Skip to main content

New Clause—(Prohibition Of Tax-Free Payments To Members Of Boards)

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.

It shall not be lawful for an Electricity Board to pay to any member thereof remuneration free of income tax or of income tax other than surtax, or otherwise calcu-

lated by reference to or varying with the amount of his income tax or his income tax other than surtax, or to or with the rate or standard rate of income tax.—[ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

We now return to the subject of emoluments after a short excursion, no doubt due to the hurry with which the Amendments had to be placed upon the Order Paper and the inefficiency of their marshalling. We come back to a subject upon which the Minister addressed us at some length at an earlier stage. This new Clause seeks to ensure the best commercial practice and is in conformity with Clause 32 of the Companies Bill. When we were arguing the previous new Clause, the Minister indicated that the provisions which we sought to insert were unnecessary. He said that no nationalised company would do anything of the kind which was being suggested; no director existed and even a member of the board could not be supposed to receive any loan or consideration from the board, as might have been done in the evil days of commercial companies. I do not suppose that he will claim that in this case. This is a practice which is not only well known in Government circles but which is growing in Government circles. We had for a moment or two the honour of the presence of the Prime Minister here. I am sorry that he is not present when we are discussing a practice under which, quite rightly, he has greatly benefited by the payment of a great proportion of his remuneration tax free.

6.15 p.m.

It is, of course, inevitable that such things must take place because nowadays, under the penal scale of taxation adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is impossible for a company or an enterprise to remunerate its high officers sufficiently. Therefore, by one means or another, attempts are made to get round the difficulty. In the case of Ministers, motor cars are provided, flats are given. The Minister of Fuel and Power looks a little annoyed because, of course, we know that he does not have a flat. But that does not apply to the Foreign Secretary or the holders of other tied houses of one kind or another under the Government. It is clear, therefore, that all should be on the same footing here. If it is prohibited in the case of companies, it must also be prohibited in the case of members of boards. I take it that the Minister will have no objection to accepting this proposal, nor will the learned Solicitor-General if he is going to reply, because it is one which, first, is in accordance with best commercial principles; second, the practice is a growing danger; and, third, it is being increasingly pressed upon the attention of commercial and Government circles owing to the trend of present taxation.

It is a proposal which must be dealt with by statute and not by assurances such as the Minister was willing to give, I do not know whether he will try to give us assurances in this case but, if he does, clearly his assurances would carry less weight on this occasion because this is a practice with which he and his colleagues are familiar. Therefore, I hope very much that it will be possible for the Minister to shorten our discussion on this occasion by allowing that what is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander, and that such payments should be prohibited not merely in the case of companies but in the case of members of boards such as he is about to set up under this Bill.

This new Clause simply seeks to prevent what is quite often sealed in various agreements for payment of remuneration, namely such agreements as provide for payment of such a sum as, after deduction of tax, shall represent a particular figure. That is not an uncommon form of agreement. One has seen it quite often. It has absolutely nothing to do with providing flats or motor cars. That is not paying remuneration. The new Clause is designed to exclude agreements with members of the boards in the form which I have indicated, and nothing else. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman sought to justify it by referring to the analogy of the Companies Bill. Really, that is no analogy at all. Here we are dealing with a limited number of persons, the members of the boards. When one is talking of the Companies Bill, one is talking of all directors, that is to say, the great number of directors who are appointed to the boards of companies. The object of the Clause in the Companies Bill is to protect shareholders who will not know what directors are being paid, because they will not know the gross sum of the directors' income and, therefore, will not be able to tell what is represented by a sum which is such and such a figure after payment of Income Tax.

Those circumstances do not obtain in this case. We are talking about members of boards. They are a limited number appointed, subject to the exceptions laid down in the Clauses of the Bill, by the Minister himself. The Minister will state the salary that he proposes to pay them. He has no intention of paying them salaries in the form which I indicated a moment ago. He has no intention of paying them under the terms of an agreement whereby they are to receive so much as represents a particular sum after payment of tax. He has no intention of engaging them upon those terms. He will state the salaries which he proposes to offer. There is no general body of shareholders to protect; this is simply a case of a limited number of people. I am not talking about the directors of companies. I am talking about a limited number of persons appointed by the Minister, who is responsible for their salaries, and he will, as he said, declare what their salaries will be, and they will not be salaries free of payment of taxation. There is no need for the new Clause. One may have all sorts of provisions in a Bill which are not essential to it, even if they are germane indirectly to its general purpose, but it really is not necessary to have this provision, which would make it obligatory upon the Minister to do something which, in fact, he intended to do.

The last three new Clauses have more or less tended, in various aspects, to raise doubt whether the Minister means anything at all by the words "the best commercial practice." It is now made quite apparent that that phrase as used by him is nonsense. The learned Solicitor-General drew a distinction between members of the boards and the directors of companies, saying that the members of the boards would be limited, whereas on the other hand, there are a great number of directors. Surely, that argument is completely fallacious? The argument should be whether these people are equivalent, in the sense that one is in private enterprise and one under public ownership, and both are doing the same thing. That this is true I do not think anybody in the House will deny, BO far as their efforts and status are concerned. The two cases are exactly analogous, and if a director is to be treated in one way, a member of a board should be treated in exactly the same way. Should there be any difference, the only effect would be that someone in a job under public ownership would be in a privileged position against those serving in private industry and, were that to be the case, I am sure that the colleagues of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench would be the first to disagree.

The Minister said that there are no shareholders concerned, but surely if we are to produce a Bill for the public ownership of this industry, we are in duty bound to protect the whole of the public. It is true we have no limited responsibility regarding a number of shareholders who have taken some greater or lesser risk in putting their money into the venture concerned, but we have to take into account every single consumer of electricity in this country, and I submit, that, if we are responsible to them, we must have this necessary safeguard. The learned Solicitor-General did not refer to the Cohen Report but, if he looks at it, he will see how strongly the Cohen Committee deprecated this practice of paying salaries free of tax. I would call his attention to paragraph 88, which says:
"The principal objection to this practice is that it creates a class of person who is immune from any increase in taxation."
Is it the intention of this House to create such a class in industries under public ownership who are to be free from taxation as against the rest of the community? That is what rejection of the Clause will mean. Again
"If the remuneration were free of Surtax…it would be difficult for the shareholder, even if he were able to obtain information as to the amount of the tax-free payment, to estimate the total amount of remuneration.…"
In most cases, where this will arise, the recipient will be paying no taxation. How, therefore, is the consumer to know what the services of a member of the board are costing? Supposing the Minister says, "I will give So-and-so £5,000 a year free of tax"? How is the consumer to know what that really represents in actual earnings? If we agree to such a proposition, we should be betraying our trust. If this Clause is not accepted, it is a clear indication, first, that the Minister has no intention whatever of conforming to commercial practice when he puts this Bill into operation and, second, that it is his intention to create, within these publicly-owned corporations, groups of people who are immune from the incidence of taxation and who will benefit at the expense of the rest of the community. He is creating a new privileged class.

It seemed to me that the learned Solicitor-General, in his reply, really did his case no service. I do not think members of the board should be paid on this tax-free basis, although I think that the Solicitor-General put the matter to the House in such a way that it might easily be adduced that that was so. Where the Solicitor-General was wrong, and where the Government are also wrong, is that they will create a condition in which the members of these boards will be different from the rest of the public. The mere fact that they are appointed by the Minister and are only a limited number, means that, in the eyes of the general public, they will be in a privileged position, because we shall be creating a situation where they will have the right to be treated differently from their opposite numbers who are serving on public companies. Surely that is the weakness of the case which the Solicitor-General put before us. I do not agree that they should be placed in a privileged position so far as remuneration is concerned. The doubt in my mind is lest they be given a number of benefits in regard to privileges by way of motor cars or residences, or whatever it may be. In dealing with that aspect of the matter, the Solicitor-General seemed to me to be wholly wrong in suggesting that members of the boards are in any way to be considered or treated differently from those who have been fully covered in the new Companies Bill and to whom the Cohen Report made special reference, or, indeed, in deprecating any suspicion in the minds of hon. Members that the general mass of the people would not be protected as much as shareholders of a company under the Companies Bill.

The learned Solicitor-General let fall one remark which I think, perhaps, he ought to correct or clarify. He said that flats and motor cars are not remuneration. I am not an expert on Income Tax law, but, surely, that proposition, stated so generally, may mislead people? Is it not possible for employers to give motor cars and provide flats as part of remuneration? The main argument of the learned Solicitor-General was that this Clause was not necessary because he said that here there were no shareholders to protect. Surely, that is the reason why it ought to be done here more than in another case, because shareholders have some chance of protecting themselves, and can go to the general meetings and ask questions? They can even sell out. If the citizens of this country, however, wish to protect themselves against this, they cannot come here and ask questions—

6.30 p.m.

They are not even allowed to sell out, and they are not allowed to remove their capital, and, if the argument is that people should be protected against persons who are placed in the position of directors of electrical concerns in this country, that argument is surely very much stronger in the private consumer's interest. The two short points are surely these. First, everybody today employed directly or indirectly by the State, or under statutory powers from the State, ought to be paid an amount which shall be simply and easily comparable with other payments made outside that service. That is the first point which, surely, is clear. The second point is that this House should never give a Minister power to do something which the Minister says it would be undesirable to do, and which he has no intention of doing. Then why should he want the power. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General told us, and the Minister wagged his head and muttered in apparent agreement off and on, that there was no intention whatever to make any tax-free payment. All we are asking is that it should be made statutorily impossible to do so. What possible answer can there be to that?

The hon. and learned Solicitor-General's argument against this new Clause, as I understand it, was that it would prohibit by law what the Minister, at any rate, never intends to do. That argument would be a valid and an impressive one if the present Minister of Fuel and Power were always going to be the Minister of Fuel and Power to the end of time. But the outlook is nothing like as black as that. Some day Mr. Horner will change his mind, and there will be another Minister of Fuel and Power. Therefore, I put this point to the Solicitor-General. As I understand it, we are all agreed, on both sides of the House, that it is a bad thing for this remuneration to be tax free. It is also agreed that the present Minister will not allow it. Why not put this provision into the Bill, and prevent future Ministers from doing what everybody agrees is a bad thing?

I am a little disappointed with the Minister, who has so far shown a high degree of sweet reasonableness in these discussions. I should have thought that he would have embraced very readily the opportunity to show that, under the new Electricity Bill, there is not to be created any privileged classes such as existed in the bad old days, and that the practice of limited liability companies and other corporations, which gave unfair and unduly privileged positions to their directors, is one that is not to be continued. I should also have thought that, owing to the deliberate way in which these views have been put forward, the Minister would have welcomed the opportunity to say this, and to accept this new Clause and thereby create a greater measure of pub". confidence. If he were to do that, he would get that new psychological impression which he thinks is necessary in other quarters among the citizens, that this legislation is a better and fairer thing than the state of affairs that existed in days gone by. If he would do that—maybe he is one of the few Ministers who does not require to do it—he would add to that measure of public confidence.

If we are to have a really self-confident administration of industry under nationalisation schemes, we must treat the public with as much confidence as limited liability companies in the past treated their shareholders. We must have willing co-operators as well as willing agents. The new Clause is not of major importance, but it would give what is considered so important in other spheres—psychological encouragement. It would make people feel that, in the arrangements that are being made for electricity, each and all are shareholders, and each and all have rights, as we had under the limited liability company, and that none will have, as they did in the bad old days, privileges such as this new Clause seeks to make impossible.

The Solicitor-General said that the reason it is proposed in the Companies Bill specifically to debar this practice is to enable shareholders to learn what is the gross remuneration of the directors. I think that was the effect of what he said.

It is precisely because the present administration are showing signs of wishing to prevent the public from realising what is the gross remuneration paid to various people that we think this new Clause is more than ever necessary. I do not want to go into personalities, but the attitude of the Solicitor-General and his words force me to do so. I shall quote only two recent instances of what we feel were attempts to conceal the gross remuneration being paid to individuals. Take, first, His Majesty's Ministers of Cabinet rank. When there was a discussion in the House on the proposal to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, the Ministers said that they were not going to propose any increase in their own salaries, and they took a good deal of public credit for the fact. As a side issue, it was announced that they were to continue to have the benefit of public motor cars. No one on this side of the House questions the desirability of Ministers having that facility. What we criticise is the fact that they did not announce, as would have been necessary by analogy in the case of a member of a board, were this new Clause passed, that Ministers were proposing to put their salaries up to £8,000, instead of £5,000, in order to pay for such a motor car, because, as I understand it, the cost of running the motor car, taking Surtax and everything into account, is equivalent to something of the order of £3,000. That would have been the honest way of dealing with it. I doubt whether the ordinary man in the street realises that Ministers are being paid the equivalent of that extra salary.

Let me quote next the case of the Prime Minister. Everyone readily realises that, as a result of the incidence of taxation and the general increase in the cost of living, the Prime Minister is subjected to an almost intolerable burden if he is to carry out his duties satisfactorily. Therefore, it has been announced recently that part of his salary is to be paid tax free. No one objects to the Prime Minister being paid enough money, one way or another, to fulfil his public duties, any more than one would object to members of the board being paid adequate sums in order to attract the people we want. All we say is that if we are to do that, the taxpayers—the equivalent to the shareholders—have a right to be told frankly and bluntly, without any camouflage, what it means. To the Prime Minister it means a salary of over £100,000 a year. Why not say frankly that we think the Prime Minister's salary ought to be raised to £100,000 a year, instead of saying that we are going to pay him the ordinary salary with £4,000 of it tax free? It is because we object to this system that we put forward this Clause.

If the Government refuse to accept the Clause, what they will do is to establish a privileged class in the community. There is no question about the fact that the functions of a board of directors and the functions of the members of the new boards of the Central Authority are, broadly speaking, the same. In both cases, they are to be responsible for the successful, economic, efficient conduct of an enterprise, in the one case, a company, and, in the other, the whole of the electricity undertakings of the country. The director of a private company, when the Companies Bill becomes law, will be prohibited by Statute from getting tax free remuneration. If the Government refuse to accept this Clause, when this Bill becomes law members of the boards will be in a privileged position and will be able to accept it. It is useless for the Solicitor-General to shake his head or for the Minister to say, "We do not intend to pay men on that basis." The fact remains that they can so pay men. The effect of refusing this Clause is by comparison with the private director—after the Companies Bill becomes law—to set up a privileged body of men to whom the Minister if he so chooses—and that is the essence of privilege—can pay salaries in this form to which we take objection. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and the Government will think again, and will accept a statutory prohibition from doing something which they themselves say they do not want to do.

I am bound to say that it is, to say the least, disgraceful that the right hon. Gentleman should make reference, obviously for the purpose of malicious propaganda, to a decision reached some time ago on the Prime Minister's salary. If hon. Members opposite are concerned about the position of Cabinet Ministers and the use of cars, they ought to have the courage to challenge the Government on that issue instead of bringing it in on a side issue, and if they do so, we on this side of the House will meet them. We are certainly not afraid of anything from hon. Members opposite. I am not in the least discouraged by some of the speeches to which we have listened. It is evidence of repentance that the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) and hon. Members opposite are seeking to protect the public from the predatory instincts of the privileged people of the country. That is something novel for them. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are seeking to create a privileged class. On the contrary, we are seeking to prevent privileged people from getting away with the swag, which is quite a different thing. I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman: what earthly reason would the Government or the British Electricity Authority or an area board have for paying substantial salaries—and substantial salaries must be paid to people with the right qualifications —without deduction of Income Tax? There is no reason.

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Put it in the Bill. "On that assumption, we should put everything in the Bill, whether it is relevant or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that what hon. Members opposite are doing is to create a large number of bogys of which they pretend they are frightened. In fact, they are not frightened of them. They are anxious to inhibit the British Electricity Authority in every possible fashion now that the passing of this Bill appears to be inevitable. That is the situation. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that if we fail to embody this provision in the Bill, the public will be sceptical of our good faith and intentions in respect of providing adequate safeguards for the Electricity Commission.

6.45 p.m.

That is what the right hon. Gentleman implied. His speech was full of implication and had very little substance. But the facts are simple. The Minister is responsible for the appointment of certain members of the boards, and when he makes those appointments he will announce the salaries to the House. When he does so, it will be open to hon. Members opposite to ask whether those salaries are free of Income Tax. Obviously, if the Minister said salaries are free of Income Tax, I imagine hon. Members opposite would have a great deal to say. But they will not require to have a great deal to say, because no responsible Minister will suggest that when salaries are fixed they should not be subject to Income Tax deductions. The hon. Member for King-ston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that it was not possible to accept the assurances of the Minister of Fuel and Power, because there might be another Minister of Fuel and Power.

Well, if he did not say it, he meant it. He has said it on many occasions in the past. No doubt, he believes it, but there are some hon. Members who believe anything. It may well be that another Member of the House will occupy the position which I fill at the present moment, but that has nothing to do with the principle. After all, the principle, and the application of the principle, rests with the House and with nobody else. Be it noted that when the annual accounts are presented there can be a detailed investigation by the House into those accounts, and if it should be discovered that the electricity board or the Minister, in respect of appointments, remuneration and emoluments, had "been guilty of acts which the House regarded as iniquitous, clearly a change would take place. Therefore, in the circumstances, there is no point in accepting this new Clause. Nor is there any reason to doubt the good intentions of the Government, although I am bound to confess that nothing that I or anybody else on this side of the House could say would prevent hon. Members opposite from being sceptical of the Government's intentions.

I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has given an adequate answer to the argument that has been put forcibly from this side of the House. Why the Minister will not accept this new Clause is beyond my understanding. It would assist him in difficult days ahead if taxation were to go spiralling up again, and I can see no justification for his refusal to accept the Clause. I will not address the House on finance, because it is a subject of which I know very little. The fact is that the Minister is, like Brunhilde, protected by sacred fire at the moment. [Interruption.] It was not produced by the miners, but by the immortals. However, I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he should remember Brunhilde's ending. She ended in the flames of Valhalla, because Valhalla could handle the coal situation better than the present Government can. There is one point I would like to emphasise, namely, that the present occupants of the Front Bench are honest men. On the law of averages they must be honest men—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because they have nothing else to commend them. At present there is developing in this country a rising degree of patronage which makes Irish politicians in New York and Tammany weep with envy. Here is a Clause which will enable the honest men, under pressure, to remain honest, and it may also be a curb against a growing corruption which has happened in every other country where patronage has reached the point that it has reached here. Therefore, I claim that if we on these benches prepare a book called "Your M.P." on the basis that the Socialists did, and if in it we state that the right hon. Gentleman refused to accept this Clause, which would have assisted him in every way, it will be a bad day for the Socialists.

I rise only to put a point which I think the Solicitor-General would advise the Minister is a point of some substance, and is a point which has not been met. I wished to hear what was the answer of the Government to the proposal in the new Clause; and I took it, before the hon. and learned Solicitor-General spoke, that they would say, if they resisted the new Clause, that the practice we sought to make impossible was a practice which they considered might be necessary. When they said that it was a practice which they regarded as wholly undesirable, the question immediately arose, Why would they not put the new Clause in the Bill. To that we got no answer from the Solicitor-General. I think we did get an answer—but, I suggest, a mistaken answer—from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and. Power. The Minister of Fuel and Power said, "Why should we put into the Bill a prohibition of an undesirable practice, which, I assure the House, will not be indulged in?"

I will tell the House a very good reason, and it is this: the implication of the statute, if the right hon. Gentleman does not put this new Clause in—and I suggest that he will get confirmation of this view from his legal advisers, if he asks them—will be, that there is nothing wrong about the practice; because lawyers will at once draw a contrast between this Measure and the Companies Bill, when it becomes an Act, which says that this practice is an undesirable and illegal practice for directors of ordinary companies. But if no such provision is inserted in this contemporary statute, the implication of the inclusion of such a Clause in one statute and its omission from another will be that a deliberate difference is intended, and that what is sought to be made illegal in the one case is deliberately left legal and,

Division No. 271]


[6.54 p.m.

Amory, D. HeathcoatHannon, Sir P. (Moseley)Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Astor, Hon. M,Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Baldwin, A. E.Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir CPickthorn, K.
Baxter, A. B.Hinchingbrooke, ViscountPonsonby, Col. C. E
Beechman, N AHolmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Birch, NigelHope, Lord JRaikes, H V.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (WellsHoward, Hon. ARayner, Brig. R.
Bower, NHudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.Hutchison, LI.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.Jeffreys, General Sir G.Robinson, Wing-Comdr Rolano
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. WJoynson-Hicks, Hon. L. WRopner, Col. L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G TLambert, Hon. GRoss Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Byers, FrankLancaster, Cot. C. GSanderson, Sir F
Challen, C.Lipson, D L.Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Channon, HLow, Brig. A R. WSmiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W
Clarke, Col. R. SLucas, Major Sir JSmith, E P. (Ashford)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. GLucas-Tooth, Sir HSpearman, A. C M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. OStanley, Rt. Hon. O
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)McCallum, Maj. D.Stoddart-Scott, COL M
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O EMacdonald Sir P (I of Wight)Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Crowder, Capt. John EMcKie, J H (Galloway)Studholme, H. G
Darling, Sir W YMacLeod, J.Sutcliffe, H
Digby, S. WMacmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)
Dodds-Parker, A. DMacpherson, N. (Dumfries)Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
Duthie, W SMaitland, Comdr. J. W.Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F
Elliot, Rt. Hon. WaltManningham-Buller, R. ETouche, G. C.
Fletcher, W (Bury)Marples, A EWadsworth, G
Foster, J. G (Northwich)Marshall, D. (Bodmin)Walker-Smith, D.
Fraser, H C. P (Stone)Marshall, S. H (Sutton)Ward, Hon. G R.
Galbraith, Cmdr T DMellor, Sir J.Wheatley, Colonel M J
George, Lady M Lloy (Anglesey)Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)Willoughby de Eresby, Loro
Grant, LadyMorris-Jones, Sir H.
Gridley, Sir A.Neven-Spence, Sir BTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grimston, R. VNicholson, GMr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

therefore, shown to be not undesirable in the other. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, before he rejects that argument, at least to take legal advice from the learned Solicitor-General, who is sitting next to him, and to ascertain whether he does not agree that the implication I have suggested will in fact result.

I have only one other point to make, for I do not wish to repeat what other hon. Members have said. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power in his speech said that there would be some sort of remedy by Parliamentary inquiry after the mischief had been done —of course, he said it would not be done —and, therefore, why put the prohibition in the legislation? What, however, is the point of legislation? The object of efficient legislation is to prevent things from being done that would otherwise have to be remedied after they had been done. Really, in the interest of efficient legislation I suggest that the Government are bound to accept this new Clause on the argument that I have put before them, unless their own legal advisers say that my point is a bad one.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes. 231


Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)Hardy, E. A.Pursey, Cmdr H
Allighan, GarryHarrison, JRandall, H E
Alpass, J. H.Hastings, Dr. SomervilleRanger, J.
Attewell, H. C.Hobson, C. RRees-Williams. D R
Austin, H. LewisHolman, P.Reeves, J.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)Rhodes, H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon A JHouse, GRidealgh, Mrs. M.
Barstow, P G.Hoy, J.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Barton, C.Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)Rogers, G H. R.
Bechervaise, A. EHughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Benson, GHughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)Royle, C
Berry, H.Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)Sargood, R
Beswick, F.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Scollan, T
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)Irving, W J.Shackleton, E. A A
Blackburn, A. RJanner, B.Sharp, Granville
Blenkinsop, A.Jay, D. P TShinwell Rt Hon F.
Blyton, W. R.Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C (Shipley)Shurmer, P
Bottomley, A. G.Jones, D T (Hartlepools)Silverman, J (Erdington)
Bourdon, Flg.-Ofrr. H WJones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)Simmons, C J.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)Keenan, W.Skeffington, A. M.
Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pt. Exch'ge)Kenyon, CSkeffington-Lodge, T C
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)Kinley, J.Skinnard, F. W.
Bramall, E. A.Lang, G.Smith, C. (Colchester)
Brooks, T J (Rothwell)Lavers, S.Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Brown, George (Belper)Leonard, WSmith, S. H. (Hull S.W.)
Brown, T J (Ince)Leslie, J. R.Snow, Capt J. W
Bruce, Maj. D. W TLever, N. H.Sorensen, R. W
Burden, T W.Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)Soskice. Maj Sir F
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)Lindgren, G. S.Sparks, J A.
Castle, Mrs B. A.Lipton, Lt.-Col. MStamford, W.
Chamberlain, R. ALongden, FStewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Champion, A. JMcAdam, W.Stress, Dr. B.
Chater, D.McEntee, V. La T.Stubbs, A E.
Chetwynd, G. RMcGhee, H G.,Summerskill, Dr Edith
Cobb, F. A.Mack, J. D.Swingler, S.
Cocks, F S.McKay, J (Wallsend)Sylvester, G O.
Collindridge, F.McLeavy, FSymonds, A L.
Colman, Miss G. MMacpherson, T. (Romford)Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)
Comyns, Dr. LMainwaring, W HTaylor, Dr S. (Barnel)
Daggar, GMallalieu, J P. WThomas, D. E (Aberdare)
Daines, P.Marquand, H A.Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)
Davies, Edward (Barslem)Marshall, F. (Brightside)Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Davies Ernest (Enfield)Martin, J. H.Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Davies, Harold (Leek)Mathers, G.Thurtle, Ernest
Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)Mayhew, C. P.Titterington M. F
Deer, G.Medhand, H. MTolley, L.
Diamond, JMellish, R. J.Turner-Samuels, M
Dodds, N. NMesser, F.Vernon, Maj. W. F
Donovan, TMiddleton, Mrs. LViant, S. P.
Driberg T. E. NMikardo, IanWallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)Millington, Wing-Comdr E. RWallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Dumpleton C. WMitchison, G. RWarbey, W. N.
Dye, SMoody. A SWatkins, T. E
Edelman, M.Morgan, Dr H. B.Weitzman, D.
Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)Morris, P (Swansea, W.)Wells P L. (Faversham)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)Morrison, Rt. Hon H (Lewisham, E)Wells, W T (Walsall)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)Moyle, A.Westwood, Rt. Hon J
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)Neal, H. (Claycross)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Ewart, R.Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)Wigg, Col. G E.
Farthing, W Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)Wilkes, L.
Follick, M.Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)Wilkins, W A.
Foot, M MNoel-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J (Derby)Willey. F. T (Sunderland)
Gaitskell, H. T. NNoel-Buxton, LadyWilley, O. G. (Cleveland)
Ganley, Mrs. C. SOldfield, W HWilliams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Gibson, C. WOliver, G. H.Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)
Gilzean, A.Orbach, M.Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)Paget, R. TWillis, E.
Goodrich, H. E.Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)Wills, Mrs. E. A
Gordon-Walker, P. C.Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)Wilmot, Rt. Hon.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)Palmer, A M F.Woodburn, A
Grenfell, D R.Parker, JWoods, G S
Grierson EParkin, B. T.Yates, V. F
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)Paton, J (Norwich)Young, Sir R (Newton)
Guest, Dr L. HadenPearson, A.Younger, Hon Kennet
Gunter, R. JPeart, Thomas F.Zilliacus. K
Guy, W HPlatts-Mitls, J F. F
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.Porter, G. (Leeds)Mr. Joseph Henderson and
Mr. Hannan.