Skip to main content

Clause 28—(Interpretation Of And Provisions Supplementary To Ss 25 To 27)

Volume 529: debated on Monday 28 June 1954

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

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.15 p.m.

I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to some peculiarities in the Clause as drafted. At the foot of page 32, we find a reference to a person who has

"powers equivalent to control."
In the middle of page 33 there is a reference to a person who
"has or had control"
without any qualifying word. On the same page at line 43, we find the words:
"… the Commissioners are satisfied do not materially affect the effective control."
We therefore have three different descriptions of "control." I know that legislation sometimes exists for the benefit of solicitors and others, but it seems to me that some simplification could be introduced into this Clause with advantage to all.

I should like to ask a question on subsection (1,d). The definition of "relative" seems a little strange. Apparently, so far as buying and selling companies is concerned, the forbidden degree of consanguinity includes ancestors. For instance, apparently a person may not sell to his paternal grandmother but he may sell to his daughter's child. Surely one's daughter's daughter is not a lineal descendant. [Interruption.] She is? Then I give way on that point. But then what does "lineal" mean?

Why are these particular relationships chosen? What happens to stepdaughters and stepsons? It seems to me that if one wanted to sell to one's stepson or stepdaughter it would be as difficult to establish that the sale was at arm's length, as it would if the sales were to a grandmother, and the same applies to nephews and nieces. If we are to draw a line between certain relationships, it would be useful if the Solicitor-General could explain why this line is drawn according to the definition in this subsection.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to the wording of subsection (3, c)? This subsection lays down means and conditions under which control is obtained, or supposed to be obtained, but paragraph (c) contains some very peculiar points. One is:

… there shall, in so far as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue so direct, he disregarded—
(i) any limited interest subsisting at the relevant time in any shares …"
By reference to other Clauses, a limited share means something of this sort: if the deceased leaves the shares for life to some person, or for some shorter period and then to a relative.

The Commissioners are apparently to be given a free hand to decide in which cases they will or will not have regard to limited interests. I should have thought it was a serious matter to give that sort of power to the Commissioners without, so far as I can see, an appeal to any tribunal of any sort or kind. If shares were left to a young person for life and then to a relative, that would be a limited interest. It would be likely to go on for a very long time, and presumably therefore could not and would not be disregarded. On the other hand, if the shares were left to an elderly person who was likely to die very quickly, the Commissioners might think fit to disregard the matter. If the shares were left to a person for six months and then to a relative the Commissioners would almost certainly disregard that limited interest. But it is a very serious discretionary power to give to the Commissioners without there being any form of appeal.

Subsection (3, a (ii)) is even more extraordinary. There, apparently, the Commissioners are to decide whether voting rights which may or may not affect the effective control of the company's affairs shall be taken into account. I should have thought that it was a purely legal question whether or not voting rights conferred upon shareholders by virtue of their preference shares had any effect upon the control of the company. Whether or not the Commissioners should be given a discretion to say that certain voting rights affect control, I suggest that it is highly undesirable to give discretionary powers of this sort to the Commissioners unless there is some process by which a decision which is very nearly a legal one can be appealed from and tested.

I have been thinking of what was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and I cannot see the significance of the word "lineal." I think the definition would be quite appropriate if that word were left out.

If we are now suggesting ways and means of improving the grammar or the wording of the Clause, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the first line in subsection (2), which containes a reference to

"The two last foregoing sections. …
" I can find only one "last foregoing section." I was wondering whether anything had been done to tighten up the wording or grammar in that case.

I cannot remember the occasion, but I remember the right hon. Gentleman drawing attention to this point some time ago.

I can give the right hon. Member the assurance that I gave him on that occasion. We shall look into that drafting point, and into the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) about the references to "control." In subsection (1,d) we have sought to take a fairly narrow definition of "relative." We want to exclude those cases in which it will be specially difficult to establish that the sale of the shares was at arms' length and at a freely negotiated price. I shall certainly consider whether the word "lineal" is necessary before the word "descendant." My impression is that it is, in order to exclude stepsons, stepdaughters, and similar relations.

Does that mean that a sale between step-relations would not be allowed or would be allowed?

It excludes a sale between a stepmother and a stepson from the operation of Clause 27 (1,a).

Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting that a stepson, a stepdaughter, an adopted son or an adopted daughter is a descendant? If so, I do not agree with him.

I hope I had made it clear that I was not suggesting that. I said that I should look at the use of the word again, but that I thought it might be desirable to retain it in order to make it quite clear what was meant by the subsection.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) raised a point of more substance, on a matter which has given me considerable difficulty. It is quite right that subsection (3,c) reserves a complete and unappealable discretion to the Commissioners, and we want to be satisfied that that is desirable before letting it go by. The discretion really relates to a problem which is small in compass. The subsection can apply only to cases where the application of the assets basis does not depend upon a deceased person having voting control. It is estimated that these what I might call quasi-control cases have, up to now, represented less than one-quarter of the total number of Section 55 cases.

The cases in which the Commissioners' discretion under subsection (3) would operate form only a small fraction of that fraction. In most cases the nature of the limited interest would be irrelevant, because the limited interest or voting preference shares would normally be clearly indicated as being in or out of the assets basis. It is only a small number of cases on the borderline with which we are concerned here. It is important to bear that fact in mind, especially when one considers what alternative could be inserted.

The precise type of limited interest which should be disregarded is very difficult to define in a way which would enable the courts to adjudicate upon the matter. The forms of limited interest may be many. One simple instance would be where a beneficiary was entitled to shares subject to a limited interest of only six months' duration. If there were not some escape provision such as this, that limited interest would be sufficient to take the case out of the ambit of Clause 26 (5). Something must be done to provide some flexibility. I can assure my right hon. and learned Friend that although we have thought very carefully whether some alternative method might not be adopted, we have come to the conclusion that any such alternative would have to be so complex and so lengthy that, on balance, it is best to leave the discretion in the Commissioners in this exceptionally narrow field.

My right hon. and learned Friend drew particular attention to the question of voting preference shares, which is dealt with in paragraph (c, ii). The position there is much the same. The existence of voting rights which are exercisable by virtue of preference shares may have no effect on the actual control of the company; those rights may be in the hands of an employee who never attends company meetings, or, if he does, is unlikely to vote against his employer. Other similar instances could be given. It is not unreasonable that in certain cases voting rights of that kind should be ignored, for the purposes of the Clause.

It is almost impossible to give a precise definition of the circumstances in which the voting rights attached to such shares should be disregarded without creating many anomalies and possible hardships. We have again come to the conclusion that, on balance, it is best to give this wide discretion to the Commissioners in this extremely narrow field, in the belief that in the exercise of their discretion they will seek to avoid hardship, injustice and the inequitable operation of the preceding Clauses.

5.30 p.m.

I do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) or my hon. Friends think about the reply of the Solicitor-General, but I found it most unsatisfactory. I thought it a very sorry performance, and I think a great many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will wonder where we are getting to if that is the best reply we can have from the Government.

The Solicitor-General said—I wrote it down—that as this matter was so complicated and applied to a relatively limited number of cases only, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide a precise definition, and he thought, therefore, it would be better to leave these very complicated matters to the discretion of the Commissioners in order that there might be a measure of flexibility. What does that mean?

We are now dealing with the definition Clause, and if there is in any Clause in any Measure where one expects to find precision, it is in the interpretation Clause. We all concede that this is a highly complicated matter. It involves very abstruse propositions in the consideration of hypothetical cases. Therefore, that necessitates the use of language that should be as clear and precise as possible in order that the taxpayers may understand it. It may well be that this group of Clauses will apply in only a small number of cases, but in those cases where it does apply the amounts of Estate Duty will be very large indeed.

It is a matter of very great moment to executors faced with paying Estate Duty to know whether the asset value applies or whether the other value applies. In Clause 25 concessions have been made in the rate of duty in Section 55 cases, and in Clause 27 an attempt is made to prevent abuses by tightening up the loopholes that may arise where there are sales of family businesses to relatives within three years of death.

What the Solicitor-General in fact is saying is that there may be borderline cases. Those borderline cases will depend on whether or not the deceased had control. That in turn will depend on what is meant by control. In other cases it will depend on whether the sale is a sale to a relative as defined in this Clause or to somebody who is not a relative. Complicated though it may be, I am sure that all Members on both sides of the Committee, since this is not a political matter, will agree that it is our duty to get it as clearly defined as we can.

I do not think it is satisfactory that the taxpayers' liability should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners without any clear guidance in the Measure how that discretion is to be exercised. There may be cases in which £20,000 or £30,000 or £50,000 of duty are involved. Granted that the Commissioners will carry out their discretion to the best of their ability, that is not the way in which we ought to legislate, because fiscal law, like penal and criminal law, should be carefully and precisely defined. If there is any doubt about it, the person against whom the claim arises should have the benefit of the doubt. In any event, he should have the benefit of an appeal from a decision of the Commissioners to a judicial tribunal.

I think the Solicitor-General agrees with me in saying that this is an exceptional and unprecedented instance of giving discretion to the Commissioners. However exceptional the circumstances may be, it seems to me thoroughly indefensible on principle.

I want to consider two major questions that have been raised in the debate. Let us take first the definition of a relative. The Solicitor-General's answer was most unsatisfactory. The whole object of defining a relative is to add an additional safeguard to the provisions of Clause 27 (1,a). A moment ago, when we were discussing that on an Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), the hon. and gallant Member asked why have that paragraph in at all, for, he said, it was quite unnecessary in view of Clause 27 (1,b), which ruled out any sale unless it was negotiated at arms' length. The Solicitor-General then justified his resistance of the Amendment by saying there might be a sale to a relative, and if there were it would not be easy to tell whether it was a sale at arms' length or not.

We now come to consider the definition of a relative, and we are told that for the purposes of Clause 27 a son is a relative and a stepson is not, a lineal descendant is a relative but no other kind of descendant is. I must add in fairness that the Solicitor-General did not seem to be very clear what form of descendants there were other than lineal descendants, but he was good enough to say he was going to look into that matter. He should have looked into that matter before now, because it is here and now the Committee has to decide whether to accept the words "lineal descendant" with some quite unknown limitation of the words. I am not myself prepared to leave it in abeyance in that unsatisfactory way.

The major question is this. I was not convinced by the Solicitor-General's reply to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham, but if they had any validity at all those arguments hold good to precisely the same degree for a sale to a relative as for a sale to a son. I should think they would be equally valid if there were a sale to a son-in-law as compared with a sale to a daughter, but under this definition of relative a sale to a daughter is suspect but a sale to a son-in-law is aboveboard. That really cannot make sense at all. This definition of relative is so loosely drawn as to be completely nugatory, as to destroy the purpose for which, according to the Solicitor-General, it is necessary to have it in the Bill as a safeguard.

It may be that if my observations are well-founded they will give some comfort to the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham and his friends. Be that as it may, my object in making these few observations is not to expatiate on the problems of whether the definition of a relative should be more widely or more narrowly drawn, but to point out that it is not good enough that it should be prepared in this very loose manner and should contain a number of words of which the Solicitor-General is unable to give us an explanation.

I want to pass to the question of whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be left as the sole and final judges, in any case which arises, as to whether control exists, in as far as control may depend upon there being either limited interests or upon their voting rights being derived not from ordinary shares but from preference shares. Both these are very vexed questions. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) knows perfectly well, as do other hon. Members, that it is a highly technical matter in a great many cases to say whether or not the voting rights which are given to preference shareholders in the articles of a company do or do not confer any measure of control. It may depend upon whether the preference dividend is in arrear. It may well depend upon an almost infinite variety of circumstances—many of which are daily considered by those whose duty it is to frame articles of association for companies in which there are a large number of members of one family interested in one respect or another.

In so far as the problem which will concern the Commissioners in a number of cases is as to the existence of control, it seems to me that in this definition Clause we should face the task, however difficult it may be, and try to define with much greater accuracy and precision what we mean by control.

I am particularly worried by the phrase in subsection (3, c, ii) where it refers to any voting rights
"which do not materially affect the effective control."
What on earth does that mean? Does it mean that there may be voting rights which affect the control although they do not materially affect the control? May there be other voting rights which materially affect the control but do not materially affect the effective control? I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), at any rate, will agree with me that the proposition has only to be stated in those terms to show how impossible it will be for the Commissioners to discharge the task entrusted to them.

It seems to me, therefore, that if questions arise under a definition Section provided in this very loose, vague and unsatisfactory way, the least we should insist upon is that there should be an appeal, as in every other case, from the Commissioners to the courts of law. For those reasons I very much hope that my hon. Friends will express their dissatisfaction with this unsatisfactory Clause by not accepting it in its present form.

5.45 p.m.

I want to refer briefly to subsection (7), which deals with the date of the application of the Clause. In doing so, Sir Charles, I shall be in some difficulty in keeping within your Ruling.

What influenced the Treasury or the Government in setting the date for bringing in this part of the Bill as the commencement of the Act? If there was a positive opinion on the subject, I should like to have it. We have been debating this Clause for some time and we might have felt that, if my right hon. Friend wanted to do good, he could possibly have done it at an earlier date. Why was this and not some other date—perhaps Budget Day—put into the Clause?

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may say that he gave consideration to the amount of revenue which would be lost by using some other date, but I could show—although I doubt whether I should be allowed to bring the argument forward with you watching me so closely, Sir Charles—that, by taking another date, money would be saved. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is undoubtedly aware of cases of this nature, because I have put one to him. I cannot carry this argument very far, but I should like my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee why this date was chosen and not some other date, for instance the date on which the Chancellor introduced the Budget.

I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) has spoken to the Financial Secretary on this subject and has had some discussion with him about it. I am afraid I cannot add to what he was told in those discussions.

Subsection (7) is very clear in its terms. It is required to specify from what date these provisions shall have effect, and it makes them take effect in relation to any death occurring after the commencement of the Act. I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend wanted the subsection to take effect in relation to any death occurring after the date of the Budget. That was considered in the discussions which my hon. and gallant Friend had with the Financial Secretary, and he was told that it was more usual in relief provisions of this sort to make them operate from the date of the commencement of the Act and not from the date of the Budget. But my right hon. Friend will be only too glad to discuss the matter further with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Division No. 175.]


[5.50 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.Baldwin, A. E.Bishop, F. P.
Alport, C. J. M.Baxter, Sir BeverleyBlack, C. W.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Beach, Maj. HicksBoothby, Sir R. J. G.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Bossom, Sir A. C.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Boyle-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A
Arbuthnot, JohnBennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Boyle, Sir Edward
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Bennett, William (Woodside)Braine, B. R.
Astor, Hon. J. J.Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Birth, NigelBraithwaite, Sir Gurney

this mood: they thought this a very important Clause in that it sets out to define what is meant by control and powers equivalent to control.

I do not want to delay the Committee by repeating arguments which I thought were put most succinctly and clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). I agree with him that the Clause is at present not in a satisfactory form. He has pointed to a number of serious uncertainties, and the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) also put his finger upon a point which has been left in an unsatisfactory state.

In a sense the Clause is crucial to the working of this part of the Bill. So many provisions of this part of the Bill hinge upon a precise understanding of what control is to mean in any particular context. If it is not clearly understood in any context whether there is control exercised within the meaning of Clause 28 or not, this part of the Bill will not work. Listening to the debate and the answers given by the Solicitor-General to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South, I was forced to the conclusion that the right decision would be to divide against the Clause. I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree to do so. We recognise that the Clause must be there, because it is an important Clause, but we think that if it is left in this very un-precise form, Part II of the Bill will not work at all.

I do not want to repeat the arguments. They have been clearly put, but they certainly have not been adequately answered. My advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee is to signify their disapproval of the Clause being left in its present state by voting against it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 277. Noes. 228.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. HHoward, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Powell, J. Enoch
Browne, Jack (Govan)Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L,
Bullard, D. G.Hurd, A. R.Profumo, J, D.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)Raikes, Sir Victor
Burden, F. F. A.Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)Rayner, Brig. R.
Butcher, Sir HerbertHyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.Redmayne, M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.Rees-Davies, W. R.
Campbell, Sir DavidIremonger, T. L.Remnant, Hon. P.
Cary, Sir RobertJenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Renton, D. L. M.
Channon, H.Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Ridsdale, J. E.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Jones, A. (Hall Green)Robertson, Sir David
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Cole, NormanKaberry, D.Robson-Brown, W.
Colegate, W. A.Kerby, Capt. H. B.Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerKerr, H. W.Roper, Sir Harold
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertLambert, Hon. G.Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cooper-Key, E. M.Lambton, ViscountRussell, R. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Lancaster, Col. C. G.Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Langford-Holt, J. A.Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Leather, E. H. C.Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Crouch, R. F.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)Scott, R. Donald
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Linstead, Sir H. N.Shepherd, William
Davidson, ViscountessLlewellyn, D. T.Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Deedes, W. F.Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Digby, S. WingfieldLloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Snadden, W. McN.
Doughty, C. J. A.Longden, GilbertSpearman, A. C. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord MalcolmLow, A. R. W.Speir, R. M.
Drayson, G. B.Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Drewe, Sir C.Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)Lucas-Tooth, Sir HughStanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.Stevens, Geoffrey
Duthie, W. S.McAdden, S. J.Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Macdonald, Sir PeterStoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.Mackeson, Brig. Sir HarryStorey, S.
Erroll, F. J.McKibbin, A. J.Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Finlay, GraemeMackie, J. H. (Galloway)Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Fisher, NigelMaclay, Rt. Hon. JohnStudholme, H. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.Maclean, FitzroySummers, G. S.
Ford, Mrs. PatriciaMacleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Fort, R.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Foster, JohnMacpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)Teeling, W.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. p. L. (Hereford)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellManningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir ReginaldThomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Galbraith Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Markham, Major Sir FrankThompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Marlowe, A. A. H.Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydMarples, A. E.Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Glover, DMarshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Godber, J. B.Maude, AngusTilney, John
Gough, C. F. H.Maudling, R.Touche, Sir Gordon
Gower, H. R.Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.Turner, H. F. L.
Graham, Sir FergusMedlicott, Brig. F.Turton, R. H.
Grimond, J.Mellor, Sir JohnTweedsmuir, Lady
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Molson, A. H. E.Vane, W. M. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir WalterVaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)Moore, Sir ThomasVosper, D. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Morrison, John (Salisbury)Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Nabarro, G. D, N.Walker-Smith, D. C.
Harvey, Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)Neave, AireyWall, Major Patrick
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Nicholls, HarmarWard, Hon. George (Worcester)
Harvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeNoble, Cmdr. A. H. PWard, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Hay, JohnNugent, G. R. H.Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.Nutting, AnthonyWatkinson, H. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelOdey, G. W.Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Heath, EdwardO'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Wellwood, W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Higgs, J. M. COrr, Capt. L. P. S.Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)Osborne, C.Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hirst, GeoffreyPage, R. G.Wills, G.
Holland-Martin, C. J.Peake, Rt. Hon. O.Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Hollis, M. C.Perkins, Sir RobertWood, Hon. R.
Holt, A. F.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Hope, Lord JohnPickthorne, K. W. M.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryPilkington, Capt. R. A.Mr. Oakshott and
Horobin, I. M.Pitman, I. J.Mr. Robert Allan.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorencePitt, Miss E. M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Greenwood, AnthonyPannell, Charles
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Grey, C. F.Pargiter, G. A.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Parker, J.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Parkin, B. T.
Awbery, S. S.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Paton, J.
Bacon, Miss AliceHall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Pearson, A.
Balfour, A.Hamilton, W. W.Peart, T. F.
Bartley, P.Hannan, W.Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bence, C. R.Hardy, E. A.Popplewell, E.
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodHargreaves, A.Porter, G.
Benson, G.Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Beswick, F.Hastings, S.Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bing, G. H. C.Hayman, F. H.Proctor, W. T.
Blackburn, F.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E)Pryde, D. J.
Blenkinsop, A.Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Blyton, W. R.Herbison, Miss M.Rankin, John
Boardman, H.Hewitson, Capt. M.Reeves, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. GHobson, C. R.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Bowden, H. W.Holman, P.Reid, William (Camlachie)
Bowles, F. G.Holmes, HoraceRobens, Rt. Hon. A.
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethHoughton, DouglasRoberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brockway, A. F.Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Ross, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Royle, C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Short, E. W.
Callaghan, L. J.Janner, B.Shurmer, P. L. E.
Carmichael, J.Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Castle, Mrs. B. AJeger, George (Goole)Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Champion, A. J.Jeger, Mrs. LenaSimmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Chetwynd, G. R.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Skeffington, A. M.
Clunie, J.Johnson, James (Rugby)Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Coldrick, WJohnston, Douglas (Paisley)Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Collick, P. H.Jones, David (Hartlepool)Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. FredaJones, T. W. (Merioneth)Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Cove, W. G.Keenan, W.Snow, J. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Sorensen, R. W.
Crosland, C. A. R.King, Dr. H. M.Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Crossman, R. H. S.Kinley, J.Sparks, J. A.
Cullen, Mrs. A.Lawson, G. M.Steele, T.
Daines, P.Lee, Frederick (Newton)Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)Lewis, ArthurStross, Dr. Barnett
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)Logan, D. G.Swingler, S. T.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)MacColl, J. E.Sylvester, G. O.
de Freitas, GeoffreyMcKay, John (Wallsend)Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, G.McLeavy, F.Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Delargy, H. J.McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Dodds, N. N.MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Donnelly, D. L.Mainwaring, W. H.Thornton, E.
Driberg, T. E. N.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Tomney, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)Viant, S. P.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Manuel, A. C.Warbey, W. N
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Watkins, T. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Mason, RoyWeitzman, D.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Mayhew, C. P.Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Edward (Lewestoft)Mellish, R. J.Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Messer, Sir F.West, D. G.
Fernyhough, E.Mikardo, IanWheeldon, W. E.
Fienburgh, W.Mitchison, G. R.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Finch, H. J.Monslow, W.White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Moody, A. S.Wigg, George
Follick, M.Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.Willey, F. T.
Foot, M. M.Morley, R.Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Forman, J. C.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Mulley, F. W.Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Freeman, John (Watford)Nally, W.Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. NNoel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Willis, E. G.
Acland, Sir RichardOldfield, W. H.Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Adams, RichardOliver, G. H.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Albu, A. H.Orbach, M.Yates, V. F.
Gibson, C. W.Oswald, T.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Glanville, JamesPadley, W. E.
Gooch, E. G.Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. CPalmer, A. M. F.Mr. Wallace and Mr. Rogers.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.