(1) Where on or after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, a person carrying on a trade incurs capital expenditure on the provision of buildings, machinery or plant for the purpose of the trade in replacement, modernisation or re-equipment of any buildings, machinery or plant first used before the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-five, there shall be made to him for the year of assessment in which the expenditure is incurred an allowance, in this section referred to as a "replacement allowance."
(2) For the purpose of determining the amount of a replacement allowance to be made to any person carrying on a trade, that person shall satisfy the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of the sum retained by him by way of a specific provision in his accounts in each basis period ending after the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, for the purpose of the replacement, modernisation or re-equipment of buildings, machinery or plant for that trade and the Commissioners shall issue to him in respect of each such year a certificate (hereinafter referred to as a "capital replacement reserve certificate") for an amount equal to the said sum or such part thereof as does not exceed one-twentieth part of the total of the capital expenditure incurred in providing the buildings, machinery or plant used or available for use by that person for that trade on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-five, and still so used or available for use on the last day of the basis period in question.
(3) The amount of the replacement allowance to be allowed to any person in respect of any year of assessment shall be a sum (not exceeding the amount of any capital expenditure incurred by him in that year in the replacement, modernisation or re-equipment of buildings, machinery or plant first used as aforesaid provided for that trade) equal to the aggregate of the sums shown on the capital replacement reserve certificates issued to him in respect of that trade less any sum allowed by way of replacement allowance to that person in respect of that trade since the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
(4) A replacement allowance shall be in addition to any other allowances made in respect of any buildings, machinery or plant and for the purposes of Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules applicable to Cases I and II of Schedule D a replacement allowance shall not be treated as a deduction or allowance on account of wear and tear.
(5) The provisions of Part VII of the Income Tax Act, 1945, shall have effect in relation to replacement allowances as if such allowances were allowances falling to be made under the provisions of that Act.—[ Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."I must confess to the Committee that this is a long and complicated new Clause and the fact has to be considered after, I think, the Parliamentary day which is now about—
On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend. May I remind you, Mr. Bowles, when an Amendment on Clause 26 was not moved yesterday in order to conform to a voluntary time-table, the Chairman was good enough to indicate that the new Clause in my name dealing with Corporation Duty would be called now.
I am quite aware of that. The hon. Gentleman is right. I had a word with the Chairman and he decided not to select it. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down on Report stage?
As I was saying, it is now nearly the 16th hour of this Parliamentary day and not at all the time when one would like to discuss a matter as complicated as this. But it does deal with a matter which we regard as very important. We do not consider that the Chancellor in doubling the initial allowance really goes quite far enough for reasons which I shall explain in a moment. Before I put forward the reasons for this new Clause, may I ask the Committee for a moment or two to look at its terms.The first subsection says that the capital expenditure has to be incurred after the 6th April, 1949; it has to be incurred on the provision of buildings, machinery, or plant, and in replacement, modernisation, or re-equipment in respect of machinery or plant as used before 6th April, 1945. On the second subsection there is the point that the person claiming this replacement allowance has to satisfy the Commissioners that the sum has been retained by him by way of a specific provision—against the period after 6th April, 1949—and then he gets a certificate and the amount of the certificate shall not exceed one-twentieth of the 1945 costs. By subsection (3) the taxpayer cannot get a replacement allowance exceeding the aggregate certificates which he has already received less replacement allowance already given. The last two subsections are technical in character and it is not necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to them. I apologise for having dealt in detail with this Clause, but the discussion is meaningless unless hon. Members had an idea of how we are trying to tackle this problem. I do not claim any particular virtue for this method of tackling this problem, but if anyone tries to frame a Clause that will deal with this problem, he will find it extremely difficult to do it. Is some such replacement allowance necessary? I should like to put before the Committee two points on that. Industry has been over-taxed in the past few years because net profits for purposes of taxation should only have been arrived at after provision had been made for maintaining the productive capacity of a concern. I gave the example on Second Reading of the firm of Horrockses, Crewdson and Company, and I repeat that example because the figures are easy to quote and show the point I am making. The productive capacity is estimated at £6 million. In order to maintain that productive capacity the firm had to set aside £150,000 per annum on a basis of 40 years for plant and machinery and 100 years for buildings. But for purposes of taxation the depreciation allowance given amounted to only £30,000. There was a deficit of £120,000 which had to be met by drawing upon the taxed profits. It needed nearly £250,000 of taxed profits for that firm to be able to maintain its productive capacity. This illustrates the first contention that industry has been overtaxed in these years. The fact that the Chancellor has seen fit to set up a committee shows he is also aware of that fact. My second proposition is that the effect of that over-taxation has been to weaken the capacity of industry to undertake the tasks we desire it to undertake if this country is to survive. My evidence in support of that contention is the figures, to which I referred in the Debate on an earlier Clause, given by Mr. Chambers of "Lloyds Bank Review," in an article in which he suggests that for 1947 depreciation reserves set aside were £600 million, whereas if adequate sums had been set aside to maintain the productive capacity of industry, that figure should have been £1,000 million—a deficit of £400 million. With regard to 1948, I would only refer to the opinion of the President of the Federation of British Industries, whose contention was that out of net profits of something like £580 million, after taxation had been deducted, about £300 million were required in order to maintain the productive capacity of industry. My second proposition is also borne out by the fact that the effect of this taxation has been to draw upon what really should be the free reserves of industry available for expansion and other general purposes. If those two proposition are conceded, some remedy is required in order to redress that wrong in the interests of our economy. With regard to the efficacy of the Chancellor's proposals for simply doubling the initial allowance, I concede at once that that is of some assistance, but it does nothing to provide any cash. I am told that the first benefit will be felt something like 15 months after the expenditure has been incurred. It is, in effect, simply a re-arrangement of existing allowances, and therefore it does not meet my two points. Something else is also necessary and that is why I have put forward this Clause. The advantages of the Clause are these. First, the annual amount in respect of which the taxpayer can get his replacement allowance is limited to one-twentieth of the 1945 value, and if values are now up three times or so, that reduces the proportion of the present day value. Therefore, it is not a very extravagant proposal. Secondly, the allowance is only given as the expenditure is incurred, and therefore it is a very powerful stimulus to modernisation and re-equipment, which we all desire. I have tried to compress my argument as much as possible. I apologise if it is not clear, and I suggest that the Clause is worth the very serious attention of the Committee.
I support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has said. I very much regret that the Financial Secretary is not here to listen to the argument. When we were talking about the Profits Tax on retained profits, the question of the adequacy of existing reserves arose, and the right hon. Gentleman brushed the whole thing aside and it appeared that he did not appreciate the gravity of the problem or that the problem really existed. He reminded me very much of a speech he made the other day at Wisbech. He said:
He posed that question, and he gave the answer he always gives us. He said:"Some people are looking at the losses sustained by the nationalised industries and wondering whether Socialism is all its exponents claimed for it."
He gave me the impression that the short answer is that he did not know anything about the subject at all. That is a pity, because it is the most important thing we have to face today. I cannot rival my hon. and learned Friend in his very clear exposition of the details of this matter. What I want to do is to consider the reason which has led him to bring the Clause forward and what is going on about the profits of industry. The President of the Society of Incorporated Accountants made a very interesting speech the other day in which he said:"I am quite sure the short answer is that we do not know."
That is true. Depreciation in this country is reckoned on what is known as the historical cost basis; that is to say, that what one originally paid for a piece of plant or machinery determines how much depreciation one is allowed to write off, and in no case can one write off more than that original cost. 3.15 a.m. To illustrate what that means in a period of very rapid rises in prices, I shall give two examples. One is from the report of the Cunard Steamship Company. The Cunard stated that a liner bought in 1925 at a cost of £167,000 would today cost £625,000 to replace, whereas they only could set aside £167,000 towards that sum. The other example is Unilever, whose fixed assets are £82 million which would cost £148 million to replace. It has been reckoned that if one takes the average in industry as a whole, for every £1 for wear and tear allowance £3 in earnings is required to counter the rise in the price level alone. The really important point is that as one is not allowed to depreciate that historical cost, which is no longer related to the prices of the machinery to be replaced, the profits which are shown are not true profits. They are very much higher, and with the very heavy taxation demanded today, the profits are not really there at all. That was very clearly shown in France where inflation has gone further and more rapidly than it has in this country. In France they were forced to deal with the situation, and they dealt with inflation by writing up parts and machinery to something like their present value. They had a system of co-efficients by which machinery was written up by ratio. Before that writing up, there were, companies showing perfectly good profits and paying taxes. When the assets were written up and depreciated to their real value many companies were shown to be running at a loss instead of a profit. Although we have not got quite as far yet in this country, that is the background of what is going on here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when dealing with this matter in his Budget speech cut his ethical corners rather finer than was suspected. He did not point out there were no true profits at all, and no one is in a better position than he to know the true facts. This new Clause will do something to assist in the provision of plant and machinery but, of course, it does nothing at all with the question of non-circulating capital and keeping stocks intact. That is a problem of frightful intricacy, but the Clause does something to help on fixed assets. Hon. Gentlemen will note that we have not departed from the historical cost basis. We have not gone on to the replacement cost basis. We may have to do that yet, but I think it would be a terrible admission of defeat if we did it now, because we have run our affairs in this country on the basis that we could, somehow or another, maintain a reasonable price level based on the historical cost basis of accounting on prices which obtained generally during the 19th Century. Allowing for the inflationary period after the Second World War, we have got stable prices, but we shall not maintain them if the present size of the Budget continues. If the Government act with reason some remedy of the sort suggested here may be sufficient, but unless they do something of the sort, industry will be drained of all liquid assets. Mr. Chambers has pointed out that, apart from some favoured industries in the depressed areas, physical capital is not being kept intact, and therefore I strongly support by hon. and learned Friend in this new Clause."The colossal rise in the price level means that much of the value of the savings of the past has been destroyed."
The object of the new Clause is to meet a special difficulty which arises out of what the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) called the historical cost basis of the depreciation allowance in a period when costs and prices have admittedly been rising. We are entirely at one with both hon. Members in the wish to encourage the modernisation of industry, and our acceptance of the need for some special remedy for the situation of rising costs is shown by our own proposal to double the initial allowance, which is a substantial relief in this direction. The hon. and learned Member wishes in this Clause to go substantially further, and to give considerable additional benefit.There are three views on this point. There is a school of thought which think we have by this concession gone too far already. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), in one of the earlier debates, argued that whereas industry has had to pay more for machinery and plant in the last couple of years compared with before the war, nevertheless it is selling its products at much higher prices and earning higher profits from which these replacements may be made. There is some force in that argument. I do not think there is sufficient force to invalidate the case for doubling the initial allowance, but there is sufficient force in it to make one pause before going further. It was a very nice question just when was the right year to raise the initial allowance. If we had done it a year ago we should have acted too soon, because by and large it was not lack of finance which was limiting physical investment in industry. If we had waited another year we should probably have waited too long. In our view this year was the right year to do it. One of my hon. Friends quoted "The Economist" and said that doubling the initial allowance meant in effect making an interest-free loan to industry; and it is a considerable concession. We thought we had chosen the right time and gone far enough in this direction. But since the hon. Member has raised this point about the initial cost basis, may I say that raising the initial allowances has gone a long way to meet it. The difficulty is that a machine which costs £1,000 when bought, perhaps, in 1939, costs £2,000 to replace today. It is of course the case that on the old basis of depreciation allowance, the firm in question will have been able to build up a fund on that machine amounting to £1,000. The difficulty arises through its being only £1,000 to replace a machine which today costs £2,000. Our scheme of an initial allowance of 40 per cent. in addition to the first annual allowance will, in the normal case, give an allowance of about 50 per cent. of the cost in the first year of the installation of the new machine. So that does mean, in effect, a £1,000 allowance. When the second initial allowance on a machine is taken into account on a further replacement, it will be found that the higher cost of the second replacement is also covered. For these reasons, although we sympathise with the general objective, we consider our proposal goes far enough to meet the difficulty, and that a case has not been made out for a further substantial relief.
Before we pass on to another subject, will the Economic Secretary tell the Committee what the attitude of the Treasury is towards the redundancy scheme in connection with which the Board of Trade issues certificates. Contributions to these schemes were allowed as expenses upon a business. I understand that there has been a complete change of policy in regard to these redundancy schemes. It is important that we should know what the attitude of the Treasury is towards them, because in addition to the difficulty of these problems of replacement, and capital expenditure, on which there is this 40 per cent. allowance, what I think can never be stressed too much is that international competition is producing the necessity for a complete replacement.Take for instance the textile finishing trades. There are new permanent finishes coming on to the market in America. We know that permanent finishes on cotton are replacing our exports of linen. We ought to be told the attitude of the Treasury, because it is all part and parcel of these things. I have reason to believe that there has been a change of policy in regard to these redundancy schemes within the last year.
I can give the answer in due course, but I do not think this matter strictly arises out of the matter we are discussing.
I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will not think I am being rude when I say that his speech gave me the impression that the hon. Gentleman knew absolutely nothing about the state of the trade and industry of this country. The fact remains that plant and machinery are not being replaced as they should be. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there is industry in this country—and I know something about one or two trades—which is up against foreign competition and foreign competitors who do not have to bear anything like the burden of taxation borne by industrialists in this country today. Unless some concessions are made—and made fairly soon—the output of trade and industry is bound to suffer because of unfair competition from abroad.I hope that it may be possible to accept this Clause, but I do warn the Government that something will have to be done pretty soon. Attention has been called tonight to the fact that so-called "profits" were not really profits at all. Figures given present a very false impression of what is really happening, and I beg the Government to consider what relief can be given to trade and industry.
I know perhaps less about this matter than the Economic Secretary and certainly less than some of my hon. Friends. But, surely the position is that several factors have coincided to make it increasingly difficult for industry to modernise, re-equip, and replace capital equipment. The three factors are high costs, including the effect of the Purchase Tax, high taxation, and various other high charges, both capital and current. The fact that these factors do exist is recognised by the Government, who wisely have doubled the initial allowance from 20 to 40 per cent.; but that is not enough for industry to capitalise itself to keep out the competition we are to expect from the world.A number of constructive suggestions have been put down. This, I think, is the fourth this evening, and all have been turned down, one after the other. The Government seem to think that to have doubled the initial allowance is sufficient, but they will have to think again, and think quickly. If industry finds it difficult in the next 12 months to find the capital which is so obviously necessary, then we shall fall short of the requirements we expect of industry. I do ask the Government to consider one of these proposals, and preferably this one. The absence of the Chancellor tonight has been most regrettable, although I know that it cannot be helped. Of the constructive suggestions put forward, this, from a tax collection point of view, has the greatest advantage because the Government are sacrificing nothing in the long run. There is to be a spread-over of liability over the years. I have no hesitation in asking the right hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter further.
I must rise to say that seldom has this Committee had to listen to a more unsatisfactory reply than that made by the Economy Secretary just now. He said that a case had not been made out but, if ever a case for something to be done was made out, it was the case made out by my hon. Friends tonight. The Economic Secretary suggested that because of the increased initial allowance higher profits can now be made, and that there was no need for industry to be helped in the way suggested by the Clause. Such a reply shows that he completely and utterly misunderstands the situation in which industry finds itself.Let us take an example. Imagine a company with £100,000 worth of machinery and equipment and let us presume that that machinery and equipment over the years has to be renewed and modernised. It is true that the increased initial allowance enables that £100,000 worth to be replaced more easily now, but that £100,000 worth will now cost £200,000 to replace. Therefore a further £100,000 worth of new money is required to finance the re-equipment of the former machinery. Where is that coming from? It can only come from new capital or else out of the reserve—out of profits made. Suppose a company in pre-war days made 10 per cent. on that £100,000, say £10,000 profit after depreciation. Some £2,000 would have gone in tax. Let us presume that those profits have now been increased by 50 per cent., which is more than is happening through the country today where the general level is 35 per cent; there is £15,000 profit. What is happening to that? Some 60 per cent. or more goes in taxation and leaves about £6,000 or £7,000 to pay dividends and other things. It will take 50 years or more to find the necessary fresh capital if it is done out of reserves. That is the position in which industry finds itself today. I hope that by giving this example, I have illustrated how the Economic Secretary clearly has not understood the position. Obviously something has to be done, whether on the lines suggested in the Clause or some other way. It is clear that industry has been over-taxed and that some arrangement is needed. I hope we have not heard the final word on this matter. I deplore the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know he has to be abroad but it seems to me that the business of this Committee could properly have been rearranged so that when matters of such great importance to the future industrial life of the country are under discussion, he could be here to hear our representations.
It seems to me that the point which has been made in this Debate, that this is the problem which now confronts industry, has been accepted on all sides of the Committee. It was in fact accepted by the Chancellor when he doubled the initial allowance in an earlier Clause. This matter is giving great concern to industry and, as has been pointed out, it will become more urgent. It is not, as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) said, a matter of crying "woe" or stinking fish but of what industry should rightly do. In times when profit has been made, it should look into the future and protect itself against the more difficult times that we all agree are coming. There is no doubt whatever, and I think this must be agreed by everyone concerned with industry, that this problem is really one of the most serious and most difficult facing industry at this time.I do not think that it matters in the least at what time of the day this Debate is taking place. It is a matter with which this Committee should concern itself, however inconvenient the time may be. The reason why it is so difficult is that the scheme of doubling the initial allowance which the Chancellor has introduced in this financial year does create a great number of anomalies and of unfairnesses between different firms in the same industry and between different types of industry. That is why I support so strongly this new Clause. I think it will go a long way, although by no means all the way, as he himself would agree, toward ironing out those anomalies. I hope that the Government will take into serious account the views that have been put forward from this side of the Committee. Too much emphasis cannot be placed at this time on the problem of this replacement allowance. It would be quite wrong for hon. Members on either side to pretend that it is a matter that can be easily solved. It is a matter which accountants and people of great experience in industry have gone into with great care, and I urge the Economic Secretary, even if he finds it necessary to ask for the new Clause to be withdrawn, to consider this scheme very carefully before the Report stage.
I had anticipated that it was likely that the Economic Secretary might criticise the actual form of the Clause, and that he would agree that there was a real problem here which had not yet been met even by that welcome concession which the Chancellor has made in this financial year. I do not want to repeat or expand the examples which have been given, but as the Committee will realise, industry in this matter is facing a wholly peculiar problem. In our economic history, it is only after a great war, or during a great war, that replacement values have risen as high, as steeply, and as fast as they have during the past decade; and it is the steepness and the rapidity of the rise which has really thrown out of gear the old machinery for dealing with depreciation and created a situation in which new and critical measures must be taken.3.45 a.m. Had the hon. Gentleman given an indication that although he disagreed with this particular remedy he would be prepared to look at this alternative, or that if this Clause was ill-drafted he would be prepared to consider a better draft, I should have been prepared to advise my hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Clause and to await the further consideration of the Economic Secretary, but he has given no such help. He has not, in fact, criticised this Clause at all. He has given nothing to show that it is in any way impracticable. He has given no figures as to the cost to the Revenue. His only argument has been, "We have done something, and that something is enough." We do not think it is enough. In no petty spirit we are grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he has done, but the common object which we have is of supreme importance, and if the proposal of the Chancellor does not in our opinion go far enough it is our duty to try to supplement it. In the circumstances, although I should have been prepared to accept criticism of the drafting of the Clause, unless we get a further statement from the Economic Secretary in regard not only to his determination to press this particular remedy but to emphasise to the Government that in the situation which industry
Division No. 193.]
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)||Nicholson, G.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Gates, Maj. E. E.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.||Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.||Nutting, Anthony|
|Astor, Hon. M.||Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)||Odey, G. W.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Pickthorn, K.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Haughton, S. G.||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Birch, Nigel||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||Raikes, H. V.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Bowen, R.||Hollis, M. C.||Renton, D.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hope, Lord J.||Roberts, Emrys (Marioneth)|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Carson, E.||Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Channon, H.||Langford-Holt, J.||Strauss, Henry (English Universities)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Linstead, H. N.||Teeling, William|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Low, A. R. W.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Turton, R. H.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||McFarlane, C. S.||Wadsworth, G.|
|Drewe, C.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Eccles, D. M.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Foster, J. G. (Northwich)||Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Fox, Sir G.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||York, C.|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Maude, J. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)||Mellor, Sir J.||Colonel Wheatley and|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)||Neven-Spence, Sir B.||Mr. Wingfield Digby.|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Barton, C.||Blackburn, A. R.|
|Albu, A. H.||Bechervaise, A. E.||Blyton, W. R.|
|Attewell, H. C.||Berry, H.||Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Beswick, F.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Bing, G. H. C.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)|
|Baird, J.||Binns, J.||Brook, D. (Halifax)|
is now facing some further remedy is necessary and urgent, I feel that I should advise my hon. Friends to press the matter.
So far, hon. Members on this side have put only the industrial point of view. In order to show that the shortage of capital is not only peculiar to industry. I want to emphasise the agricultural point of view. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in any doubt, he has only to refer to statements on various occasions by the Chairmen of Joint Stock Banks about overdrafts to the agricultural industry. With the increased wages and heavy expenses to which the industry is put in harvesting crops which sometimes take 12 months before they can be reaped, enormous amounts of capital are swamped and could be better used for extending the industry. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the matter again, and see whether he can do something for the industry.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 84; Noes, 201.
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Haworth, J.||Pryde, D. J.|
|Brown, George (Belper)||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Randall, H. E.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Herbison, Miss M.||Ranger, J.|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Hewitson, Capt. M.||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Burden, T. W.||Hobson, C. R.||Rhodes, H.|
|Burke, W. A.||Holman, P.||Ridealgh, Mrs. M.|
|Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)||Horabin, T. L.||Robens, A.|
|Callaghan, James||Houghton, A. L. N. D.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Hoy, J.||Rogers, G. H. R.|
|Chamberlain, R. A.||Hubbard, T.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Champion, A. J.||Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)||Royle, C.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)||Sargood, R.|
|Cocks, F. S.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|Collindridge, F.||Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)||Sharp, Granville|
|Collins, V. J.||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Shurmer, P.|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.|
|Cock, T. F.||Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)||Silverman, J. (Endington)|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Jay, D. P. T.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Simmons, C. J.|
|Cullen, Mrs.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Daines, P.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Jones, J. H. (Bolton)||Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Keenan, W.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Kinley, J.||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lang, G.||Stokes, R. R.|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lavers, S.||Stross, Dr. B.|
|Deer, G.||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Levy, B. W.||Symonds, A. L.|
|Diamond, J.||Logan, D. G.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Dobbie, W.||Longden, F.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Dodds, N. N.||McGhee, H. G.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Mack, J. D.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Dye, S.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Tolley, L.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)||McKinlay, A. S.||Vernon, Maj. W. F.|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)||McLeavy, F.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Ewart, R.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Fairhurst, F.||Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)|
|Farthing, W. J.||Mellish, R. J.||Weitzman, D.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Mikardo, Ian.||West, D. G.|
|Foot, M. M.||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)|
|Forman, J. C.||Mitchison, G. R.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Monslow, W.||Wigg, George|
|Freeman, J. (Watford)||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Wilkes, L.|
|Ganley, Mrs. C. S.||Nally, W.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)|
|Gitzean, A.||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Williams, Ronald (Wigan)|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Orbach, M.||Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Paget, R. T.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Guest, Dr. L. Haden||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Willis, E.|
|Gunter, R. J.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Guy, W. H.||Pargiter, G. A.||Wyatt, W.|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Parkin, B. T.||Yates, V. F.|
|Hale, Leslie||Peart, T. F.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil||Popplewell, E.|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.||Price, M. Philips||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Proctor, W. T.||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Snow.|