HC Deb 28 May 1952 vol 501 cc1559-73

Section twelve of the Finance Act, 1944 (which empowers the Commissioners to except a person from registration when tax on his purchases would be not less than tax on his sales) shall have effect as if there were inserted at the end of subsection (1) thereof the following proviso: Provided that the Commissioners shall not refrain from registering, or cancel the registration of, any such merchant or manufacturer as aforesaid unless

  1. (a) they are of opinion that owing to special circumstances it is desirable that they should so do, or
  2. (b) they have given notice to such merchant or manufacturer of their intention to exercise their powers under this subsection and he has not, within a period not exceeding three months from the giving of such notice, notified the Commissioners that he objected to their so doing.

For the purpose of sub-paragraph (a) of this proviso, the expression 'special circumstances' shall not include greater ease of the administration of purchase tax."—[Mrs. Castle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

1.30 a.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn, East)

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

This Clause seeks to amend certain arrangements for registration for Purchase Tax. It is an attempt to remedy an injustice in the way in which Purchase Tax is collected which threatens the livelihood of a number of wholesalers. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) in his place because, with his wide knowledge of the trade and his well known enthusiasm for championing a good cause, I expect to have his support tonight.

Section 23 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, provides for the purpose of collecting Purchase Tax that every manufacturer or wholesaler who sells chargeable goods shall be registered, unless the sale of chargeable goods is less than £500 a year. The actual charging of tax takes place at the point where the registered firm sells to an unregistered firm. For example, when a registered manufacturer sells to an unregistered wholesaler or a registered wholesaler sells to the retailer. This arrangement, on the face of it, seems a reasonable one, but there is a snag in it. Under Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1944, discretion is given to the Customs and Excise to refuse registration where they choose to do so. The effect of this Section was brought to my attention in a rather dramatic form in a case arising in my own constituency.

A few weeks ago a wholesaler who lives in my constituency came to see me to tell me that he was in extreme difficulties as a result of the introduction of the D scheme. Prior to the Budget he had no need to register because, although his total sales were well over £500 a year, they consisted almost entirely of Utility goods which were, of course, free of Purchase Tax. Therefore he did not need to be registered and the matter did not arise under Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1944.

Then, on 17th March, he suddenly found he was facing an entirely new situation, because on that day the D scheme came into operation, the old Utility scheme was abolished, and the bulk of the articles he sold—ladies' and men's wear—had become chargeable to tax as a result of the introduction of the D scheme. He wrote, therefore, to Customs and Excise and asked to be granted a registration certificate, as indeed he was obliged to do under Section 23 of the 1940 Act. You can imagine his dismay when the Customs and Excise replied that they were not prepared to register him. Their attitude apparently was that registration should be granted or not granted purely in accordance with the administrative convenience of Customs and Excise in collecting the tax.

In this particular case it suited the Customs and Excise better for the tax to be picked up at the point where the manufacturer supplied my wholesaler, rather than the point at which my wholesaler sold his goods. At first sight it did not seem to make much difference to my constituent, because he hoped that he might be able to make arrangements with manufacturers who were registered for Purchase Tax to be paid at that point, but when he applied to his normal suppliers for goods the majority wrote back and said that they wanted to see his Purchase Tax registration certificate.

My constituent handed me a number of letters from these suppliers, which are typical of the response he got. Here is one from one of his main suppliers: We very much regret to have to tell you that it is the policy of our governing director only to deal from today onwards with customer registered for Purchase Tax. This is the result of a reply from the local Customs and Excise office to our inquiry about the despatch of goods ordered before 17th March, and not yet sent off. Will you please take all possible steps to become registered and advise us of your Purchase Tax certificate letter number at your earliest convenience. My constituent phoned this firm and informed them that the Customs and Excise had refused him registration. The firm replied that they very much regretted to hear of the hardship being caused to him as a result of a regulation which prevented him from becoming registered, and wished him all success in his efforts to overcome this handicap. My constituent, being an enterprising man, rapidly got in touch with me, with the results the Committee are now experiencing.

Another supplier wrote: We should be glad if you would let us have by return your Purchase Tax certificate as this is required to enable us to deliver any goods to you in the future. Customs and Excise point out to us that under Notice No. 78D whoever we supply, whether or not subject to tax, must furnish us with the Purchase Tax certificate before any goods can be invoiced. There again my constituent got on the telephone in some dismay and told the firm that he had been refused registration to suit the administrative convenience of the Customs and Excise. This firm, too, responded in sorrowing terms and said that they regretted to learn of it because it was a strict rule of the company not to be collectors of Purchase Tax at any time.

A third supplier wrote in similar terms and stated: We hope you will let us have your registration number. The Customs people know we only serve accounts that are so registered. The effect of these answers was so startling that my constituent was driven to consult me because his business was nearly ruined. On the one hand he could not secure registration, nor could he secure supplies, because he had not got the necessary Purchase Tax certificate. It is really monstrous that certain wholesalers can be denied registration in this way purely for official convenience, and as far as can be seen for no other reason whatever.

This is not an isolated case, because since I started going into the matter a number of similar cases have been drawn to my attention. There is no suggestion in this case that there is any other reason for refusing registration other than the administrative one. The Customs and Excise find it more administratively convenient not to register the smaller manufacturers in this way, and to force the job of tax collection back to the manufacturer.

But if Customs and Excise plead administrative inconvenience, the manufacturer is entitled to say that he will not be put to the administrative inconvenience of collecting Purchase Tax for these wholesalers. The purpose of my new Clause is simple and straightforward. It lays down that the discretion given to Customs and Excise to interfere with the normal pattern of registration may not be exercised against the will of the trader unless special circumstances are involved.

The Clause lays down that special circumstances for this purpose shall not include administrative inconvenience. I agree that there may be special circumstances in some cases which would make it not in the public interest for a trader's desire to be registered to be accepted.

That we must recognise, and my Clause provides for it. All I say is that it should no longer be possible to deny registration arbitrarily in this way, as has happened in a number of cases, for the administrative convenience of the Government.

Public officials ought not to be authorised to deprive an honest man of his livelihood for no stronger reason than this. I would point out that even in those cases where a wholesaler may not be ruined by the refusal of registration he may be seriously disadvantaged in comparison with his competitors. In those cases where the wholesaler is denied registration and the manufacturer pays Purchase Tax, the manufacturer pays that tax, not on the actual selling price to the wholesaler, but on that price uplifted by a certain percentage which corresponds to the wholesale margin, which is fixed at a national figure on what is considered the wholesale margin.

When trade is bad, the wholesaler who is registered and who, therefore, pays the Purchase Tax himself, may, in order to get business in bad times, cut his own selling price. If he does, the Purchase Tax levied on that selling price is correspondingly reduced. But the wholesaler who is refused registration has already bought his goods plus Purchase Tax calculated on a national wholesale price. Therefore, he has to sell his goods with a higher level of Purchase Tax attached to them.

I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why that competitive disadvantage should be put on certain wholesalers purely arbitrarily for no kind of reason which is evident from the legislation. These disadvantages generally operate against the smaller man. This matter has become urgent with the introduction of the D scheme. That means that a wide range of textile goods now become chargeable to tax for the first time. The wholesaler who dealt in Utility goods before and who was not bothered about the problem of registration, now comes up against it most sharply and acutely.

My Clause is moderate and reasonable. I suggest to the Committee that it contains every possible safeguard against abuse. This may seem to the Committee to be a comparatively small point, but it is not a small point to the man who faces ruin in his business, and I suggest that we must legislate now on his behalf.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) has made a most convincing and persuasive case. I want to add only one point to what she has said. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the introduction of the D scheme had made the reform which we propose more necessary, but in fact the Finance Bill makes it even more necessary.

Under Clause 8 (9) the term "chargeable goods" is made to include any article of a description in respect of which tax is for the time being expressed to be chargeable … notwithstanding that by virtue of this section tax is not chargeable in respect of the article. That means, quite clearly, that it now includes a wide range of textile goods, even though their wholesale value falls below the D level. The effect of that is that a large number or wholesalers have to register if they want to carry on business in various lines of goods which are, or may become, chargeable under these provisions.

But, of course, it does not follow at the same time that the Commissioners have to give them the registration which they require, and there is, as my hon. Friend said, a good deal of evidence in support of the fact that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are showing a very marked reluctance to register manufacturers and wholesalers.

I had a letter yesterday from a wholesale merchant, not one of my constituents, who has been refused re-registration although he has been carrying on this business for a considerable time. He is very anxious, because he feels that it is more than ever necessary to be registered if, as has been suggested by some hon. Members opposite, the D scheme will be dropped next year in favour of a general tax on sales.

There is a great deal of force in my hon. Friend's point of view for restricting somewhat the discretion which the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have. Obviously, they must have that discretion, and I think that perhaps it might be rather narrower than at present. I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will yield to my hon. Friend's persuasiveness as readily as the Chancellor did last night.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

As the hon. Lady has explained, the Clause would give, in the absence of special circumstances, a right to registration for Purchase Tax purposes. That, indeed, is its object. Although the point is an old one, it has arisen a number of times in the last few years. It would introduce a radical change in the system of administration of the Purchase Tax as it has been operated under successive Governments from the beginning of the tax.

The issue before the Committee is whether the system so far adopted, of what one might call a selective policy in registration, should be continued, or whether the alternative suggested in the Clause, of giving the right to registration subject to the one qualification about special circumstances—which are not, in fact, defined—should be substituted for it. That is the issue which is posed by the Clause.

The first point that I should like to put before the Committee is this. The reason why under successive Governments the selective system has been operated has been with a view to securing that the collection of the tax is achieved without undue expense or excessive staff. The hon. Lady spoke somewhat bitterly of administrative convenience. What, I think, is meant in this context by "administrative convenience" is not the personal comfort of any individual official. What is meant is whether we are to adopt a system which would force us to employ substantially more officials or, alternatively, to run severe risks of not being able to police the tax.

I hope that we shall discuss this matter, not on the basis that anyone wants to pander to the personal convenience of public servants, nor that anyone should suggest that those public servants want their personal convenience pandered to, but that the general term "administrative convenience" must be considered as at least having some importance from the point of view as to whether we are at this time to run risks with the tax or, still more important, perhaps, to increase the staffs needed to collect it. As the Committee are aware, it is the desire of the Government to effect the maximum possible reduction in Governmental staffs. That is an important factor to bear in mind.

If, as the Clause suggests, registration were given as a matter of right, it is very likely that the number of registrations would very substantially increase. If that were so, substantially larger staffs in the Customs would be required to collect the tax, and that at a time when public economy is a very serious matter—I do not say a conclusive matter, but an important factor.

Then there is the other factor—which I shall deal with in greater detail—of the possibilities that such a system would lead to loss of tax owing to fraud, evasion, or other breaches of the law, which no hon. Member desires to encourage. The present rule has been administered with the broad conception in mind of securing, within reason, that the tax is collected as cheaply and efficiently as possible, but it has also been administered—as hon. Members opposite who have been associated, like the hon. Lady, with the Board of Trade, will be aware—with due attention to trade needs.

There has been no absolutely arbitrary rule that administrative efficiency—a phrase I prefer to administrative convenience—should be the only criterion. Trade needs have been taken into account. That is particularly taken into account where, for example, the person concerned undertakes to some extent export business and where, therefore, it is desirable that goods should be dealt with without having incurred the tax, or where the wholesaler supplies other than registered wholesalers.

But to go beyond this and, as is suggested, give registrations as a matter of right is a very different matter, and it would involve a certain number of dangers that the Committee ought to consider. It would involve the possibility of a considerable spread of the sort of happening of which we have had examples, even under the present system with its safeguards, of wholesalers of a mushroom character obtaining registration solely in order to buy substantial quantities of goods tax free, sell them on the black market, and depart. If it is of interest, I have particulars of four specific cases that have arisen in recent times, where that type of thing has happened, involving the loss of tax of £291,000, £119,000, £100,000, and so on. The Committee will appreciate that if discrimina- tion in the grant of registration is abandoned the door to that sort of thing is opened very much more widely.

If Customs has placed upon it the duty of establishing special circumstances, it will mean that in fact they will not be able to be certain, when they grant registration, that a certain number of ill-disposed persons, who seek registration solely for purposes of tax evasion, will not be registered, because without an elaborate intelligence system, such as is neither conceivable nor justifiable, it would not be possible in advance to realise in a certain number of cases whether people of this sort were involved.

There is another aspect of the matter. If registration is given automatically it will be inevitably granted in a number of cases that I am about to describe. A number of large retailers have already attempted to set up £100-capital subsidiary companies to buy their goods for them tax free as registered wholesalers, and then hold the goods on the retailers' premises. We have actually had cases where application has been made for that sort of transaction. That, apart from any other point, is grossly unfair to the small undertaker, who is not in a position to go to the extent of forming a subsidiary company and who has to buy his goods tax-paid in the ordinary way.

One of the inevitable consequences of automatic registration would be that the practice already initiated or attempted by some of the larger retailers would spread in some degree. That is a factor which we must consider if we are to try to administer this tax fairly between trader and trader. It is a very difficult argument to establish that we should give automatic registration despite all these difficulties.

Turning to the question of the effect upon the individual trader, it is very difficult to arrange the law on the basis of what may or may not be the private arrangements made by manufacturers. It may be that there are manufacturers such as the hon. Lady has described, who make difficulties about supplying non-registered wholesalers, though I am bound to say that in the present state of some of the trades concerned it seems very unlikely that many manufacturers would refuse orders merely because the person putting them was not registered.

It is always possible—though I do not say that it applies in the case which the hon. Lady has in mind—that non-registration might be used as an excuse where the real reasons for refusing to supply might be based on different considerations. When we discuss the question of trade interests of this sort we are in the realm of some uncertainty, but it seems unlikely that, in the trade recession of some of the trades particularly concerned, the manufacturer would cut off his nose to spite his face by refusing to supply goods when he had a willing buyer, merely because the buyer was not registered.

I think there is some force in what the hon. Lady says with regard to the consequences of the D scheme, because that does mean that some traders who have previously dealt wholly in Utility goods come within the ambit of Purchase Tax for the first time. The hon. Lady has referred to a number of cases arising in the town which she represents. I understand that this matter has been particularly raised there, and I know that a number of hon. Members have raised this question. Although the hon. Lady did not tell us—perhaps because she did not know—one trader who had been refused registration took his appeal to the Board of Customs and Excise and registration has now been granted.

That is an important point, because it indicates that this system is not being administered with inflexibility or with selfish concentration on administrative convenience. The Board of Customs and Excise are prepared, as they always have been, to consider individual cases on their merits. I would go further and say that, bearing in mind the special circumstances arising from the operation of the D scheme in this respect, I can tell the Committee that, consistent with the general policy which I have outlined, we are perfectly prepared to consider individual applications on their merits.

As some hon. Members who are present this evening realise, I have had correspondence with them and, in some cases, when the matter has been further considered, registration has been given. That, I think, is an indication that we are not at all arbitrary about this matter and that we do realise that it is a question of holding a balance between the avoidance of excessive staffs and the risk of losses by fraud on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the avoidance of so administering the tax as to cause undue hardship to particular traders.

We do take into account trade considerations, but that is not the same thing as giving registration as of right, which seems to me to be a proposition bristling with difficulties. But, subject to the general outlines of the policy, I can repeat that we are prepared to treat individual cases on their merits, either by way of representations made by the traders themselves to the Board of Customs and Excise or, if hon. Members themselves are interested, by correspondence on the normal basis with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or with myself or my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) desires to correspond with my right hon. Friend he will receive a courteous and helpful reply. Certainly it is the better way to deal with this matter.

2.0 a.m.

We make no complaint about this important question being raised on this new Clause. I hope I have made it clear that I realise there is a point of substance here with two closely balanced considerations to he weighed against each other. I think the middle view between the extremes of automatic registration and the efficient collection of the tax is the right way to handle this matter. This is the way in which we intend to handle it, and I hope that it will indicate that we do desire to deal with this matter in no inhuman or arbitrary spirit.

Mr. Jay

I agree with the Financial Secretary when he says that this is not a question of personal convenience of the Customs and Excise. I also agree that there are varied reasons which have prevented all Governments, since Purchase Tax was introduced, from granting registration automatically to anybody who asks for it. I cannot, however, say that I was convinced by what the Financial Secretary said about the situation, which has arisen since the introduction of the D scheme.

The Government have taken the responsibility for introducing the D scheme, and for insisting on depressing the D levels very much lower than we would have sought to put them. As a result, a very large volume of goods, textiles in particular, has been brought within the ambit of Purchase Tax. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this affects not merely things within the D scheme, but also goods of the same type below the D level. That means that a large number of traders previously dealing in tax-free goods, who did not require registration, have found these same goods are subject to tax, and that, therefore, they must get registration, or be forced to abandon the trade which they have hitherto carried on. All that the Financial Secretary will say is that the Government, with the Customs and Excise, will examine these cases on their merits. It does not seem to me that when such a sweeping change as this has been made, which has put a large number of traders in a difficult position and has forced them to stop trading altogether, it is sufficient to say vaguely they will be examined on their merits.

A very large disturbance of these people's trade has been introduced, and, for all I know, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), may have been put out of business altogether by the action of the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member has been looking very much concerned during this debate, and I think it is very noticeable that he has not sprung to the assistance or support of the Financial Secretary. For these reasons, which I express briefly because of the hour of the night, I do not feel able to advise my hon. Friends to be satisfied with the reply we have had from the Government.

Mrs. Castle

I must say that the reply of the Financial Secretary is totally unsatisfactory. I must protest against the most unfair insinuation he made against my constituent, when he suggested that there might be other reasons for the manufacturers not supplying.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Would the hon. Lady allow me? I do not think what I said applies in the case to which she refers. I was dealing with the general issue. If she misunderstood me I am sorry. If any other hon. Member misunderstood me I am glad she mentioned it, but it may be that because of the hour of the night I did not express myself with clarity and lucidity. The reference I made was intended to be a general one and not specifically referring to the particular case.

Mrs. Castle

Of course I accept the assurance, but I must point out that the context in which the Financial Secretary made his remark was unfortunate, because it leads to that kind of deduction being drawn. The Financial Secretary has said that appeals may be made in hard cases, and has stated that one was taken from my constituency and was granted. Could I ask him what was the date, in order that I may be in a stronger position.

But, I cannot see that my constituent's case is met by his reply; and, whereas I agree that this Conservative Government

would be the last to pander to the Civil Service, because they are going to the other extreme and making the job of the Civil Service almost impossible by the arbitrary cuts which they are making, I do not see why my constituents should be forced into this inconvenience. I am not satisfied, and I must ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 126.

Division No. 152.] AYES [2.6 a.m.
Acland, Sir Richard Gibson, C. W. Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Albu, A. H. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) Oswald, T.
Awbery, S. S. Hail, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pargiter, G. A.
Bence, C. R. Hamilton, W. W Paton, J.
Benson, G. Hannan, W. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Blackburn, F. Hargreaves, A. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Blenkinsop, A. Hayman, F. H Proctor, W. T.
Boardman, H. Herbison, Miss M. Reeves, J.
Bowles, F. G. Hobson, C. R. Rhodes, H.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Holman, P Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brockway, A. F. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Royle, C.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Hoy, J. H Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Burton, Miss F. E. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Shackleton, E. A. A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Callaghan, L. J. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)
Castle, Mrs. B. A Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Snow, J. W.
Chetwynd, G. R Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Coldrick, W. Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Collick, P. H. Jone, T. W. (Merioneth) Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Cove, W. G. Keenan, W. Sylvester, G. O.
Crosland, C. A. R. King, Dr. H. M Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Wallace, H. W.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Lewis, Arthur Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Lindgren, G. S. Wells, William (Walsall)
Davies, Harold (Leek) MacColl, J. E. West, D. G.
Delargy, H. J. McKay, John (Wallsend) Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
Driberg, T. E. N. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wigg, George
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C Mayhew, C. P. Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Edelman, M. Mikardo, Ian Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Mitchison, G. R. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Fernyhough, E. Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Field, W. J Morley, R. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Fienburgh, W. Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Freeman, John (Watford) Moyle, A. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mulley, F. W. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.
NOES
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Graham, Sir Fergus
Alport, C. J. M. Cole, Norman Grimond, J.
Arbuthnot, John Colegate, W. A. Grimston, Hon, John (St. Albans)
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe) Crouch, R. F. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Baldwin, A. E. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Heath, Edward
Banks, Col. C. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Higgs, J. M. C.
Barber, A. P. L. Deedes, W. F. Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Beach, Maj. Hicks Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hirst, Geoffrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bishop, F. P. Doughty, C. J. A. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Black, C. W. Duthie, W. S. Horobin, I. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Fell, A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Boyle, Sir Edward Finlay, Graeme Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Jenkins, FL C. D. (Dulwich)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Bullard, D. G. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale) Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Butcher, H. W. Gage, C. H. Kaberry, D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok) Lambton, Viscount
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Lancaster, Col. C G.
Cary, Sir Robert Godber, J. B. Langford-Holt, J. A.
Channon, H. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Odey, G. W. Stevens, G. P.
Linstead, H. N. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. H. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Sutcliffe, H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Partridge, E. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Powell, J. Enoch Thompson, Lt.-Cdr R. (Croydon, W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn Peter (Monmouth)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Profumo, J. D. Tilney, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Raikes, H. V Vosper, D. F.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Redmayne, M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maude, Angus Remnant, Hon. P Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)
Maudling, R. Renton, D. L. M. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L C Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Wellwood, W.
Mellor, Sir John Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) White, Baker (Canterbury)
Molson, A. H. E. Roper, Sir Harold Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Nabarro, G. D. N Russell, R. S. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Wills, G.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nield, Basil (Chester) Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Scott, R. Donald TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Oakshott, H. D. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.