§ From the income tax and profits tax payable by a trading concern there shall be granted as a deduction from tax payable in the year following assessment an amount of one per cent of export turnover as certified by the auditors to the concern and agreed with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.—[Mr. W. Clark.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. W. Clark
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I should like to say at the outset how grateful we are for the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, I understand, will reply to the debate. The hour is late and I do not want to delay the Committee. I fully appreciate that the new Clause is, if not incorrectly, then probably inadequately drafted. Its object is to give a rebate through the fiscal system for exports on turnover.
If we take exports at £4,000 million a year, to give a 1 per cent. rebate would cost the Exchequer £40 million. As I have said, the Clause probably requires amendment and redrafting, but to put the case as shortly as possible, I would say that we must accept that throughout the world many of our competitors are, in one way or another, through their taxation system, giving an incentive to their own exporters
One has only to mention West Germany with its turnover tax, France with its added tax value, and Italy and Japan, four of our greatest competitors, who help their exporters, through the taxation system. I agree that it would be much better for all concerned if all export incentives ware deleted, and this is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But we have to accept the facts of life. Our competitors do not play the game this way. They are giving tax incentives to their exporters. We must therefore look at our taxation system and consider whether we cannot recast it so that we can give our exporters an advantage equal to that of our competitors. The F.B.I. report came out flatly against export subsidies but—and this is not always mentioned—the report also says that the Government should look at the 1498 whole taxation system to see whether it could be recast in order to assist exporters more. Obviously any recasting of our taxation system would take a long time; I suppose a conservative estimate of that would be about two years. However, I am certain that we must do something in the long term to put our exporters on a par with exporters in competing countries.
So far as the short time view is concerned, our balance of payments position at the moment seems perfectly satisfactory, or as satisfactory as one might expect. But if in the short term it were to appear likely to worsen, then, despite our agreement with G.A.T.T., the Government should see whether it is possible to get G.A.T.T. to agree to give an export incentive.
As I said earlier, I do not wish to prolong the debate. Most of the arguments that can be deployed are known to hon. Members. I should like once again to thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for being here to reply to this debate.
§ Mr. Tomney
I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) will not withdraw this Clause if he should get a dusty answer from the Chancellor. He has opened a debate far wider than I believe he appreciates, and if the Chancellor's reply is unsatisfactory there ought to be a Division on the Clause.
The hon. Member referred to our balance of payments position and the situation of British exporters in the highly competive and specialised world of commercial manufacture. It is true that the manufactures that we are exporting have in the last ten years, in a period of consumer demand, enjoyed a very advantageous position, and so have other countries. But other countries have been looking further ahead than we have. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany and France in particular, with special credits and tax remissions for exports. We in this country may, before we know where we are, be faced with a problem concerning our capital industries, to which problem there is no easy answer, even by tax concessions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
1499 Tonight I have received a deputation from men employed in an aircraft factory in a constituency next to mine, many of the men living in my constituency. These men are 80 per cent. skilled throughout the whole factory, enjoying pension conditions, in an industry which has specialised in aeroplane engines for forty years. The factory is owned by Messrs. Napier. The change in demand for aircraft, due to changing demands in the Services, has resulted in a complete run-down in this industry which has been employing men in an age group for which alternative employment will not be easy—men mostly in their 40's and 50's.
There is, however, a double edge to this problem. In the engineering industry, which has been crying out for apprentices for years, the estimated amount spent on each apprentice by an engineering employer works out over a term of apprenticeship at £1,200. Therefore, in addition to losing the trade, we are also losing the capital value of the apprentice engineer Who may not be able to find alternative employment.
How far does the Tory Party want to go? Germany, for example, which was completely devastated by bombs, had the advantage of building up from scratch new industry, buildings and plant. France, after a succession of Governments, and whose economic conditions put her in peril for years, has adopted fiscal measures and planning which has put French industry at the top within a period of five years. This country has done nothing except to join in the bonanza throughout the world for consumer goods, which in the long run are not beneficial to British industry. This nation, whose reputation was built upon its engineering capacity and its capital goods, should have looked to its resources far sooner than we have done.
To whom will this fiddling little Clause, with its rebate for exporters, apply? To whisky exporters or to capital engineering exporters? It should apply in far broader terms than the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) has mentioned. If an industry like the aircraft industry is faced with the prospect of not getting markets for its products— 1500 and American competition is severe—what must it do?
Would the party opposite support, for instance, a proposal for special terms of credit, ten years in arrear, to countries which cannot afford prompt payment—to India or to China, for example, with their huge markets for helicopters, or to Russia or the South Americans, who cannot afford to operate the normal commercial methods? Are the Government prepared to do that to retain in this country skilled personnel who may be needed in an emergency?
Having geared the population to a high degree of efficiency and built them up into an engineering force, will the Government adopt fiscal policies which do not guarantee their future or will they acknowledge that we are in competition with the rest of the world and that the Germans, for example, have had special protection from their Government?
Are the Government prepared to extend to countries which cannot afford to pay through the normal operations of finance a longer term of credit at a lower rate of interest, and how will they set about it? It will not be done by the new Clause. British industry is at the point of change and will meet difficulties whether we join the Common Market or not. We cannot in this respect depend upon the Commonwealth, because our share of its trade has been falling.
If our competitors overseas are given tax concession advantages which are not applicable to our industries, is the remedy to make the consumer industries enjoy big exports and pay for our capital industries which are essential for the prosperity of the nation? The new Clause is not the way to do it. Our problem is to maintain our residue of capital manufacturing plant and labour on an extended basis, and the Conservative Party must think in much broader terms if it is to do a real service to the country.
§ Mr. Gower
When this sort of proposal has been raised in general terms in the past, we have been told that such a concession is undesirable in itself. We have been told that it is undesirable because it would confer a benefit only on the exporter and not on some of the industries which supply him. We have been told that it is undesirable because it might lead to a sort of war 1501 between exporting countries which would be self-defeating and we have been advised that some of our exporting rivals who had used devices of this kind had undertaken to cease doing so. In spite of all those arguments, it seems to me that, in seeking perfect justice internally here, we have been neglecting to give our industry a fair chance in dealing with these competitors who certainly have not ceased to use devices of this kind. The fact is that today we are fighting the export battle in many cases like a man fighting with his hand tied behind his back, while our competitors have been going ahead with all sorts of advantages and incentives which are given to these exporters.
I have been brought up against this in a very active way by having one or two constituents who not only have business interests in this country but, by reason of compensation they have had following the Jewish persecution in Germany, have also returned to the ownership of factories on the continent, and they have assured me that in their German-owned firms they have advantages in seeking exports which they do not get in their British-owned firms here. It seems to me that that alone establishes the case, if not for the terms of this new Clause, certainly for a much more go ahead policy by the Treasury and, indeed, by the Board of Trade, to see what can be done in this direction.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able at least to give us an assurance that in future greater effort will be made by the Government, and in particular by the Treasury, to see what reasonable advantages can be given to our exporters in what is, after all, a very desperate competitive battle. We may try to observe the rules of cricket, the rules of the game, but they are not always observed by our competitors.
§ Mr. Hirst
I am very grateful to the Chancellor for coming in to listen to this short discussion.
I cannot interpret all my hon. Friends' views, but I think I am not going too far when I say that I imagine that this new Clause is—as I myself, at least, have said it is—a probing amendment in the hope that the Chancellor is going to give us some indication of what we intend to do in the light of the circumstances which surround us.
The report of the Federation of British Industries has been referred to. If I have got to declare an interest in this—I have not really—it is that I do serve on a number of the Federation's committees. The report has sometimes been divorced from its broad surroundings. It is absolutely true, and I share this view, that the Federation did report itself against export subsidies. I do not want my right hon. and learned Friend to think I am appealing here in any sense for subsidies, but the report made perfectly clear in the context that the Federation anticipated and hoped that there would be a reorganisation of the whole taxation system so that our traders would thereby be helped to compete with their competitors abroad. I think that wants to be put like that, because this statement has been divorced from its proper context.
Nobody on either side of this Committee can conceivably want our traders not to be able to compete on fair and equitable terms with their competitors in the world. It is not entirely so. It is perfectly clear that for some time all sorts of systems have been worked and are working—and not just tax rebate schemes—which have and have had a subtle influence in France and Italy—detrimental to our exporters. I hope we can have a statement that this point is being taken and action taken to solve it, perhaps through international machinery which exists, or by some other method, to ensure that our traders can compete—and not only on the basis of the Common Market—and have a fair crack vis-á-vis their competitors abroad in the areas in which they work.
That is what we are hoping to get. It may be a tall order to expect the Chancellor to answer the whole case; some 1503 of it falls within the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.
A lot of people in this country, and, indeed, quite a few in this Committee, are not satisfied at the present time that Her Majesty's Government are as sufficiently realistic and as trade-minded as other countries are in their various policies, and recognise to the full the need to ensure that our exporters are not placed at a disadvantage because we choose to show to the rest of the world, though we are not in the same position as in the past, a sort of wonderful example. Of course, it was a great treasure to be able to do that, but it cannot be maintained for all time when our sphere of influence is not as great as it was in years gone by.
If we accept that as the situation, then we must fight all the harder to ensure that our position remains where it should be—that is, competitive in fairnes and in equity. We must not live in a fool's paradise but must meet the situation really firmly.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)
If I may say so without unduly restricting my opportunities in the Committee, I agree with a great deal that has been said from both sides during the debate. I am not going to take drafting points. My hon. Friend is quite right. There are some, and also there is the question of cost. I think that my hon. Friend who moved the new Clause mentioned the figure of £40 million, but it would, in fact, cost between £35 million and £40 million.
I am sympathetic to the spirit behind the Clause, which is export promotion. No single topic has taken up more of my time since I became Chancellor of the Exchequer than export promotion. With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, we have carried out a complete reorganisation of the credit facilities for exports. In answer to what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) said, these were particularly designed to help the heavy industries. In fact, we have gone so far that some of our competitors have said that we have overstepped the line of fairness in our export facilities.
1504 It must also be remembered that we want exports for which we are paid and it will not solve our difficulties to go on giving more and more credit facilities to countries whose credit worthiness is not very great, to say the least of it. I believe that we have been absolutely right in what we have done so far. I think that we have now a very good system both of credit insurance and also of improved methods for the provision of medium and longer term credits in which the banks and the insurance companies are co-operating.
The Government have co-operated to the fullest capacity in the work of export promotion. I think that we can take some credit for the very great success in what has been happening in Stockholm this week. I think that it has been a very well run piece of work, and I am sure that it will benefit our exporters very much. As I say, I want to do everything that can be done to help to promote exports. I have been searching for incentives, but they must be those which come within the spirit and letter of our international obligations. In this I am certainly borne out by the Report of the Forbes Committee. I certainly had the point put to me time and time again by the T.U.C., and I think that I can call in aid the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who said:I would also give export incentives. The Chancellor is wrong about this"—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should say that—There should be financial export incentives, which, I am certain, could be devised to coincide with our international obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1173.]The hon. Gentleman said that on 10th April.
My whole trouble has been to find incentives which coincided with our international obligations.
We do not pursue this policy of trying to preserve some international rules in this matter because we want perfect justice. We do it because we think that it is in the practical interests of this country, in our economic interests, to try to have these rules preserved. When people say that they are not being observed by other countries, I ask for 1505 the evidence. I do not always receive the evidence to support these statements, but I tell the Committee frankly that there are certain things being done by Italy, for instance, which are not consistent with the rules. Representations have been made to the Italian Government about this, and they are being made also, I understand, by other members of the E.E.C.
There is an arrangement in France which, in our view, would not come within the rules in relation to depreciation, and that is being changed. The French are altering their depreciation methods from the straight line method to the reducing balance method of calculation, in which case, I understand, the objection will no longer apply. Japan is the third country. We have made representations in regard to the Japanese arrangements for a tax concession which is due to expire in 1964. This is a matter very much under current discussion.
Those are the only three countries involved, with one or two exceptions where matters do not affect us so much, namely, Australia and the Irish Republic. Apart from those, I have given the situation in regard to our three main competitors.
It is frequently alleged that there is a benefit to the German exporter from the turnover tax and there is benefit to the French exporter from the added value tax. Those propositions are disputed. What I have accepted fully and in good faith is the recommendation of the Forbes Committee that the Government should make an urgent study of the fiscal system with the object of determining whether the export effort could be assisted by changes in the present pattern of the distribution of taxation and in the type and scope of indirect taxation. We are doing that, and pushing ahead as quickly as we can.
One of my hon. Friends said that, of course, if we were to recast the whole system of indirect taxation, it would take about two years. Also, if we are thinking of a major operation like that, we have to be very certain that we are right. For instance, about a year ago, the turnover tax was all the rage. I am told that the Germans are off that now and they are on to the French added value tax. I understand also that both the French 1506 and the Germans have a sneaking liking for our system of the Purchase Tax type of operation. I am pressing on with this business. I am having full and detailed studies made of the alternative systems, and I am certain that we must think very seriously about this matter, whether we go into or stay out of the European Economic Community.
We have had some arguments about the distribution of taxation already at other stages of the Bill. We must have the proportions right between indirect and direct taxation, and we must consider whether our present methods of indirect taxation are those best designed both to keep the right sort of economic climate at home and to give the maximum benefit to our exporters.
I assure the Committee that I am not in the least complacent or satisfied or, indeed, idle about this matter. One spends a great deal of time thinking about it. I promise that I shall press on with the study I have already instructed shall be carried out in regard to these two particular taxes, the turnover tax or the added value tax, and whether it would be beneficial for us to undertake the major operation of trying to change over. In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the new Clause. In any case, I do not think that it is the right new Clause even from their point of view, though I assure them that I have full sympathy for the motives which led them to put it down.
§ Mr. Hirst
I am sure that the answer will be "Yes" to this question. Will my right hon. Friend say that the study to which he has referred will include a study of relative differences in depreciation allowances, which went quite well for us in the United Kingdom in the first year but afterwards turned out rather badly? Will that be one of the aspects of the taxation system to be considered?
§ Mr. Lloyd
It will not be included in this particular study because I have already had a separate study made of it. This, too, is a matter which has been very much in my mind. I do not think that we are anything like as badly off as we think we are. In all these things it is the grass on the other side of the fence which seems greener. I do not think that our system is as bad or as 1507 long drawn out, relatively, as is sometimes suggested. I have had comparative analyses made. I would be glad to talk to my hon. Friend about it. The time may come for some action on it.
§ Mr. Callaghan
The Committee has listened with attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I do not think we should part with this Clause yet, because if there is one thing that should concern the right hon. and learned Gentleman more than anything else, it is, as he said, exports. Indeed, exports must be an obsession with any Chancellor, and I was glad to hear what he said on the subject.
As I have looked round during the past few months, I have felt that the Government are paying considerable attention to this problem in a number of what I call minor ways. I hope that this is not offensive, but it seems to me that they are rather small things. The arrangement with the insurance companies by which they undertook to set aside £100 million was helpful, and the banks undertook to do the same thing. The trade fairs are also helpful, and I congratulate the Government on what they are doing in that regard.
But the fact remains that at the end of the day the situation is almost wholly unsatisfactory. I am sure that it must have been disappointing to the Chancellor to find that, after his July measures, exports fell back from the level they had obtained during the first and second quarters of last year, and in the third and fourth quarters were lower than in the first two quarters. In the first quarter of this year they were still lower than they were before the pay pause was introduced, taken on a quarterly basis. This must have been disappointing even more to him than to the rest of us.
I want to make a complaint here. I do not know whether it is due to electoral considerations or not, but the Government are constantly in a state of Freudian complex on this matter. They are torn between telling the truth and wondering about electoral prospects. We have been through the phase in which we were told the truth about exports. Now, alas, we are going through the phase when the Government are considering electoral prospects, or are being 1508 misled by the slight increase that has taken place in the first four months of this year.
There has been a slight increase in exports by comparison with the miserable level they sank to in the second half of last year. We have been told in the newspapers—I do not hold the Chancellor responsible for the headlines but certainly there is some inspiration somewhere—that we are on the up and up, that things are getting better, and that, thanks to last July's measures, we are on the way. That is really complete rubbish. Within six months we could be back in the same position that we were a year ago.
It gives me no great pleasure to say that, although there might be some party advantage in doing so, but the sort of increase we have had in our exports goes nowhere at all towards solving our problem. We cannot hold the Government wholly responsible for this, although I must say that whoever coined the foolish phrase "exporting is fun" should have his head examined and be drummed out of the Government.
Exporting is not fun. It is jolly hard work. It means much research into markets, the necessity to go abroad, and the filling in of forms, among other things. To say that it is fun seems to me to be the product of the amateur mind at its worst. What is needed is a substantial change of attitude by many of the people concerned with exports. Take the case of Fords—
§ The Deputy-Chairman
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing a Clause which is quite limited in scope. It can, of course, to some extent be used as a peg on which to hang illustrations but he must not go too far in connection with exports.
§ Mr. Callaghan
I am sorry, Sir Robert. Perhaps I was going a little far, but I thought that the Chancellor put a tin opener into the tin and opened it up quite a bit for us. However, I will try to relate what I am saying to the question of fiscal incentives.
On the whole, I support the idea behind the Clause, but I do not think that the fiscal incentives which might be devised in this or any other Clause would be sufficient. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to a 1509 firm where I believe fiscal incentives would have little effect—Fords. The position in Fords is a disgrace to everybody concerned. There seems to be no industrial leadership and no industrial discipline of any sort, and the sooner that situation is cleared up the better it will be for the nation as a whole.
I am sure that unless we get a different approach to problems in our industries, especially in the motor car industry, which is letting the nation down in its attitude to these problems, a different approach by both management and employees, there will not be much use in relying on simple, small, fiscal incentives of this sort. I am certain that it cannot be done from this Committee or from the Government but must be done locally, and I regret very much the absence of discipline on the one side and leadership on the other, particularly in Fords.
I readily concede that so far I have not been able to devise a scheme of fiscal incentives—but my knowledge of Income Tax is extremely rusty—which will keep us within the four walls of what we desire. I sent one scheme to the Chancellor, or the President of the Board of Trade, but I was told that it was out of order. If he tells me that he cannot find one, and I know how ingenious the Inland Revenue is, then I suppose that may be true.
Nevertheless, I shall ask the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) to vote for his new Clause. I want an opportunity of expressing in the Lobby my belief that whether this new Clause meets it or not, there is a case, because of the obsession which any Chancellor and the Committee must have with exports, for carrying to the limit the question of whether we can find some way of helping our exporters to do a much more difficult job than the
§ people who are supplying the home market are doing.
§ I do not mind using discriminatory taxation if it is discrimination in a good cause, and I think that the Committee would agree that discrimination in favour of getting more exports is a matter of saving the country's position. If there is one thing we need above all, as the Chancellor has told us more than once, it is that we should have a high rate of growth. We cannot achieve that until exports go up. I believe that part, but only part of that, is to give some fiscal incentive to exporters.
§ If the hon. Member will press his new Clause, we shall be glad to support him in the Lobby on the general principle of the approach which I have indicated and not because we think that his new Clause is technically perfect.
§ Mr. W. Clark
I think that all hon. Members will agree that we have had a worth-while debate on exports. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has been a little unfair, because I think that the Chancellor has given a categoric assurance that he is going into the matter. I think that everyone will agree that the new Clause is so simple in its application that it would probably not help exports. But the object has been achieved, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East agreed that this has been a worth-while debate. It has been a peg on which to hang our arguments and, in view of my right hon. and learned Friend's categoric assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 56, Noes 138.1511
|Division No. 212.]||AYES||[10.59 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Fletcher, Eric||Hunter, A. E.|
|Awbery, Stan||Forman, J. C.||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)|
|Blackburn, F.||Galpern, Sir Myer||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics. S.W.)||Ginsburg, David||Jones, Jack (Rotherham)|
|Callaghan, James||Gourlay, Harry||Kelley, Richard|
|Cliffe, Michael||Harper, Joseph||Lawson, George|
|Crosland, Anthony||Hayman, F. H.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Millan, Bruce|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hill, J. (Midlothian)||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Diamond, John||Houghton, Douglas||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)|
|Finch, Harold||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Oram, A. E.|
|Fitch, Alan||Hoy, James H.||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Redhead, E. C.||Stones, William||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)||Taverne, D.||Zilliacus, K.|
|Ross, William||Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Short, Edward||Wainwright, Edwin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Williams, LI. (Abertillery)||Mr. Charles A. Howell and|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)||Mr. Grey|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Aitken, W. T,||Gower, Raymond||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Green, Alan||Prior, J. M. L.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Gresham Cooke, R.||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Barber, Anthony||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Pym, Francis|
|Batsford, Brian||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Rawlinson, Peter|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Hastings, Stephen||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Rees, Hugh|
|Biffen, John||Hiley, Joseph||Ridsdale Julian|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hirst, Geoffrey||Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)|
|Bingham, R. M.||Holland, Philip||Roots William|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Hollingworth, John||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Bishop, F. P.||Hughes-Young, Michael||Seymour, Leslie|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Shaw, M.|
|Bossom, Clive||James, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Box, Donald||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Smithers, Peter|
|Brewis, John||Kitson, Timothy||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Leavey, J. A.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Lilley, F. J. P.||Talbot, John E.|
|Bullard, Denys||Litchfield, Capt. John||Tapsell. Peter|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Longden, Gilbert||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Channon, H. P. O.||Loveys, Walter H.||Teeling, Sir William|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Temple, John M.|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||McAdden, Stephen||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Mac Arthur, Ian||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Collard, Richard||McLaren, Martin||Turner, Colin|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Coulson, Michael||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Maddan, Martin||Wakefleld, Sir Wavell|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Marten, Neil||Walker, Peter|
|Currie, G. B. H.||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Deeds, W. F.||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Mills, Stratton||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|du Cann, Edward||Miscampbell Norman||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Elliott,R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Noble, Michael||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Finlay, Graeme||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|Fisher, Nigel||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Woollam, John|
|Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Partridge, E.||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gammans, Lady||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Gardner, Edward||Peel, John|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Percival, Ian||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gilmour, Sir John||Pitt, Miss Edith||Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.|