HC Deb 02 July 1957 vol 572 cc991-1019

(1)On and after the sixth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, hydrocarbon oil produced from shale mined in Scotland shall be exempted from excise duty, and accordingly, on and after that date section two of the Finance Act, 1950 (which imposes a duty on hydrocarbon oils), shall have effect with the addition at the end of subsection (2) of that section of the following words, that is to say, "or (c) to oils produced from shale mined in Scotland".

(2) The powers of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make regulations under section one hundred and ninety-eight of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which empowers those Commissioners to make regulations relating to hydrocarbon oils), shall include power to make such regulations as appear to the Commissioners to be required to give effect to the last foregoing subsection.

(3) Where excise duty has been charged before or after the passing of this Act, and by virtue of this section no such duty should have been charged, or the duty should have been charged at the lower rate than that at which it was in fact charged, the person by whom the duty was paid shall be entitled to repayment of the amount of the overcharge.—[Mr. J. Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

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

At first sight, the Clause appears very complicated, but I need not go into details except to say that its purpose is to exempt the chief indigenous oil industry of this country from taxation. The times I have spoken on this subject have been numerous. This is indeed the fourth time within one Parliamentary year, but this occasion is also the second time within a Parliamentary year when I have submitted precisely the same new Clause, and I feel that I can adopt perhaps a slightly different approach to it.

On the eight or nine occasions on which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) and myself, who represent the two constituencies mainly, indeed wholly, affected by this important home oil-producing industry have spoken on this subject, our emotions have run through the whole gamut from extreme acerbity and indeed anger to almost pitiful pleading to the Ministers concerned.

On this occasion, I have a certain instinct about it, or at least I had until a moment or two ago. I see that the reception which this new Clause is receiving is very similar to that given by numerous other Financial Secretaries to the Treasury—I do not want to be tactless about this, but up to this moment it has been an attitude of almost supreme indifference. I was saying that the reception has been that kind of reception hitherto, but I had a certain instinct that on this occasion it might be received more kindly.

I am induced to that opinion for two main reasons. First, the Paymaster-General, speaking in his capacity as the Minister responsible in the House of Commons for fuel and power policy, on 30th April last, in the course of a remarkable and interesting speech outlining the Government's policy on fuel and power at a time when it was supremely important, said: … the Government must have an overall responsibility for the strategy of fuel policy and must be prepared to intervene, to guide, influence and stimulate where necessary so as to enable us to meet our two main objectives: first, to ensure that our fuel supplies are adequate; and, secondly, that the contribution to our balance of payments from indigenous supplies is as large as we can possibly make it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 36.] That was a very important pronouncement, and I listened to it with the greatest possible gratification, because it was the first indication that we had had since 1952 that the Government were concerned about indigenous oil supplies.

The second reason I feel more hopeful tonight than on previous occasions when speaking about this important industry is that there is surely no conceivable argument against supporting a British oil-producing industry. There is no conceivable argument for letting an industry of that nature die. The hard, inescapable, irrefragable fact is that unless the Clause or a similar one is conceded, the industry will die, and a source of almost priceless oil will be lost to the nation.

I have been surprised in previous debates to discover what a large number of people in Britain do not know that we produce oil in this country. It is a revelation to them that we have a home oil supply which produces first-class diesel oil and excellent motor spirit. I have never at any time pretended, nor has my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, that this is a considerable source of supply. We have always frankly stated that in comparison with this country's total oil consumption it is an almost infinitesimal supply. Nevertheless it is a source of oil. It is a British source. Indeed, it is a Scottish source of oil.

Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I remind them that this was the pioneer oil industry of the world. There was not an oil industry in the world until that of West Lothian and Midlothian was established. The first oil ever used in the United States of America was carried over the Atlantic from the West Lothian oil industry.

Today this industry is a highly efficient one. We have frankly admitted that it is not possible to produce oil from shale as economically and cheaply as oil is produced from what are termed within the oil industry as "natural resources". Nevertheless, research is going on continuously, and in other parts of the world, particularly the United States, there is an increasing supply of oil from shale. The United States Government have seen the value, advantage and potential of this source of oil and Congress has voted considerable sums in order to increase the research. There have recently been important pronouncements to the effect that, as a result of the research, it is believed that it will soon be possible to produce oil from shale at the same cost as that produced from natural sources.

I have not pretended that this industry can, in present circumstances, be economic in competition with well-produced oil. I have tried to be honest about this and to be non-partisan about it. I welcome the support of hon. Members opposite, hon. Members who understand that the purpose behind the Clause means a great deal to Scotland. I have always been encouraged to be non-partisan in this issue. It is a great temptation to score party points in matters of this kind, but I have always resisted that temptation—it is almost the only temptation I have been able to resist; I can resist almost anything except temptation—because, when discussing what is not merely an important constituency point, but one of considerable interest to his native country and Britain as a whole, the prime concern of an hon. Member should be the broad effect on the national economy rather than that of merely trying to be popular with his own constituents or his own party.

This industry employs 3,000 people. At one time, the number was 12,000. The industry and others in the area dependent on it—there is no compensating industry in the area—are essential to a large number of my constituents and other people in the vicinity. It is most important to them that this industry should not die. Within the last year we have had a salutary lesson about the value to this country of every drop of oil, and it seems impossible that there can be any argument for allowing the industry to lapse, as it will unless it receives this support.

It is an amazing and an almost Gilbertian situation that we should have an industry which is producing a valuable product and which is being strangled by a form of taxation which was never meant to apply to it. The Excise Duty on oil was never meant to apply to such an extent that our small, but important indigenous oil industry should be strangled to death by it, particularly after the events of the last twelve months.

Facing these facts, persuaded by these arguments, unable to contemplate that the Government can turn down this proposal again, as they did last year when they gave it an almost contemptuous reception, in view of all that has happened since then, since this has become a major issue in Scotland, this is regarded in Scotland as a symbol of the Government's attitude towards Scottish industry. By inattention and indifference the industry has been allowed to contract to 25 per cent. of its total capacity.

In view of other indications, such as the withdrawing of maintenance facilities for civil aircraft and the probable closing down of ordnance factories, this is regarded as a test of the Government's attitude towards Scottish industry. This small and easily-given gesture at little cost to the nation will be well worth the Government's while, and we cannot conceive that they will ignore it.

8.45 p.m.

I hope that if there are technical reasons why the Clause in its present form is unacceptable and if there are constitutional reasons why it cannot be met, the Financial Secretary will give us some hope that there are other means of sustaining, maintaining and guaranteeing the future of this industry which could be expanded to increase its present output by 50 per cent. and could continue for another twenty years usefully producing oil for this nation inside this nation.

I think that it would be a good thing, if my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who support the Motion agree with me, that the Financial Secretary should indicate immediately whether he is inclined to be forthcoming or helpful on this new Clause. By doing so he might shorten the debate considerably. If he is inclined to give that indication, I am sure that we should all welcome it very much. If, on the other hand, he prefers the debate to run and intends to give us another dusty answer, I am afraid that my hon. Friends are bound to express their indignation I do not say that as a threat. It is their duty to do so and they would be failing in their duty to their country and their constituencies if they did not do so.

I have made speeches on this subject so often that anything that I say sounds in my ears like tedious repetition. I will, therefore, content myself with what I have said and hope that at this stage the Financial Secretary will be helpful towards this very valuable and potentially long-living industry which has had such a hard time in the last few years.

Mr. Powell

I do not know whether I am correctly interpreting the rather ambiguous invitation which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) has issued to me, but perhaps it may be convenient, in any case, if I intervene at this point.

He has discussed once again the past of this industry, has reminded the Committee of its unique character and has once again voiced the anxieties which I and Her Majesty's Government know are felt in the area, and in Scotland, in regard to its future. Of course, in looking at the Clause, we are considering a purely fiscal question. We are considering not the general question whether, and if so what, assistance ought to be given to the industry, but the fiscal question whether it is right and wise that the Excise Duty on indigenous oil—the preference which indigenous oil as a whole enjoys—should be increased in regard to this sector of indigenous oil by the exemption of it from Excise Duty.

It is quite true that if it were possible and practicable to isolate this small element of indigenous hydrocarbon oil, the cost of its exemption from Excise Duty would not be immoderate. It would be something of the nature of £750,000 per annum, although, of course, that represents a sum of £4 or £5 per head of the men employed in the industry.

The question is whether it would be possible to maintain for any length of time a distinction between this sector and the whole of indigenous hydrocarbon oils. From the beginning of the Excise Duty upon hydrocarbon oils in 1928, indigenous hydrocarbon oils have always been treated specially and uniformly.

Before the war, each time a guarantee was given that that special treatment would last for a certain number of years, it was given for indigenous oils of all kinds and from all sources. When preference has been given, either upon the occasion of an increase in the general duty or, as for example, in October, 1953, when the preference was increased by 6d. for indigenous hydrocarbon oils, the industry has always been treated as a whole and no distinction has been made between one section and another.

Frequently—and, indeed, quite recently—representations for a reduction in the rate of excise and an increase in the preference have been received from other sections of the indigenous oil industry. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that it is really unrealistic to imagine that it would be possible for long to give a special preference to one section of the industry.

Mr. J. Taylor

I appreciate the hon. Member's argument and his difficulty, but does not he think it important to take into consideration the fact that whereas practically all the rest of the industry produces oil as a by-product of some other process, the shale oil, and the oil produced from the borings in Nottinghamshire, which is refined in the refineries of the shale oil industry, is the main product? Is not there a distinction? Is it not possible to give an additional preference to that section of the industry where oil is the main product?

Mr. Powell

I intended to remind the Committee of the point which the hon. Member has just made, namely, that oil which is not shale oil is actually refined together with shale oil in the Lothians, so it would clearly be impracticable to avoid going that step further in making a special concession. But, step by step, the other sections of the industry have made strong representations, based upon their difficulties and their situation, for preference and relief. It was not merely with regard to the difficulty of the shale oil industry but in relation to the position of the indigenous oil industry as a whole that the latest reduction in Excise Duty was made, in October, 1953.

The cost of the extension of what is here suggested to all indigenous hydrocarbon oils would be very substantial—about £10 million a year. I must, therefore, tell the Committee that it would be imprudent and unrealistic to suppose that this particular preference could be given to this particular section of the industry without its being rapidly extended to the rest of the industry and without a quite irresistible pressure to take that action developing.

I repeat that that does not mean that because the fiscal method is impracticable—and certainly highly unselective—there may be no case for other means being used for the assistance of the industry, as the hon. Member himself mentioned. That is not a question for the Treasury. I am concerned here only with the fiscal question. I would ask the Committee, however, not to deduce that, because I feel obliged to advise it against making a concession upon the Excise Duty, the Government are unaware of the difficulties under which the shale oil industry is placed, and that for this reason the application of other means is necessarily ruled out.

Mr. David J. Pryde (Midlothian)

The Financial Secretary has not improved upon the position from last year. I was not particularly satisfied with the defence of the Government last year. I felt that it was wobbly and most unsure and that apparently the Government spokesmen were not then, and are not today, aware of the economic position of free oil compared with indigenous oil. We are told that the comparison is in favour of so-called free oil. There is no such thing as free oil because, if the oil got from the Middle East is costed realistically, if everything is taken into account and it is brought to Southampton, then common sense tells us that the indigenous oil in this country or in Scotland is far cheaper than that brought from the Middle East. The proof is that the natives of Kuwait are worth thousands of pounds individually and that the people in Scotland who produce the indigenous oil, and have done since the history of oil began, are on National Assistance.

The shale oil industry in Scotland is a rich industry. It produces detergents which are given the go-by so far as costing is concerned. We are not asking for any subsidy. We ask for a square deal, and we are not getting it. The whole of Britain is behind this so-called free oil, but there is nothing behind the shale oil of Scotland. Last year we were told in most superior tones that there was "nothing doing" so far as the United States were concerned, so I took the trouble to get in touch with a great American who stands very near the Presidential chair and I have his letter in my hand. I will not give his name. He states: Several of us have viewed very carefully the prospects in regard to the shale oil in the Lothians and also in cannel coal. We agree they are a sound proposition … The writer says, inter alia: You will require to please depend upon your own British financiers for an approach to the problem. In short the Yankees are not caring about interfering, but he gives it the character of being a sound proposition.

I was not satisfied because what I was after was money to prove conclusively that Scottish shale oil could be worked economically. I got in touch with the Mayor of Laramie who proved to be a lady. With the celerity of her sex she put me in touch with the Minister of the Interior. In turn he sent me two brochures. Apparently the Yankees "know their stuff," to use the phrase used recently by the Economic Secretary, because they have two great experimental plants, one in the University of Wyoming, and they are at the disposal of the Government. That demonstrates clearly that the United States is not of the same way of thinking as the British Government. It tells me that huge deposits of oil shale exist in Colorado and Wyoming and that the Americans are experimenting to such an extent that they are not afraid of the day when oil will run dry.

9.0 p.m.

Oil will never have the age of coal, and is bound to go dry, as far as economy is concerned. It will never be able to carry on for the same length of time and in such widespread fashion as has been the case with coal. Even coal is being burnt and sent up chimneys in smoke when we might be producing oil from it. Information which I have from the City of London tells me that the day of coal in Scotland is yet to come—cannel coal.

I have here a photograph of the Lothian coal field, north and south. The coal field contains untold wealth. It is nearly three miles across, is below two rivers and has more seams than any coal field in Britain—of rich cannel coal. The authors of this document say that it can produce fifty gallons of oil to the ton.

I had another stroke of luck during the year in pursuing my inquiries into the Government's position in obtaining oil from coal. Two South African engineers, both Scots, called on me on their way back from the United States. They were briefed to go to the United States to study the American technique in mining. When they called upon me here I put certain questions to them. When I stated the Government's difficulty they laughed and said, "Look at South Africa. We have no oil deposits, but we have a coal field. Our extraction of oil from coal is quite sufficient to keep us in fuel."

Scottish coal has a greater calorific quality than any coal in South Africa yet we send it up the chimney because the Government say it would not be an economic proposition to turn it into oil. They forget about the battleships, the seamen, the tankers, the harbours and the baksheesh to the sheiks of the Middle East. I ask the Committee to go into the Division Lobby and tell the Government straight that they have to do something because failure to do it is neglect of their duty in taking care of this country.

Mr. J. C. George (Glasgow, Pollok)

I had great pleasure in going along with hon. Gentlemen opposite until the speech made by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde). I am afraid that he did not pay close enough attention to what was said in reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). I feel that the fight has failed on one ground. I confess that I am not able to answer the argument put forward by the Financial Secretary regarding the impossibility of separating the products of the shale oil industry from other oil products. I can quite appreciate that that is a tremendous difficulty, but, though I may be putting it too high, I felt that in not ruling out some other method of assisting the industry, my hon. Friend had gone a very long way to giving us hope—

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

Could the hon. Member say what the other methods are?

Mr. George

I would not press that issue at this stage. I am quite happy to feel that the Government are thinking along other lines to assist—

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman heard what his hon. Friend said. He said that he was not committing anyone at all.

Mr. George

That is quite true, and I would not expect him to say anything else at present, but he did not rule out some other method being used, and I am extremely happy to have that said, if nothing else.

We have travelled far in this debate, but I would like to put forward a few of the arguments that I had intended to use to show where we stand on this issue. We feel, as the Minister said, that this is a unique industry. It is, indeed, a unique industry, and its importance has been substantially increased by recent happenings. I have here the World Economic Survey for 1956, published only this week. In Chapter 4, page 10, talking about the supply of energy, it says: The Suez crisis in the fall of 1956 dramatically focussed the world's attention on Western Europe's energy problem. The immediate impact of the blocking of the Suez Canal and the damage done to one of the major oil pipelines was an acute shortage of oil in most of the Western European countries. More important in a longer perspective was probably the exposure of the high degree of vulnerability of one of Europe's major sources of energy. In different words, we have said these things before about the shale oil industry, and we reiterate them now. I cannot imagine that we could, unless the cost was unreasonably high, stand aside and see an indigenous source of oil destroyed at this time. Therefore, I join with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will not press that issue further now, but I would step aside to answer one of my hon. Friends, who interjected earlier to say that imported oil was, perhaps, not as cheap as it seems.

Arguments have been put forward before by hon. Members opposite, pointing out that we cannot isolate from imported oil the cost of the former Suez base, of the Cyprus base, of the cost of Jordan. All these things represent invisible costs. That was a point which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) was trying to make. Though not apparent, those costs should be added to the cost of imported oil.

Perhaps I should be in order in discussing what might happen if nothing were done to assist this indigenous oil industry. The immediate impact, the shock, of nothing being done has already been graphically described by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The fact is that almost 3,000 men are employed in the industry, and they would not very easily find alternative employment in the area. There has been going on a gradual process of running down, and jobs have been found a long way off for many of the men by the very public-minded company that runs the shale oil industry.

The Government should remember that the industry has not reached a crisis only because that company has continued to lose money in keeping the industry going at a heavy loss for some years. That is, indeed, a great act of public service. The company could decide that it had gone on long enough, and if it saw no hope of help coming and suddenly shut down the industry there would be severe unemployment in that area.

If the plea made by those of us who have put our names to this new Clause is completely unsuccessful, the other aspects of the matter should be thoroughly studied. If 3,000 people became unemployed in the area, there would be an immediate demand in Scotland for the scheduling of the area under the Distribution of Industry Act.

Mr. Pryde

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this was the first area scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act, and it still is today, having had no assistance at all?

Mr. George

If not for scheduling under the Distribution of Industry Act—I am glad to have the information the hon. Gentleman has given me—then for action under the Distribution of Industry Act. The Chancellor might be faced with fairly heavy burdens in providing factories for the area to take up the workers who would be rendered unemployed by a shut-down.

Therefore, there should be, if not a complete exemption, some means found to give the industry a reason for carrying on on an agreed run-down policy. That assistance should be arranged so that no loss would be incurred during the time of running the industry down from its present size to a stage when it would be completely extinguished. During that time, when the company would not be incurring heavy losses, there would be a chance for the mobility of labour to operate. An opportunity for labour to be removed from that area to other districts would be open to us, and we should, in the end, perhaps, avoid the need to spend money on factories by transferring workmen to areas where they were needed and where their work would be of use to the country as a whole.

The job might be done in two parts. The mobility of labour might be allowed to run its course, efficient miners, perhaps, finding work in the mining area or, perhaps, in the expanding Grangemouth area. Then, at the end, if we found that there was a hard core of unemployment, and that it would be far better to use social capital already in the area and build some factories to provide work for the rest, that might, perhaps be done and be found to be cheaper in the long run.

There is good reason now for the Treasury or another Department having close contact with those who run the industry and working out a plan to—let me use the word—subsidise the industry for a short term of years in order to carry out its run-down, as I have suggested, transferring population without hardship, and, perhaps building some factories to employ workmen who could not be employed elsewhere.

I believe that the problem before us should be studied very carefully now by the Departments concerned, principally the Board of Trade. It should be looked at in the light of a social problem which must, sooner or later, confront us.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche)

The hon. Gentleman is going far beyond the new Clause.

Mr. George

I hoped that I was in order in discussing what would happen if this new Clause were not accepted.

I feel that I can summarise the matter by saying that the industry is of great importance to the nation. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that it should not be allowed to close down. If we cannot succeed in the plea we make in moving the new Clause, some arrangements should be made to deal with unemployment in the area by the subsidising of the industry over a number of years and, perhaps, building factories to take up those ultimately unemployed.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

My only excuse for intervening in this debate is that more than thirty years ago I represented the Parliamentary division of West Lothian, which is the principal district where shale mining is undertaken and where oil is produced. I recall the debates we had at that time on precisely the subject which is occupying our attention this evening.

Mr. Ellis Smith

My right hon. Friend wrote a pamphlet too.

Mr. Shinwell

The problem then was rather more acute than it is now, because the industries of the surrounding area were not then as varied as they are today. Even now, they are far from satisfactory in relation to the need for absorbing unemployed persons.

9.15 p.m.

In spite of what has been said, I do not think that this problem of the shale oil industry can be solved exclusively by fiscal means. It is true that thirty years ago the industry was sustained, but only after considerable pressure by Parliamentarians and outside interests and by the adoption of fiscal methods, implying a preferential treatment, and even then it was regarded as a temporary device. I think more is required than the operation of the fiscal method.

I was particularly interested in what the Financial Secretary said in almost his concluding sentences. He rejected the proposal submitted by my hon. Friends, but said that there were other means. We do not know what those other means are. It may be that before the debate is concluded a little more information will be furnished to hon. Members on that score. May I venture to tell the hon. Member what I believe is a possible way of dealing with this problem, apart from the purely fiscal method?

Let the history of this industry not be forgotten. It goes back a long time. It goes back to the days of Mr. Young, who was responsible for its formation in the township of Broxburn more than 100 years ago. At that time the intention was to produce paraffin, for obvious reasons, in the days before gas and electricity were used. It developed until it was discovered that through the production of shale there could be produced not only paraffin but oils of various kinds. In consequence of the production of oil and its refinement, it was possible to produce a great variety of by-products. The shale industry not only produces shale and then oil. It also produces candles and wax and a great many other derivatives. It is therefore a very important industry.

In the twenties and thirties the problem assumed a new form because Scottish Oil, which was an individual undertaking, was conjoined with the old Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company exercised some supervision over Scottish Oil. The old Anglo-Persian Oil Company has become the British Petroleum Company. It should be noted that the Government's holdings in the British Petroleum Company, at one time the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, are about £400 million or £500 million, which is a vast sum. Is not it possible for the Government to use some part of the profits which they derive from their holdings in Lie British Petroleum Company for the purpose of buttressing the shale oil industry, at any rate for a time, until it is possible, as a result of further inquiry, to ascertain what are the best means of enabling the industry to survive? That is a perfectly fair proposal which I put to the Financial Secretary.

If it had not been for the enterprise of a Government before the First World War we should not have at present this extensive financial holding in British Petroleum. Although it was undertaken at the time for strategic reasons, ever since then there have been commercial considerations to take into account. Be that as it may, the point is that in these profits, to which the Government do not contribute themselves, for this is a purely financial holding, there is an opportunity to provide some financial help to enable the Scottish oil industry to continue, if not for an indefinite period then at any rate for some time to come until it is possible to ascertain what is to be the industry's future.

I will not enter into all the social and economic considerations involved—the question of employment or unemployment and what will happen to the townships of Broxburn and Uphall and some of the other villages and townships both in West Lothian and in Midlothian. It will be very hard for them in the future if something cannot be done for the industry. It is true that the industry does not employ anything like the number employed thirty years ago. The number of shale miners has been reduced by two-thirds but, on the other hand, it should not be forgotten that as a result of the expansion at the Grangemouth refineries, as a result of this Scottish co-operation with British Petroleum, a very large amount of employment is found for people engaged in the refineries.

I do not enter into the question of social considerations and the possibility of further employment, but I support the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) and say to hon. Members that here is an important source of indigenous oil. I protest against its abandonment just as I have protested many times about our refusal to use our coal resources similarly for the production of oil and various oil derivatives. Where we have an important industry of this kind it should not be abandoned. We should use the oil, not for the purpose of providing employment but because in a country like ours we cannot afford to abandon any of our natural resources.

When I was Secretary for Mines in 1923–24 I had to deal with this problem, as I had to deal with it subsequently as Minister of Mines. It came before us again when I was Minister of Fuel and Power. This is not merely a social problem for West Lothian or Midlothian or a question of maintaining a number of people in employment. It is a question of whether we in a small country, with a vast, overcrowded population and with very few natural resources, can afford to neglect this matter. This argument can be extended in many directions, to coal and even to copper, to tin, to timber and to lead. I do not believe that we have exhausted the possibilities of geological survey in this country. Some surveys have been undertaken but not in an exhaustive fashion.

There is nothing partisan about this argument. It is a question of what is best for the country. Even if we differ from time to time, as undoubtedly we do, we must concern ourselves, at any rate on some occasions, with what is best in the interest of the country. I beg the Financial Secretary and the Economic Secretary to give this matter their attention. I ask them to give my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Pryde) some indication that there is a little hope in the future by considering, if not the fiscal method of approach—which is not I believe a complete solution—whether there is some means, probably through using some of the funds at the Government's disposal derived from profits in British Petroleum for the purpose, temporarily at any rate, of bolstering up the industry until an effective and lasting solution can be found.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

We are very much indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) for his formidable support of this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) said, this matter has been raised on numerous occasions in the House, and each time we have been given a dusty reply. On this occasion a glimmer of hope is given by the Financial Secretary, namely, that there are other means by which the case which we seek to present can be met.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington has underlined one possibility, but, with all respect to him, that is a speculation. The Government have not indicated that it is the avenue of approach which they will follow in this case. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the Government have committed themselves to nothing. Unlike the hon. Member for Pollock (Mr. George), I am not prepared to accept the idea that the Government have some well-meaning and effective plan by which to save the industry.

That is not a dramatic phrase—"to save the industry"—because, since we raised the matter in the House a year ago, its production has dropped from 100,000 tons to 78,000 tons in one year. There have been substantial closures of factory installations, and the prospect of unemployment is now becoming alarming to the men and women in the constituencies so affected. The people of Scotland are very much perturbed, not only those in West Lothian and Midlothian, but all over the country, that one of the ancient Scottish industries should apparently be deserted by the Government.

We are entitled tonight, before any effort is made on our side to withdraw the Motion or to seek in any way to be helpful to the Government, to have a firm undertaking as to what the Government intend to do, instead of having a non-committal phrase about "other means." Is it true that it is fiscally impossible or undesirable for the Government to take any action? That was the case of the Financial Secretary, although it strikes me, with some appreciation of the ingenuity of the Treasury, that it cannot be impossible for the Treasury to devise some way of separating one part of the industry from another for the purpose of taxation.

That apart, the next argument is that there are some other means. We should like to know what those means are. Is it true that it is simply the province of British Petroleum to save the indus1try? Is it true that British Petroleum is neglecting it and allowing it to perish? Is it dying of the indifference of private enterprise or of the indifference of the Government? Which? We are entitled to know. Nobody can deny that the industry will perish in a matter of three or four years. That will be the end of it, and we shall have no means of resisting that. We are entitled to know the position. As I have said, the matter has been raised on numerous occasions, and each time we have been given an answer which has led the industry precisely nowhere.

Are we now to go back to Scotland and say that we have raised it again, that we have been given this new answer, but that in a year's time the industry's production, which has already fallen substantially over last year, will fall again and that we now have had the death sentence of the industry? We will not do that. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will give us an indication now as to what is to happen to save the industry. Otherwise, party politics aside, there is no doubt that the Conservative Government will stand condemned as being indifferent to the future of this substantial industry.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I want to probe a little further into the answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and to try to disabuse the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) whose support for the shale oil industry seems to be faltering. The hon. Gentleman is certainly very quickly persuaded from making efforts at the right time.

The Financial Secretary said that he did not rule out some other form of help being made available, quite apart from this Clause. May I ask the Financial Secretary whether this matter has been discussed by himself with other Ministers? Has it been the subject of discussion at all, to his own knowledge, with the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Power or anyone? Or is this just a phrase which he put in for the purpose of answering the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) in moving this new Clause?

I think we are entitled to know especially when we hear that an hon. Gentleman of considerable acumen and good business sense who represents the Pollok division of Glasgow, who realises that something could or should be done for this industry, is prepared to drop his support for the shale oil industry on that one phrase.

The second point is this. To my mind, there is a certain amount of confusion in the hon. Gentleman's reply. He said at one stage that it was difficult and well-nigh impossible to separate the shale oil industry from other indigenous industries, but later on he said that if the Government granted this concession, which would mean £750,000, they would be met by claims for similar treatment from all the other indigenous industries, and together the cost would come to about £10 million. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind one way or the other. Is it administratively impossible to accept the suggestion that we have put forward? If it is not impossible, and if the Government could meet it, the hon. Gentleman must then persuade the Committee that this proposal should be turned down on its merits.

The merits of the proposal are simply these. This industry is dying. The relief that could be given by the acceptance of the suggestion in the new Clause will cost £750,000 a year, and that £750,000 might go well on the way to stopping the rot in the industry. That is the simple fact, and to place against that a promise that something could be done by somebody else unspecified is something that I for my part, and I hope no one else on this side of the Committee, is prepared to accept.

I think it has been made perfectly clear by my hon. Friends that we are not raising the matter purely as a matter of local politics. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), in a speech which I certainly applaud not only for its sincerity, but for the way in which he went back to thirty years ago and brought forward historical facts and figures, which indicated a very fine grasp and memory of that situation, pointed out that in actual fact this is something related to our national well-being. I am not inhibited, as was my hon. Friend, by feelings of non-partisanship, and my hon. Friend did not get very much for his own attitude of non-partisanship today. It is a curious fact that we have two sources of oil in the Commonwealth and in our own country, and the Tories sell one of them and let the other die. It is a record of which to be proud, is it not?

The actual fact is that if we take what was spent over our pre-occupation with the safety of our other oil supplies, and spent rather foolishly in the minds of a majority of hon. Members in this House, what was spent in two months could have set this industry on its feet for more than twenty years. Not only would it have saved it from dying, but it would have led to an expansion of that industry which would have brought some real return for the money expended. When we take into account the invisible cost, as stated by the hon. Member for Pollok and by my hon. Friend, there is no doubt that the Government should consider this modest request for this relief, which would amount to only £750,000.

I sincerely hope that a Government representative will give us another reply, because the first reply was neither satisfying nor clear. I feel that if we do not have an adequate reply and are not told that there is a concrete proposal for further help, as was hinted at by the Financial Secretary, we should have no hesitation in registering our opposition in the Lobby.

Mr. Jay

The Financial Secretary gave a totally unsatisfactory answer to the very powerful and convincing arguments that were advanced from this side of the Committee. It may be that the Chancellor will come in in ten minutes' time and again throw over the Financial Secretary; but he has not yet done so.

The Financial Secretary told us that the Government might do something unspecified at some time, but he did not tell us when, what or how. That seems to me to be a most feeble reply to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman says that the difficulty is that one cannot discriminate in tax relief between one form of indigenous oil and another. If that is so, why does he not grant the relief to all forms of indigenous oil production? Surely, any form of indigenous oil production at present is an extremely precious national asset, whether it is from shale oil or otherwise.

If the Financial Secretary's objection to that is that the cost, £10 million, would be too great—I am not at all sure that I should accept that—I would suggest two practical compromises. Why should he not go at least part of the way to meet my hon. Friend and apply the concession over the whole field of indigenous oil production? If the hon. Gentleman has some objection to that, why should he not make a slight adjustment of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duty generally in such a way as to give this relief to home produced oil so that there would not be any net loss of duty to the Exchequer? I feel sure that that must be possible arithmetically; at all events, it must be possible to reduce the loss to a negligible sum.

The case for doing something in this respect must surely be absolutely overwhelming. Home produced oil must surely be more valuable than almost any other economic asset that we could have. If the Government have not been convinced of this during the past year, goodness knows what will convince them. It is incredible that during the past year the production of oil by the Scottish industry has fallen. My hon. Friends are correct in saying that in the United States the production of oil from shale is developing and expanding and a great deal of money is being devoted to research into the production of this type of oil.

I urge the Financial Secretary, or the Chancellor if he can be brought in once again to rescue the Financial Secretary, to tell us here and now what measures the Government have in mind to assist the industry. We wish to be told in concrete detail what they are and when the Government will apply them. If we cannot be told this, I hope that my hon. Friends will carry the matter to a Division.

Mr. Bence

There is a simple point which has occurred to me tonight and on many previous occasions. I have fre- quently listened to debates on subsidies for agriculture and fishing. The last time I listened to debate on fiscal policy in respect of fishing, I found that a different subsidy was given for different types of fishing. In granting subsidies the Treasury seem to be able to distinguish between one type of fishing and another and one type of farming and another, but when we ask for Income Tax relief for an industry so important to the national economy the Treasury says that it cannot distinguish between one form of production and another.

This occurs time and again. I am not an expert in oil production and I know nothing about shale oil, but are we really to believe that it is absolutely impossible to distinguish between oil produced from shale and oil produced in other ways? I cannot accept that and I hope that the people of Scotland will not accept it. I am satisfied that if we can give different subsidies for different kinds of fishing we can distinguish between different forms of oil extraction. When we consider the money we spend year by year and the risks which we took last year, risks which may have plunged us into world war, to save oil in the Middle East, it is remarkable that we should be told by the Financial Secretary that it is impossible to separate shale oil from other oils and so we can do nothing about it.

That may be the view of the experts, but if it was possible to raise the hullabaloo and do all that we did with the organisation and terrific concentration of power to save oil in the Middle East, surely we can find the £750,000 which the experts in the Treasury tell us would be needed to save production of the indigenous shale oil in Scotland. This is a simple proposition in view of what we have done in other matters and I hope that the Government will reconsider and make this concession.

Mr. J. Taylor

When I heard the reply of the Financial Secretary I was rather sick with disappointment. I was hoping that this proposal would be accepted, but it was a hope apparently based on insufficiently sure foundations. I thought that our case had been made. Trying to gather what crumbs of comfort I can from the final sentence of the Financial Secretary, perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I press him on these matters, as some of my hon. Friends have done.

The hon. Member based his case on the constitutional and fiscal impossibility of acceding to the proposal. He said that, fiscally, it was not possible to separate one source of indigenous oil supply from other sources. Why is it impossible? It can be stated in a moment that the present production of oil from shale is 78.000 tons. We know of every drop of oil, derv or motor spirit which is produced from shale; obviously, because we have to know for tax and Excise purposes. We know of every drop which comes from by-products in every process. We know to precisely half a pint how much oil we refine in our refineries is produced from oil wells in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer). It is 66,000 tons. The refineries at Pumpherston and Westwood between them refine 26 per cent. of the indigenous oil supplies in this country.

As a matter of fact, the remaining sources of indigenous oil are by-products of other industries. There is no tenable case against the proposal for not only increasing the preference, but abolishing Excise duty on shale oil. A comparatively large proportion of our indigenous oil supply, 314,500 tons a year, comes from hydrogenation. That is 57 per cent. of our indigenous oil supply. There is no difficulty about separating those figures.

9.45 p.m.

A very large number of industries that produce these other sources as byproducts have no reason for the concession and I would not argue their case. I am arguing that this is simply and fiscally possible and that there is no difficulty about it. I cannot and never could understand the argument that because we give this concession to one section of indigenous industry we must give it to all. There are different reasons and different cases.

When the Financial Secretary hints that there are other methods of assistance, will he tell us what those other methods are, or give us a hint as to what they are? He says that it is not a matter for the Treasury. In that case, for what Ministry is it a matter? Is it the Ministry of Power, and, if so, by what means? What other Ministry could it conceivably be? In any case, must it not come back to the Treasury in the long run?

These are really important matters to Scotland and to this industry. I know that I have been saying for five years that this industry is dying and the Treasury can perhaps be excused for saying that, like King Charles II, it is an unconscionable time in doing so. But this industry is really hanging on, hoping, year by year, to get some assistance.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget the constructive proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

Mr. Taylor

What I am trying to produce from the Financial Secretary is precisely what action he has in mind. I do not think that, knowing him as I do, he would make such a statement unless he had a proposal in mind. It would be completely unworthy of him and I do not believe for a moment that he is just saying this to fob us off. I am quite unrepentant about maintaining a nonpartisan attitude about this Clause, because I do not think that it is a party matter, and I refuse to try to make party capital out of a matter which is so vital to my constituency.

Finally, will the Financial Secretary tell us exactly what is the position? May I say to my hon. Friends who have pointed out that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the products of this industry during the last year that the reason is that the industry was bound to make contractions on its most uneconomical section. We are hoping that it will not have to contract itself entirely out of existence. It has been hanging on, and this time the hopes of the industry are really dependent upon the result of this debate. Its last remaining hope is that the Financial Secretary should now say quickly, and in no ambiguous manner, in what way this industry can expect support, when it will he forthcoming, whether it is really practicable to expect it and whether it will maintain the industry.

Mr. Jay

Will not the Financial Secretary at least tell us what are the proposals which he has in mind?

Mr. Ross

The Financial Secretary used the phrase, in failing to accept our suggestion, that "he did not rule out some other action being taken." His phrase was sufficiently important to persuade one of his hon. Friends to change his mind about his attitude to the Clause. I think that out of courtesy to the Committee the Financial Secretary should say whether he has discussed this matter with any other Minister and why he used that phrase.

Mr. Powell

If I may repeat what I said, I made it clear that we are here dealing with a proposal to deal with the problems of this industry by fiscal methods. I then said that my advice to the Committee to reject this new Clause did not prejudice one way or the other the prospect or the possibility of other means, to which the hon. Member—I was quoting the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor)—had referred. That was what I said.

Mr. Shinwell

May I ask the hon. Member whether he would respond to one suggestion? As he and all hon. Members know, if there is a dispute in Committee and there is a possibility of obtaining a rather more satisfactory reply on Report, the Government usually try to meet the wishes of hon. Members.

It may be that for many reasons it is impossible for the Financial Secretary to give a firm reply at this stage, but since, speaking on behalf of the Government, he has said that he does not rule out the possibility of some means being adopted to meet the views of my hon. Friends, can he say that, on Report, the Government will indicate the means by which it is possible to give some assistance to the industry?

If it is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to do that, his reply is completely negatived, and is of no satisfaction to anybody. I am quite sure that he does not want to leave the position there. Is it possible for him to respond in the manner I have suggested?

Mr. Jay

If the Financial Secretary cannot do that, can he at least tell us whether he has any concrete proposals in his mind at all?

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 248.

Division No. 159.] AYES [9.51 p.m.
Alnsley, J. W. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Darling, George (Hillsborough) Hunter, A. E.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Davies, Harold (Leek) Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Awbery, S. S Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Bacon, Miss Alice Deer, G. Janner, B.
Baird, J. de Freitas, Geoffrey Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Balfour, A. Delargy, H. J. Jeger, George (Goole)
Benoe, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Dodds, N. N. Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pnos, S.)
Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.) Donnelly, D. L. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Benton, G. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch) Johnson, James (Rugby)
Beswick, Frank Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Blackburn, F. Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Blenkinsop, A. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Blyton, W. R. Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Boardman, H. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Fernyhough, E. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Flenburgh, W. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Fletcher, Erio Kenyon, C.
Boyd, T. C. Forman, J. C. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) King, Dr. H. M.
Brockway, A. F. Gibson, C. W. Lawson, G. M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Greenwood, Anthony Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Grey, C. F. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Griffiths, William (Exchange) Lewis, Arthur
Burke, W. A. Hale, Leslie Lindgren, G. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Lipton, Marcus
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hamilton, W. W. Logan, D. G.
Hannan, W. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Callaghan, L. J. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) MacColl, J. E.
Carmichael, J. Hastings, S. McGovern, J.
Chapman, W. D. Hayman, F. H. McInnes, J.
Chetwynd, G. R. Healey, Denis McKay, John (Wallsend)
Clunie, J. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Coldrick, W. Hewitson, Capt. M. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Mahon, Simon
Collins, V.J.(Shoredltoh & Finsbury) Holmes, Horace Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Cove, W. G. Houghton, Douglas Mann, Mrs. Jean
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Cronin, J. D. Hoy, J. H. Mason, Roy
Crossman, R. H. S. Hubbard, T. F. Mellish, R. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Messer, Sir F.
Mikardo, Ian Rankin, John Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mitchison, G. R. Redhead, E. C. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Monslow, W. Reeves, J. Thornton, E.
Moody, A. S. Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Timmons, J.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Roberts, Qoronwy (Caernarvon) Tomney, F.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm, S.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mort, D. L. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Usborne, H. C.
Moss, R. Ross, William Viant, S. P.
Moyle, A. Royle, C. Wade, D. W.
Mulley, F. W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Watkins, T. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Short, E. W. Weitzman, D.
Oliver, G. H. Shurmer, P. L. E. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Oram, A. E. Silverman, Julius (Aston) West, D. G.
Oswald, T. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Wheeldon, W. E.
Owen, W. J. Skeffington, A. M. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Padley, W. E. Slater, J. (Sedgefield) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Paget, R. T. Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Snow, J. W. Willey, Frederick
Palmer, A. M. F. Sorensen, R. W. Williams, David (Neath)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tlllery)
Pargiter, G. A. Sparks, J. A. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Parker, J. Steele, T. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Parkin, B. T. Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Peart, T. F. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich) Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Pentland, N. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Stonehouse, John Winterbottom, Richard
Popplewell, E. Stones, W. (Consett) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Prentice, R. E. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J. Woof, R. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Probert, A. R. Sylvester, G. O.
Proctor, W. T. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pryde, D. J. Taylor, John (West Lothian) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
Randall, H. E. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Cooper-Key, E. M. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Aitken, W. T. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R.G.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Corfield, Capt. F. V. Gurden, Harold
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Arbuthnot, John Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Armstrong, C. W. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ashton, H. Crowder, Petre(Ruislip—Northwood) Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Astor, Hon. J. J. Cunningham, Knox Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Atkins, H. E. Currie, G. B. H. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesfd)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Dance, J. C. G. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Baldwin, A. E. Davidson, Viscountess Hay, John
Balniel, Lord D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Barber, Anthony Deedes, W. F. Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Barlow, Sir John Digby, Simon Wingfield Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Barter, John Dodds-Parker, A. D. Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Baxter, Sir Beverley Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hesketh, R. F.
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Drayson, G. B. Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) du Cann, E. D. L. Hirst, Geoffrey
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Duthie, W. S. Hope, Lord John
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Hornby, R. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.) Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Errington, Sir Eric Horobin, Sir Ian
Erroll, F. J. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Bishop, F. P. Farey-Jones, F. W. Howard, John (Test)
Black, C. W. Fell, A. Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bossom, Sir Alfred Finlay, Graeme Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Boyle, Sir Edward Fisher, Nigel Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Braine, B. R. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Fort, R. Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Freeth, Denzil Iremonger, T. L.
Brooman-White, R. C. Gammans, Lady Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Garner-Evans, E. H. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E. Gibson-Watt, D. Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Burden, F. F. A. Glover, D. Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Glyn, Col. R. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Carr, Robert Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Cary, Sir Robert Goodhart, Philip Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Channon, Sir Henry Gough, C. F. H. Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Chichester-Clark, R. Gower, H. R. Joseph, Sir Keith
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Graham, Sir Fergus Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Cole, Norman Grant, W. (Woodside) Keegan, D.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Green, A. Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Cooke, Robert Gresham Cooke, R. Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Cooper, A. E. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Kershaw, J. A.
Kimball, M. Nabarro, G. D. N. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Kirk, P. M. Neave, Airey Speir, R. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Nicholls, Harmar Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Leather, E. H. C. Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Leavey, J. A. Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th.E. & Chr'ch) Stevens, Geoffrey
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Oakshott, H. D. Storey, S.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co.Antrim, N.) Studholme, Sir Henry
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Linstead, Sir H. N. Osborne, C. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Page, R. G. Teeling, W.
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale) Temple, John M.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Paton, John Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Pike, Miss Mervyn Thompson Lt.-Cdr- R. (Croydon, S.)
McAdden, S. J. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Thornton-Kemsley C. N.
Macdonald, Sir Peter Pitman, I. J. Tiley, A (Bradford, W.)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Pitt, Miss E. M. Tilney, john (Wavertree)
McKibbin, A. J. Pott, H. P. Turner, H. F. L.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Powell, J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Price, David (Eastleigh) Vane, W. M. F.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Raikes, Sir Victor Vickers, Miss Joan
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Ramsden, J. E. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Rawlinson, Peter Wall, Major Patrick
Maddan, Martin Redmayne, M. Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Rees-Davies, W. R. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Remnant, Hon. P. Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank Ridsdale, J. E. Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Marlowe, A. A. H. Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Marshall, Douglas Roper, Sir Harold Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Mathew, R. Russell, R. S. Wood, Hon. R.
Mawby, R.L. Sharples, R. C. Woollam, John Victor
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Shepherd, William Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Smithers, Peter (Winchester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Bryan.