wilkes, L.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)Noel-Baker, Capt. E (Brentford)Wilkins, W A.
Edwards, M (Caerphilly)Noel-Buxton, LadWilley, F. T. (Sunderland)
Evans, E (Lowestoft)Oldfield, W HWilley, O. G. (Cleveland)
Ewart, R.Orbach, M.Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
Fanhing, W. JPalmer, A M fWilliams, W. R. (Heston)
Follick, M.Parker, J.Williamson, T
Fcot, M MParkin, B TWillis, E.
Gaitskell, H T. NPaton, J. (Norwich)Wills, Mrs. E. A
Ganley, Mrs. C. SPearson, A.Woodburn, A
Gilzean, A.Peart, Thomas FWoods, G. S
Glanville, J E. (Censett)Piralin, PWyatt, W
Goodrich, H E.Popplewell, EYates, V. F
Gordon-Walker, P. CPritt, D NYoung Sir R (Newton)
Grierson, EPursey, Cmdr H.Younger, Hon Kennett
Guest, Dr. L. HaderRandall. H EZilliacus, K
Gunter, R. JRanger, J
Guy W H.Rees-Williams, D. RTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hale, LeslieReeves, JMr. Joseph Henderson and
Hall, W G.Ridealgh, Mrs MMr. Hannan.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.Robens. A.