I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out "doubled" and to insert "trebled".
Perhaps we could discuss at the same time the following Amendment, in page 5, line 27, to leave out "two" and to insert "four-thirds".
The Amendments are designed to achieve the rerating of industry to the extent of 75 per cent. rather than the 50 per cent. provided in the Bill. In Committee, we endeavoured by Amendments to rerate industry to the full extent of 100 per cent., but this evening we have rather reluctantly tried to split the difference between the Government and ourselves by suggesting that industry should be rerated to the extent of 75 per cent.
I do not propose to go into the whole background or history of derating which has probably continued since about 1862, but the problem has arisen ever since the introduction of the Act of 1929 which provided for relief to industrialists of their local rate obligations to the extent of 75 per cent. Whatever justifications may have existed in 1929, it is our submission that they no longer exist today.
The position today is very different from that in 1929. I do not require to recall to the Committee that in 1929 we had mass unemployment and our basic industries were severely depressed, some almost stagnant. Indeed, in those days, we talked about mass unemployment, distressed areas and Poor Law relief. As a result of these economic conditions and also as a result of the fact that local authorities were involved in heavy expenditure in Poor Law relief and in public health services, one can well imagine the volume of expenditure on these two services alone. At that time it was felt that if industry were relieved of 75 per cent. of its local rate obligation, this might have the effect of stimulating industry and indeed, in some instances, of creating considerable expansion in industrial development and in others might even result in the survival of certain industrial undertakings. In the process it was felt that it would also bring about the absorption of many thousands of unemployed into the ranks of industry. Whether or not the Act of 1929 achieved these objectives is open to question.
I could weary the Committee with a catalogue of facts and figures which would prove that the objectives desired as a result of the 1929 Measure were not in any way achieved, but perhaps it is sufficient for me to say that from the introduction of that Act in 1929 until almost the outbreak of war in 1939 our unemployment figures grew steadily year by year. Almost without exception, year after year unemployment figures in Scotland continued to increase. Concurrent with that our exports, which are a signpost of this country's prosperity, fell year by year from 1929 to 1939.
The economic conditions, social problems and local authority responsibilities are entirely different today from those in 1929 when the Local Government (Scotland) Act was introduced. Poor Law relief and local health services are no longer the responsibility of local authorities. Ever since 1939 or 1945, which perhaps is a better example, our basic industries have developed, grown and expanded and have witnessed a period of prosperity perhaps hitherto unknown to them. In present circumstances we are entitled to ask ourselves why industry should be in the privileged position of enjoying a subsidy of even 50 per cent. as provided for in the Bill.
I confess that I become somewhat irritated when I hear people saying that local rates are a burden on industry. I would put it the other way round and say that industry has become an intolerable burden on local rates. In Scotland last year ratepayers had to fork out no less than £63 million, and industry's contribution to that sum was only £2,300,000. This diversion of local rate responsibility has resulted in the remaining ratepayers—householders, shopkeepers, offices, and commercial concerns—having to shoulder a much heavier rate responsibility than they should be reasonably expected to carry. We extract as painlessly as we can from these ratepayers this £61 million perhaps not realising or recognising that industry in Scotland is being featherbedded to the extent of almost £7 million.
Why should not industry be asked to pay its full share, or, if not its full share, at least 75 per cent. for the services which local government provides to industry and which are so essential to industry? For instance there is the fire service and the prevention work done by that service. There is also the police service and the provision of roads, sewerage, housing, and, indeed, education. To the industrialists of this country, education is very important if they are not to be left behind in the technological revolution. Each of these services provides a benefit to industry, but industry does not pay its full share of the cost.
I have been told that the imposition of even 75 per cent. of a local rate responsibility would be an intolerable burden on industry. I have collated certain information which reveals to me that, even if industry were to be rerated in full, the financial burden, so far as the average proportion that local rates would form to the cost of production of the manufactured article is concerned, would be less than 1 per cent. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) well knows, the Balfour Committee, which investigated the position of trade and industry, came to the conclusion that if industry were to be asked to pay its full share and meet its full responsibility for local rates that would represent less than ½ per cent. of the cost of the manufactured article.
A more recent figure has been given by the deputy editor of the Economist, who said that the additional burden on industry in the event of its being rated to the full extent—and we are not asking that that should be done; we are asking that it should be rated to only 75 per cent.—would be a mere flea bite.
During the Committee stage, I gave an example of a shipyard in the City of Glasgow. I pointed out that that shipyard today pays £7,682 in rates. Under the Bill, its rates will increase to £15,364. Under my proposal, its rates would increase to approximately £18,500. My Amendment, therefore, would add approximately £11,000 to the burden of that shipyard. It is a shipyard which builds ships worth £3 million and £4 million. Even if it built only one ship per year, the additional burden of £11,000 is such a mathematical fraction that it could hardly be calculated. Therefore, it is all bunk and nonsense to suggest that the imposition of a rate burden such as we now propose would penalise industry.
I gave another example concerning Grangemouth, a town in Scotland which for a variety of reasons has attracted considerable industry. In attracting that industry, the Grangemouth local authority has naturally become involved in considerable financial commitments. I understand that during the past twelve years it has had to spend almost £½ million on sewers, almost £¼ million on water supplies and £1¾ million on housing. I am not taking into account other commitments of the burgh. Sufficient is it for me to say that the loan debt of Grangemouth has risen over these years to £3,730,000, or roughly £233 per head of population. Indeed, the average loss in Scotland in respect of rateable value as a result of derating is £2 per head of population, but in the Burgh of Grangemouth the average loss of rateable value is £13 per head.
In Grangemouth, the total rateable value of industry derated is today £83,000 representing 29·3 per cent. of the total rateable value of the burgh as a whole, If, however, derating were to be abolished, or even if our 75 per cent. proposal were accepted, the total rateable value of the industrial subjects would go up from £83,000 to £383,000. This would mean a fantastic figure to the Burgh of Grangemouth. Grangemouth is losing £300,000 of rateable value. That is equivalent to 20s. 6d. on the rates and the rates of the burgh today are 20s. 1d., so that Grangemouth would more than halve its rate burden.
The situation in Glasgow is somewhat similar. The rateable value of industrial subjects in Glasgow today is £459,000, or approximately 3 per cent. of the total rateable value of the city. The other ratepayers have to find the balance of 97 per cent. of the rateable value. If the industrialists in Glasgow were to be rated in full, this would mean in essence, not a rateable value of £459,000, but a rateable value of £1,834,000. If, however, the Government are disposed to accept the compromise which we offer by way of our Amendment, the rateable value would be, not £1,834,000, but approximately £1,400,000. Glasgow, however, is losing each year £1,400,000 by way of loss of rateable value. That is equivalent to approximately 2s. in the £ on rates.
There is no justification today for a subsidy being given to industrial undertakings. Only this month I have read in the Press many examples of the net profits of industrial undertakings in Scotland. I could quote at least ten or fifteen, but I will take only two examples, and not extreme examples at that. One Glasgow firm's profits in the past year have risen from £1,540,000 to £1,770,000. I have also an example of a small firm in a small burgh just outside Edinburgh. This small firm's profits have risen from £92,300 to over £126,000 and the shareholders will be glad to know that it paid a dividend of 25 per cent. One could go on giving illustration after illustration of a situation which I cannot describe other than by saying that it is fantastic that in this day and generation we should be subsidising industry, or, at least, relieving it of its local rate contribution, in circumstances of that kind.
Why should we do it, particularly at a time when the Government, as a result of their financial policy, are reducing subsidies on the housing of the people but are not disposed to reduce the subsidies that they are giving to industry by way of relief of rates. In the Bill, the Government are also reducing grants which they give to local authorities. That is the purpose of the Bill.
All this adds up to the old story that the ratepayer—not the industrial ratepayer, but the fellow in his house, his office or his shop—is having added to him year by year another 2s. 6d. or 4s. or 5s. on the rates. This has been happening during the past four or five years.
There is hardly a local authority in Scotland after August of this year but will have a rate figure of roughly 30s. in the £, largely because of the financial and economic policies of this Government. Here is a glorious opportunity to relieve the householder and the fellow with his shop or office of some of the burden, and to let industry bear a higher share of its responsibilities than is provided for in the Bill. I regard industrial derating as an instrument to build the reserves of industrial undertakings. Indeed it is a free gift scheme to industry, and to that extent there is absolutely no justification today for our subsidising industrial undertakings to the extent of 50 per cent. as provided for in the Bill.
I would like to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who has made one of his customary denunciations of industry and the benefits which he believes it gets somehow or other. All the way through his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to industry as being in a privileged position, as being featherbedded, as to it being "bunk and nonsense" that industry will be penalised by full rerating, and spoke of the very good position it is in, as a result of rising profits.
The hon. Gentleman also told us about the poor shopkeeper in Glasgow, who, next year, might be faced with a 30s, rate, and he attributed this wholly to the policy of the Government. The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to discuss the policy of Glasgow Corporation which, by neglecting its duty, is putting over 3s. per £1 on the rates, which could easily have been avoided.
No. I have only just started.
I am wondering how on earth industry became derated. One would not think from what has been said that derating was willingly given but that, by means of plots and machinations, industry stole something from the nation. No, it was willingly given, and it was given for an object, and the object was very different from what we hear expressed. The object of derating was supposed to be to confer a substantial benefit upon industry and thereby upon the country: so substantial, the hon. Gentleman said, that it was expected that by being relieved of 75 per cent. of its rates it would prosper and expand and even result in the survival of many industries which otherwise might go out of production. These were the substantial benefits of derating. Yet we are told that no handicap would be imposed by reimposing the burden.
I said that derating was willingly given, as it was, and now they tear and rend industry for the concession so willingly given by the local authorities. It has been in being not for a year or two, but for a long time. Indeed it was willingly continued during the years of the Socialist Administration. Industry was not poor then, it was prosperous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I admit it: industry was prosperous then, though perhaps not nearly as prosperous as it is today. If it was such a vicious thing——
I appreciate the expansion of the new industrial estates, but my point is that if it is such a vicious and unfair thing, if it is featherbedding industry, why was it allowed to continue from 1945 to 1951?
It was willingly continued for one main reason. The benefit which industry admittedly got was not enjoyed by industry for long. As soon as industry became prosperous, and certainly throughout the last war, the Chancellor looked at industry as one unit to be taxed to its uttermost, and it is still taxed to the uttermost. So what local authorities gave away in that time of need, quite rightly, has been clawed back by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the years between. The local authorities' loss was the Treasury's gain.
We have to consider this under several heads. Should industry be a partial or full payer of its share of local authority rates? Can local authorities derive some benefits beyond the payment of money from the fact that industry is a partner in local authority affairs? But, first, I will look at another aspect. While we are talking about the benefits to industry of derating, is industry the only group that is enjoying this? It is not.
The only group of persons who have not been enjoying derating for the last twenty years or more are owner-occupiers. Tenants who have been enjoying low rates have been enjoying low rents. Rent control has meant that rent controlled tenants have enjoyed low rates. Derating has gone on over a wide field, so let us look over the whole field and see whether we need more than one change. That is being done by the Government arranging for a complete revaluation in 1961.
Turning to the question of whether industry should pay its full share of local rates, I frankly cannot put forward one logical argument why it should not I would admit that this is a subsidy if, in fact, industrialists had it in their pockets, but they have not, because the Chancellor took it away. Looking at the purpose we want to achieve on both sides of the Committee, of bringing back to local authorities the feeling that they are dealing with their own money, I feel that industry should pay its full share of local rates. However, in saying that, I look at the Bill and feel certain that the Government have gone as far as they should go at this time. Therefore, I cannot support the Amendment. At the same time, I think that the ultimate objective before the Government should be to reach 100 per cent. rerating of industry by phases and not in one move.
Irrespective of how light we try to make the burden, we must consider the present marginal cases. We must consider the shale industry which is struggling to live, the jute industry which is also struggling to live, textiles and all the other marginal industries. To most industries this would be a heavy burden if it were thrown on to them at once.
There was the question of phasing. I said we must phase reallocation of 100 per cent. rerating. I made that clear in my Second Reading speech. It should be a phased imposition of 100 per cent. rerating and should not proceed too fast so that it damages those Scottish industries which are struggling.
There is another aspect to consider. We are trying hard to attract industries from abroad and throughout the years industries have come to Scotland in greater proportion than they have gone to England and Wales because of the attractions in Scotland. Part of the attraction has been derating. It is very important to Scotland in the years that lie ahead that we should continue to attract industry from abroad, and that matter may have to have special consideration.
The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is the view of all industrialists that the industries which come to Scotland, whether American or Continental firms were not attracted in any way by the provision of derating Rates were such a fleabite in their overheads that it did not matter.
I must declare an interest here, because I happen to be the chairman of one of these very firms which I happened to bring to Scotland and over which I have been able to preside. I can assure the Committee that one important consideration in deciding to come to Scotland was the fact that industry was derated.
I now have a copy of the speech which the hon. Member made on Second Reading. I suggest that he takes up this matter with the OFFICIAL REPORT, because there is nothing about phasing in his speech. He said:
Rerating should be carried out and should be carried out up to 100 per cent. …
The only qualification he made was:
… but it should be a combined operation between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
my right hon. Friend in order to see that industry is no worse off after it is rerated than it is now.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957: Vol. 580, c. 252–3.]
I said that industry should be 100 per cent. rerated, but the hon. Member should quote the whole of the speech and not merely take two sentences. My idea then, as it is now, was that it should be a phased rerating. I return to the subject with which I was dealing before that fruitless interruption.
It is important that we should continue to attract foreign firms, as they have been attracted by the benefits of derating. These gentlemen from abroad pay attention to details. I have just had the experience in the last fortnight of a very important firm proposing to set up at Glenrothes and hoping to bring employment to many people. That firm nearly gave up the idea of coming to Glenrothes, because it thought that the feu duty was too high, even though that was on a few tens of pounds per annum.
We must not lose sight of the fact that we need to attract foreign industry to Britain, and it has been attracted in the past because industry has been de-rated. That is another argument why we should not rush ahead too quickly towards 100 per cent. derating, which should be our ultimate objective.
All through the Bill we have been considering the need to inject new enthusiasm into local authorities, new interests in the work and a new sense of responsibility. One great gap in local authority administration arose after the derating of industry. Industrialists who were experienced administrators ceased to take much interest in local authority work. We lost a very valuable source of members of town councils and county councils when that happened. With the phased restoration of full rating of industry we will draw some of those able men back to strengthen the ranks of local authorities which need a great deal of strengthening.
For that and the other reasons which I have mentioned, I welcome rerating of industry, but I think that the Government have gone as far as they could just now and that the Amendment goes too far, too fast.
I have always had a great admiration for the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). He can always successfully back all the horses, and it does not matter which way they run, backwards or forwards. He never gets a non-runner. He did the same thing tonight. He almost had me weeping for industry. However, we all know that industry has two sides, and the hon. Member ought not to forget that the people who make industry profitable are not always those who run it, but are sometimes those who work in it and who have to pay full rates.
I said that council tenants have been derated for a long time. The rent passing is the assessed value of the house, and rents have been kept unnaturally low. Therefore, those tenants have been derated, too.
Whatever is in the back of the hon. Member's mind, the fact is that industry has been derated since 1929. I will not deny that something had to be done to keep industry at work. One of the most stupid forms of economy is to pay people for being unemployed. That is the very worst way of spending money, and I should be the last to complain when derating is introduced to keep people in employment.
However, that happened a long time ago and industry today bears no relation to industry in 1929. Industry was then given a subsidy, but since that time it has earned huge profits and has multiplied its businesses and factories so that its annual income has increased. In spite of that, industry still enjoys the benefit of derating.
The hon. Member for Pollok spoke about corporation tenants, and one of my hon. Friends has referred to a shipyard on the Clyde. I know of a prosperous shipyard in Burntisland where four corporation tenants are employed. Those tenants pay more in rates than does the shipyard. Does the hon. Member for Pollok think that that is just?
My view of the Amendment is completely contrary to that of the hon. Member for Pollok. We should have no compunction whatever in asking industry to pay 100 per cent. rates. Industry can look after itself. If it cannot, the Government which the hon. Member supports can look after it very well. They certainly have done so fairly well in every Budget. Everybody seems anxious to help industry, but I have never heard of industry having to seek National Assistance.
The hon. Member said that he enjoyed being chairman of five companies. Can he say whether any of them is in a dangerous position? Newspaper reports nowadays do not show industry in impoverished conditions. Industry is not to be compared with old-age pensioners who have to pay more for prescriptions when they are sick. Does the hon. Member say that his companies should have priority over old-age pensioners? In considering the assistance given to industry by local authorities, we must keep in mind those people who are wholly dependent upon the assistance of the Government and local authorities.
I had a letter the other week, which I sent to the Joint Under-Secretary, concerning old-age pensioners who were deemed to have benefited from the benefits which the Government was supposed to have provided in the Budget. They got an extra 2d. a week. Is that 2d. a week to be compared with the profits of industry?
Local authorities are always in difficulties. They carry the burden. The Government make policies, but local authorities carry them out. The Government have claimed that they have built so many houses, but they have never built a house. It is the local authorities who build houses and local authorities who have to face building streets and providing education facilities and so on.
We have just been discussing whether a local authority which does a good job with education should get some reward. This is a different matter altogether. The shoe is on the other foot. Hon. Members opposite turn completely round, without any compunction. That is why I said that the hon. Member was bound to back a winner. He has never backed a loser in his life.
His argument tonight has shown that he thinks that industry, some day or other, should pay a 100 per cent. rate. If there is any justification for an increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent., there is a justification for its paying the full sum, unless it can do what other people have to do, namely, prove that it is in need. Old-age pensioners have to pay the prescription fee for medicine and then, in order to obtain a refund of the shilling, they have to satisfy the powers that be that they are in need. I should have no objection to firms being completely derated if they could prove need, but I have not heard of many who could do that in recent times. The hon. Member has been speaking with his tongue in his cheek.
The town of Kirkcaldy, which has not a very large population, has been losing about £70,000 a year as a result of the derating of industry. It must be realised that rates in Kirkcaldy have been rising every year since the present Government came into power; that more and more difficulties have been presented to the local authority, and that still more will be presented as a result of the Bill. It will make it more difficult for authorities to provide education at the proper standard. If a local authority wants to offer any additional education, the Minister says that it must bear the expense itself.
If the Minister says that it is proper that a local authority which wants to provide better education should pay for it, and that it can then claim that the improvement is entirely the result of its own efforts, the same argument ought to be applied to the rerating of industry. We must support the Amendment, which increases the rate to 75 per cent., but I should like to see it increased to 100 per cent. I have never yet heard an argument justifying industry receiving any exemption from rates. In the old days, when I was on a local authority and we dealt with applications for exemption from rates, every person who applied, on the basis of his inability to pay, had his circumstances looked into by an investigating officer. At that time the circumstances of all the residents in the house were investigated before they could obtain any relief from rates.
But industry has been getting that relief without any investigation. The Government now propose to increase the rate from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. It is completely dishonest and absolutely typical of the Government. Everything in the Bill—as has been the case with all the Tory legislation presented in this House—is intended to benefit one section of the community.
I end where I started. I cannot accept the view that people go into industry to provide a livelihood for others. They invest in it for their own benefit in the first instance. When they draw their dividends they do it for themselves. But they could not draw benefits, and the country could not function—its economy would collapse—if it were not for the workers in industry. I suggest that so long as the people who work in industry are called upon to pay a 100 per cent. rate industry is getting off very lightly in having to pay only a 75 per cent. rate.
Will the hon. Member amplify one point? He said that the shipyard in Burntisland was paying rates equal to that paid by four council house tenants. It would therefore seem that the shipyard is paying £480 in rates. Is the hon. Member telling the Committee that the valuation of Burntisland shipyard, to his knowledge, is only £480?
I stand by the statement that I made. It was given to me by Burntisland Town Council. The council told me that four corporation tenants were paying more in rates than was the Burntisland shipyard. If the figures are wrong, I cannot help it; I have given the source from which I obtained them. They come from the collecting authority, Burntisland Town Council.
I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) for wanting 100 per cent. rating for industry, but we have had a go at that and have been refused. Now, in our usual modest and very amiable way, we are trying to obtain a 75 per cent. rating.
I want to say something about the arguments of the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George). First, we are not denouncing industry; what we are criticising is the subsidising of industry. The hon. Member should have been fair in hiss argument on this point. He said that Glasgow's rates rose because it had a Labour council, but since we have had a Tory Government and a Tory council in Edinburgh our rates have doubled, and are going up by another 1s. 6d. this year.
The hon. Member was suggesting that Glasgow was being mismanaged because the council had a Socialist majority. I was pointing out to him that, under a Tory Government and a Tory town council, since 1950–51 the rates in Edinburgh have doubled. That is one thing that the Tory Party have managed to put up very well.
The hon. Member then discussed the question of industrial rerating. He asked why the Labour Government did not introduce it after the war. I should have thought that he would know that at that time the Government had an immense task in effecting the change-over in industry—a task which they carried out very sensibly; much more sensibly than did the Tory Government after the First World War. Obviously the circumstances at that time were rather different from those obtaining today. There was a need not only to change over industry but to enter world markets exceedingly rapidly.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
The hon. Member for Pollok has always shown a great facility for managing to shift about from position to position. He did so in the debates on the Housing Subsidies Bill——
And on the Rent Bill. He has now shown the same agility that he showed then. He has certainly changed from the position he took up during the Second Reading debate, when he supported a 100 per cent. industrial rerating, with certain adjustments to be made by the Exchequer. Now he is qualifying that argument, and saying, "You must not do it too rapidly." One of the arguments that he adduced was that not only industry had been derated, but also trade and commerce, and that the only people paying rates were owner-occupiers. Owner-occupiers pay full rates only if their property has been revalued during the past few years. In Edinburgh some property has been revalued and some has not. The whole position is chaotic, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. We have passed a lot of legislation to try to bring some order into the situation. That is what we have been discussing for some years, and the process will end in 1961. But does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that if we are to bring sanity into this matter we should also include industry? Now is the time when we should include industry, when we are trying to make everyone else face the responsibility of meeting their full share of the rate burden.
The other argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman was a curious one. He said that there are still marginal cases in industry where some assistance is needed. He quoted the shale oil industry and the jute industry, which both receive direct Government assistance, either in the form of tariff protection or by a particular arrangement under the Jute Board, or by a special tax concession on the oil produced. During the Committee stage discussions we advanced an argument that if the Government found a particular industry needed assistance, that assistance should be given nationally. The Joint Under-Secretary of State turned down that argument, but his hon. Friend has today pointed to industries which are assisted by the Government in order to keep them going. He has provided an answer to what the Joint Under-Secretary said to us during the Committee stage discussions.
I do not want to cover the ground which has been covered already in such an able manner by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). The Government have argued that they wish to assist local authorities financially. One of the reasons they give for the introduction of this Bill is the fact that Government contributions to local authorities have increased to such proportions that they far exceed the local government contributions. This is one of the ways by which local authority contributions can be increased substantially without anything very difficult being done.
If the Government are sincere, why do they not follow that argument to its logical conclusion by saying, "We will rerate industry 100 per cent. and let the local electors keep the proceeds"? The remarkable thing is that after proceeding to rerate industry on the understanding that local authorities want a bigger income, the Government have snatched back two-thirds of it. How can local authorities be given greater freedom, and the rest of it, on that basis?
This brings me to the second argument of the Government, which is tied up with the first, that local authorities cannot be free unless they collect money and spend it. No local authority will ever be free so long as the money is coming from the central authority. This House of Commons will always insist on the central authority exercising proper control over the money it gives. It is the function of this House of Commons to protect the taxpayers' money. Hon. Members on both sides are engaged in the process of attempting to insert certain provisos into Bills to ensure that the money of the people is spent properly. In those circumstances, how can the Government hope to give freedom to local authorities unless they enable the local authorities to free themselves from this contribution from the central authority? This is one of the ways by which it can be done.
There is nothing more absurd than this assistance to industry. There is nothing more irrational. Take the case of two firms doing precisely the same kind of work and both having a rateable value of £20,000. On is in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh. The firm in Edinburgh is derated and assisted to the extent of 16s. in each £ of £10,000. The firm in Glasgow is subsidised to the extent of 26s. for every £ of £10,000. Surely there could be no more absurd basis of assistance to industry than on the rate poundage which happens to prevail in the area in which the industry is situated. There is neither rhyme nor reason nor anything else in it. It is an absurd arrangement, and it cannot possibly by justified by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it time that we looked at the matter again. I do not want to refer to arguments made by my hon. Friends about the profitability of industry. On the whole, industry is profitable, and on the whole the rate burden of industry is not heavy even if it were paid 100 per cent. I agree that if industry is to pay its rates and the increased cost places it in a difficult position, the Government should deal with that through taxation by reducing the national tax on industry. The position today is ridiculous. The Government refuse to give up any source of taxation. How can local authorities find sources of taxation if the Government claim them all for themselves? How can we talk about setting local authorities free if we do not allow them to collect revenue which they ought to collect for themselves?
I have been re-reading the speech which the Joint Under-Secretary made during the Committee stage discussions. I ask him to read it again and to try to pick out the substantial arguments in it. I suggest he would find that difficult to do. I do not know what are the arguments for fixing the figure at 50 per cent. Why not 40 per cent. or 60 per cent.? It is an arbitrary figure, and we have never been given the reason why the figure was fixed at 50 per cent. and not 10 per cent., 40 per cent. or 75 per cent. It is an arbitrary figure fixed by the Government because of the overwhelming evidence in support of the re-rating of industry. A Private Member's Bill introduced to rerate industry was supported by hon. Members opposite, and this is one of the reasons why the Government have had to give way a little over this question.
Why is the figure of 50 per cent. better than any other figure one might care to think of? I suggest that 75 per cent. is just as good an arbitrary figure as any other—and a dashed sight better from the point of view of local authorities. I remind the Joint Under-Secretary that one of the few authorities which has really gone into the question of local taxation, the Royal Institute of Public Administration, came out unqualifiably in support of the abolition of industrial derating. It stated:
As a matter of local government finance, and as a means of reducing the dependence of local authorities on Government grants, we recommend its abolition.
It further stated:
If for reasons of national policy subsidies for agriculture and industry are held to be
necessary, we feel very strongly that such provisions should be made entirely from the Exchequer.
There are ways of doing it without subsidising industry. The Government can reduce national taxation and reduce the Profits Tax, give higher allowances, and do all sorts of things to assist industry, and that seems to be far more satisfactory. The Government ought to face up to this matter now.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has disappeared since he made his speech, because I wish to quote from his Second Reading speech, in which he said something which, today, he has denied having said. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 17th December, when the hon. Gentleman said:
I favour rerating of industry. … Industry should pay its full share of local government costs.… Rerating should be carried out, and should be carried out up to 100 per cent. … Rerating at 100 per cent. should be in this Bill, and should be introduced by ten steps of 5 per cent. each and paid back to the local authorities in full—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1957; Vo1 580, cc, 252–3.]
That is part of the case conceded to us, and, indeed, in the debate on the English Bill, the same admission was made from the Government side of the House. Back benchers on the Government side, almost to a man, said that industry ought to pay its full share of rates. If I may quote the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who is a very respectable and reliable supporter of the Government, who makes an objective assessment of any situation which he examines, he said:
Logically, of course, the case for the 100 per cent. rerating of industry is absolutely complete, but the time is not opportune."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1075.]
This is a phrase that we get from the Tory Government on every conceivable social reform. It is all very nice, but the time is not right for it. If the time is not opportune now, when is the right time?
Suppose that in a couple of years' time we get a raging recession throughout the world. The Government will then say that the time is not opportune because industry is depressed. Now, when we are prosperous but competing in the international markets, the time is still not opportune. The time is never opportune, whether we are in a depression, in prosperity or in between the two.
The hon. Member for Pollok, and other hon. Members in the English Bill debate, used the argument that it is all very well to talk about fully rerating industry, but there are weak lines in the chain. There are some firms less profitable than others. I think that the Joint Under-Secretary made that point in Committee. It was said that some industries were less profitable than others—all industry is more profitable in some years than others—and that, therefore, it would be highly dangerous fully to rerate industry.
Exactly the same thing applies to the local ratepayer. I may lose my seat at the next Election, and, if so, my income will go down, but my rates would not go down. It is the same with industry. Why should we differentiate between industry, which has good times and bad times, and the ratepayer, who also has good times and bad times?
If I may refer to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in the debate on the English Bill I would point out that he developed the same argument that the Joint Under-Secretary developed in Committee on this Bill. It was that we were an exporting nation, competing against Germany and others, and that we should not put an additional burden on our poor struggling economy. He said:
Especially at a time when the Government are pledged to stabilise the cost of living, it would be folly to add to industry's burdens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 1085.]
This is the Government which brought in the Rent Bill. They did not use that argument that it would be foolish to put a burden on tenants at a time when they were trying to stabilise the cost of living. This is the Government that reduced the housing subsidies. They did not produce the argument that it was foolish to put a burden on local ratepayers especially at a time when they were trying to stabilise the cost of living. These arguments are sheer humbug.
The Under-Secretary of State said, during the Committee stage, when we were debating the advisability of rerating industry 100 per cent., that it would put 2¼d. in the £ on costs, and he ventured to suggest that industry could not bear it. This after six or seven years of Tory freedom. Industry cannot bear an extra 2¼d. in the £, but we are not asking for 2¼d. We are asking for half of it. We are asking that industry should bear another 1d. in the £ on its costs, but we are told that we ought not to take this risk. After six or seven years of Tory freedom and Tory prosperity, industry was on such a razor's edge that it could not bear another penny, and some industries would go bankrupt.
I say that if industries are not able to pay their rates, they should jolly well go to the wall. The local ratepayer goes to the wall if he cannot pay his rates. He goes to gaol, and industry does not deserve to continue if it cannot afford to pay its fair share of the rates. It receives the advantage of all the local services in the same way as the local ratepayer.
Nothing would please me more.
We are not going to get this concession. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Pollok has come back to his place, but there are other hon. Members on that side of the Committee like the hon. Member who are ready to say that industry ought to be fully rerated, yet who go into the Lobby supporting the Minister, just as the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) said she would abstain in the last debate and went into the Lobby to vote for the Government. It is just the same kind of humbug.
The hon. Member for Pollok will probably send his speech to the local Press, and the poor local people will read his speech and say what a fine fellow he is, but they will not see the voting list.
If the local people cannot read then that explains why the hon. Gentleman is here.
We are under no illusions that the Government will accept this Amendment. We have tried to compromise, because we are a reasonable set of fellows, and we are prepared to meet the Government halfway. If they are not prepared to go halfway, when we get on that side of this Chamber, and it will not be long now, we will go the whole hog.
This has been an interesting debate and I appreciate the sincerity of hon. Members opposite, though they have spent almost more time in attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) than in attacking the principle of rerating industry to the tune of 50 per cent. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) said everything in this Bill was for the benefit of industry, and that it represented true Tory thinking. If that be so, why should we double the rates now to be paid by industry as is done in this Bill?
I am sorry that the rates of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) whose speeches I always enjoy——
Will the hon. Gentleman do me justice? I was not complaining about the rerating of industry to 50 per cent., but the failure of the Government to rerate it to 100 per cent.
Not without notice.
I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East refer to the chaotic position of valuation for rating. I do not know whether other hon. Members noticed it, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, "We passed legislation in the last few years to clear up this chaotic position". I particularly noticed the word "we".
I did not notice the Minister on our side of the fence. I am glad of his reference to valuation and rating. I do not think he will find that we resisted the proposals concerning revaluation. We were all in agreement on that. It was to the other parts of the Bill that we objected.
Perhaps I was misled by the heat with which the hon. Gentleman discussed the details. What would be the effect of the Amendment? It would increase the amount of rates to be paid by all industries in Scotland. Taking 1957–58 figures, the rates, excluding domestic water rate, actually paid were £2·55 million. If there is 50 per cent. rerating, the amount of rates will be about £4·9 million. If hon. Members opposite had their way, the rates paid would be £7·1 million.
I said I appreciated the argument put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite; it is a matter of judgment as to what is the right extent of rerating. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) will have appreciated that that applies to all industries and all freight transport, whether profitable or not. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes) started off back in 1929, but, as he said, the whole history was fully discussed in Committee. The position today is very different from that of 1929. The hon. Gentleman talked of mass unemployment, depressed areas and Poor Law relief. It is true that unemployment continued to increase and exports fell after derating, but the hon. Gentleman cannot tell me and I cannot tell him whether the full effects would not have been greater had there been no derating. We must ask ourselves to what extent derating helped us before the war and to what extent it helps us now.
After going so far, the hon. Gentleman fell into the trap that was also fallen into by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East of comparing the ability to pay rate burdens with profits. Firms making profits now pay heavy taxes as well as rates but firms who suffer losses also pay rates, whether they can afford them or not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, talked about firms that were losing or that just made both ends meet. Such firms pay no taxes, but they have to pay their rates.
If a firm is losing it still has to pay rates. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs said that he never heard of an industry going to National Assistance; there is no National Assistance Board for industry. Industry simply shuts its factories. The hon. Member for Fife, West said that it should, "jolly well go to the wall"; but who loses if the factory shuts? The people who worked there. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite forget.
Surely the Under-Secretary is making a ridiculous analogy. A loss is carried over a number of years when industry makes a profit. Industry is precisely in the position of a householder who may be at work one week and unemployed the next week. He still has to pay his rates.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I was answering the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy Burghs and Fife, West. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central, asked why industry should not be asked to pay its full share and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, said he could not pick out of the speeches I had made, or anything that the Government had said, one substantial argument. The real and only argument is that which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) that 50 per cent. rerating is as far as we consider we can safely go.
It is not an intolerable burden on all industry. Nobody said it was, but we dare not, at this time, when world conditions are not getting easier, make things more difficult for firms who export to sell the products of OUT British workpeople. Even a fraction of 1 per cent. is not a mere flea bite as affecting sales abroad, as everybody knows who has had anything to do with export firms.
The hon. Member for Fife, West asked, "If now is not the right time, when is the right time?" The right time is when, under a Tory Administration, this country is on a real, sound foundation
One of the reasons why we cannot have rerating in Dundee is that the jute industry is in such a plight that it could not afford the extra cost. How does the Under-Secretary reconcile the present position in Dundee with his statement that the Government are putting Scotland upon a prosperous basis?
We are having quite a job after so long under Socialism. In view of the unemployment figures for Scotland, I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should ask industry, upon which employment depends, to carry more burdens, whatever their nature. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs who said that one of the most stupid things to do is to do anything which will stop people working. Therefore, to accept this Amendment would be one of the most stupid things to do.
The English Bill has left the House of Commons. The House of Commons cannot alter it now. To accept this Amendment would be to make a differentiation in this matter between this Scottish Bill and the English Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] A heavier burden in Scotland than in England? Hon. Members opposite do not want that and do not intend it. This 50 per cent. rerating is giving Scottish local authorities a clear gain of £750,000. It is what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East asked, though I agree that we are not going as far as he would like us to do.
He said that if we gave a greater degree of rerating that would be one way in which we could give greater freedom to local authorities. We are giving them £750,000, and this Bill is another way in which we are giving them greater freedom. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
I know the hon. Gentleman enjoys it, but he ought not to get so carried away with himself as to assert that we are giving local authorities another £750,000—"we" presumably being the Government. The Government are not giving the local authorities another £750,000 at all.
This Clause will enable the local authorities to get from the industrialists of this country £2·3 million. I think that is right. That is what the White Paper told us. It went on to tell us that the Government would steal two-thirds of the money back. Therefore this Bill does not give the local authorities any more money from the Government. We do not give the local authorities any more. We are giving the local authorities less than they have had before. The Government, by the Clause as it is now drawn, are providing that the local authorities shall get £2·3 million from industrialists.
If the Under-Secretary of State will tomorrow read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech he made tonight he will see that what he was arguing was that the industrialists could not carry any additional burden at all.
The hon. Gentleman argues they should not be asked to pay any more. This is a Government Bill and it is the Government who are proposing that industry should pay £3 million more, when the Under-Secretary of State says that industry should not be asked to pay any more at all. He got so carried away with an opportunity he was given once again to speak on an Amendment put forward by the Opposition that he forgot that this was an Amendment to a Bill introduced by his own party to put an additional burden upon the industrialists. I know he knows what the position is, but in his flow of oratory he forgot what the position is and completely misrepresented it.
He said that there was no National Assistance Board for industry, but there is. Inasmuch as industry has been relieved of 75 per cent. of the amount it was due to pay for the last thirty years, all industry, without any means test, has been enjoying the benefits of a National Assistance Board.
They do not call it National Assistance, but it is National Assistance for all industrialists whether they have need for assistance or not. All my hon. Friends have been asking is that industry having been put on its feet by the Labour Government after the war—and that is true—it should now be paying its full share of rates again. If the rating system is a bad system, and we have been saying that it is a bad system, let the Government at least undertake to have a look at it.
The Under-Secretary said that they had to have regard to losses made by industrialists. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has momentarily left the Chamber. When the Under-Secretary made that point I thought of the losses made by coal masters when I was working in the coal mines, and of the amount of money the National Coal Board had to pay in compensation to relieve coal masters for making such losses. The miners have been complaining about that ever since. The Under-Secretary did not want more bankruptcies among industrialists, which he believed would be the result if the Amendment were accepted.
It was interesting that there were so few bankruptcies when the Labour Government were in power and there have been so many under a Tory Government. This is evidence of the great prosperity enjoyed by industry under Tory Government. We know that at the annual meeting of the pawnbrokers much appreciation of the success of the Tory Government was reflected by the geatly increased business which pawnbrokers had enjoyed.
There is still a lot of work on the Notice Paper and we are working to a timetable, so I had better not spend more time in discussing his Amendment. The Under-Secretary did not deal with the serious matter in the way one would have expected a Minister to deal with it. He did a bit of flapping about and engaged in a bit of nonsense about the plight of industry after seven years of Tory Government, which followed six years of Socialism as he said. After six years of Socialism Scotland was looking forward to the future with some hope. Scotland and Scottish industry is at present looking to the future with some fear and trepidation.
The only hope Scottish people have at this time is that the General Election will come soon; that the Prime Minister will do the right thing by the people of this country and enable them to return to a Labour Government with prosperity.
|Division No. 124.]||AYES||[8.36 p.m.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Alport, C. J. M.||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Moore, Sir Thomas|
|Arbuthnot, John||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Morrison, John (Salisbury)|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Nabarro, G. D. N.|
|Ashton, H.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Nairn, D. L. S.|
|Atkins, H. E.||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Oakshott, H. D.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Henderson, John (Cathcart)||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Barter, John||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Page, R. G.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Hesketh, R. F.||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.||Partridge, E.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)||Peel, W. J.|
|Bidgood, J. C.||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hornby, R. P.||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Bishop, F. P.||Horobin, Sir Ian||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.|
|Black, C. W.||Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Pitman, I. J.|
|Body, R. F.||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Braine, B. R.||Hurd, A. R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Bryan, P.||Hyde, Montgomery||Redmayne, M.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Irvine, Bryant Goldman (Rye)||Remnant, Hon. P.|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Corfield, Capt. F. V.||Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)||Russell, R. S.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Joseph, Sir Keith||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Keegan, D.||Shepherd, William|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Kershaw, J. A.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Kimball, M.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Donaldson, Comdr. C. E. McA.||Kirk, P. M.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Leather, E. H. C.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Leavey, J. A.||Teeling, W.|
|Duncan, Sir James||Leburn, W. G.||Temple, John M.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Farey-Jones, F. W.||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Linstead, Sir H. N.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Gammans, Lady||Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Garner-Evans, E. H.||Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Glover, D.||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Godber, J. B.||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|Gower, H R.||Maddan, Martin||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Graham, Sir Fergus||Maitland, Cdr. J. E. W. (Horncastle)||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|Grant, W. (Woodside)||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)||Marshall, Douglas||Woollam, John Victor|
|Green, A.||Mathew, R.||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)||Mawby, R. L.|
|Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Gurden, Harold||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Mr. Gibson-Watt and|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||Brockway, A. F.||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Cullen, Mrs. A.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Deer, G.|
|Balfour, A.||Carmichael, J.||Diamond, John|
|Ballenger, M. Hon. F. J.||Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Donnelly, D. L.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Champion, A. J.||Dugdaie, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)|
|Benson, Sir George||Chetwynd, G. R.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.|
|Blackburn, F.||Clunie, J.||Edelman, M.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Fletcher, Eric|
|Foot, D. M.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Forman, J. C.||Logan, D. G.||Ross, William|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Short, E. W.|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Gibson, C. W.||McCann, J.||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||McInnes, J.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Grey, C. F.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Grimond, J.||Mahon, Simon||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Hale, Leslie||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Hannan, W.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Mason, Roy||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Hastings, S.||Mitchison, G. R.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Hayman, F. H.||Moody, A. S.||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Mort, D L.||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Moss, R.||Thornton, E.|
|Holmes, Horace||Moyle, A.||Timmons, J.|
|Howell, Denis (All Saints)||Neal, Harold (Bolsover)||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Hoy, J. H.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Viant, S. P.|
|Hubbard, T. F.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)||Watkins, T. E.|
|Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Oliver, G. H.||Weitzman, D.|
|Hunter, A. E.||Oram, A. E.,||West, D. G.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Oswald, T.||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Padley, W. E.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Janner, B.||Paget, R. T.||Willey, Frederick|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Parker, J.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Pentland, N.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Prentice, R. E.||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Price J. T. (Westhoughton)||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Kenyon, C.||Probert, A. R.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Proctor, W. T.||Woof, R. E.|
|Lawson, G. M.||Redhead, E. C.|
|Ledger, R. J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmonds.|