§ (1) Section one hundred and forty of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (Payment for technical education), shall apply to a payment of wages made to an apprentice of the claimant, being an apprentice undergoing, whether in the place of business of the claimant or elsewhere, a course of instruction approved by the Commissioners after consultation with the Industrial Training Council, as it applies to such a payment as is mentioned in that section.
§ (2) Where by virtue of the said section one hundred and forty or of the said section as applied by the last foregoing subsection a payment may be deducted as an expense in computing the profits or gains of a trade for the purposes of income tax, there may be made in addition to that deduction a further deduction equal to one-third of the first-mentioned deduction and the said section one hundred and forty shall apply to that further deduction as it applies to the first-mentioned deduction.
§ (3) This section shall not apply in relation to more than five persons in respect of whom the claimant makes such payments as are mentioned in the said section one hundred and forty or in subsection (1) of this section.1226
(4) Nothing in this section shall affect any deduction from the profits or gains of a trade which may be made for purposes of income tax otherwise than by virtue of this section:
Provided that the same deduction shall not be made both by virtue of this section and otherwise.—[Mr. Albu.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am moving the new Clause in furtherance of a promise, or threat, that I made on the occasion of the debate on apprenticeship that we had on 3rd April. I do not intend to repeat the arguments used very powerfully in that debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House. On that occasion very general anxiety was expressed about the position of apprenticeship in this country, and I do not think that those anxieties were relieved by the debate or by the Government's reply to it.
1227 The purpose of this complicated-looking Clause is to give an incentive in the form of an additional tax relief over and above the normal tax relief which an employer would get for the wages of an apprentice or for the cost of his technical education. It is to increase the amount that he will receive by one-third, provided, however, that the apprenticeship scheme is one which has been approved by the Commissioners after consultation with the Industrial Training Council, and one would presume that it would always include not only an adequate system of training within the workshop but at least one day per week release for attendance at a technical college for the theoretical part of the training.
The general anxiety which is expressed both inside and outside the House of Commons about the apprenticeship situation was not relieved by the figures which were given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the debate on 3rd April, nor by his reply to a Question on 8th May, which showed that the peak of the entry into apprenticeship was reached in 1955, that the figures have been lower every year since, and that in 1958 the number of boys entering apprenticeship schemes was the lowest since 1955. That is in spite of the very substantial increase in the number now leaving our secondary schools.
It is generally known that a good deal of this problem, though not by any means all of it, is caused by the small firms who make very little contribution to apprenticeships. The new Clause, as will be seen when I describe it in rather more detail in a moment, is directed to the small and medium-sized firms, firms with fewer than 500 employees each who together employ rather more than half the industrial workers in the country.
These small firms cannot really afford what is today considered to be an adequate system of apprenticeship. The Economic Secretary is well aware what an adequate system of apprenticeship is, because he served one in one of the most distinguished companies in this country which has a very fine apprenticeship system for all levels of apprentices. However, many firms cannot afford to have either proper training workshops, which are now considered to be an essential first part of an apprenticeship scheme, or proper training officers who can supervise 1228 the apprentices during the course of their training. It is also claimed that they cannot afford the payment of wages for the day per week on which an apprentice during the whole of the five years of his apprenticeship should be released for study at a technical college.
To overcome some of these difficulties, there have been instituted group schemes of apprenticeship by various organisations, the most well-known of which is the Engineering Industry Group Apprenticeship Scheme. These group schemes provide that in one of the larger workshops or a technical college there shall be available an apprentice training workshop and proper supervision by a training officer for the group in the scheme. These schemes are particularly directed to small and medium-sized firms and they have had a fair amount of success. Unfortunately, for a reason I cannot understand, they have been opposed by the Engineering Employers' Federation officially, although of course a great many of its members must be participating in them. It is very extraordinary that, in view of the fact that this body has put forward no alternative scheme, this action should have been taken.
To encourage smaller firms to participate, it is generally felt that either a stick or a carrot is needed and this proposal is in the form of a carrot. It is a form of tax relief, or some might say that it is more than a tax relief, to encourage them to enter and take part in properly constituted schemes. If this new Clause were accepted and if it were the case that the Industrial Training Council, or some other body, were to give approval to such schemes, I have no doubt it would insist on the conditions of some sort of training workshop, some sort of apprentices' supervisor or education officer for the scheme, with some sort of supervision of the apprentices during their period of apprenticeship.
Many ways have been suggested by which we can get more apprentices, but this way of some sort of tax relief has received a great deal of support. For instance, in The Times of 16th February a leading article discussing the various proposals for assisting the growth of the number of apprentices said:Perhaps the most promising is the suggestion that the Government should make tax allowances for the days on which apprentice" are released to go to technical schools.1229 This form of tax relief was a suggestion made by Mr. E. L. G. Robbins, a partner of the firm of consultants who manage the engineering industry's scheme. His scheme envisaged a fixed amount to be paid per apprentice based on the number of days an apprentice was released to a technical college. Under this arrangement the incentive would be considerably greater at the beginning of the apprenticeship when the apprentice's wages were lower and he was less productive and it would be lowest at the end of the apprenticeship, when he was considered by the employer to be more productive.
In the proposal put forward in the new Clause, however, the scheme would take account of the variations of wages because it would be proportionate to the wages which would grow during the apprenticeship. It also has this advantage, that it would maintain the incentive when the worker is most valuable to the employer, but when it is equally important to prevent any temptation to stop the apprentice receiving training in the workshop or by release to a technical college. If one takes the average wage of an apprentice at about 15s. a day, the extra relief would amount to the tax on 5s. a day and come to about £30 a year. That is rather more than Mr. Robbins's scheme, but it takes account not only of the training time in the workshop but also of any subscription to maintain the group scheme, which has to be paid in order to pay the salary of an education officer and other administrative expenses of the scheme as well as the simple wages of the day release.
Mr. Robbins has made an estimate that today there might be approximately 36,000 apprentices in small firms in engineering, the field to which he referred, though it is applicable to other industries as well. He estimated that his scheme would in fact cost, if the number of apprentices in the small firms were doubled, something like £1½ million. I think that the scheme proposed in my new Clause would cost rather more—something between £2 million and £3 million—but that would only be on the condition that the number of apprentices in the small firms reached something like double the present number. If it did not, not only would 1230 the scheme be less effective but it would cost less as well. If it were to be successful, it would certainly be well worth the amount of money which it would cost the Treasury, because there is no doubt that this is an extremely important and very difficult subject.
It has been argued, I know, by the Ministry of Labour or the Treasury that this incentive is not very great and is not likely to have any effect. I think this is not true in the case of the smaller firms. In the new Clause it is proposed to restrict the number of apprentices to five so that, in fact, it would have very little effect on the large firms, but quite a substantial effect on small and medium-sized firms. It is the general view of those who know anything about this and have gone into this matter that it would have some effect, though I am not suggesting that this is the only thing that we have to do in this field. It would make a start and perhaps begin again to increase the number of those entering apprenticeships.
I am well aware that some purists in taxation matters may not like a scheme of this sort, but I suggest that there is a precedent for it and that is the investment allowances. Under the investment allowances, the purchaser of new capital equipment gets back more in depreciation than he actually paid for the plant, and in this case the employer will be allowed taxation relief on more than he pays out in wages.
It is, therefore, comparable to the investment allowances, and I hope that the Chancellor, who once, I believe, looked not unfavourably on a scheme of this sort, will look at it again and see if he cannot accept it.
§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
I beg to second the Motion.
I support the case which has been admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) because I think it is most important that we should invest in the manpower in our industry as we do in the capital equipment which it deploys. While this scheme may be open to technical objections, I hope that the Chancellor will not seek to turn it down only on that ground.
We are all concerned about the need for more technical education and more 1231 apprentices, and it is generally agreed that the training of apprentices is not mainly, or, indeed, in many cases to any considerable extent, an advantage to the firm in which the apprentice is trained. In many industries this is regarded as a good thing. After serving a period of apprenticeship in one firm he goes elsewhere, at least for some years, in order to get a wider experience. It is quite clear that firms which do that make a contribution not only to themselves but to the whole trade or industry with which they are concerned.
I feel that the comparison between this proposal and the investment allowances is a very forceful one. We are all agreed about the need for further technical education, and while the Government are doing something, though not as much as some of us would like to see, in the way of providing the actual technical education and colleges and so on, it is not going to be very successful unless it is met with enthusiasm on the part of the employers and the apprentices concerned. This proposal in the new Clause will assist many apprentices to go forward and take full advantage of such technical education as there is.
As a final word, I would recommend to the Chancellor a good old-fashioned argument. If it succeeds we shall all be very pleased, though it may have cost money, but if it fails and does not lead to the expansion of technical education and an increase in the number of apprentices it will not be very expensive. I hope that we shall have a favourable answer from the Treasury.
§ Mr. Erroll
As I understand the speeches of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), they were both proposing two things—first, that a tax relief should be given in respect of certain aspects of apprenticeship training, and secondly, that there should be a bonus element in these reliefs. I am in some difficulty because the new Clause is linked with Section 140 of the Income Tax, 1952, which has a rather different purpose from that of the new Clause. Section 140 is designed to provide a tax relief for donations to technical colleges and institutions where, but for the existence of the Section, the donation would not 1232 attract the relief. That Section is perfectly appropriate for its purpose, but hardly seems the right Section on to which to graft reliefs for apprenticeship training, which are in large part granted already.
It might help hon. Members if I explained the existing tax treatment. Wages which are paid to apprentices are deductible at present, in full, like the wages of any other members of the trader's labour force, even though part of the period may relate to time spent in a technical training college or otherwise away from the site of the trader's business. The costs of instruction are already covered. Tuition fees which the trader pays to an institution, for example, where his juvenile employees are getting part-time daily education courses, are allowed in full, and if the trader himself organises a course of instruction in his own factory the expenses of doing so are similarly allowed in full.
§ Mr. Mulley
The hon. Member has missed the point which we are trying to make. All wages in the factory are set against tax, but the wages of apprentices are often paid without any direct return in the factory. We are asking for some bonus element. By the depreciation allowance the cost of the asset is met over the years, but by means of the investment allowance something extra is given because it is desirable in the national interest to encourage that form of expenditure. In the same way this is a kind of expenditure which we want to encourage and not leave on the same basis as the expenditure on any other labour in the factory.
§ Mr. Erroll
The new Clause seeks first to extend the relief which is already given, in subsection (1), and to apply a bonus element, in subsection (2). I thought that the fair approach was to outline the relief already given, which I think ought to help hon. Members to realise that in fact very full relief is given. I then intend to turn to the bonus element.
I have dealt with wages, which are allowed in full, and the cost of instruction, which is also allowed in full. As for capital outlay, the assets which are provided in connection with any training scheme are treated in the same way as any other industrial asset. As the picture 1233 is today, the full costs of training apprentices, whether it be wages, costs of instruction or the provision of the necessary schools and educational plant and machinery, are allowed as expenses in connection with the trader's business. Therefore, subsection (1) is unnecessary as the reliefs are already fully provided for.
We come now to the bonus element. This raises a matter of principle. It is always very difficult to breach a well established principle. The problem is whether one should start to pick and choose between different forms of socially desirable business outlay. We all agree that an extension of apprentice training schemes is a good thing, is desirable and should be encouraged, but the question is whether it should be encouraged by means of a kind of bonus element in the fiscal system. I suggest that it would be most undesirable to adopt a bonus element in this particular case as a means of promoting additional apprenticeship schemes.
§ Mr. Erroll
Hardly the same sort, because that relates particularly to capital expenditure—and capital expenditure over the whole field of private industry—whereas this is an apprenticeship training scheme and falls into the category of one of a number of socially desirable forms of business activity. On the other hand, we are not doing nothing about this.
§ Mr. Erroll
I think there is a great difference between a generalised investment in human skill and capital investment in a particular piece of plant or machinery belonging to the company. It may be true that it is investment in human skill, but the humans concerned may leave the particular plant and go elsewhere. I do not think it would be right to regard the human beings as mere machines to be treated as the sort of people that should attract investment allowances.
§ Mr. Erroll
That is just what the Government have done. We have looked at this from the national point of view and have decided that the proper thing to do is to make a direct grant in aid, as announced in April, of £75,000 to the Industrial Training Council. We feel that that is a much better way of providing the necessary stimulus to this desirable social end rather than by what would be a very substantial breach of principle in the fiscal code of this country. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is the right line to adopt, namely, to maintain the grant in aid rather than to adapt the fiscal system to deal with what can be only one of many forms of socially desirable expenditure.
Mr. H. Wilson
It is obvious that there is a clear clash of principle on this issue between the two sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) made it very clear—there was no attempt to disguise it—that they regarded this as being in the nature of an investment allowance for the training of skill. There can be no argument about the need for training for skill.
The point was made particularly by both of my hon. Friends, and reinforced by the Economic Secretary, that it may not pay an individual firm, from the point of view of its narrow conception of its own profit, to train a boy in a particular skill because, as the Economic Secretary said, the boy may leave and go to another firm. However that may be, it is highly desirable from the national point of view that that boy should be trained. That is why, even though it may not pay the firm, the firm must, in effect, be subsidised to do it by a bonus element of this kind.
The Economic Secretary pointed out that £75,000 had been granted to the Industrial Training Council. That is a pitifully inadequate amount for the sort of problem of which we are speaking. In a moment I shall quote a few figures on this point, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park developed his arguments he was emphasising that this is capital investment in human beings, which is just as much 1235 capital investment as investment in a machine, a piece of plant or a building. The Economic Secretary was just a shade too clever when he said that we wanted to treat human beings as if they were machines, but there is no need to treat them worse—
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Erroll
I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we should treat human beings as machines.
Had the hon. Gentleman not been in such a hurry he would have heard me say that his argument was not to treat them as machines, but as worse than machines.
Our argument is that from the fiscal point of view we should treat them not worse than machines. If it is important to have investment in machines, it is equally important—more important—to have investment in skill but, from the fiscal point of view, the hon. Gentleman is proposing to treat them as less eligible than are the machines of industry. It is a very typical Conservative approach. They will give subsidies to machines but not to human beings. The Economic Secretary cannot ride off on that attitude,
I do not want to take this discussion back to the interesting debate that we had a week ago on some of the shortcomings and abuses of private industry, but it is shocking that we can have all these vast amounts of money floating about in the City for the purpose of these purely "spivvish" sorts of occupations, concerned with take-over bids, and so on. There is no limit put on the amount of money available for that. There is no limit put on the amount available for social entertainment, or on the amount that the Government think it right should be spent on advertising and sales promotion and the rest. But when it comes to something that really vitally affects our industrial future, namely, apprenticeships, we have presented to us all the arguments put forward by the Economic Secretary.
It is right to say that, technically, this Amendment is not perfect, but that is no reflection on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who had so much to do with 1236 the drafting of it. The reason for its not being technically perfect is that there are severe limitations—
We have often said, and, indeed, it is usual to say, that an Amendment is not technically perfect, because, owing to the rules of order, an Opposition, without the Queen's Recommendation, cannot always draft Amendments in the form that they would wish. Therefore, if this is not technically perfect, it is no reflection on my hon. and learned Friend, but—
I do not quite understand the hon. and gallant Member's reference to bulls' eyes. I have tried to explain the simple point of order involved in this which, at this moment, I think it is rather over his head; the point being that, because of certain implications of the rules of order, it is not always possible for an Opposition to move an Amendment in the form that they would like.
Technically perfect or not, however, this Amendment was inspired by the extremely constructive debate we had in the House on 30th April, which I think hon. Members in all parts of the House felt had been an extremely valuable and realistic one. In particular, of course, tribute was paid—I think from the Government Front Bench—to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who opened the debate, and who, among a number of constructive proposals, suggested that there should be some tax incentive—the carrot rather than the stick—in respect of the training of apprentices.
Nobody can doubt the importance of this proposal. As my right hon. Friend then pointed out, the number of children reaching 15 years of age today is about 16 per cent. higher than it was in 1956, but, by 1962, it will be well over 50 per cent. more than the present level. As he said, up to the present time we have been talking about 100,000 school leavers a year ready to be apprenticed as skilled craftsmen, but it is quite clear that we 1237 shall have to increase skilled apprenticeships for well over 135,000 school leavers a year.
My right hon. Friend dealt with many of the problems. I should be out of order to go into all of them in detail, but he finally referred to the training by private industry. I think that it is generally conceded that nationalised industry is doing a first-class job in the training of apprentices, and it is equally conceded that a number of private firms are doing likewise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth referred to a company in which the Economic Secretary was once employed as being a model of its kind not only in this country but in the whole Western world.
In private industry there will be a requirement of over 20 per cent. more apprentices to be trained. The figures which were given in the debate to which I referred are not, I think, challenged and they suggested that the cost would be between £15 million and £20 million a year. This is a very formidable figure. The £75,000 to which the Economic Secretary referred will not make much of a contribution. Some of the big firms can look after themselves. Some of them, in fact, accepted an obligation to train not only for themselves but for industry generally. With the small firms the main hope must rest with the group schemes, but one of the biggest problems is to get a lot of small firms together to form these group schemes, as was recognised in the debate two months ago.
In my own constituency I have been involved in meetings with industrialists on this problem. A number of small public-spirited industrialists are concerned about the problem of school leavers a year or two from now. There is in my division the equivalent of a new town, a Liverpool overspill housing estate at Kirby, an estate which was meant to provide employment for the whole of Mersey-side, and it is now clear that that estate cannot find enough jobs for the new school leavers from the four new comprehensive schools established in that area. We are facing a very serious problem as these comprehensive schools turn out more and more school leavers and there is no work for them.
Some of these small industrialists employing 30 or 35 people are going out of their way, at some expense to them-selves, 1238 to provide apprenticeships even when they know that in the long term they will not be able to utilise the services of the boys and girls whom they train. That kind of effort has got to be made all over the country by small firms if we are to provide the number of apprentices needed. This job cannot be done by a firm looking at its own balance sheet, even over a long term. It has got to be done on a national basis, and that is why my hon. Friends argue that in addition to those items which are correctly and legitimately allowed, there needs to be what the Economic Secretary calls a bonus element in the nature of an investment allowance for the training of our young people on whom the industrial future of this country depends.
The hon. Gentleman has turned down this new Clause for rather narrow and inadequate reasons and we therefore propose to press this matter in the Division Lobby.
§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
I am sorry that the Government have found it impossible to accept this new Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has remarked on the need for the training of many more apprentices in our country. We in Scotland are particularly badly hit. There are very few opportunities open at present for young boys and girls leaving school. Only a fortnight ago a headmaster told me of a firm that had eight apprenticeships to offer in Lanarkshire, and 350 boys applied. Examples like that could be multiplied all over Scotland, and I am sure also in many parts of England.
It seems to me that there are two sides to the argument—first, the responsibility of any Government towards the young people and their future, and secondly, the much wider responsibility to the national well-being as a whole.
The attitude of the Government on this new Clause is in line with many of their actions. They have told us tonight that they agree completely that there should be subsidies for machinery, but there are all sorts of reasons why there cannot be subsidies for the training of human beings. If no help is forthcoming for the training of young boys and girls, there will be no training at all for them and the outcome will be either unemployment or blind-alley jobs for them. This is in line 1239 with the Government's attitude on housing. They are perfectly willing to give a good subsidy for the building of pigsties, but not a penny of subsidy for general housing needs of the people.
In one area in my constituency, more than 100 school leavers left last Tuesday, and the employers round about could not find a single job for them, not even an apprenticeship. Surely, the Government
§ must appreciate the very great difficulties being experienced in certain parts of the United Kingdom and they must realise that, by accepting the new Clause moved and supported on this side of the House, they would be doing a very great deal to help both the apprentices and the nation.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 211.1241
|Division No. 163.]||AYES||[9.27 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Hayman, F. H.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Herbison, Miss M.||Rankin, John|
|Albu, A. H.||Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Holman, P.||Reeves, J.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Holmes, Horace||Reynolds, G. W.|
|Balfour, A.||Holt, A. F.||Rhodes, H.|
|Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, C.)||Houghton, Douglas||Robens, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Benson, Sir George||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)||Hoy, J. H.||Robinson Kennth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Blackburn, F.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Ross, William|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Hughes, Emrya (S. Ayrshire)||Royle, C.|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Short, E. W.|
|Boardman, H.||Hunter, A. E.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Bowles, F. G.||Janner, B.||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Boyd, T. C.||Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth||Johnson, James (Rugby)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)||Steele, T.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Stonehouse, John|
|Burke, W. A.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Stones, W. (Consett)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||King, Dr. H. M.||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Lawson, G. M.||Swingler, S. T.|
|Carmichael, J.||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Symonds, J. B.|
|Champion, A. J.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Chapman, W. D.||Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Lewis, Arthur||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)|
|Clunie, J.||McAlister, Mrs. Mary||Thornton, E.|
|Coldrick, W.||McCann, J.||Tomney, F.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||MacColl, J. E.||Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||MacDermot, Niall||Usborne, H. C.|
|Cronin, J. D.||McInnes, J.||Wade, D. W.|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||McLeavy, Frank||Warbey, W. N.|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Mahon, Simon||Watkins, T. E.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)||Weitzman, D.|
|Deer, G.||Mann, Mrs. Jean||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Mason, Roy||White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)|
|Diamond, John||Mikardo, Ian||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)||Mitchison, G. R.||Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Monslow, W.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Edelman, M.||Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)||Willey, Frederick|
|Fernyhough, E.||Mort, D. L.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)||Moyle, A.||Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)|
|Fletcher, Eric||Mulley, F. W.||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)|
|Forman, J. C.||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|O'Brien, Sir Thomas||Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Oliver, G. H.||Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Oram, A. E.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Orbach, M.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Grey, C. F.||Oswald, T.||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Griffiths, David (Rother valley)||Padley, W. E.||Woof, R. E.|
|Grimond, J.||Pargiter, G, A.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Hale, Leslie||Peart, T. F.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Pentland, N.|
|Hamilton, W. W.||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hannan, W.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|Hastings, S.||Probert, A. R.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Goodhart, Philip||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)|
|Aitken, W. T.||Gower, H. R.||Noble, Michael (Argyll)|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Graham, Sir Fergus||Nugent, Richard|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William||Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie|
|Arbuthnot, John||Green, A.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Gresham Cooke R.||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)|
|Atkins, H. E.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)||Osborne, C.|
|Baldwin, Sir Archer||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Page, R. G.|
|Barber, Anthony||Gurden, Harold||Partridge, E.|
|Barter, John||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Peel, W. J.|
|Batsford, Brian||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Plikington, Capt. R. A.|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Pitman, I. J.|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.||Pitt, Miss E. M.|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James||Pott, H. P.|
|Biggs-Davison, J. A.||Hesketh, R. F.||Powell, J. Enoch|
|Bingham, R. M.||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hirst, Geoffrey||Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Holland-Martin, C. J.||Ramsden, J. E.|
|Body, R. F.||Hornby, R. P.||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Redmayne, M.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.||Horobin, Sir Ian||Renton, D. L. M.|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Brewis, John||Howard, John (Test)||Rippon, A. G. F.|
|Brooman-White, R. C.||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Hughes-Young, M. H. C.||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S,)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.||Hutchison Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)||Robson Brown, Sir William|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)||Roper, Sir Harold|
|Carr, Robert||Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Russell, R. S.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Iremonger, T. L.||Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Shepherd, William|
|Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)||Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Conant, Maj. Sir Roger||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Cooke, Robert||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Cooper, A. E.||Joseph, Sir Keith||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Kaberry, D.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Kimball, M.||Storey, S.|
|Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Langford-Holt, J. A.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Cunningham, Knox||Leavey, J. A.||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Currle, G. B. H.||Leburn, W. G.||Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)|
|Dance, J. C. G.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Teeling, W.|
|Davidson, Viscountess||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|D'Avigrtor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)|
|Deedes, W. F.||Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|de Ferrantl, Basil||Linstead, Sir H. N.||Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)|
|Dodds-Parker, A, D.||Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew. E.)||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.||Longden, Gilbert||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Doughty, C. J. A.||Loveys, Walter H.||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Drayson, G. B.||Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby||Vane, W. M. F.|
|du Cann, E. D. L.||Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Duncan, Sir James||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)||Macdonald, Sir Peter||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)||McMaster, Stanley||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Maddan, Martin||Wall, Patrick|
|Erroll, F. J.||Maltland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|Finlay, Graeme||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Webbe, Sir H.|
|Fisher, Nigel||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Webster, David|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Fletcher-Cooke, C.||Marlowe, A. A. H.||Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)|
|Forrest, G.||Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Freeth, Denzil||Marshall, Douglas||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Gammans, Lady||Mawby, R. L.||Woollam, John Victor|
|George, J. C. (Pollok)||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Gibson-Watt, D.||Nabarro, G. D. N,|
|Glover, D.||Nairn, D. L. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Glyn, Col. Richard H.||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)||Mr. Bryan and Mr. Whitelaw.|