HC Deb 21 June 1961 vol 642 cc1484-513

(1) The Treasury may by order direct as respects articles of any class or description specified in the order that, subject to the provisions of the order, relief shall be allowed under this section in respect of light oils used, or which formed a component of any goods used, as an ingredient or a material, a solvent or other extractant, a preservative or finish in the manufacture or preparation (including dyeing or cleaning) of articles of that class or description.

(2) If on an application made for the purposes of this section it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that at any time within the period of six months preceding the date of the application, or within such longer period preceding that date as the Commissioners may in any special case allow, any quantity of light oils (or of goods containing light oils) has been used as aforesaid by the applicant in the manufacture or preparation in premises registered for the purposes of this section of articles as respects which relief is allowed under this section, the applicant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of the order granting the relief, to obtain from the Commissioners repayment of the amount (if any) of the customs or excise duty on hydrocarbon oils paid in respect of the quantity so used.

(3) An order under subsection (1) of this section in respect of light oils (or goods containing light oils) used as a material, solvent, preservative or finish in the manufacture or preparation of articles of any class or description may provide that the quantity of light oils as respects duty on which relief is to be allowed under this section shall be determined by reference to average quantities or otherwise.

(4) Section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952 (which contains general provisions as to claims for drawback) shall apply to relief and applications for relief under this section as it applies to drawback and claims for drawback; and for the purposes of the said section two hundred and sixty-seven duties repaid under this section shall be deemed to have been drawn back.

(5) The power of the Treasury to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of the Commons House of Parliament, and any order made by the Treasury under subsection (1) of this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made by them.

(6) The power to make regulations conferred by section one hundred and ninety-eight of the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, shall include power to make regulations—

  1. (a) regulating the allowance and payment of relief under this section;
  2. (b) for making the allowance and payment of relief under this section subject to such conditions as the Commissioners see fit to impose for the protection of the Revenue;
  3. (c) regulating the registration of premises for the purposes of this section and the storage of light oils on premises registered for those purposes, and requiring the occupier of premises so registered to keep such accounts and records as may be prescribed in the regulations and to preserve such books and documents relating to the purchase, receipt and use by him of light oils for such period as may be so prescribed.

(7) This section shall be construed as one with Part VI of Customs and Excise Act, 1952.—[Mr. Stevens.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens (Portsmouth, Langstone)

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

Although, Sir Gordon, in your wisdom, you have not selected them, my hon. Friends tabled new Clauses the effect of which would be to give, in the one case, an Income Tax incentive, and, in the other, a Profits Tax incentive, to exporters from this country. I have not found myself able to support those new Clauses, but here is an entirely different Clause with a different intent. The intention is to remove an export tax deterrent, and that is a completely different thing.

As I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will know, these light hydrocarbon oils are used industrially for the manufacture of paints and thinners, in the making of linoleum and for rubber manufactures of all kinds. The duty, which is a revenue duty, was first introduced in 1928 at the low rate of 4d. a gallon. Over the years it has risen until it is now 2s. 6d. a gallon.

That revenue duty charged in this country is in contradistinction to the treatment of the same oils in countries all over the world. In countries competing with ours in the markets of the world in the manufacture of these items there is either no revenue tax at all, or a very small one. In the E.F.T.A. countries, for example, relief in respect of a duty of this kind varies from 65 per cent. to 100 per cent. in the Common Market countries the relief extends from 40 per cent. to 100 per cent. In the other countries of the Commonwealth the relief is 95 per cent. to 100 per cent., and in America it is 50 per cent. to 100 per cent.

We alone as industrial users of these light oils put these heavy duties upon them. The duty amounts to 2s. 6d. a gallon. They are an important component part in the manufacture of many of these articles. The 2s. 6d. a gallon duty is equivalent to Is. 3d. a gallon on paint. In the case of thinners, the element in from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon.

This case is not new. It will not be new to hon. Members who have been Members of Parliament for a number of years. They will be familiar with the arguments against the introduction of this duty. The main argument is that the United Kingdom can get a full rebate in respect of exports and that in the home trade there is a protective duty. I do not think that either of those arguments is a complete answer.

I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be familiar with paint used on motor cars which are exported and on plant and machinery which is exported. It is almost impossible to decide what part of the cost of the motor car consists of the light hydrocarbon oils used in the manufacture of the paint which covers the cars. Another example is the rubber manufacturer who supplies to a boot manufacturer rubber-proofed linings. The solvent used to make the rubber solution stick to the linings contains a proportion of these light hydrocarbon oils. That provides a very great difficulty for the export trade.

In the home trade, there is a protective tariff which varies from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent. I am speaking here of imports to this country of goods using these oils. Of that 10 per cent. or 12½ per cent., 5 per cent. ad valorem is deemed to be the revenue duty equivalent to the United Kingdom producers' 2s. 6d. per gallon. Obviously, that is insufficient. It is not a full protection. By our agreements with the E.F.T.A. countries the protective duties will be progressively reduced, which means that those countries' competitive ability will be steadily increased.

It seems quite clear, therefore, that our export trade is not sufficiently protected by the drawback provisions. It seems that the home trade is not sufficiently protected against the import of these goods because the protective tariff is not sufficiently high. I think that the question of the size of the burden of this duty is relevant. In the latest year for which I have figures available, 1959–60, this revenue tax brought in about £11 million. I do not want to disturb the balance of my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Therefore, this new Clause does not ask that he should give up the whole £11 million, which would be too big a sum for him to afford on this occasion. The new Clause is not mandatory, but is permissive to the Treasury to make orders in certain circumstances.

It is worth pointing out that the concession—if that is the right term—the relief, for which the Clause asks is not in any way unique. Industrial users of alcohol pay no spirit duty, in contradistinction to those of us who use alcohol for a different purpose. If accepted, this Clause would simply put the light hydrocarbon oils used for industrial purposes on exactly the same footing as alcohol used for similar purposes.

I said that I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in asking for an Income Tax-Profits Tax export subsidy. There are two very good reasons for that. One is that such a method would simply he asking for retaliatory measures by other countries. Secondly, as since the war we have done our best to persuade countries overseas to reduce the subsidies they have been giving to their export trades—and our action has met with considerable success—if, in 1961, we gave such an Income Tax export rebate or subsidy, surely we would again earn the name which used to apply to us, "Perfidious Albion".

For that reason, I did not feel able to support my hon. Friends in their very laudable desire, but here we have exactly the opposite position. We are not asking for an export subsidy that some other countries do not give to their exporters. We have deliberately handicapped our exporters in a way which no other competing country has done. This new Clause asks for a removal of that handicap.

Some may say: why should the industrial users of light hydrocarbon oils be singled out for relief in this way—what about the road haulage industry? There are two very big differences in principle between road haulage users of spirit and the use of light hydrocarbon oils in manufactures. The first is that the road spirit tax is a general tax on distribution spread over the whole field of manufacture at all stages. In contrast, the revenue duty on industrial light oils is a tax on a specific range of products. On the raw material side, it is a direct addition to production costs. There are big differences there. Secondly, the users of light hydrocarbon oils who pay the 2s. 6d. revenue duty also pay the road spirit duty when they distribute their goods. I do not think that there is a parallel there.

For these reasons I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to accept this new Clause. We are not asking for any special treatment for users of light industrial oils, but only that our taxation policy on these light oils should be put on a par with the taxation policies of our competitors the world over. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to grasp this chance of helping the export trade, not by a subsidy which might invite retaliation, but by removing a tax penalty. In view of decreasing profit margins, which, we know, are coming in greater measure today, and increasing competition from the E.F.T.A. countries now in sight, and perhaps round the corner from Common Market countries, it is very difficult for the users of these oils to maintain their existing trade, and there are diminishing chances for them to build it up in future.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton)

I rise not to comment on the merits or otherwise of the new Clause, although I have always felt that there is a strong case for the kind of argument which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has put forward. I think that it is pertinent to draw the Committee's attention to some of the background to the pressure put on hon. Members to support the Clause, because I think that all of us are growing more concerned about the activities of extra-Parliamentary pressure groups, of which more and more evidence is being produced in the Press as time goes on. I think that we all feel, as Members of the House, that there ought to be very careful scrutiny of some extra-Parliamentary activities.

In saying that, I imply no reflection whatever on any of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have signed the now Clause. Every one of them is known individually to all of us. We all know them to be hon. Members who would make no response to outside pressures other than perhaps to be likely to react in the direction opposite to that which was intended by the pressuring groups. Indeed, I have discussed this matter privately, and I gave notice to as many of the signatories as I could, and I found that they were not only completely free of these pressures and in no way involved in them, but, also, that they have a long record, over many years, of tabling this or a similar Clause before these pressures began. I hope that that will be clearly understood.

My attention has been drawn to a letter to one of my right hon. Friends referring to the new Clause on the Notice Paper last year, saying that that Clause had not been called and continuing: Representations along similar lines have again been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my Committee"— this is a committee which apparently has been set up in the trade to further this Clause— hope that you will once more be willing to support a Clause which, it is hoped, will in due course appear on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the pending Finance Bill. There is nothing wrong with that. We all receive letters almost every day throughout the hunting season of the Chancellor suggesting that we should support Clauses or Amendments to the Finance Bill. It is probable that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite are currently in receipt of circulars from the Sand and Gravel Association which is always, quite properly, active at this time of the year. There can be no complaint about that. The cinema industry used to do it, and I can think of many other examples.

This letter continues: The Committee also feel that it would greatly assist their case if they had the advantage of a parliamentary panel on light industrial oils, the members of which they could consult from time to time and to whom they would be glad to furnish all relevant information for use in any parliamentary debate in the event of the new Clause being called. It is hoped that the nucleus of the panel will consist of the Members of Parliament who supported the new Clause a year ago and a few additional Members who have shown particular interest in the use of light hydrocarbon oils by manufacturers in various parts of the country. I am accordingly asked by the Committee to say that they would appreciate it if you could find time to attend a small buffet luncheon party at the House of Commons on a particular day at a particular time and in a particular room.

I do not suggest, nor would anyone else, that there is a single hon. Member who can be influenced in his Parliamentary attitude by the price of a lunch. I am sure that we are all agreed about that. On the other hand, I feel that when there is hospitality of this kind hon. Members are all filled with a certain degree of bonhomie. Even the Chancellor has it on his day. Naturally, when we meet people and spend time in their company for an hour or two there is perhaps a subconscious desire to help them with whatever proposal they are putting forward. The Chancellor has to learn to say "No". He has said almost nothing else throughout the Bill. One imagines that in the months before the Budget and since he has had to receive many deputations and has had to say that fairly constantly all along the line, as have his two colleagues in the Treasury.

But I felt that it was worth while raising this point because of the letter from this industrial group. [HON MEMBERS: "Who is it?"] It is the Industrial Light Oils Committee. I felt that it was not satisfactory for industrial groups outside to approach hon. Members and to say, "We want to form a Parliamentary panel with a view to the tabling of a new Clause and to getting support for this Clause", and then to say, "It will be lubricated with a lunch". In this case it appears to have been a very austere lunch.

Mr. Stevens

The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in indicating that his shafts are not directed at any of those hon. Members who put their names to the Motion. It is, therefore, obvious that he is not directing any of his remarks at me. I am sure that he knows me well enough to know that I am not in the least interested in pressures of any kind, whether they come from just in front of me in the House or from outside. I received a copy of that letter, and I do not see why there should be any secret about it: my name appears on it, although the right hon. Gentleman was good enough not to mention the fact. My name appears at the bottom of the letter as the sponsor of the lunch which this committee wished to hold.

I read that letter in a completely different manner from that in which the right hon. Gentleman read it. He spoke as though this Parliamentary panel were designed to put a new Clause on the Notice Paper. I think that if he goes back to the letter he will see that the word "information" is used. I read that letter as suggesting that this body, which consists of users or manufacturers of oils which are used in very technical processes, about which many hon. Members are not well informed, had the object of making sure that some of us who took part in the debate in the House on this very important subject would have some idea of what the subject was about. Occasionally, I feel that our debates serve a more useful purpose if some hon. Members who take part in them know something about the subject on which they are talking.

Mr. Wilson

Particularly after the two or three hours which we spent last night, I agree very much with what the hon. Member said. If it needs saying, I make it plain that I have been a colleague of the hon. Member for long enough on a very important Select Committee of the House for me not to need to say that I intended no reflection whatever on him. It is a very good thing that we receive information from outside, but when it is a question of a new Clause to the Finance Bill, the Chancellor will agree that hon. Members are usually well briefed with the case for reductions in taxation but are not usually briefed in the opposite direction. That is usually left to be handled by the Chancellor and his colleagues.

My right hon. Friend who received that letter was very distressed by it. He felt that it was almost a question of Privilege. I did not take that view, and I did not seek to raise it in that connection. But we are seeing more and more Motions on the Order Paper which are bound to benefit particular groups, most, if not all, I am certain, put on the Order Paper in a spirit of complete innocence and helpfulness, usually because of constituency interests. We are all involved in them.

I think that it has been worth raising the point. The reference to a Parliamentary panel being serviced in this way from outside, to my mind at any rate, contains the seeds of danger. I am convinced that there are no dangers in this Clause, as I have said, and I am certain that the pressure did not decide who signed the Clause. All the hon. Members who have signed it have signed a similar Clause in past years, before these forms of pressure, if that is the right word, were developed.

My right hon. Friend received a second letter which read: We were sorry that you were unable to attend our small luncheon party in the House of Commons on Tuesday. You may be interested to know that arrangements have now been completed for the tabling of a Clause on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the lines recommended by my Committee. They would appreciate it it you would be so good as to add your name to the new Clause. I do not think that this is quite what we want to see in our proceedings on the Finance Bill. I do not want to put it higher than that. I do not think this compares with some of the highly improper pressures which I think are being put on hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons by some public relations firms. We are seeing far too much evidence of it, in relation to both domestic and international and colonial affairs. I do not think that this compares with that, but there has undoubtedly been, over the past two years, a development of this new profession, if we can call it that. It is an extremely degrading profession. I think that "corruption" is too strong a word. It is a rather squalid procedure which is developing. This is not of the same order as some of the things about which complaints have been made in the House of Commons.

Since this was the first case to be brought to my attention which might, however indirectly or remotely—perhaps with a new Member of Parliament—influence the signatures or the speeches or even the votes, I thought that it ought to be raised so that hon. Members could let it be known that we are perfectly capable of conducting our debates on the Finance Bill. We are not ungrateful for the considerable assistance we receive from industrial organisations—firms, trade associations, development councils, and the rest—which are never backward in seeing that we have the necessary information. The wastepaper baskets in this building would bear full testimony to the truth of what I am saying.

While we are grateful to them, I thought it was worth while raising this so that, if any public relations firms whose methods are a good deal less scrupulous than the industrialists forming this body are thinking of operating in this way, or if anyone is thinking of signing up a public relations firm for the purpose of influencing the conduct of Finance Bills in the future, they will be warned off. We should give a clear indication that we will not tolerate it.

One thing is clear. There is no professional help in this case. This is not a case of an organisation signing up one of the public relations advisory bodies to act on behalf of this industry. These are genuine industrialists who feel that they have a strong case. I must say that I agree with them in this, just as the hon. Member for Langstone agrees with them. They probably felt that this was the most convenient way of briefing hon. Members who might be concerned. Anyone receiving letters of this kind, first asking him to a lunch and then saying, "We have put down a Motion. Will you add your name to it?" is bound to be a little concerned.

What I am concerned about is not so much this particular case, in which I am certain that no harm has been done, because of the individuals involved. I am concerned about the possible developments if industrialists feel that they have to hire public relations outfits as their only way of approaching Members of Parliament in order to get appropriate new Clauses tabled on the Finance Bill.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who has tabled a number of Amendments, and the hon. Member for Langstone, who has, perhaps, sponsored more Amendments in the past few years than any other hon. Member—he used to be with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot); they are a partnership in these respects—have never required the assistance of any public relations firms to know what needed to be tabled.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

I am my own public relations officer.

Mr. Wilson

That was a point which had not escaped us.

They have not required such help, yet no one could complain, having read the debates of the past few years, that they have lacked expert knowledge of the subjects being raised, at any rate as to most cases.

I apologise for having taken so long to raise this, but I see in this the seeds of a danger, to which attention should be called. I do not want in any way to prejudice our consideration of the merits of the Clause, but I hope that the result of my raising the matter will be a clear indication to any of these advertising firms or public relations outfits which think that they can intervene, or think that their services are needed at a high fee, to influence Members of Parliament in relation to future Finance Bills. They had better realise now that the least result of their activities will be to alienate Members against the cause they are supposed to represent and that the greater consequence of their pressures might be very serious action which the House of Commons might one day have to take.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver (Birmingham, Yardley)

I rise to support the Clause, for two very simple reasons. First, my constituents are very largely involved. We have paint factories in my constituency. Secondly, the principle affects the industrial centre of Birmingham, where my constituency is located.

I rise particularly because I feel that, if the Clause is not accepted, this country will deal with this problem in a very different way from that in which other countries deal with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) very fairly pointed out, if we try to compete with other countries but do not give a rebate to our own industry on some basis, although other countries do, we shall perform very poorly in the export race.

We have been told that the E.F.T.A. countries are prepared to grant rebates of up to 65 to 100 per cent. I want to draw the Committee's attention to some countries which give 100 per cent. Denmark, Norway and Sweden fall into this category. Examples of countries which give lower, but still very considerable, rebates are as follows. Austria gives a rebate of 85 per cent. Even Portugal grants a 65 per cent. rebate. Switzerland goes up to 90 per cent. in certain cases. We are told that this country is now considering whether to go into the Common Market. If we do so, we should ensure that our industries have at least a fair chance of competing with industries in foreign countries.

As for Common Market countries, Belgium is prepared to give a rebate of up to 75 per cent. France gives a rebate of 77 per cent. Holland goes the whole way, up to 100 per cent., as does Western Germany. Commonwealth countries are quite alive to the position. Australia gives a rebate of up to 100 per cent. Canada gives one of from 95 to 100 per cent. I know that South Africa is not now in the Commonwealth, but she is willing to go up to 100 per cent. So is the United States, in certain cases.

We shall get into the position in which we expect British industrialists to compete in a very hard and callous world whilst labouring under a great penalty before they start. No racehorse owner in this country who enters for a selling race carries a 7 lb. penalty voluntarily. But when a British horse enters the export stakes someone comes along and handicaps it. As one of my constituents said to me the other day, "The Treasury is responsible for this and, personally, Mr. Cleaver. I think that they have not got a clue".

That shows the way our industrialists are thinking about this problem. If, at the same time as we urge them to be more economical, install better plant and make better use of their labour, we make it more difficult for them to compete abroad by placing this sort of duty on the materials they use, I do not think that we shall stand a very good chance with them. It is not surprising that they become bitter.

It has been said that the whole of this tax brings in about £11 million. That is not a lot of money compared to the whole Budget. It may also be said that it is not a lot of money compared to the whole costs of industry. The rebate for which we ask will affect only a limited number of firms. It also follows that the £11 million is borne by a limited number of organisations. To that extent, it affects more harshly the sections of industry which we want to help. Although the total cost is said to be £10½ or £11 million, in the end it will cost my right hon. and learned Friend only £5 million, for the simple reason that this is applied to a raw material which is allowed as a deduction from the profits of a company before tax is paid.

I have said that it is the paint industry in which I am most interested. Therefore, I will repeat some of the ways in which it affects this industry most adversely. We have been told that the duty is 2s. 6d. In fact, it is equivalent to 1s. 3d. per gallon taken over the whole range of pigmented materials. That is the effect on the costs of this industry. The effect on the thinners, which form a large part of the production, is likely to be from 1s. 8d. to 2s. 6d. a gallon, and that has a very large effect on the ultimate price of the material.

I know that percentages are always dangerous, but perhaps the Committee would like to hear some. Where the wholesale paint price is between 30s. and 35s. a gallon, the duty ranges from 4.1 per cent. to 8 per cent. The price of thinners using low hydrocarbons is very often from 10s. to 25s. a gallon, and the duty represents from 16.7 per cent. to 6.7 per cent.—so the effect there is worse. Where the wholesale price of those materials using high hydrocarbons is from 8s. to 12s. a gallon, the effect of the duty is from 31 per cent. to 20 per cent. The Committee will agree that those are very high figures.

Other industries besides the paint industry are involved—particularly the surface coating synthetic resin industry, where the figures are quite staggering. Where the price of these resins goes to £135 for 55 per cent. oil content, the duty is £16 10s. The manufacturers of imported resin which competes with ours have to pay an ultimate duty of only £5 17s. 9d. There is a very large difference there. We are putting an undue handicap on those industries whose products we want to see exported wherever we can.

There are three reasons I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider. There is the large duty payable on the home market. This obviously restricts the manufacturers' market, and makes it more difficult for them to get the high turnover necessary to export at a lower price. Again, we get the drawback when we export articles for which we can easily prove the hydrocarbon oil content, but not where that content cannot be proved. In those cases, they very often form an indirect export applying very largely to plastic and rubber, where it is most unfortunate. Where paint goes out on the sides of a ship or on the sides of a motor car there is no rebate.

We cannot expect our manufacturers to be competitive unless we do everything we can to give them a fair chance. These pin pricks cause resentments, and handicap industrialists more than they should, so I ask the Chancellor to consider this matter.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

For many years I have supported the principle behind this Amendment. In fact, a few years ago I regularly signed such a Motion on the Notice Paper. I have never had an offer of luncheon in respect of services in that direction, and, if the hon. Gentleman says that he has had such an invitation, let me say that all such invitations to me are put by my private secretary into the wastepaper basket at once. I can get such information as I require for my Parliamentary duties without having to be fed, and watching other people drinking wine.

I support this Motion. The case for it was so adequately put forward by hon. Members opposite that I should be trespassing on the time of the Committee if I did other than say that I accept it completely, and urge their arguments on the Chancellor.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber)

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) moved the new Clause with his characteristic lucidity, so I think that my best course is to deal with the several points made by him and by other hon. Members. First, I should point out that this Clause differs from some of the previous Clauses on the subject in that it merely provides machinery for Treasury Orders which would allow repayment of duty on light oils used as ingredients or in a number of similar ways in the manufacture or preparation of the goods specified in the Orders.

The proposals in this Clause are identical with those that were made to me by the group of industrialists who came to see me in February, and who were introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone. I am sure that the Committee will have noted what was said by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). I would only add that, from my own clear recollection, my hon. Friend who introduced these manufacturers to me, merely did that, and took no part in our discussions; in much the same way as hon. Gentlemen on both sides before Budget time repeatedly come to Treasury Ministers to put various points to them.

Secondly, in fairness to these people who came to see me, I must say that they put their case with very considerable moderation. Indeed, I think that it is in line with what the right hon. Gentleman said about this case, to which he referred—

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must declare an interest, and say at once that the Industrial Light Oils Committee which he met, and which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens), is not an organisation that has been created this year for this specific object. This committee has been in existence very nearly since the end of the war, when this duty was first introduced, and its leaders in the paint, varnish and cellulose lacquer industry are men whom I have known for many years, and men of the highest possible integrity.

Mr. Barber

From my own knowledge of these matters over the years, I can confirm what my hon. Friend says about the Industrial Light Oils Committee.

The first point I want to make is that the duty was originally designed as a general revenue duty on all light hydrocarbon oils with, as I think my hon. Friends will agree, no significant exceptions for any particular class of user, The object was to spread the burden as widely and as evenly as possible, and to avoid tire establishment of an elaborate and expensive machinery of reliefs such as stultified the former motor spirit duty, which broke down completely in 1921 and was repealed.

At the time of the imposition of the hydrocarbon oil duty, in 1928, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) specifically referred to light oils used for various industrial purposes. As I understand it, what my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and others are saying is that, despite the fact that this principle has, broadly speaking, been maintained now for more than thirty years, it is a bad principle and that, on its merits, an exception should be made in this case.

I want to be perfectly fair. My hon. Friend was quite correct in saying that a number of other countries grant tax relief for oils used in industrial processes, but, with his own extensive knowledge of tax matters, I am sure that he will agree that no firm conclusion can be drawn from this without taking into account the general level and system of taxation as a whole in those countries. In the United Kingdom, the hydrocarbon oil duty is one of the major revenue sources, but I do agree with my hon. Friends that this factor—namely, the way in which the duty on hydrocarbon oil used for industrial purposes is treated in other countries—is a very relevant factor to take into account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said that this duty was an export tax deterrent; but, of course, there is provision for drawback of duty on oil which is used in the manufacture of exported goods—including the losses involved in manufacture—whether or not they contain oil when they leave this country. Secondly, I do not think that the United Kingdom producer need be under any disability in foreign markets on account only of the duty.

As I know from what they told me when I saw them, the manufacturers complained about the procedure for claiming drawback. I realise that in certain cases, where a very small consignment is involved, it may not be worth their while to claim the drawback. But if one is to have a system of drawback there must be a minimum amount of documentation and, in fact, more than £½ million of drawback was paid in respect of this part of the duty in the financial year 1959 to 1960. But, certainly, I would be willing to consider any representations which are made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lang-stone, or direct by those manufacturers concerned, with suggestions for improving the machinery for claiming drawback.

4.30 p.m.

Reference was made to the effect of the European Free Trade Association. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said, that the Stockholm Convention will change matters to the extent that, eventually, the protective duty will not be levied on E.F.T.A. goods, so leaving the oil duty—which is a revenue duty and will not have to be abolished—as the actual duty payable on goods containing oil when imported, and no duty payable on goods in which no oil remains.

I should mention that in the manufacture of goods involving the use of hydrocarbon oils, in some cases, after the manufacture is completed, no oil is left as an ingredient in the ultimate goods produced, and that is the relevance of these particular provisions which apply to members of the European Free Trade Association.

I should point out two facts in this connection. First, the trade generally in this country does not appear to have suffered significantly from competition from imports from Commonwealth sources which have, for many years, been imported free from protective duty. Secondly, United Kingdom manufacturers, as exporters to the E.F.T.A. countries, can themselves expect to get benefits from the E.F.T.A. Convention.

I now turn to a difficulty of a more fundamental character. There have, over the years, as the Committee will remember, been innumerable requests for relief from the hydrocarbon oil duty. They have been pressed by various types of users.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

Can the hon. Gentleman help me over a difficulty concerning the point he last mentioned? It is perfectly true that, I think, Section 203 of the Customs and Excise Act provides for drawback in respect of the export of articles in the manfacture of which hydrocarbon oil is used or incorporated. But when, the other day, we were discussing the difficulties of discriminating in favour of exports, we all had in mind the sort of difficulties where an article, such as one containing hydrocarbon oil, is used in the manufacture or is incorporated in some other article, and that other article, in its turn, may or may not be exported.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile, in principle, the distinction between the case which is covered by that Section 203 and the case where the article which is covered by Section 203 is then incorporated in some other article? This matter was raised the other day about spinners, weavers and cloths, and motor car components.

Mr. Barber

As I understand the position, if light hydrocarbon oils is involved in the manufacture of an article which is exported, then the manufacturer can claim drawback in respect of the oil used in the manufacture of that article, making full allowance for normal losses. He can also claim drawback in respect of that article which is exported, even though, as a consequence of the method of manufacturer, there is no oil remaining in the article at the time of exportation.

Consequently, so far as light hydrocarbon oil is concerned, it seems that the United Kingdom manufacturers are under no disadvantage whatever. The point I was making, in fairness to my hon. Friend who raised the specific aspect of the effect of the Stockholm Convention, was that the duty which is charged on manufactures which come into this country and which have involved the use of light hydrocarbon oils in their manufacture can only be charged on the basis of the oil which is actually present in the goods when they are imported.

In other words, as my hon. Friend pointed out, goods which are imported into this country and which have involved in their manufacture the use of light hydrocarbon oils, but which do not actually contain the oil at the end of their production and by the time they are imported, are not charged import duty in respect of that oil. To that extent it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said, that the United Kingdom industry is at a slight disadvantage.

Mr. Mitchison

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one is bound to get into this sort of cats' cradle once one starts taxing industrial raw materials in this way?

Mr. Barber

With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure that he will agree, on reflection, that there is certainly no accepted principle that raw materials should not be taxed. Indeed, a relevant principle of taxation is rather that goods, so far as possible, should be differentiated for taxation purposes according to their nature, rather than according to the use to which they are put.

I was dealing with what I considered to be a very considerable difficulty in this particular case. I was saying that there have been claims pressed for exemption from the light hydrocarbon oil duty on many occasions over the years, but that so far, with very few exceptions, the House of Commons Committee has not agreed that these claims should have special treatment. The general principle has been that all users of oil should bear the incidence of the duty alike. This principle has not only been maintained in relation to light oils, but, this year, in regard to heavy oils duty, the Committee has resisted proposals for giving relief for certain users, such as for domestic parrafin, creosote, and agricultural machinery, including tractors.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir Derek Walker-Smith) is in court today and cannot be here. His name appears at the head of this proposed new Clause. He was, himself, not unconnected with the debate on the horticultural industry some weeks ago. If he had been here I do not think that he would have invoked that precedent for what is being proposed. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said then, what he was trying to do must not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge or a precedent for other concessions.

Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone and other hon. Members may think about the merits of this Clause, I am sure that those who have watched our proceedings over the years, and certainly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, from his own Treasury experience, would not have considered it wholly irrelevant for me to point out that a concession to industrial light oils would certainly encourage other users of oil to seek concessions themselves.

The duty on petrol, for example, it might be claimed, would increase the cost of transport and, consequently, put up costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone said that he did not think that this was a parallel case, but he will admit that it would be put as such by the goods transport people if this Clause were accepted.

In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, I will not do more than refer to the fact that in 1956 he had the task—and he no doubt felt it right to do so—to oppose a Clause on similar lines in his capacity as Economic Secretary to the Treasury and, consequently, the Committee will appreciate that this is not a very easy matter with which to deal. But there is one other factor which I hope, and, indeed, I am sure, my hon. Friends will bear in mind. That is the cost of this Clause in the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's provision for a net increase in taxation this year. On another occasion this may not be so relevant, but I do suggest that it is a factor of considerable importance this year

My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone quite rightly said that the Clause as drawn in this form is not mandatory, but permissive. The direct cost consequently would depend upon the scope of the orders made by the Treasury under the Clause. But if orders were limited, on the ground of cost, on too selective or restricted a basis, I think that the industry would rightly complain that the Treasury was being inequitable.

The fact is that the cost of this Clause might well be £8 million a year. If, as is quite likely, the Clause had to be extended to cover other industrial uses such as the bench testing of petrol engines and stationary engines, and industrial uses of heavy oils, the cast could easily be £16 million or more a year.

The advice which I have tried to give to the Committee is not something which must necessarily stand for all time, any more than the advice which was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East in 1956 represented his concluded view for all time. Consequently, even if the Committee disagrees with what I have said about the merits of the proposal, and even if hon. Members take the view that the anxieties which I have expressed about the repercussions of this concession are ill-founded, I hope that the Committee will feel that it would not be right, in the context of this year's Budget, to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to a proposal which would cost £8 million to £16 million a year.

Mr. H. Wilson

When I intervened earlier I was dealing purely with a procedural point, and I take right away the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) when he said, as we all know, that the Industrial Light Oils Committee represents the leaders of a responsible and reputable industry. That has never been in question at all.

As we know, the problem that we are discussing today, with all its intricacies, has been on the Notice Paper on many occasions in the past and has been debated a number of times—I think almost since the end of the war. I should like to support what the Economic Secretary said about those who came to see him. I am sure they put the case with great vigour and with knowledge of their industry.

I come to the merits of the proposal. It is very hard to make up one's mind on this matter. Hon. Members who have supported the proposal produced very strong reasons for saying that it should be accepted by the Treasury. The Economic Secretary's reasons for turning it down were twofold. One was the general—I would not say philosophical—argument, the general Treasury argument that this was not the right way to distinguish—

Sir William Robson Brown (Esher)

It is not philosophical.

Mr. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman has not heard all the speeches that have been made during the Committee stage of the Bill. I can assure him that when the Financial Secretary speaks we sometimes get into very deep metaphysics.

Whatever the right word is, we have had a sort of general Treasury approach to this problem, to the effect that one does not distinguish by the use to which the material is put, but that one distinguishes as far as one can by the identifiable characteristics of the material. This has always been the Treasury doctrine, and one recognises the difficulties that we had some years ago in connection with coloured petrol and that sort of thing.

The second argument was the argument that even if one did not stand on that particular point, we could not afford it this year. This was a further reason that he put forward for appealing to the Committee to reject this proposal. I thought that he produced something of an argument so far as exports are concerned. But I feel—and I base myself on the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens)—that there is an important point of principle here. We are here talking not about fuels, not about oil used as fuel, not about a sumptuary tax, but about the raw material of an industry—and, what is more, the raw material of an industry which will probably have to play a bigger part in exports in years to come.

4.45 p.m.

This is a new industry; there are many new developments. The chemical industry is based on oil. There are revolutionary changes in paints and finishes which may have a very big part to play in the future. Is it night that this industry, unlike most others, should have to pay tax on this basic raw material? We do not tax coal, steel, raw cotton, or raw wool. As I understand, oil in the industries which we are discussing plays something like the same part as many of those materials play in other industries. On those grounds, I think that there is a good point of principle in the suggestion that this tax is wrong.

The point has been made that we are facing acute competition abroad. I do not know what decision will be reached in connection with the Common Market, but, certainly, anything which places a handicap on our exporters, despite all this rather complicated drawback procedure, is something on which this Committee ought to take action. We all know that the industrial costs to the community are affected not by the export industries themselves, but by other factors which have an indirect effect. Imports from other countries into Britain have an effect. We want our industries to be able to compete on a fair basis with other industries abroad.

One of the most alarming things about our balance of payments position in the last two or three years, apart from the invisible earnings problem to which I have drawn attention in other debates, is the fact that we have this substantial increase in imports of goods which we manufacture ourselves, the fact that our industries are failing to meet foreign competition on the home market, and, therefore, in terms of balance of payments we must think in terms not only of exports, but of ability to compete at home.

On those grounds, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, and, now that the arguments have been fully set out, that they will say that they will consider this proposal before the Report stage of the Bill. If not, I think I shall feel disposed to recommend my hon. Friends to vote for this Clause on the ground, in principle, that we ought not to be taxing the raw materials of industry.

Mr. Barber

I did not wish to delay the Committee before, but, so far as the incidence of this duty is concerned, I think that it will be agreed that it has, on the whole, minor effects on production and productive costs, and certainly on retail prices.

The light oil duty amounts to about 1½d. a car tyre, or .15 per cent. of the selling price. For rubber Wellingtons it is about ½d. a pair; tennis balls 1½d. a dozen, and so on. Then it goes up to the sort of case where it is more significant, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend—the question of paints, where, I am informed, it is about 3d. a pint, or up to 5 per cent. of the selling price.

Consequently, this is not a very important matter from the point of view of its incidence on the price, but I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that that does not affect the point of principle, and it is undoubtedly true that to some extent, however limited it may be, the United Kingdom industry is at a disadvantage compared with overseas industries which are allowed some concession of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friends. For the reasons I have given, I cannot, in fairness, promise to consider the matter between now and Report. I should be misleading the Committee if I gave any such indication.

However, having in mind the cost involved, which precludes me from advising the Committee to accept the new Clause this year, or from considering it further, I can say that this is a matter which my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind and will consider in the months to come. I am sorry that I cannot go further now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Huyton will accept what I have said in the genuine spirit in which it is meant. This is a matter which deserves further consideration in the future.

Mr. H. Wilson

The hon. Gentleman has been quite straight with us in what he said. He did not raise any false hopes. I thought that he took some of the figures of cost a little lightly. Some of them which he gave seemed quite heavy and significant. He has not dealt with the argument that, in principle, we should not tax the raw materials of industry. I know that different views are held in different parts of the Committee about it.

When we debated Clause 2, although the Chancellor gave way on horticulture, we were told that it was not meant to be a precedent—what were the words?—the Chancellor said that it must not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge. I am sure that no one knowing either the Chancellor or myself would ever regard either of us as the thin end of the wedge.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to intervene at this point on a matter which, though it does not affect the discussion immediately before us, I regard as of some importance. Hon. Members are being extremely inconvenienced by a party which seems to be going on in the Members' Dining Room as a result of which all the furniture from the Members' Dining Room has been put in the corridors so that it very difficult for me and other hon. Members to get to our lockers. The only way that we can do it is by acting as furniture removers ourselves.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot)

It is not a matter for this Committee, but I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms if he will look into it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has frequently been held to be a matter within the direction of Mr. Speaker or whoever is in authority in the Chair at the particular moment. We have had many examples of such occasions in recent times. I suggest that, if hon. Members are really being impeded by the use of accommodation by strangers, that is a matter which the Serjeant at Arms should check.

The Temporary Chairman

I said that I would ask the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter.

Mr. Wilson

I recall previous occasions during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, Mr. Arbuthnot, particularly the night of November 17th, 1955, when there was a famous all-night sitting, when a great deal of the time of the Committee was taken by a similar point of inconvenience outside the Chamber and, in the end, rather more slowly than in your case, if I may say so, the decision was taken to send the Serjeant at Arms to produce a report.

After about half an hour of points of order, the point was admitted and the matter was dealt with. The Serjeant at Arms reported. I think that we are grateful to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, for ruling in accordance with that precedent immediately my hon. Friend raised the matter, so that we shall not lose more time than necessary.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Is it a mass meeting of public relations officers, or what is it that is going on?

Mr. Wilson

I am not informed about that. Perhaps the Serjeant at Arms will report in due course. I return now to the subject of our discussion.

I was saying that the Chancellor, when he gave the concession to horticulture on Clause 2, did not, I think, make the point that that was for industrial use. It was a use by industry of an important fuel. On the other hand, we have ourselves made various proposals about sheep dip and other things where an industrial raw material was used—creosote, and so forth—and, in accordance with that attitude taken consistently over the years, I think that we are right to press the point on behalf of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and say that this is a question affecting an industrial raw material. The Economic Secretary having been quite straight with us about it, we have no alternative but to support the new Clause in the Lobby.

Mr. Stevens

Clearly, there is something wrong in the Committee this afternoon, because I find myself so much in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has been saying, not least when he remarked that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary seemed to look rather too lightly upon small price differences. A motor car is an assembly of components. The motor car manufacturer buys each component in the cheapest market. He looks at even a 1½d. a tyre as quite an important part of any aggregate saving which he may make on the various components. However, I do not wish to labour that point, though I hope that my hon. Friend will not look upon small price differences quite so lightly as he appeared to do a few minutes ago. As he said, we are

moving into a period of ever-narrowing profit margins, and we cannot afford to overlook even small price differences of that sort.

My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has today, more, perhaps, than was done five years ago, appreciated the importance of the point. I think that he is fully seized of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Huyton about raw materials for industry. He has held out an invitation to us to come to see him about export drawbacks. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

The Temporary Chairman

Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members


Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 256.

Division No. 215.] AYES [4.56 p.m.
Ainsley, William Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh MacColl, James
Albu, Austen Ginsburg, David McInnes, James
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Greenwood, Anthony McKay, John (Wallsend)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Grey, Charles MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Awbery, Stan Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Bacon, Miss Alice Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)
Benson, Sir George Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Manuel, A. C.
Blyton, William Grimond, J. Mapp, Charles
Boardman, H. Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mason, Roy
Bowles, Frank Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mayhew, Christopher
Boyden, James Hannan, William Mellish, R. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hart, Mrs. Judith Mendelson, J. J.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hayman, F. H. Millan, Bruce
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Healey, Denis Milne, Edward J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis) Mitchison, G. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Monslow, Walter
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Moody, A. S.
Callaghan, James Hilton, A. V. Morris, John
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Holman, Percy Mort, D. L.
Chapman, Donald Holt, Arthur Moyle, Arthur
Chetwynd, George Houghton, Douglas Mulley, Frederick
Corbel, Mrs. Freda Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Neal, Harold
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hoy, James H. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Crosland, Anthony Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Oliver, G. H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Oram, A. E.
Darling, George Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Owen, Will
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Paget, R. T.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Janner, Sir Barnett Parkin, B. T.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pavitt, Laurence
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jeger, George Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Pentland, Norman
Dodds, Norman Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Popplewell, Ernest
Donnelly, Desmond Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Prentice, R. E.
Driberg, Tom Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Probert, Arthur
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Proctor, W. T.
Edelman, Maurice Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Randall, Harry
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Rankin, John
Edwards. Walter (Stepney) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Redhead, E. C.
Evans, Albert Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Rhodes, H.
Finch, Harold Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Fitch, Alan Lipton, Marcus Robertson, John (Paisley)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Logan, David Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McCann, John Ross, William
Royle, Charles (Salford, West) Swingler, Stephen Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Sylvester, George White, Mrs. Eirene
Short, Edward Symonds, J. B. Wilkins, W. A.
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Willey, Frederick
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Taylor, John (West Lothian) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Skeffington, Arthur Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Small, William Thornton, Ernest Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Sorensen, R. W. Timmons, John Winterbottom, R. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Tomney, Frank Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Spriggs, Leslie Wade, Donald Woof, Robert
Steele, Thomas Wainwright, Edwin Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Watkins, Tudor
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Weitzman, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.
Agnew, Sir Peter Duncan, Sir James Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Aitken, W. T. Duthie, Sir William Leather, E. H. C.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Eden, John Leavey, J. A.
Allason, James Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Leburn, Gilmour
Atkins, Humphrey Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Balniel, Lord Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Barber, Anthony Farey-Jones, F. W. Lindsay, Martin
Barlow, Sir John Farr, John Linstead, Sir Hugh
Barter, John Fell, Anthony Litchfield, Capt. John
Batsford, Brian Finlay, Graeme Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Baxter. Sir Beverley (Southgate) Fisher, Nigel Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Longden, Gilbert
Bell, Ronald Freeth, Denzil Loveys, Walter H.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Gammans, Lady Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Gardner, Edward Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Berkeley, Humphry Gibson-Watt, David Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Glover, Sir Douglas McAdden, Stephen
Bidgood, John C. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) MacArthur, Ian
Biggs-Davison, John Godber, J. B. McLaren, Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Goodhew, Victor Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)
Bishop, F. P. Cower, Raymond Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Black, Sir Cyril Grant, Rt. Hon. William Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bossom, Clive Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Marshall, Douglas
Bourne-Arton, A. Green, Alan Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Box, Donald Gresham Cooke, R. Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Grimston, Sir Robert Mawby, Ray
Boyle, Sir Edward Gurden, Harold Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Braine, Bernard Hall, John (Wycombe) Mills, Stratton
Brewis, John Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Morgan, William
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Harris, Reader (Heston) Morrison, John
Brooman-White, R. Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Nabarro, Gerald
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Harvie Anderson, Miss Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Bryan, Paul Hastings, Stephen Noble, Michael
Buck, Antony Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Nugent, Sir Richard
Bullard, Denys Henderson, John (Cathcart) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Burden, F. A. Hiley, Joseph Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Cary, Sir Robert Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Partridge, E.
Channon, H. P. G. Hirst, Geoffrey Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Chichester-Clark, R Hocking, Philip N. Percival, Ian
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Holland, Philip Peyton, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hollingworth, John Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cole, Norman Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cooke, Robert Hopkins, Alan Pilkington, Sir Richard
Cooper, A. E. Hornby, R. P. Pitt, Miss Edith
Cordle, John Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Pott, Percivall
Corfield, F. V. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Costain, A. P. Hughes-Young, Michael Prior, J. M. L.
Coulson, J. M. Hulbert, Sir Norman Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hurd, Sir Anthony Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hutchison, Michael Clark Proudfoot, Wilfred
Critchley, Julian Iremonger, T. L. Pym, Francis
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cunningham, Knox Jackson, John Ramsden, James
Dance, James James, David Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rees, Hugh
de Ferranti, Basil Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Rees-Davies, W. R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield Joseph, Sir Keith Renton, David
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Kerby, Capt. Henry Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Doughty, Charles Kerr, Sir Hamilton Ridsdale, Julian
du Cann, Edward Lambton, Viscount Rippon, Geoffrey
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.) Sumner, Donald (Orpington) Ward, Dame Irene
Robson Brown, Sir William Tapsell, Peter Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Webster, David
Roots, William Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) Whitelaw, William
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Teeling, William Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Temple, John M. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Seymour, Leslie Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Sharpies, Richard Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Shaw, M. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Wise, A. R.
Simons, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Woodhouse, C. M.
Smithers, Peter Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Woodnutt, Mark
Spearman, Sir Alexander van Straubenzee, W. R. Woollam, John
Speir, Rupert Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John Worsley, Marcus
Stanley, Hon. Richard Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Storey, Sir Samuel Walder, David Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison and
Studholme, Sir Henry Walker, Peter Mr. Peel.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Wall, Patrick