§ (1) For the purposes of Rule 8 of No. V of Schedule A as amended by Section thirty-two of the Income Tax Act, 1945 (which grants relief in respect of maintenance, repairs, insurance and management of property), a person occupying any premises as the tenant thereof shall be treated as if he were the owner thereof if, under the covenants contained in the lease or agreement by virtue of which he occupies the premises, the whole of the burden of repairing the premises falls upon him.
§ (2) The provisions of this Section shall have effect as from the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and accordingly in Subsection (1) of Section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1945, the words "or, in the case of expenditure by a tenant could, if he had been the owner," shall be omitted.— [Viscount Hinchingbrooke.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is in identical terms, except for the relevant change in date, to the 1700 Clause which was moved last year, when we had a very useful discussion in Committee and on Report. After the Solicitor-General had refused to accept the principle involved, my right hon. Friends the Members for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) and the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) were good enough to intervene, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sufficiently impressed by what they said to promise to look into the whole matter before this year. I have put this Clause down for that reason. I do not want to delay the Committee by repeating last year's arguments in detail, because they are well known to the Government. I can only hope that the Government will be able to be more forthcoming than on the previous occasion. I ought to disclose an interest in this matter. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities, I occupy a property which might be affected by any concession although—so anomalous is the 1701 law—I do not know that I may not in fact be covered by existing practice.
The object of the Clause is to apply the ordinary Schedule A procedure of the maintenance claims to tenants with a repairing lease. As I said, the law is anomalous. I do not think the Solicitor-General would object if I told the Committee that I received a letter from him a year ago, in which he said that the position of the leaseholder with a lease over 50 years was covered by the Finance Act, 1940, and that as a result of that Act long leaseholders with repairing leases were able to put into the Revenue a maintenance claim, and get back tax against it. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred me in that letter to Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1940. I have read that Section through time and time again, and I have taken advice on it, but I cannot see that the long leaseholder is covered. I have searched through the Debates of 1940 both on the Budget Resolutions, Committee and Report stages, and on the Finance Bill itself, Second Reading, Committee and Report stages, and I can find no argument adduced there in support of that Section. So it is impossible to disentagle the situation. I suppose that in 1940 England was otherwise occupied, and hon. Members did not have much time to discuss a matter of this kind; anyhow that Section went through with no debate whatever.
That being the case, I would like to ask the Solicitor-General, here and now, what precisely is the legal foundation for the undoubted fact that long-term leaseholders with repairing leases can, and do, get relief of tax on the amount they spend in keeping their property in good repair? Practice, if not the law itself, has already admitted the principle that some tenants of property should be relieved of tax on maintenance. That, I believe, opens the door to this Clause. Last year, the Solicitor-General made two points in refutation of the case I sought to make. The first was that tenants who have a beneficial interest in the property, that is to say, those who pay less rental than the Schedule A assessment, can put in a maintenance claim of the amount by which tax and Surtax thereupon equals the difference between the assessment and the rent. Of course, that is clearly so. We all know that to be part of the law. But how many 1702 do benefit from this, especially in these times of high cost of repairs? I am sure it is within the experience of every Member of this House that landlords are so hard hit by taxation, and the housing shortage itself is so great, that landlords are concluding agreements today which charge rents equal to or, indeed, above the Schedule "A" assessment, and, in addition, saddle their tenants with the cost of repair. Tenants in this position have to maintain the property out of their net income. Again, taxation being what it is, the same principle hits the tenant as it does the landlord, and they do the very minimum necessary to keep their properties in good repair.
The second point made by the Solicitor-General, the real gravamen of his case against the Clause, was that a tenant with a repairing lease would enjoy a rent proportionately lower than the tenant without a repairing lease. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the market in houses is now so free that there is room for nice calculation between landlord and tenant about rents? Does he really think that landlords are today bargaining lower rents against the tenant's liability for repairs? I am sure that is not so, and all the advice I have sought on this goes to prove it. I am not a great believer in rent restriction, because I think it operates harshly in many cases, but it has certain advantages. In the uncontrolled market of today landlords are getting away with high rents and also no liability for repairs. Rent restriction may be good politics in some cases but, unfortunately, it does not help with this Clause at a11. Obviously, there are very few rent restricted tenants who have repairing leases.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) is not in his place, because he was here last year and made a forthright speech against this Clause. He said that it would result in landlords everywhere refusing anything but repairing leases and thus getting out of their normal obligations. I believe that there are several reasons why that would not happen. The first is that this Clause is really concerned with the short lease and not with the long lease. Landlords are bound to be chary of granting short repairing leases to a series of different tenants who might well over a period of 1703 time after the whole character of the property. Incidentally, they might alter it in such a way as greatly to improve the value of the property, thus putting up the assessment and increasing the tax on the landlord. Secondly, I would say to hon. Members who take that view that this Clause clearly does not affect landlords. It is an arrangement entirely between the tenant and the Inland Revenue. If I were asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make things harder for landlords than he does now, landlords might well be expected to do what the hon. Member for Oldham suggested last year and discharge some of their obligations upon their tenants.
I ask now, as I asked last year: Is it in the national interest to have a distinctive class of property—houses let to tenants on a repairing lease for short periods—depreciating in comparison with other property because the cost of upkeep has to be met out of net income instead of gross income, for that is what it amounts to? In the case of a landlord he repairs his property out of gross income and in the case of tenants with repairing leases they are forced to do that out of net income and, therefore, there is this disincentive to repair. Surely, it must be the property and not the taxpayer which counts? The law ought to be framed so that property of all kinds carries the same financial stimulus to repair and takes no account whatever of the status of the occupier. I hope that the Government has been able to give this consideration in the last year, and I hope that we can advance a further stage this evening than we were 12 months ago.
§ The Solicitor-General
I am sorry that after very careful consideration we feel that we are not in a position to accept the new Clause. The noble Lord asked me, at the outset of his speech, to indicate the relevance of Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1940, and I gathered from what he said that he could find no trace of any relevance in that Section after reading it several times. I am wondering whether he was looking at the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, or looking at the wrong Section. The Section begins:This Section applies to the following payments, that is to say (a) rents in long leases".and if the noble Lord will turn to Section 13 he will see that a long lease is defined 1704 as a lease granted for a term exceeding 50 years. Clearly, the Section at least relates to long leases, and it says that a tenant with a long lease, that is to say a lease of over 50 years, shall be in a position similar to the actual owner, the freeholder, in that he can treat the ground rent he has to pay as a deduction against his general income. It says that the ground rent and certain other annual payments referred to in that Section shall be charged under Case VI of Schedule D, which is the Case which applies, to other general income, to be treated for the purposes of such of the provisions of the Income Tax Acts as apply to royalties paid for the use of a patent as if it were a royalty. That means to say that it attracts the provisions of Rules 19 and 21.
The Section says that a tenant with a long lease can deduct the ground rent that he pays from his general income and treat it as a charge under Rules 19 and 21 of Schedule D, and of course the owner of property can do very much the same thing with regard, for example, to the interest he pays on a mortgage he may have taken out on a property. He can treat the mortgage interest as a charge upon his general income in exactly the same way as, by Section 17, a tenant is allowed to treat his ground rent as a charge against his general income for the purpose of tax deduction. May I now go back to what was said before when the matter was discussed and see where we are? It appeared that the argument propounded by the noble Lord—
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say where the word "repairs" occurs in Section 17, because the whole case rests upon the right of the tenant to make repairs?
§ The Solicitor-General
It does not appear, but the landlord, and the tenant on a long lease, can use the whole of his Schedule A tax against which to deduct his maintenance, whereas if it were not for Section 17 the tenant on a long or short lease—I am talking about long leases for the moment—could only deduct his maintenance repairs from the difference between his Schedule A tax and the amount he has to pay. That is the relevance of that Section. Suppose we are talking of a tenant with a short lease, that is to say a tenant who does not come within Section 17. If he has a beneficial interest, and 1705 holds property at a rent less than the annual Schedule A value, he is allowed to deduct his maintenance repairs from his Schedule A tax but, it will work out in practice, only against the difference between the Schedule A tax and the rent he pays his landlord, so that he is in a position, as the noble Lord pointed out, which does not really fully indemnify him against his maintenance claim.
What the noble Lord wants to be done, and what he is asking should be done, is that the tenant on a short lease should be treated exactly as if he were a tenant on a long lease, in other words, that Section 17 should be extended to include a tenant on a short lease, that is to say, a lease of less than 50 years. That, I submit, is a proposition which really cannot possibly be accepted, because what would it mean? It would mean that one would be committed to treating all rent as a deduction against profits, even if it was rent paid for the occupation of private premises. When a tenant undertakes repairs, when, to quote the words of the noble Lord's new Clause, he shoulders the whole burden of repairs, what is he in effect doing? He is in effect paying an extra rent, as the market operates—I do not say that it operates with complete accuracy, I accept that, as the noble Lord said—and as the market operates in the long run, the tenant who does repairs pays proportionately less rent over a long period. When there is a normal market, and I am not talking about an abnormal market, if he does the repairs he pays proportionately less rent.
Therefore, if you are going to say with regard to a tenant on a short lease that he must be allowed to treat his repairs as a deduction against his general income, as can a tenant on a long lease, you are in effect saying that all rent should qualify as a deduction against general income or as against profits. If you say that, what logical distinction can you draw between rent and any number of other personal payments? Take the case of keeping one's family—one cannot use that as a deduction against one's profits or income, one has to pay that out of one's net income, to use the noble Lord's phrase. If you can treat the rent you pay for your private premises as a deduction, logically you can draw no distinction between that sort of payment for your personal needs and any other payment for the upkeep of your family, for the education of children, 1706 or any other personal payment you may make.
§ 9.30 p.m
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I am not claiming such a right for the owner. I am only claiming a right of maintenance. I am not going into the question of family at all.
§ The Solicitor-General
What the noble Lord is saying is that a tenant on a short lease should be treated in the same position as an owner or as a tenant on a long lease coming within Section 17. What I am saying is that if that is accepted, then we must equally accept as a matter of logic a whole lot of other personal demands. They also would qualify as deductions, for there is no distinction in principle at all. The two things are heterogeneous. The noble Lord said "You have already done it in the case of the long lease holder." That is perfectly true, but that has been done because a period of 50 years has been selected as drawing the dividing line 'between the person who is really a tenant in the accepted sense and a person who, because of a long period, approximates more closely to an owner. It may be said that the dividing line should be moved one way or the other, but it must be somewhere about the 50 year mark. It is drawn there in order to distinguish between a person who occupies property, who is really in the position of an owner, and a person whose grant is less than that and who really approximates to a real tenant.
§ Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)
A dividing line is drawn so as to exclude a lease less than 50 years. Is that a lease run 50 years or is it one with still 50 years or more to run?
§ The Solicitor-General
Yes. That is the argument in reply to that propounded by the noble Lord. We cannot accept his argument without allowing a lot of deductions which are indistinguishable from the demand he has put forward. Therefore, I am sorry that after very careful consideration we cannot accede to his proposal without opening the door so wide 1707 that really one does not know what one would legitimately exclude if one accepted the principle of the Amendment.
I should like to put this point to the learned Solicitor-General. Take the case of an owner who has let his farm and his buildings on a repairing lease. The owner is allowed a statutory amount for repairs, and if he exceeds 12½ per cent. he can put in a maintenance claim. Suppose the tenant exceeds the 12½ per cent. and goes up to 25 per cent. who is going to get the extra 12½ per cent? It seems to me that the Income Tax authorities get away with the extra repairs done on the premises, for the landlord cannot claim because he had had his allowance and the tenant cannot claim them.
§ Mr. Assheton
I listened with great interest to the case made by the noble Lord and the answer by the Solicitor-General. I was not convinced at all by that answer, and I would like to explain to the Committee why I was not. First, there is an injustice in this differentiation. There may be two houses next door to each other in the same street. One house is let, say, on a weekly tenancy, the landlord remaining entirely liable for repairs. The house next door is let on a repairing lease for a shortish term of years. The first house, which is the landlord liability house, is in the position that any repairs that have to be clone can be set off against the income which the landlord receives from that house. If, therefore, the landlord receives an income of £50 per year and the repairs which he does over a period of five years average £20, the net taxable income is £30 a year. The house next door is let on a short repairing lease and the tenant, who is liable for repairs, cannot set off the cost of those repairs, nor can the landlord. The first house is, therefore, likely to be better maintained than the second house. Not only is there injustice in differentiation between those two cases, but there is bound to be neglect in the repair of property if this principle is assumed.
On those two grounds I suggest that the Committee should press the Government to accept the new Clause. Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) made this case very well indeed, and supported the noble Lord. After all, the right hon. Gentleman spoke with all the 1708 authority of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and knew what he was talking about, and he did not make any mistakes in the case he put. I suggest that the Chancellor might look at this again before we come to a further stage in this Bill. As for precedents with which he might comfort himself, if he needs comfort of that kind, he could look at Section 33 of the 1945 Finance Act which does not distinguish between tenants and landlords, but gives them equal treatment. I am bound to say that I find it very difficult to see why this Government should be more tender to landlords than to tenants. Both justices and expediency demand that we should support this Clause.
§ Mr. C. Williams
The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to base his case on the proposition that where there was a tenant who did the repairs, in the long run his rent would be lower than it would be if the landlord did the repairs. He went on from that proposition to say that if the Government opened the door here, they would have to allow a whole lot of other expenses. Surely, the position is totally different? What the Chancellor, above everyone else, would want to do would be to keep the houses in repair. He gains on Death Duties, among other things, and it is also desirable to keep up the standard of house property for general purposes. If a man is paying a rent of £50 a year and spends £500 on improvements, a great deal of that will go to the Chancellor in the event of Death Duties becoming payable. It encourages him to add to the capital value of the property. That is entirely different from opening the door to other things. I should have thought that one of the things which any Government would wish to do at the present time would be to encourage tenants to improve property, especially when there is a shortage of houses, so as to preserve the properties. I should have thought that it was quite impossible to say from anything we have heard up to now that that would be opening the door to asking for other concessions.
In the circumstances, and particularly in the circumstances of the argument put forward, I ask whether it might be possible to look into this from the point of view of the capital appreciation of the whole of the house property of this country. By "appreciation" I mean in the widest interest of the nation as a whole. Ought 1709 we not to try to encourage a tenant to effect improvements by giving him advantages as we do in the case of a longer lease? If that were not done for a tenant for a short lease, I suggest that the 50 years should be brought down to some very much more appropriate figure, such as 14 or 21. That in itself would be a tremendous encouragement, and I believe it would go some way towards meeting what the noble Lord proposed. Obviously, the 50 year figure is far too high. Surely, there is the need for this reform at the present time. The Government Front Bench are laying themselves open to being twitted about their attitude towards their landlord. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to lay himself open to that sort of twitting, but should look after the interests of the whole community as if he were, as he might have been, a good, sound Tory Chancellor.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
The point which my noble Friend has raised is one on which we must press the Government because there is an extraordinary anomaly. I think I understood the force of the argument put by the Solicitor-General. He said that we must not do anything that would open the door to allowing private individuals to claim Income Tax rebates in respect of expenditure which is properly their own personal expenditure. It may well be that the wording of the Clause raises that objection. On the other hand, if that is so, the wording can be altered, and I do not think the Government would have any difficulty in altering it so as to cover the anomaly raised.
This is the anomaly. Suppose one takes a property which is valued at £100 a year for Income Tax purposes under Schedule A. Suppose that in one year the sum of £50 is spent in doing repairs to that property. It would be right and reasonable to say that that £50 should be deducted from the amount of the Schedule A tax for the purpose of assessing the liability on that house. Indeed, that may, be so, but one has to ask this further question: who, in fact, is carrying out that repair? If it is carried out in certain circumstances by the tenant, no rebate is allowed. If, on the other hand, it is carried out in other circumstances by the tenant, a rebate is allowed. 1710 If it is carried out by the landlord, in every case rebate is allowed. Surely, that displays an anomaly, and a really absurd one? Supposing there are 30 years left to run on a lease, one has to ask a further question: was this lease originally for 49 years or was it for 51 years? If it was 51 years, then the tenant can recover; if it was only 49 years, he cannot recover. It is an impossible position. Supposing there is an obligation on the tenant to repair, but supposing the tenant goes to his landlord and says, "If I carry out these repairs I shall get no rebate in respect of Income Tax, but if you carry out these repairs, you will get a full rebate. Although I agree you have no obligation to do so, if you carry out these repairs you will then recover the full amount of rebate, and I am quite willing to go halves with you and we will split the difference which we shall get from the Revenue." I think that would be a perfectly legal agreement, and I do not think there is anything conspiratorial about it.
§ Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Llandaff and Barry) indicated dissent.
§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I see the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) shaking his head, and maybe he will intervene in the Debate. At any rate we have this ludicrous position, that what one man does will not give any rebate, what another does will give a rebate, and there seems to me to be plenty of ground there for conspiratorial agreements to get what can be got, and what should properly be got, out of the Bill. I urge the Government to reconsider this matter and to indicate that they are prepared to do something at a later stage of this Bill.
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
I have derived singularly little satisfaction from the statement of the Solicitor-General. When he talks about opening the door to tenants to put in family and personal expenses. I find it difficult to follow him. All I am seeking to do in this Clause is to apply the procedure of the maintenance claim set out in Schedule A, Rule 5, No. 8, which gives a landlord the right to put in a claim for maintenance, repairs, insurance and management. If you give the tenants the same right, they cannot go beyond it. How can they come along and put in a claim for all sorts of outside 1711 expenses in connection with their houses? They are tied to the provision of the 1918 Act. I ask the Government to look at this again. There are inroads into the law already. There is the provision for the long lease and that provides the justification, in part, for shortening it. Why is it right to do in 50 years what it is wrong to do in 49 years? Then I ask the Government, as the Income Tax Act, 1945, was mentioned, to look at Section 33 which says:…the owner or tenant of any agricultural or forestry land who incurs any capital expenditure on the construction of farm houses, farm or forestry buildings…shall be entitled to an allowance for that year of assessment and each of the succeeding nine years of assessment equal to one-tenth of that expenditure.
§ That gives tenants of agricultural land exactly the same right as landlords to recover the capital costs of their buildings. Is it not very close to that to give tenants of houses the same right to apply for a maintenance relief in respect of the repairs to their property? I do not see that the two things are far apart at all, and I beg the Government to look at it again. However, in view of the stern looks upon their faces, and the fact that the Solicitor-General has been so unforthcoming this evening, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby on this Clause.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 259.1713
|Division No. 257.]||AYES||9.51 p.m.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)||Rayner, Brig. R.|
|Assheton, Rt. Hon. R||Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V||Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)|
|Barlow, Sir J||Hollis, M. C||Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)|
|Baxter, A. B.||Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)||Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland|
|Beechman, N. A||Hope, Lord J.||Ropner, Col. L|
|Bennett, Sir P.||Howard, Hon. A.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Birch, Nigel||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Bower, N.||Hutchison, Col, J. R. (Glasgow, C.)||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W||Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W||Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T||Langford-Holt, J.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)|
|Bullock, Capt. M||Lindsay, M. (Solihull)||Sutcliffe, H|
|Byers, Frank||Lipson, D. L.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Carson, E||Low, Brig. A. R. W||Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)|
|Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.||Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)||Mackeson, Brig H. R||Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F|
|Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.||Maclay, Hon. J. S||Touche, G. C.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Maitland, Comdr. J. W.||Vane, W. M. F|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Manningham-Buller, R. E||Wadsworth, G|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Marples, A. E.||Wakefield, Sir W. W|
|Digby, S. W.||Marshall, D. (Bodmin)||Walker-Smith, D.|
|Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)||Mellor, Sir J.||Ward, Hon. G. R|
|Drayson, G. B.||Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Sallsbury)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J.|
|Drewe, C||Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C E||White, Sir D. (Fareham)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Neven-Spence, Sir B||White, J. B (Canterbury)|
|Eccles, D. M.||Nicholson G.||Williams, C (Torquay)|
|Fletcher, W. (Bury)||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P||Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)|
|Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Gage, C.||Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)|
|Glyn, Sir R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O||TOLLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Grimston R. V.||Raikes, H. V||Mr. Studholme and|
|Hannon. Sir P. (Moseley)||Ramsay, Maj. S||Major Conant|
|Adams, Richard (Balham)||Battley, J. R.||Brook, D. (Halifax)|
|Adams W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Bechervaise, A. S||Brooks, T J (Rothwell)|
|Allen, A. C (Bosworth)||Benson, G.||Brown, George (Belper)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Berry, H||Brown, T J. (Ince)|
|Attewell, H. C.||Beswick, F.||Bruce, Maj. D. W. T|
|Austin, H. Lewis||Bing, G. H C||Burden, T. W|
|Awbery, S. S.||Binns, J.||Burke, W. A.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Blackburn, A. R||Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)|
|Ayrton Gould, Mrs B||Blenkinsop, A.||Callaghan, James|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Blyton, W R.||Champion, A J.|
|Baird, J.||Bottomley, A. G||Chater, D.|
|Balfour, A||Bowdon, Flg.-Offr. H. W.||Chetwynd, C. R|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Cobb, F. A.|
|Barstow, P. G||Braddock, Mrs E M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)||Cocks, F. S|
|Barton, C.||Braddock, T (Mitcham)||Coldrick, W.|
|Collindridge, F.||Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)||Pursey, Cmdr. H|
|Collins, V. J.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Randall, H. E|
|Colman, Miss G. M.||Irving, W. J.||Ranger, J|
|Comyns, Dr. L.||Janner, B.||Rankin, J|
|Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Rees-Williams, D. R|
|Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)||Jeger, Dr S. W (St. Pancras, S.E.)||Reeves, J.|
|Corlett, Dr. J.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Corvedale, Viscount||Jones, D T (Hartlepools)||Richards, R.|
|Crawley, A.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Robens, A.|
|Crossman, R H. S||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Daggar, G.||Keenan, W.||Royle, C.|
|Daines, P.||Kenyon, C.||Sargood, R.|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Key, C. W||Scollan, T|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Kinley, J.||Shackleton, E. A. A|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Kirby, B. V||Sharp, Granville|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Lang, G.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)||Leslie, J. R.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Deer, G||Levy, B. W||Skinnard, F. W.|
|Diamond, J||Lewis, A, W. J. (Upton)||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Dobbie, W.||Lewis, J. (Bolton)||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Dodds, N. N||Lipten, Lt.-Col. M||Solley, L. J.|
|Donovan, T||Longden, F||Sorenson, R W.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Lyne, A W||Soskice, Maj. Sir F|
|Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)||McAdam, W||Sparks, J. A|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||McEntee, V La||Stamford, W|
|Dye, S||McGhee, H. G||Steele, T.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C||Mack, J. D.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)|
|Edelman, M.||McKay, J. (Wallsend)||Strachey, J.|
|Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)||Mackay, R W G (Hull, N.W.)||Swingler, S.|
|Evans, E. (Lowestoft)||McLeavy, F||Sylvester, G O|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Symonds, A. L.|
|Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)||Mallalieu, J. P W||Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)|
|Ewart, R.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Fairhurst, F.||Marshall, F. (Brightside)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Farthing, W. S||Mathers, G||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Messer, F||Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Middleton, Mrs. L||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Follick, M.||Mikardo, Ian||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Foot, M. M.||Mitchison, G R||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Forman, J. C.||Monslow, W.||Thurlle, Ernest|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Moody, A. S||Tolley, L|
|Gaitskell, H. T. N||Morley, R.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G|
|Ganley, Mrs. G. S||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Turner-Samuels, M.|
|Gibbins, J.||Mort, D. L||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Moyle, A.||Vernon, Maj. W. F|
|Goodrich, H E.||Murray, J. D||Viant, S. P|
|Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)||Naylor, T. E.||Walkden, E.|
|Grenfell, D. R||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Grey, C. F.||Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)||Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Grierson, E||Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)||Warbey, W. N.|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Weitzman, D.|
|Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)||Noel-Buxton, Lady||Wells, W. T (Walsall)|
|Gunter, R. J.||Oliver, G. H||West, D. G.|
|Guy, W. H.||Paget, R. T.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.|
|Haire, John E. (Wycombe)||Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W|
|Hale, Leslie||Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)||Wigg, Col. G. E|
|Hall, W. G.||Palmer, A. M. F||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R||Pargiter, G. A||Willey, F. T (Sunderland)|
|Hannan, W (Maryhill)||Parker, J.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Hardy, E A||Parkin, B. T.||Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)|
|Hastings, Dr Somerville||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)||Pearson, A.||Willis, E|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Peart, Thomas F||Wills, Mrs. E. A|
|Herbison, Miss M||Piratin, P.||Woodburn, A.|
|Hobson, C. R.||Foole, Major Cecil (Lichfield||Woods, G. S|
|Holman, P.||Porter, E (Warrington)||Wyatt, W|
|Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Yates, V. F.|
|House, G||Price, M. Philips||Young, Sir R. (Newton)|
|Hoy, J.||Pritt, D. N.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hudson, J. H. (Eallne, W.)||Proctor, W. T|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Pryde, D. J.||TELLERS FOK THE NOES:|
|Mr. Simmons and Mr. Snow.|