HC Deb 30 May 1962 vol 660 cc1455-85

Section six of and the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 (which imposes the pool betting duty and makes provision as to such duty), shall cease to apply to bets made by way of a totalisator set up on a dog racecourse.—[Mr. A. Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. Lewis

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

I am sorry that my hon. Friends on this side who so actively, conscientiously and consistently represent Scotland have not been successful in having their new Clause—Exemption from excise duty on Scottish shale oil—selected. My only regret is that there were not a few hon. Members from Scotland on the opposite benches to support them. However, if I were to continue on that line, Mr. Arbuthnot, you would rule me out of order.

I do not need to declare to the Committee that I have no connection with greyhounds. The fact that I have no such connection physically will be apparent to hon. Members, but neither have I any financial or other connection whatever. If any hon. Member is inclined to sling out gibes, I assure him that I get no hand-outs or payments of any kind. I am not a director of any stadium. I am not even a partner in the syndicate which is, I think, run by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden)—who is not here at present—and some of his colleagues.

The grounds for my interest in this matter are two. In the first place, there is in West Ham a very fine greyhound track, one of the best, if not the best, in the country. It is certainly the best in London. In the second place, my interest lies in the fact that, for twelve years or so, I, together with several hon. Members on both sides, have consistently opposed this tax purely on the ground that it is discriminatory.

Before explaining the matter, I am happy to pay a tribute to the Economic Secretary. I myself, and I am sure those who are interested in this matter with me, appreciate very much the kind and courteous manner in which he has received many deputations, notably the recent deputation which called upon him to argue the case before the Budget this year.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in speaking to an earlier new Clause, said that we should not have taxation which is unfair as between one person and another. He said this on several occasion's. I hope to show that there is discrimination against those who follow greyhound racing. There may be many people who are not interested in this sport. I myself go very rarely to greyhound racing. I know nothing about the intricacies of the betting. All I knew is that there is obvious unfairness.

When one of my constituents, an engineer, a bricklayer, a docker, a carpenter, or whatever he may be, goes to my West Ham greyhound track and puts a bet on the totalisator, before the race takes place he has lost 10 per cent. in Pool Betting Duty. I do not object to the 10 per cent. What I object to is that if a wealthy person, or, for that matter, the same engineer, bricklayer, docker or carpenter, wants to take a day off to go to the horse races, he can put the same type of bet on the same type of totalisator made by the same company and operated in exactly the same way and he will pay no tax at all. Plainly, this is discriminatory and unfair.

8.15 p.m.

The Treasury may say that it wants the money. It may be said that the Treasury would like to impose a betting tax. All right. It may suggest 10 per cent., 5 per cent. or 2 per cent. as a tax on all forms of betting, gaming and gambling. If that were to be done, no one would object. I should not object. I should agree that, in the circumstances, it would probably be the fairest and best way of bringing money into the Treasury.

Incidentally, it is mainly in the evening that greyhound racing takes place. The chap who goes there is usually someone who has finished his day's work and takes pleasure in greyhound racing. He does not take time off from work to go. This 10 per cent. tax is not just imposed once. It is cumulative. He pays 10 per cent. after 10 per cent. If there are eight races in the evening, by the time the chap has finished he has lost the equivalent of eight times 10 per cent. Customarily, greyhound races are held twice a week. If a chap happens to be able to go twice a week, and he puts his two "bob" on each race, he will have paid out 10 per cent. in tax on each of those sixteen races because each bet is subject to the 10 per cent.

It might be argued that someone who goes to greyhound races should pay a 10 per cent. admission charge or a 10 per cent. tax. Perhaps there would be some logic in that. But, to be fair, the tax ought to apply to horse racing and it ought to apply to betting and gambling of all kinds, to chemin de fer and the rest. If the Treasury wants to get in a lot of money, that is the way to do it.

This is not a new issue. The 10 per cent. Pool Betting Duty was first introduced in 1948. Ever since then, it has been acknowledged by each Minister at the Treasury that there is discrimination, that it is completely unfair. The only reason they have given has been that it is an easy tax to collect, and, they say, "Why should we do away with it?".

This is not a fair way of taxing the people. Whether one does or does not go to greyhound races is immaterial. Whether or not one goes to horse races is immaterial. We are here to see that taxation is equitable and fairly shared out among all citizens, whether or not we ourselves are personally affected.

Since the tax was introduced, there have been many changes. There has been a drastic reduction in the return which the Treasury gains from the 10 per cent. levy on the totalisator. There are several reasons for this. One is that some people who used to go to greyhound races do not go now. They watch television, they go to bingo, or they have other amusements. Another reason, perhaps, is that the weather is getting worse each year that goes by, so people prefer to stay at home on that account.

One of the main reasons is that the wise punter, the wise man who backs greyhounds—and there are many—and particularly the heavy backer decides that he will no longer go to a greyhound race track to put £1, £2 or £100 on the totalisator since he knows that, in that case, he will immediately lose 10 per cent. of his stake before the race starts, whereas, if he stays at home and telephones the bookmaker, he can get better odds and lose no tax at all. Or better still, thanks to the assistance and generosity of the Government in introducing betting shops, he can go to a betting shop on any street corner, put his bet on and pay no tax. Therefore, why should he trouble to go along and put a bet on a totalisator when he can put it on outside and in fact get 10 per cent. better odds?

The tracks take, in addition, a 6 per cent. administrative charge which they have been drawing ever since 1934 for the running and administration of the totalisator and of what I might call the track facilities. Therefore, in reality the punter loses 16 per cent. before he puts his bet on.

I emphasise that I do not suggest that people who go horse racing should be taxed just because those who go greyhound racing are taxed. I suggest that we should treat them all alike. Since horse racing is not taxed, greyhound racing should not be taxed. If greyhound racing must be taxed, then all form of betting and gambling should be taxed.

I have referred to the bookmaker who is in a betting shop or the bookmaker whom one can contact on the telephone. As I say, if a punter bets with him he pays no tax. But if that bookmaker goes to a greyhound track he pays a special Government licence fee or levy ranging from £6 to £48 an evening, depending on what part of the stadium he stands in. Yet that same bookmaker with the same staff and offering the same odds can go to a horse racing track and pay no duty. This shows that there is discrimination.

My view is that for many years there has been a good horse racing lobby in both Houses of Parliament. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons and a number of members of the other place have actively supported, owned and taken part in horse racing. I am convinced that some of these noble and landed aristocrats and titled people have been able to get away with it because they are owners and take part in horse racing whereas most but not all of the owners and followers of greyhound racing are more ordinary individuals.

As I said, there has been a fall-off in the revenue returns to the Treasury, and I explained some of the reasons for it. On many occasions when I have had the pleasure of leading deputations to the Treasury, the various Chancellors of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers have said that it is not their intention to tax greyhound racing tracks out of existence. But that has happened in many instances. Forty greyhound racing tracks have had to close. I do not suggest that the sole reason for this was the tax. But I do suggest that it has, in part, been responsible for the closing of these tracks. If people who now place their bets outside the tracks had the opportunity to bet on greyhound racing on the same basis as those who bet on horse racing and on bingo and on other gambling sports, they would place them on the totalisator inside the stadium because they would not lose the 10 per cent. which they pay in the pool betting duty.

When I met the Economic Secretary recently, I used an analogy which I thought was apposite. I asked him whether he thought it fair and proper that a man who bought a packet of Wills Woodbines had to pay a tobacco tax of 10 per cent, whereas the man who went to the same tobacconists and bought a packet of Wills Gold Flake, a more expensive type of cigarette, did not have to pay any tax. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will say that that is not a fair analogy, but I think that it is. He will say that there is a difference between horse racing and greyhound racing.

We have heard it argued before that horse racing draws in revenue to the Treasury because it earns dollars by the export of livestock. But if one compares the figures of imports with the figures of exports, one will find that there is not much in it. But even if that were a fair and logical argument, the same argument could be used with regard to greyhound racing. If there were the same opportunities for the export of greyhounds as there are for the export of racehorses, then, no doubt, quite a lot of foreign currency would be earned, particularly by exports to America, perhaps not as much as is earned by the export of racehorses, but pro rata to the amount allegedly earned by the export of racehorses. I have here figures which show that as much as £1 million to £1½ million has been earned by the export of racehorses, but in many cases the cost of the imports far exceeded the money earned by the export of livestock to hard currency areas.

A number of greyhound tracks support the claim which I am making tonight. This is not because it will benefit the tracks in any way, because it is obvious that if my proposal is accepted it is the punter who will get the benefit of it since by Statute the track promoters are limited to their 6 per cent.; that is the maximum that they can deduct. If there were any reduction in the tax it would not affect the track promoters.

I have already said that I have no interest in this matter, but I was very pleased to receive from the chairman of Wimbledon Stadium a statement which I think he has either sent out or is to send out to his shareholders because one shareholder raised this matter with him. He has made out a very strong case in writing, much stronger than that which I have made out. It would take me far too long—and I am sure that the Committee would not welcome it—to go through this statement in detail. I want the hon. Gentleman to read it. I will see that it is passed to him.

Mr. Barber

I have a copy.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

That is good. I hope that he has read it, particularly the reference to greyhound race courses as being places of pleasure. I know that many people, quite wrongly, frown upon greyhound racing. Yet many of them go to Epsom or to Ascot—I am passing no adverse comment on it—and they will be at the Derby next Wednesday. Indeed, this Chamber will he as empty then as it is now because of the Derby. Good luck to them. They will all be backing horses.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I shall be there, too.

Mr. Lewis

Yes, my right hon. Friend will also be there, and I hope he backs winners. But he will not pay tax, nor will anyone else who goes to the Derby. Greyhound tracks are, however, frowned upon. Yet they give great assistance in many ways to building up Britain's reputation in sport. White City is a greyhound racing stadium but does an enormous amount of good work for athletics.

I only wish that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) were here. He gained a great reputation before entering this House as a wonderful runner. I am sure that he could say that he has run on many occasions at White City, bringing prestige to himself and his country. He could not have done that if White City had not been there—and White City would not have been there had it not been for greyhound racing, which also gains the revenue to pay for the stadium's rates, taxes and maintenance.

Equally fortunately, Spurs have won the Cup twice at Wembley, which is a great stadium. Wembley has put Britain on the map in football and athletics and many other sporting activities. I understand that it is to be built up as probably the greatest sporting arena in the world and that it is to have a seating capacity of 100,000, complete with sun roof. It will cost £½ million.

How will this be paid for? The stadium is not paid for by the football crowds. It is paid for because greyhound racing is run there twice a week and the management are able to get from the punters sufficient money for rates and taxes, with more left over to put into the track for the future. I could quote a number of instances. Harringay Stadium is run by the Greyhound Racing Association. It has done an enormous amount of work for charity. A recent charity race there raised a lot of money for under-privileged and handicapped children. In West Ham, the track is made available without charge to boys playing football and for athletics. It has been made readily available for children's sports.

I am not singling out any of the tracks; I left West Ham to the last because I did not want it to be thought that I was picking out my own area. All these tracks have done an enormous amount of good work in helping forward sport and athletics and charitable enterprises. Do they get any help from the Treasury? None at all. Instead, they are discriminated against in this and in every other way. They are limited in the number of times a week they can open. They are allowed to open only twice a week. Now I understand that there is talk of betting shops being allowed to open later. I can see you looking at me again, Mr. Arbuthnot, because I am getting back to the question of the 10 per cent. duty, but there is a relevance in this case.

If these betting shops are open later at night there will be more encouragement for people who would normally go to the greyhound track to go to the shops instead. This would mean that they would not put the money on the totalisator at the track. Although it may not be the Economic Secretary's responsibility, I hope that he will have a word with the Home Secretary and point out to him that this would be yet another discrimination and would also be bad from the Treasury's point of view.

The hon. Gentleman knows that over the last few years I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on both sides of the Committee have raised many questions on this matter. At long last we have got the Treasury to agree—I think—that something must be done. In answer to a Question last week, we were told that the Government would have a review of betting, gambling and taxation. That is good news, but it will not be a good enough answer to this debate. The Treasury has had since 1948—fourteen years—in which to make this review. It is not good enough now to tell us that we ought not to press this matter because the Treasury is to investigate and review it.

I put it back to the Economic Secretary the other way round and say that as this fraternity has suffered for fourteen years it ought to have the next few years without discrimination. Let the tax be dropped now and then we can be certain that the Treasury will quickly get down to the job of having this review. I am certain that if we accept the suggestion, which I am sure that the Economic Secretary will make, namely, that we should not press the now Clause because there is to be a general review, by this time next year something will have happened. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will not be in his present office. I sincerely hope that he has a senior position. But I hope even more that he has no job and that we have another Government. But if we have another Government we might find the Treasury still saying that this matter is under consideration.

If there has to be taxation, let it be fair and proper taxation on all forms of betting and gambling. There are 101 ways in which it could be fair and proper. The Treasury could get hundreds of millions of £s of revenue without any trouble, and if the Economic Secretary likes to see me privately later I will explain how it can be done. If I give the details here, I shall be out of order, for we are now dealing with a new Clause for the abolition of the 10 per cent. duty on totalisators. I shall be out of order if I mention football pools, but the Pool Betting Duty is not only discriminatory but unfair and something which should be immediately abolished. I ask the Economic Secretary to accept the new Clause and not put us off until next year.

Mr. Fisher

I support the new Clause which has been moved so ably and comprehensively by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), and the Economic Secretary will be glad to hear that I can cut down the length of my own speech because many of my arguments have already been deployed. Like the hon. Member for West Ham, North, I have no interest to declare; indeed, I probably go to horse racing more often than I go to dog racing.

The justice of the case is what commands our support. When the late Sir Stafford Cripps imposed this discriminatory tax in 1947, there was perhaps some reason for his decision. At that time, rationing was still in force—it was very soon after the war—and people had not very much on which to spend their money. I think that most hon. Members would agree that the end of the war had brought a desire for better times and less austerity after the war years, rather as the restoration of King Charles II, 300 years ago, had brought a desire among the people for better times after the Cromwellian Protectorate.

The situation when Sir Stafford Cripps brought in this tax was that there was not much money and not many things in the shops for people to buy, so they turned instead to greyhound racing tracks. The result was that attendances rose and the profits of the the greyhound race companies rose, too. When a particular category of companies suddenly starts to become exceptionally profitable, it is always a sitting duck for any hard-up Chancellor. I do not wonder at that and I do not complain of it. Indeed, we saw the same thing last year when my right hon. and learned Friend suddenly decided to tax television advertising. That was done under a misapprehension, because that tax did not, in fact, fall on the television companies. But Sir Stafford Cripps knew what he was doing in 1947, even if my right hon. and learned Friend did not know quite what he was doing last year with the television tax.

However, the 10 per cent. duty on greyhound racing effectively reduced the profits of the greyhound companies and it has exactly the same effect today, but in circumstances which have changed. Today, the profits would have been much lower anyway, because the whole setup is quite different and greyhound track attendances are very much lower than they were fourteen years ago. The 10 per cent. duty brings in about £6 million today, far less than when it was first imposed. This is a clear example of the law of diminishing returns.

The tax has always been unfair to greyhound racing compared with horse racing. The hon. Member for West Ham, North made the point that out of every £100 staked on the greyhound tote, the Government take £10 before the winnings are paid out, whereas on the horse tote no such duty is imposed.

8.45 p.m.

There are, of course, many other anomalies between the two sports. Horse racing gets 2 per cent. of the bookmakers' net profits, whereas there is no such levy to assist greyhound racing. On the horse tote credit off-the-course betting is allowed, whereas on the greyhound tote it is not.

I do not know why there are these differences between two identical forms of gambling. I have never taken the view—and I know that the hon. Member for West Ham, North does not—that gambling should not be the subject of a special duty. Of course, there is a case for a special extra tax on gambling as such, but I think that there is no case for a discriminatory tax on one form of gambling as opposed to any other.

As the hon. Member for West Ham, North said, what was unfair in 1947 has become much more unfair today, because the 1960 Act has legalised forms of betting like bingo, chemin de fer, and betting shops which, like the horse Tote, pay no special duty. A man can go into a betting shop and place his bet. By so doing he can save his fare to the racecourse and save his entrance money, so there is, naturally, a great temptation for him to have his bet in this way.

The effect on greyhound track attendances has been quite serious. They are 15 to 20 per cent. down this year compared with the same period last year, and whereas the turnover on the horse tote has gone up, the turnover on the greyhound tote has gone down. One reason—and the hon. Member for West Ham, North made this point—but certainly not the only reason, for this, is that the horse tote is exempt from Pool Betting Duty, whereas the greyhound tote bears the full brunt of it. I see no reason for this discrimination. I shall be surprised if my hon. Friend can deploy a case which convinces us of the equity of this tax. I think that the only way in which he can seek to justify the tax is to say that it brings in some cash which he cannot afford to do without.

That is a proper argument for a Treasury Minister to make. I am not carping about it, but I suggest that if it is merely the cash in which he is interested and not the principle—and I believe that he will admit that when he replies—I urge him to look at gambling as a whole. The amount of money spent on gambling does not vary very much from year to year. It runs at about £750 million a year. It is quite a lot of money. It is spent with credit bookmakers, on horse and greyhound totes, and on the pools, and to those we can add, since the passing of the 1960 Act, betting shops, bingo, chemin de fer, and so on.

The same amount of money is now being spent, but it is being spent over a somewhat wider field—quite a fertile field, quite a good field for the Revenue to look at, and I should like the Chancellor to agree to look at it as a whole, and not just view one part of the field, the greyhound tracks and the pools, because these are the only two which at the moment are making a contribution. I believe that it would pay him to look at the whole field of gambling, and that it would be fair as between all gambling interests.

The legalisation of new forms of gambling by the 1960 Act gives my hon. Friend the opportunity to do what I suggest, which he did not have before because one cannot tax an illegality. That was the position before, and, indeed, it was my right hon. and learned Friend's excuse, for not looking at other forms of gambling. Now that those other forms of gambling have been made legal the whole field is widened, and any argument of this sort which he might have considered advancing in the past no longer applies.

I do not know what my hon. Friend will say in reply to the debate. If he promises to bring in next year a tax on all forms of gambling I shall be pleased. I think that that would be a wise, sensible and equitable decision, and under those circumstances I would consider withdrawing the new Clause. I must, of course, make it clear that in saying that I am speaking for myself and not for the hon. Member for West Ham, North.

I do not want to quarrel with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary twice in one evening, because we have already had a battle of words on some earlier new Clauses, but if he cannot make such a promise we would be in some difficulty. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Ham, North, in those circumstances, would consider that we should press the matter to a Division. In the absence of an undertaking about what the Government have in mind for the future, I personally would find it very difficult to accord my support to them for the continuance of this tax, because I consider that it operates unfairly and at the expense of one form of gambling, which is no more reprehensible than any other form of gambling.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

I should like to make my contribution to this debate, because I think this is a worthy cause. I wish to make my position quite clear and say that as a Member of Parliament I try to interest myself in constituency matters and make investigations into those activities which are often debated here.

I come from the same part of the country as the Economic Secretary, and I have to some extent interested myself in the sport. I am part-owner of a greyhound, not because I want to indulge in gambling but merely because I wanted to find out what kind of a sport this is. I have been on a racecourse on two occasions. In my opinion greyhound racing is a far cleaner sport than horse racing. On a racecourse one sees a certain amount of drunkenness, and crown and anchor and other forms of gambling being engaged in by those trying to take money away from innocent people. Personally, I loathe attending horse races, and that is why I do not now go to see them.

Returning to the subject of greyhound racing, I have been to a meeting on four or five occasions. I am not interested in gambling or in making money, but this Chamber is not by any means a court of law. Since I attend a place of worship—a chapel—I believe in being temperate in all things, and that is why I feel that this form of sport deserves this relief. It has been said that horse racing is the sport of kings, and greyhound racing can be the sport of the ordinary people.

It has been pointed out that this tax is to some extent a very discriminatory tax, which, in my opinion, it is. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer said a short time ago that if his family were in mortal danger the first things he would save would be his wife and his horse and then himself. If I were placed in those circumstances, I would first save my wife, then my dog and then myself. I well remember seeing a picture of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the day before he introduced his Budget, walking in a meadow with a dog, presumably to get some solace. Being a dog lover myself, I can well understand the right hon. Gentleman having a dog for his companion.

I think that greyhound racing is a very clean sport. It has been pointed out by previous speakers that, to a certain extent, this tax was introduced to mop up some of the spare money that was moving about the country in those days. If that is the case, I think the time has now arrived when serious consideration should be given to the removal of this discriminatory tax. It has been proved that attendances are now going down. It has been proved that some of the stadiums around London are in need of more support. It has been pointed out that to some extent they render a public service. Apart from having greyhound racing, the stadiums provide a venue for other sports. The White City is an example. At that stadium there are athletics, motor-cycle track racing and so on.

I want to bring to the attention of the Committee the condition of some of the provincial tracks. In the provinces the ordinary man and woman attend greyhound meetings. The sport has to bear this penal tax of 10 per cent. I was always taught that one of the canons of taxation is equity. There is no equity about this. No hon. Member can argue that there is any sense of equity about the tax which is now imposed on tote betting at greyhound stadiums.

Two years ago I had the opportunity of meeting the Chancellor and I found that there was no argument against this proposal. In 1960 the Government took £8 million from those who attend greyhound racing. Every time a greyhound runs in a race £20 is taken by the Treasury. The Economic Secretary should prevail on the Chancellor to do something about this matter. If he says that the Government need the £8 million I have no objection, but the money should be drawn off in a fair way. It is entirely wrong to penalise one section of sport alone. The Economic Secretary comes from the West Riding, as I do. If he goes to Doncaster or Leeds he will find that stadiums there are struggling for existence.

We go on year after year keeping this burdensome tax on greyhound racing. I am not against those who want to go horse racing. I believe that the ordinary man and woman should have some outlet for their enthusiasms. I do not like to see people flocking to bingo halls. I think they could spend their time in a far better way. I invite any hon. Member to visit a greyhound track. There he can have a meal and a drink, and he need not bet. If he wants to have a small bet, he can do so. It is a very clean sport and something which should have the support of this Committee. It should not be thought of as something which is corrupt.

I have the courage of my convictions and I mix with church people. I go to chapel and I have gone into the pulpit. I believe this is a good clean sport and I want to encourage it as far as possible. I think it entirely wrong to give something to horse racing and to leave this tax on greyhound racing. As I said, I was invited to become part-owner of a dog. I do not want to win money, but I have learned a lot. It has given me enough information to realise that this is a sport which should be encouraged. It gets people into the fresh air and encourages them to conduct themselves in a good way. It does not encourage them to gamble. Why on earth should those who like to have a flutter be turned away and encouraged to use betting shops? That gives an advantage against those who attend greyhound race meetings and who pay for admission to tracks. This discrimination should not continue.

It has always been said by Chancellors that this 10 per cent. was not imposed as a permanent tax but as a temporary measure, yet it has gone on for fourteen years. Declining attendances have caused certain tracks to close down, including those at Newcastle, Stoke-on-Trent and Warrington, and forty totalisators have been closed, leaving a monopoly of betting with the bookmakers. Is that a satisfactory state of affairs? The pitmen of Newcastle, who like to see their whippets running, were the pioneers of this kind of racing. The provinces are suffering badly because of this tax. I hope that the Economic Secretary, accepting what has been said by the two previous speakers, will not promise us jam tomorrow but will give us jam today.

9.0 p.m.

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

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) referred to horse racing as the sport of kings and to greyhound racing as the sport of the common people. Bearing in mind what happened a fortnight ago at Wembley, I think that we could now call greyhound racing the sport of princes. The Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the Royal Family have interested themselves in it, and I suppose that it can now be considered to have become respectable, although it was never anything other than respectable. It has always been a very fine sport, and the perpetuation of this discriminatory tax is just one of those Treasury nonsenses with which our taxation system is riddled.

I appeal to my hon. Friend tonight, as I appealed a week or two ago, to realise the seriousness with which hon. Members debate new Clauses on a very wide variety of subjects. They are put down year after year, and we get the same sort of reply from the Chancellor of the day. There is always some reason for saying that something cannot be done. I assure my hon. Friend that we do not put down these new Clauses for fun; there is a serious intent behind them.

This new Clause relates to a great sport in which many thousands of men and women earn their daily bread and butter, and the inequity of this tax cannot be defended. It is difficult to understand why greyhound racing, as such, has been sorted out in this way. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) was partly right in referring to the arguments of 1948, but this discrimination against greyhound racing as opposed to horse racing needs a thorough Treasury explanation.

All we are asking is that greyhound racing and horse racing should be treated alike. If the Chancellor says, "I cannot afford £8 million this year," let him introduce a new Clause on Report to put a similar tax on horse racing. I do not think that the greyhound racing people would then object at all. They would at least see that there was some fairness about the whole thing. As it is, there is complete injustice which is a blot on our taxation system and which must be removed.

My own wish is that we could have totalisator betting for both greyhound racing and horse racing; that bookmakers, as such, would disappear from the scene, and all betting be done as it is in some Continental countries and in large parts of the United States. If that were done, I am sure that both sports would benefit to a much greater extent than they do at present, and there would be less likelihood of jiggery-pokery in them. Again, I ask my hon. Friend not to treat this debate in any light way, but to give the Committee a reasoned argument one way or the other.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

My direct interest in this matter lies in the fact that adjoining my constituency is the Clapton Stadium which has given a great deal of pleasure to many thousands of my constituents for a considerable time.

I have listened carefully to all the speeches made in support of the proposed new Clause, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) certainly made a powerful case in its favour. I am therefore waiting patiently to hear what possible answer there can be why this proposal should not be accepted. I am, frankly, not so much concerned with the argument as to whether one sport is better than another; whether horse racing is better than greyhound racing, or vice versa. Greyhound racing exists and is followed by many thousands of people.

Since so many people attend greyhound racing and since, as far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with it, why is it penalised compared with other sports? I have heard it said that there was a good reason why the tax was imposed in 1948. That may be so, and I have no doubt that the Labour Chancellor at that time had a good reason for imposing it. What is wrong with this Tory Government? Because there was a good reason for a Labour Chancellor introducing the tax, is there any reason, since the necessity for it has disappeared, why the Government should not now get rid of it?

I have tried to think of a possible answer why it should not now be abolished, and the only one that might be put forward is, I suppose, the old hoary answer that the money is needed. That is not a sufficient answer because if the money is so needed why should this form of taxation not be completely fair? The fairness of taxation is, surely, an elementary principle of our tax system and to impose what is, on the face of it, an obviously discriminatory tax, is unjust and something should be done to rectify the position.

If the money is needed there are a number of avenues open to the Treasury through which to raise it. If the Government consider that it is right to continue with this form of taxation, then let it be imposed fairly on the different types of sports. As the hon. Member for West Ham, North said, there are many forms of gambling waiting for the Government to deal with if they really need the money. If the Government proposed to tax these other forms of gambling we might discuss and argue the case, but it would seem fair that gambling should be taxed equitably and as a Whole. To take one particular form of gaming and discriminate against it is obviously unfair, and I await with great interest the answer that might be given in opposition to the proposed new Clause.

The Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

Unlike the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts), who declared his interest as being the owner of part of a greyhound—he did not say which part —I have no similar interest to declare in either greyhound or horse racing, for I seldom go to either of them unless I am taken. However, I have an interest in the whole conception of greyhound racing in that I have a fine stadium in my constituency. Last year, I investigated the whole question of the Pool Betting Duty and I came to the conclusion that it is a most unfair and inequitable tax inasmuch as it is placed on this sport and not on others.

I rise only to express my sympathy for the proposed new Clause which has been well put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). They have covered practically every point in connection with the matter and I hope that, even if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor cannot abolish the Pool Betting Duty immediately, he will include it in a review of all forms of taxation for gambling so that it is not singled out in the way it is at present. I look forward to hearing the reply we shall receive on this subject.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I support the new Clause. I do not think that one can defend any discrimination in this matter between one form of organised gambling and another. To attempt to do it is to attempt the impossible. There is only one discrimination that I know much about. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) tells me that he can bet on the totalisator at a greyhound racing track for 2s. If he comes to Epsom next week he will not be able to get his bet on under 4s. That is not the fault of the Government, but that is a discrimination in my hon. Friend's favour which I much resent his having.

Mr. A. Lewis

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will allow me to say, perhaps rather facetiously, that he follows the rich man's sport and I follow the poor man's sport.

Mr. Ede

Oh, no. I have had a good deal to do with racing tracks and there is no discrimination on the ground of class. My hon. Friend runs the same risk as I do when he enjoys his sport and there can be no justification for continuing the present discrimination. It can be altered in more than one way, but the Government ought to find some way of ending it.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)

My interest is mainly in horse racing rather than dog racing, but that does not mean that I think it is right to maintain a dog racing tax which is obviously unfair. I see no argument in favour of maintaining it. I wish to detain the Committee only long enough to express my support for the new Clause. As for one being the sport of the rich and the other the sport of the poor, I suggest that if an hon. Member follows either of them long enough he will become poor anyway, unless he has the good fortune to be a bookmaker.

Mr. Barber

The literal effect of the Clause would be to exempt from Pool Betting Duty bets made by way of the Totalisator at dog racing courses. But if we accept, as I am sure all hon. Mem- bers who have spoken will agree, that the bookmaker's licence duty would also have to go, being, as it is, a duty imposed merely to contervail, to use the technical term, the duty on the Totalisator, and both duties were to be abolished, the cost would be about £7½ million a year.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) for his generous words about the discussion which we had a short time ago at the Treasury. He brought with him a gentleman from the Greyhound Express and we had a very full talk. I think that the hon. Member will agree that I was given quite a lot of inside information. In the unhappy event, referred to by the hon. Member, of my some time being out of office, I am sure that it I were to consult him I should not be destitute for long.

I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper) that I have considered the new Clause very seriously. I can tell him, and other hon. Members who have urged that we should give serious consideration to this matter, that this has been done. This is not something that has been lightly passed by in the pre-Budget consideration given to these matters by my right hon. and learned Friend.

There are three considerations to which the Committee should devote its attention. First, there is the question of equity, secondly, there is the state of the greyhound racing business, to which reference has been made, and, thirdly, there is the question of cost. As for the first, the aspect of equity, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for West Ham, North that as between horse racing and greyhound racing this duty is discriminatory. There is nothing new about the discrimination. It has always been so, ever since it was first introduced about fifteen years ago by the late Lord Dalton. At that time and in subsequent years the House of Commons has taken the view that in all the circumstances this discrimination was justified.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. A. Lewis

It is not fair to say that the House of Commons has always accepted that view, because we have never had a vote on it to test the feeling of the House.

Mr. Barber

I am sorry, but I thought there had been a Division in an earlier year.

Mr. Lewis

No, we have never raised it in this form until today.

Mr. Barber

At any rate, that was the view taken by the House when it was first introduced by the late Lord Dalton. It is clear from all the speeches which have been made this evening, from both sides of the Committee, that a different view is taken by those hon. Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said that in his view circumstances had changed since the duty was first imposed.

I want to say two things on the general aspect of this tax. First, for reasons with which the Committee is now all too familiar, my right hon. and learned Friend decided that in this Budget he should, in the general interest, consolidate all the major duties covered by the Customs and Excise surcharge which was imposed for the first time last year. This meant retaining the increased duties on wines, spirits, beer, cigarettes, petrol, oil, television advertisements and pool betting.

But although it has not been mentioned by any speaker this evening, I am sure that it will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that in Clause 1 of the Bill as it was presented to the Committee, and as it now stands, pool betting on dog racing tracks was specifically excluded from the consolidation. It follows that so far as the duty which is the subject of this new Clause is concerned, the Budget has already, I agree to a comparatively minor extent, resulted in some reduction.

I make this point not because I want to exaggerate the extent of the reduction, but so that the Committee shall know that the question of this duty was obviously very much in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend prior to the Budget. Indeed, it has been treated, apart from one or two other minor duties, in quite a different way from all the other duties which were concerned with the Customs and Excise surcharge.

The second point that I want to make on the more general aspect of the matter is this. When we were considering Clause 1 a number of hon. Members—I think that the hon. Member for West Ham, North was one of them—advocated that there should be a tax on betting over a wider field and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton, I think, made the same point again this evening. He said that we should look at the whole field of gambling. I have already said on a previous occasion that we would consider carefully those views which are, I know, sincerely held by many hon. Members. Of course, in any general review of a possible extension of the tax on betting, the position of the tax on Totalisators at dog racing tracks, and the countervailing licence duty on bookmakers which goes with it, would be a most relevant factor.

Mr. A. Lewis

Of course it would be a relevant factor, but would the Minister go one step further and say that in any review that is made not only would it be a relevant factor, but that the matter would be dealt with on the basis of all forms of betting being fairly and properly treated, whatever taxation may be decided upon?

Mr. Barber

As the hon. Member knows, I could not in fairness give any undertaking about what may happen as a result of the review. All I am saying is that this will take place.

I must, however, warn the Committee on one aspect. Imposing and collecting a new duty, and particularly preventing its evasion, is not always as simple as might at first sight appear. In considering new extensions of duties, we have to consider carefully the extent to which efficient and economic collection of duty is possible. This was another matter which the hon. Member put to me when came to see me at the Treasury.

I should like for a few minutes to consider the effect of the duty on the turnover at greyhound racing tracks. The hon. Member for West Ham, North said that there had been a drastic reduction. It is true that a duty at the rate of 10 per cent. must have some adverse effect. On the other hand, it would be wrong to conclude that the decline in turnover since the war has been due primarily to the duty.

I have all the figures and should like to mention just one fact. Turnover of totalisators at greyhound tracks during the last ten years has been running at about £60 million a year, yet in the last year before the tax was introduced by Lord Dalton the turnover fell by more than £60 million. In other words, in that one year alone before the tax was introduced, there was a drop in turnover which was more than the average turnover for each of the last ten years. During the past ten years, as the hon. Member will be able to confirm, the turnover has remained remarkably steady. For example, ten years ago the turnover was £63.6 million. Last year, it was £61.3 million. The figures of the past ten years show remarkably little variation.

Mr. A. Lewis

Going back to 1948, the Treasury got roughly £9½ million on the introduction of the tax. Last year, the figure was down to just over £6½ million. There has, therefore, been a fall of £3 million.

Mr. Barber

It is true that in the first year, 1948–49, the duty collected was £9.4 million. Two years later, in 1950–51, it had fallen to £6.8 million. Now, eleven years later, it is still £6.1 million. In the year immediately before the introduction of the tax, however, the turnover of the totalisators fell from £199 million to £131 million. This is a relevant factor, because it shows fairly conclusively that it is an exaggeration to suggest that the fall in turnover is due primarily to the tax.

Mr. A. Roberts

Why should a person who backs a dog at a race meeting on the tote pay tax, whereas a person backing a horse on the tote does not pay the tax?

Mr. Barber

The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, which is a relevant factor, and the likely effect, as far as we can judge it, of this duty on greyhound racing.

I turn now to a consideration which has been in the minds of hon. Members who have spoken and which is certainly the most immediately relevant consideration—that is, the cost. As I said at the outset—

Mr. Loughlin

Will the hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the turnover in dog racing to ensure that the position is correctly stated? Obviously, in ten years, the income per head of the population spent in pleasures of all kinds has increased. This applies equally to greyhound racegoers as to anybody else. Is it not true, therefore, that if the figure remains relatively static at £60 million, in real terms there is a reduction?

Mr. Barber

I thought it right to give the figures because the hon. Member for West Ham, North—I noted his words—said that there had been a drastic reduction.

Mr. A. Lewis

No. I said that the tax was one of the reasons for the reduction, but mentioned also bingo, television and other factors which accounted for some of it. I said that there had been a fall, but not that it had been drastic.

Mr. Barber

I had better not pursue it, but if I am in order I will wager the hon. Gentleman £1 to 1d. that he said that there had been a drastic reduction.

To return to the immediately relevant aspect, as I said at the outset the cost would be £6 million a year and together with the countervailing duty £7½ million.

Mr. Lewis

Should I be in order, Sir William, in accepting the wager which the Minister has made of £1 to a 1d.? If so, I should like to do so, but not on the tote, because I should lose 10 per cent. tax.

Mr. Barber

The cost would amount to £7½ million a year. If the total burden of taxation were to be reduced by £7½ million this year, is it conceivable that betting on greyhound tracks should have priority? I know how strongly the hon. Member for West Ham, North feels about this matter. In his exuberance he has contrived to ensure that on today's Notice Paper his name appears twice, in support of this Clause—a unique tribute to his assiduity.

Mr. Lewis

I must not blame the Table for the mistake. All I can say is that the writing of some hon. Members is so bad that the Clerks could not differentiate between one bad signature, namely, my own, and that of another hon. Member whose name is nothing like mine. I excuse the Table completely, of course, but I did not sign twice.

Mr. Barber

Perhaps I may conclude by asking again: is it really conceivable that betting on greyhound tracks should have priority this year? I do not think that even the hon. Member for West Ham, North would put his proposal before the other needs of some of his constituents.

Mr. Fisher

This was not our point. We never asked that this tax should be removed and given priority in that way. All our speeches have been directed to the argument that my hon. Friend mentioned in his earlier reply, that we would like to see it spread so as to avoid the discriminatory element, but not to abolish £7½ million revenue. That was never suggested on either side of the Committee.

Mr. Barber

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying that point.

For reasons of order which are well understood, this Clause can only be concerned with the abolition of duty on greyhound tracks and not with the imposition of duty elsewhere. I should tell the Committee in fairness, in view of what I said on a previous occasion and also again today, that there can be no question of any immediate extension of taxation with this object. I have told the Committee what my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to do in the normal course during the coming year. The fact is—I mentioned this in view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of a Division on the Clause—that if the Clause were accepted it would result in a drop in revenue of £7½ million. I have tried to be as forthcoming as possible on this Clause. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham, North, who is so very fair about these matters, will understand that I cannot go any further. I therefore hope that in those circumstances he will not press the Clause this year.

Mr. Loughlin

I shall not detain the Committee long, but I have been interested in the reply to which we have just listened. There is one thing about the Economic Secretary when dealing with these matters on the Finance Bill—he is always very patient and always very pleasant, but he is not very helpful. We find that difficult to appreciate.

9.30 p.m.

The only issue here is on the question of equity. We say that the Government should at some stage, if not at this stage, consider the question whether it is equitable for one type of race track goer to have a tax imposed upon him while it is not imposed upon another. I do not think it is a question of the rich man's sport and the poor man's sport. I think it is completely accidental. I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers whether the race goer is wearing a top hat or a cap. Indeed, if experience proves anything it surely proves that if the Chancellor thinks the man in the top hat can pay more tax, the Chancellor is more likely to impose a tax upon him than on the fellow in the cloth cap.

Once we accept that, then we should have some intimation from the Government that they will consider the matter now or on Report, if that is possible within the rules of procedure. They ought to give some indication that at some point of time they will actually consider the issue on the question of equity. The Economic Secretary said that there was likely to be a review, but when challenged on it he did not give an assurance on this question of equity. I think that he ought to be a little more forthcomiing and say that the Government agree that if a tax applies to one sort of racegoer it should apply to the other as well.

Mr. A. Lewis

Sir William, you must have been very interested in this discussion. While appreciating the courtesy with which the Economic Secretary spoke, I must say that he really did not give us anything. All he did was to stand at that Box and admit —almost the whole of his speech admitted—each point put to him from both sides of the Committee. He said in effect, "It is true. It is correct. All that has been said is right." He said it was discriminatory. It is discriminatory; it always has been discriminatory. Because a thing has always been unfair and has always been discriminatory, that does not mean that it always should be, but the attitude of the Economic Secretary appears to be that that was and is the case.

The hon. Gentleman then went on to say that we had not mentioned the fact that the surcharge had been dropped and that the 1 per cent. was off. This is a strange thing. He puts a percentage on and admits it is unfair and discriminatory and he adds to the discrimination and then he says, "Ah, but we have taken off the further surcharge. Therefore, you ought to be thankful for that small mercy." He went on to say what the reduction of this tax would mean.

I just do not understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude. He admits it is discriminatory and unfair and he agrees that there is no logic in it and then he says that because we are getting between £7 million and £8 million a year from this tax we cannot afford to drop it. In other words, if we got only £100,000 a year, then, because the damage would not be so great and because it would not be so grossly unfair because only £100,000 a year was being paid, he would agree to drop it, but [...]ecause it is between £7 million and £8 million a year, because it has been going on for fourteen years, because it is a big grievance and because it is a punishment, and a very severe punishment, he says we must continue it. I cannot understand his form of logic. Although the tax is unfair and discriminatory, nothing is to be done about it. To talk about whether or not the money is used in other ways is neither here nor there. The fact is that the Treasury has been getting this money wrongly for fourteen years.

The Economic Secretary could now agree to drop the tax altogether and immediately get down to the job of finding out how any necessary taxation could be done fairly and properly. There are 101 ways of doing it. For almost fourteen years the same thing has been said over and over again by Treasury Ministers. Because they think that there would be difficulties, they will not agree to remove the tax. The hon. Gentleman does not know. He has not tried. Let him now remove the tax and put it on a fair basis. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke about wanting to see taxation fair to all. Here there is £7½ million worth of unfairness a year, and yet the tax is to be kept on. The hon. Gentleman will not even go so far as to say that in any general review which he has half promised—he would not give a pledge about it—something would be done to ensure fairness all the way through in regard to the taxing of all forms of betting and gaming. If the hon. Gentleman cannot go any further, I shall ask my hon. Friends seriously to consider taking the matter to a Division.

Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)

In my district, this is a rather important issue. We have the Gosforth racecourse and we have dog racing also. I feel that I have a duty to perform in this matter in support of the new Clause.

Although we may talk about fairness and justice, we cannot expect in the House of Commons to obtain justice in the fullest sense in all matters. The Economic Secretary has told us that the abolition of the tax would cost a good deal of money, and this is one of the arguments he uses against it. In spite of almost unanimous support for the new Clause, regardless of the views which have been put, of the strength of the case itself and of considerations of justice, the Government refuse to make a move. In logic, there is no argument which can be advanced against this proposal.

The only reason why I do not participate in greyhound racing or in horse racing is the difficulty of finding the winners. I think that that is the difficulty of many of those who engage in them. Sport in itself is a great thing, but anyone who believes that greyhound racing is a sport has no idea of what sport is. I do not think there is much sport about greyhound racing. It is operated purely for gambling purposes. We in this country do not look on gambling as something odd. Whether one gambles on greyhound racing or on the Stock Exchange, it is still gambling. The purpose is the same—to try to get money regardless of the effects on society.

As I have said, we cannot expect justice in this Chamber. Anyone who has much experience of the House knows that the Government are not particularly concerned with justice. When they either support or oppose a proposal, it is for a political reason. There is no doubt about what the Government should do here. I feel that this proposal has the support of the majority of hon. Members, both Labour and Conservative. If it is possible to influence the Government's mind, there is only one thing which they can do, and that is to accept the new Clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 179.

Division No. 211.] AYES [9.43 p.m.
Awbery, Stan Hynd, H. (Accrington) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Skeffington, Arthur
Brockway, A. Fenner Kelley, Richard Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Loughlin, Charles Snow, Julian
Cliffe, Michael Lubbock, Eric Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Stones, William
Darling, George Mason, Roy Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Neal, Harold Thornton, Ernest
Dodds, Norman Oswald, Thomas Tomney, Frank
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Owen, Will Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Parker, John Weitzman, David
Harper, Joseph Pavitt, Laurence Woof, Robert
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Probert, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Proctor, W. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hunter, A. E. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Mr. Arthur Lewis and
Mr. Albert Roberts.
Altken, W. T. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Ashton, Sir Hubert Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Atkins, Humphrey Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Barber, Anthony Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Barlow Sir John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Paget, R. T.
Barter, John Hastings, Stephen ' Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Batsford, Brian Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Partridge, E.
Bell, Ronald Hiley, Joseph Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Percival, Ian
Biffen, John Hirst, Geoffrey Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Biggs-Davison, John Hocking, Philip N. Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bingham, R. M. Holland, Philip Pitt, Miss Edith
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hollingworth, John Pott, Percivall
Bishop, F. P. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Box, Donald Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Prior, J. M. L.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hughes-Young, Michael Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter Hurd, Sir Anthony Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hutchison, Michael Clark Pym, Francis
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Iremonger, T. L. Rawlinson, Peter
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Bullard, Denys James, David Rees, Hugh
Campbell, Gordon (Moray A Nairn) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Renton, David
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Cary, Sir Robert Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ridsdale, Julian
Channon, H. P. G. Kitson, Timothy Rippon, Geoffrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim N.) Leavey, J. A. Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Leburn, Gilmour Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Collard, Richard Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Roots, William
Cooke, Robert Lilley, F. J. P. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cooper, A. E. Litchfield, Capt. John Russell, Ronald
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Scott-Hopkins, James
Costain, A. P. Longden, Gilbert Seymour, Leslie
Coulson, Michael Loveys, Walter H. Shaw, M.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Skeet, T. H. H.
Craddock, Sir Beresford McAdden, Stephen Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Deedes, W. F. MacArthur, Ian Smithers, Peter
de Ferranti, Basil McLaren, Martin Spearman, Sir Alexander
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Doughty, Charles McLean, Neil (Inverness) Stodart, J. A.
du Cann, Edward Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Storey, Sir Samuel
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Studholme, Sir Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maddan, Martin Summers, Sir Spencer
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maitland, Sir John Talbot, John E.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Marten, Nell Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Finlay, Graeme Matthews, Cordon (Meriden) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Teeling, Sir William
Gardner, Edward Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Temple, John M.
Gibson-Watt, David Mills, Stratton Thomas Peter (Conway)
Gilmour, Sir John Miscampbell, Norman Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Goodhew, Victor Morgan, William Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Gower, Raymond Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Turner, Colin
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Nabarro, Gerald Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Green, Alan Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Vickers, Miss Joan
Gresham Cooke, R. Noble, Michael Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wakefield, Sir Wave11 Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater) Worsley, Marcus
Walker, Peter Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek Wise, A. R.
Ward, Dame Irene Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, John (Maidstone) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard Mr. Chichestcr-Clark and
Williams, Dudley (Exeter) Woollam, John Mr. Whitelaw.