§ Section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1947, shall have effect in relation to the profits tax for any chargeable accounting period ending after the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one with the substitution in subsection (1) thereof for the reference to two thousand pounds of a reference to five thousand pounds, and in subsections (2) and (3) thereof with the substitution for the references to two thousand and to twelve thousand pounds respectively of references to five thousand and twenty thousand pounds.—[Mr. Crosland.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. CroslandI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I begin by expressing the hope that, although the hour is late, this Clause will engage the serious attention of the Committee, because I genuinely believe that it is of great importance. It may not be clear from the wording of the Clause precisely to what it refers. Perhaps I might start by giving a brief explanation of what it seeks to do.
Hon. Members will remember that under Section 33 of the Finance Act, 1947, the profits in any chargeable accounting period, including profits from franked investment income, up to £l;2,000 are completely exempt from Profits Tax. The 1947 Act also contains provision that between £2,000 and £12,000 there shall be a certain exemption from Profits Tax, the exemption being equal to one-fifth of the difference between the actual profits and £12,000. Under the 1947 Act, therefore, supposing a firm is making profits of £7,000, it can offset against Profits Tax one-fifth of the difference between £7,000 and £12,000, namely £1,000.
What this concession gave under Profits Tax was a gradual concession 1610 which was at its highest peak when profits were at £2,000 a year, and which gradually tapered off as profits rose towards £12,000. Our proposal is that these figures should be amended. What we propose is that profits in any chargeable period which, including franked investment income, are less than £5,000, should be exempt from Profits Tax. We further propose that profits between £5,000 and £20,000 should be subject to the same concession as before, namely one-fifth of the difference between the actual profit and profits up to £20,000 should be exempt from Profits Tax.
In other words, a company making profits of £15,000 should be able to set off against Profits Tax one-fifth of the difference between £15,000 and £20,000, namely £1,000. The concession we seek to make amounts to a large and important concession for the smallest companies of all, companies whose profits are £5,000 or less, including franked investment income. It is then a diminishing concession for companies whose annual profits are £20,000 a year or more.
We think that there is a logical case for this concession. It is a case which we hope will appeal to the Chancellor, because, so far as the Excess Profits Levy is concerned, after originally setting the minimum at £2,000 the Chancellor subsequently tabled an Amendment which raised the minimum to £5,000. If he takes the view in the case of the Excess Profits Levy that £5,000 is a proper exemption figure, we hope that he may be willing to take the same view in the case of Profits Tax.
This concession to small businesses which we propose is in line with the attitude which we have taken on this side 1611 of the Committee throughout the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. It is very much in line, for example, with the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) this afternoon to give initial allowance concessions to small businesses. That Clause was turned down by the Government with, to my mind, an insufficient explanation and justification. In general, it has been the case throughout our discussions that we have been faced with a Budget which penalises small companies. From this side of the Committee we have been inclined to give some aid to those who otherwise would be hard hit by these provisions.
Perhaps I might say in passing that this new Clause is not in contradiction to the Amendments which we moved on Clause 30 on the Profits Tax. They were Amendments which had regard to the amount which could be offset for directors' remuneration. Our concern is to aid small and growing businesses from the point of view of the ability to plough back their profits. That is the point we are concerned with—the factor of growth.
4.15 a.m.
The reason we now wish to raise the figure from £2,000 to £5,000 is that from the date when it was set at £2,000 there has been a very substantial fall in the value of money and, obviously, the figure of £2,000, as it originally was, is equal to a very much larger figure today. It is quite consistent with our general attitude that we on this side should wish to encourage these small and growing concerns. A lot of people pay lip service to the importance of small companies and growing companies, but very few people are willing to make serious actual concessions to them. It is particularly important now that we should encourage these companies.
We on this side want to encourage them for all manner of reasons. We certainly do not wish to see British industry dominated entirely by large, monopolistic concerns. It is important to encourage every possibility of competition against these large concerns on the part of small companies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Transport."] We believe that this is important. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) would stop 1612 his argument across the Chamber and attend to my speech and the argument I am developing, he would find himself greatly in sympathy with what I am saying. He can give his views to the Committee afterwards. If he does not support the principle of the Clause, he is going against everything he has said throughout the entire Committee stage.
We wish to encourage these small firms because we do not approve of a concentration of economic power in the hands of the giant concerns, and also on general grounds of efficiency, because we are against the whole structure of industry stagnating. We are in favour the whole time of encouraging what the great economist Marshall, a figure whose books certainly will be read on the Front Bench opposite, and a great protagonist of the price mechanism and all the rest, called "the young trees of the forest coming up, taking the place of the old trees dying."
We are also on the side of the young companies for a very important reason, to which I do not think enough attention is devoted. That is, an argument in terms of invention, innovation, the discovery of new techniques and the like. It is sometimes suggested that all important innovations in the economic sphere are done in the research departments of the enormous firms. It is often suggested these days that we have got to rely for technical advance in industry on the discoveries and developments of the very large firms because only they can afford the necessary money for research, the requisite number of research chemists, and the like. This argument is a great deal over-stated, and frequently the important innovations do not come from the existing giant firms but from small, new firms which get an idea and develop it to the great benefit of the whole of industry.
It is for these general reasons that we wish to encourage the small firm. We on this side have a certain prejudice in favour of the small firm and the growing firm. We have no particular prejudice in favour of large monopolistic concerns. We have even nationalised one or two of them. Perhaps in future years we shall nationalise one or two more of them. I do not know what the policy of our party may be on that. It may be 1613 that we will develop new forms of control over these large monopolistic concerns. We have no particular prejudice in their favour, but by contrast we certainly have a prejudice in favour of the small concerns which have the possibility of growth and development.
I think it is admitted verbally on both sides of the Committee, although nothing is done about it from the other side, that the curent trends in the economic sphere are bearing very heavily indeed on the small firm. A great deal is said about the weight of taxation of profits, and, of course, taxation of profits is very high. My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pointed out yesterday afternoon, quite correctly, that the weight of taxation was bound to remain very high so long as we wish to maintain our present level of social services, carry through a substantial defence programme, and preserve the general level of social and economic equality built up in this country in the last few years. So long as we try to preserve these things the high level of taxation will raise a serious problem, because the weight of taxation bears much more heavily on the small firms than the large firms with their very large financial resources.
Since the party opposite came into power there is a second reason why current trends bear heavily on the small firm—namely, the new dear money policy of the present Government, the policy of credit restriction. The large firm has much greater financial resources, much easier and cheaper access to the new issue market, and a much easier possibility of borrowing in these circumstances.
For all these reasons the small firm is put into a particularly difficult situation, and we are genuinely concerned lest its capacity for growth should be seriously jeopardised. We on this side of the Committee, although we certainly do not ask for any concession particularly for the large firms that are perfectly well able to look after themselves even in present conditions, think there is a serious problem with small firms. We have had a Budget and a Finance Bill that will undoubtedly, if it goes through unamended, make things a great deal more difficult for them. We have had no serious concession from the Front Bench opposite for the small firm right through the Finance Bill.
1614 One important point contained in a new Clause this afternoon would have assisted them, but it was turned down by the Government Front Bench, and if the small firms are to gain anything from the Finance Bill it will be as a result of Amendments moved from this side of the Committee. These are all reasons that have prompted us to put forward this new Clause.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsI hoped the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation would get up straight away and say, on behalf of the Government, that he would give a sympathetic reception to the Clause. I can only assume from the fact that he did not rise that we are not going to get a concession. If we were, I am sure the Patronage Secretary would have seen that he made it quickly. That is the conclusion I draw from the expression on his face during the course of the last hour or so of debate.
It is a very serious matter if we are not to get a concession from the Government on this last of the new Clauses, because it will mean that in this Budget and Finance Bill the Government are doing nothing at all to help small companies. I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to imply this afternoon that the Government had done something to help small companies by concessions on the Excess Profits Levy. That is an extraordinary argument. Admittedly, they may be less hard hit than they would have been a fortnight ago, but to come along with a most disastrous new tax, scale it down, and then say that the Government were helping small companies is surely most illogical.
A lot of hon. Members opposite have talked frequently about their desire to help small companies.
There are now in the Chamber some hon. Members from whom we have not heard very much during the debate on this Finance Bill. There is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I am sure he is extremely interested in small companies. We have not heard from him as much as we would have liked throughout the debate on this Bill. I think this new Clause goes very close to his interests and I hope that he may think fit, if the Government cannot give a concession, to join with us in urging them to do something. There are 1615 some other hon. Members who, I am sure, would like to give their help in the same direction.
This would be a much more useful way of giving assistance to small and developing companies than the method chosen by the Government, of substantially increasing the amount of directors' remuneration which can be charged by director-controlled companies for the purpose of Profits Tax. After all, one only gets the money if one goes through the roundabout process of nominally paying out money in directors' remuneration while actually keeping it in the business; whereas if we have this £2,000 raised to £5,000 it will be a direct help to small companies to develop out of their own resources, which I think would be a very satisfactory state of affairs.
If this Clause is not accepted there is no question at all that the net effect of the Chancellor's Budget and his Finance Bill—and I am sure he does not want this—will be to make it relatively more difficult for small companies to develop, and it will put us in a position where any such development is likely to be by well-established, big companies rather than small ones. That is bound to happen with a Budget of which the main economic principles are the raising of the Bank rate to 4 per cent., the policy of dearer money, and the Excess Profits Levy, which will certainly hit small companies most severely. Unless the first year's financial policy of the Government is to result in a grave relative worsening of the position of small companies some concession must be made on this point.
§ Mr. MaudlingThis new Clause has been supported by the joint eloquence of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) and the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), to which this Committee have now become fairly well accustomed. Their eloquence and persuasiveness is well known.
Mr. E. Femyhough (Jarrow)It has been very unrewarding.
§ Mr. MaudlingPerhaps it was undeserving.
The purpose of this new Clause is to increase the exemption limit for the purpose of ordinary Profits Tax from £2,000 to £5,000 and to increase the abatement accordingly. The two arguments put 1616 forward by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South consisted of a minor and a major one. The first, which was the minor argument, was the analogy of the figure for exemption under the Excess Profits Levy. I do not think that argument holds good because there is no strict analogy to be drawn between the Profits Tax and the Excess Profits Levy. The Levy is an extraordinary tax in many senses, as hon. Gentlemen opposite will no doubt point out, and I hope that it will not become a permanent one.
The hon. Gentleman's major argument—as I think he agreed—was the fall in the value of money since the £2,000 limit was fixed. That is not a new point to this Committee. It was raised in 1949 and 1951, when certain hon. Members proposed that the exemption limit should be raised from £2,000 to £3,000. On both occasions it was turned down, on the second occasion by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) who dealt with this specific point. He said:
The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) also referred to the changes in the value of money"—as has his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, tonight.As I have said earlier, if we are to talk of changes in the limits because of changes in the value of money there could be no end to the claims which could be put forward. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th June, 1951; Vol. 489, c. 167.]That is a very cogent argument, and one which fully disposes of the point put forward by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South. The main grounds on which it was turned down in 1949, and again in 1951, were that the cost in either case was estimated at £4 million, and I am advised that the cost of this concession asked for in the new Clause would be in the neighbourhood of £4 million.4.30 a.m.
The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough made an extraordinary argument last year to the effect that when Profits Tax was being raised it was inconsistent to give an additional concession. I should have thought the case for a concession to small businesses would go on as the burden of the tax goes up. What has happened this year—and this is what makes it different—is that not only has my right hon. Friend introduced 1617 a minor concession about dividends but he has also taken the important step of halving the rate of undistributed Profits Tax. That is an important step, to which little reference has been made from the other side of the Committee.
Therefore, in these circumstances, bearing in mind that this year the rate of Profits Tax has been reduced rather than increased, that the cost of this concession is the same as it would have been last year when it was turned down by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough on behalf of last year's Government, I must ask the Committee to reject the new Clause asking for a further concession in addition to those which the Chancellor has given, which, in the light of this year's concession and last year's argument, is unreasonable.
§ Mr. JayI find the hon. Gentleman's answer extremely disappointing. All he has done is to say that a similar Clause was advanced in earlier years and that certain arguments were used in objection to it. Of course, there are certain relative respects in which circumstances have changed this year. The Government have entirely reversed the monetary policy then being pursued. They have introduced a policy of dearer money with more restrictions on credit which falls more heavily on small and growing firms. That is an entirely new factor in the situation which I do not think the hon. Gentleman would dispute. Nor do I think he would dispute that it is much more difficult as a result of that for many small firms to obtain new capital, without which they cannot possibly expand.
Secondly, the Govenment have introduced the Excess Profits Levy in which they named precisely this figure of £5,000 as the proper one for exemption, which shows that they really regard that as a reasonable minimum below which the Profits Tax should not operate. The hon. Gentleman tried to get out of that by pointing out that the Profits Tax, if not permanent, is likely to be more longterm than the Excess Profits Levy. If it is to be of a longer term, the reason for giving a rebate is greater.
Surely the case for helping some of the small growing firms is overwhelming in the circumstances that now exist. We live in a mixed economy and we want a good deal of public enterprise and also private enterprise, and if we are going to have private enterprise we want it to 1618 be profitable enterprise. We want many and growing firms, and new entrants into existing lines of business.
I happen to have in my own constituency an interesting case of the sort of firm which we have in mind. It is a very small firm, started only five or six years ago by six partners who were engineering workers. They started the partnership in the evenings after their ordinary shifts with an employer. They had only £600 which they had saved, and after 18 months they were able to give up working as employees and devoted the whole of their time to the new business. Today they have about 80 employees, and are exporting 50 per cent. of their products; and as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) contemplated—although he did not know this case—they are producing, as to a considerable proportion of their output, entirely new products which have not previously been made in this country.
That, surely, is just the sort of expansion and development which we should like to see; but the main difficulty which these people found was that of capital. This firm found that the considerable profits taxation, which falls even on businesses of that diminutive size, was a problem, and I am sure that is contrary to the idea of profits taxation that it should aggravate the problems of a firm of this kind. I should have thought that we all wanted to encourage a venture of this type, whether we believe in public enterprise on a large scale or not.
§ Mr. MaudlingWhy did the right hon. Gentleman's Government refuse to do anything about this in the years of expansion?
§ Mr. JayThe problem has been aggravated by the introduction of E.P.L., apart from the Chancellor's monetary policy; and this £2,000, I think, dates back, not to 1947, but to 1937, when the N.D.C. was first introduced. But, in any case, as the years go on, with changes in economic circumstances and in the value of money, one has to see if the figures need revision. We thought that with the introduction of E.P.L. that time had arrived; in any case, we on this side think that the Government should take this modest, and not very expensive, step in order to give help to new and growing firms.
§ Mr. CroslandThis has been a very disappointing debate; partly because of the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation and partly because of the complete silence on the part of right hon. and hon. Members opposite; I do not know if it is because of a lack of physical toughness which is apparent on this side. We have heard over the last three weeks from hon. Members opposite about the difficulties of the smaller firms in building up their businesses; and now that we offer a practical concession—which is more than they have given—I should have thought they would have supported us. There have been many sincere speeches from that side, and it is very disappointing that, when they have a chance to put their principles into effect, we have heard nothing at all from them.
I think the case from the Government Front Bench has been very adequately answered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the case for this new Clause is stronger than ever before. I must admit that I thought the cost would be more than £4 million, but if it is only that, surely the point should appeal to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
I should have thought that this was something which would appeal to many hon. Members opposite—a really important concession at a very small cost to the Treasury which will not affect a Treasury
§ surplus which is much too big already. It is now clear that the Budget is too disinflationary and the Chancellor can certainly afford £4 million to give this stimulus to new companies.
§ I believe that even at this very late stage the Chancellor, who has not been speaking very much this evening, might be willing to intervene and say that he has some sympathy with this Clause because it will meet with the silent support of his own side of the House—and silent support is better than none at all. If the Chancellor did concede this, he might very nearly complete the whole of the Bill in the most amicable frame of mind and set an agreeable seal on our proceedings over the last three weeks. But if we are to have no concessions from the Chancellor I certainly think that we on this side should take this to a Division.
§ Mr. JayCan the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation not assure us that he would hope to see this level lifted this year or at least in the future? Or is his view that, so far ahead as he can see, the level will be maintained?
§ Mr. MaudlingWe hope to see levels of taxation on industry progressively reduced from the excessive levels at which they have been held.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 125.
1621| Division No. 154.] | AYES | [4.43 a.m. |
| Acland, Sir Richard | Edelman, M. | Lindgren, G. S. |
| Albu, A. H. | Edwards, John (Brighouse) | MacColl, J. E. |
| Awbery, S. S. | Fernyhough, E. | McKay, John (Wallsend) |
| Bence, C. R. | Field, W. J. | MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) |
| Benson, G. | Fienburgh, W. | Mayhew, C. P. |
| Blackburn, F. | Freeman, John (Watford) | Mikardo, Ian |
| Blenkinsop, A. | Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. | Mitchison, G. R. |
| Boardman, H. | Gibson, C. W. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. |
| Bowles, F. G. | Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale) | Morley, R. |
| Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth | Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colns Valley) | Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) |
| Brockway, A. F. | Hamilton, W. W. | Moyle, A |
| Brook, Dryden (Halifax) | Hargreaves, A. | Mulley, F W. |
| Burton, Miss F. E. | Hayman, F. H. | Neal, Harold (Bolsover) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) | Herbison, Miss M | Oswald, T. |
| Callaghan, L. J. | Hobson, C R. | Pargiter, G. A. |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A | Holman, P. | Paton, J. |
| Chetwynd, G. R. | Hoy, J. H. | Pearson, A. |
| Coldrick, W. | Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) | Plummer, Sir Leslie |
| Collick, P. H. | Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) | Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) |
| Cove, W. G. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Proctor, W. T. |
| Crosland, C. A. R. | Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) | Reeves, J. |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Jay Rt. Hon. D. P. T. | Rhodes, H. |
| Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) | Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) | Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) | Boyle, C. |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Keenan, W. | Schofield, S. (Barnsley) |
| Delargy, H. J. | King, Dr. H. M. | Shackleton, E. A. A. |
| Driberg, T. E. N. | Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) | Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Lewis, Arthur | Snow, J. W. |
| Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank | Wells, William (Walsall) | Williams, W. R. (Droylsden) |
| Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) | West, D. G. | Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.) |
| Sylvester, G. O. | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton) |
| Thomas, David (Aberdare) | Wilkins, W. A. | |
| Wallace, H. W. | Willey, Octavius (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wells, Percy (Faversham) | Williams, Ronald (Wigan) | Mr. Hannan and Mr. Holmes. |
| NOES | ||
| Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) | Godber, J. B. | Oakshott, H. D. |
| Alport, C. J M. | Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. | Odey, G. W. |
| Arbuthnot, John | Graham, Sir Fergus | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. |
| Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) | Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N) |
| Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) | Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) | Partridge, E. |
| Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe) | Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) | Powell, J. Enoch |
| Baldwin, A. E. | Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) | Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) |
| Banks, Col, C. | Heath, Edward | Profumo, J. D. |
| Barber, A. P. L. | Higgs, J. M. C. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) | Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) | Redmayne, E. |
| Beach, Maj. Hicks | Hirst, Geoffrey | Remnant, Hon. P. |
| Bishop, F. P. | Holland-Martin, C. J. | Renton, D. L. M |
| Black, C. W. | Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. | Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, J A | Horobin, I. M. | Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) | Roper, Sir Harold |
| Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. | Howard, Greville (St. Ives) | Russell, R. S. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. | Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich) | Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. |
| Bullard, D. G. | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) | Jones, A. (Hall Green) | Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) |
| Carr, Robert (Mitcham) | Kaberry, D. | Scott, R. Donald |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Lambton, Viscount | Smithers, Peter (Winchester) |
| Channon, H. | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Stevens, G. P. |
| Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) | Langford-Holt, J. A. | Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.) |
| Cole, Norman | Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H | Studholme, H. G |
| Colegate, W. A. | Legh, P. R. (Petersfieid) | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J E. | Linstead, H. N. | Thomas, P. J. M (Conway) |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. | Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) | Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.) |
| Crouch, R. F. | Mackeson, Brig. H. R. | Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth) |
| Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) | McKie, J. H. (Galloway) | Tilney, John |
| Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) | MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Vosper, D. F. |
| Deedes, W. F. | Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) | Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) |
| Dodds-Parker, A. D. | Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) | Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth) |
| Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. | Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. | Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. |
| Doughty, C. J. A | Maude, Angus | Wellwood, W. |
| Duthie, W. S. | Maudling, R. | White, Baker (Canterbury) |
| Fell, A. | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge) |
| Finlay, Graeme | Mellor, Sir John | Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter) |
| Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. | Molson, A. H. E. | Wills, G. |
| Fletcher-Cooke, C. | Nabarro, G. D. N. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) | Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) | |
| Gage, C. H. | Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D (Pollok) | Nield, Basil (Chester) | Mr. Norman and Mr. Drewe. |
| Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) | Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ First and Second Schedules agreed to.