HC Deb 21 May 1963 vol 678 cc280-97
Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

I beg to move, in page 32, line 16, at the end to insert: (2) The said section 336 as amended by the foregoing subsection shall have effect as if any expenditure on scientific research were deemed to include any expenditure on pilot plants for the application of such research. The object of the Clause, as I understand it, is to encourage scientific research and I fully approve. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the provisions of the Clause to cover the application of research by expenditure on pilot plant. If suggestions are forthcoming about improvements in the wording of the Amendment I shall, of course, welcome them. But I think that the object is clear. I wish to cover the necessary expenditure in trying out discoveries and to ensure that these allowances are available for expenditure in putting ideas to a practical test with a view to production.

The material words are in the first subsection and the amount which it is necessary for me to read is small: In the case of expenditure incurred after the 5th November, 1962, an allowance under section 336 of the Act of 1952 (allowances for capital expenditure on scientific research) shall be made by allowing in the first of the five yearn of assessment mentioned in that section a deduction equal to the whole of the expenditure instead of by allowing in that year a deduction equal to three-fifths of the expenditure and in each of the remaining four years a deduction equal to one-tenth of the expenditure… The problem is: what is capital expenditure on scientific research? If it covers what I have in mind I shall, of course, be content. But I am not sure whether it does. To refresh my memory I studied the Income Tax Act, 1952, of which the relevant Sections are Sections 336 and 340. The material words are these: …subject to the provisions of the next following section, where, after the appointed day, a person…

  1. (a) while carrying on a trade, incurs expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research related to that trade and directly undertaken by him or on his behalf; or
  2. (b) incurs expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research directly undertaken by him or on his behalf and thereafter sets up and commences a trade connected with that research, a deduction "—
is to be made.

Then the Section continues to set out the nature of the concessions. The material word is, "expenditure", so that one has to turn to the definition Section to ascertain the meaning of expenditure on "scientific research". I learn that "scientific research" means any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge; That seems to have a somewhat limited meaning.

But the crux of the problem is: what is scientific research expenditure? I find this very enlightening sentence in the definition Section: 'scientific research expenditure' means expenditure incurred on scientific research ".

Mr. Mitchison

Hear, hear.

Mr. Wade

The only other wording I can find which throws some light on it is that references to expenditure…include all expenditure incurred for the prosecution of, or the provision of facilities for the prosecution of, scientific research". I am still inclined to the view that the object I have in mind is not covered. But, of course, I hope that I shall be told that I have no need to worry and that the expenditure I have in mind is already covered by the provisions in the 1952 Act.

I think that the second stage is important, the stage in which one builds the pilot plant, or whatever it may be, view a view to production. I wish to make a few general observations on the whole subject. We have to admit that export growth has been retarded by some technical backwardness and that Britain has not only been lagging behind in many aspects of scientific research, but has failed to make a practical application or large-scale production in many of the fundamental discoveries made in this country.

Examples could be quoted where the basic research has been carried out in this country but the initial large-scale production has been carried out by American companies. Penicillin, silicones, fluorescent lighting and computers are examples. That is a very wide range. But we must admit that we in Britain have been losing our share of the world markets for manufactured goods. Since 1952, the British share has fallen from 21.5 per cent. to 15.6 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.

I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee with a great many quotations, but I should like to quote from Professor Barna in The Times of 4th April, 1963: The products which show the fastest rate of growth in international trade…are, of course, the most recently developed and technically the most advanced products of industry. The inferior trading position of Britain is thus an indication of technical backwardness While cost elements, such as the level of wages, are important for the older type of product (e.g., ships or locomotives) trade in the newer types tends to be influenced largely by availability. Putting that into other words it means the initial production based on research work.

It is a little difficult to make international comparisons, but the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, pointed out in 1962, in the May issue of the Economic Review, that after adjusting the exchange rate to get a comparison which is, as near as possible, in real terms, it seems that American industry's research and development expenditure is over five times as large as British industry's as an absolute figure, and that it is nearly three times as large per employee, and twice as large in percentage of net output.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

What is the date?

Mr. Wade

It is the Economic Review of May, 1962.

We cannot feel very happy about that state of affairs. Separate comparisons are not made for research and development, unfortunately. But there can be little doubt that international comparison on development alone would be even more disadvantageous to this country.

Of course, there is difficulty in competing with large-scale industry in America and I recognise it. For that reason, I think that greater use should be made of research associations. The income of research associations is comparatively small, and I should have thought that more should be done to encourage research which would indirectly benefit the research associations. Undoubtedly, a joint effort is required in research and development if this country is to equal the large-scale research and development possible in countries like America and Russia, and now the Common Market. Those are the general observations which I felt it necessary to make.

8.0 p.m.

Coming back to the Amendment, I realise that there is some difficulty in arriving at precise and suitable definitions. If I have erred it is in making the wording of my Amendment rather too narrow. Perhaps I could have gone rather wider, but the aim is clear and important. It is fashionable to quote from the latest Report of the N.E.D.C. I quote one sentence, from page 2: It is important that the United Kingdom should be in the van of scientific and technical advance in relation both to new projects and to the application of new processes to existing projects. The gist of my Amendment is to ensure that plant which is required to carry out innovations should have the same capital allowance as pure research, that is, as the extension of knowledge. Of course, that would not solve all our problems. It would not solve the problem of personnel—we need more technicians and more scientists and a case can be made for more people of technical experience on boards of management—but I think that it would help to encourage innovation and new ideas which are essential if Britain is to keep abreast of the times.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the Sunday Express, I wish to add a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) because I think the benefits of increased expenditure on research are absolutely undoubted.

When we had a debate on science and industry in July last year every hon. Member who spoke drew attention to the valuable work of the D.S.I.R. and the research associations. The Parliamentary Secretary for Science gave us an estimate which had been made of the financial benefits to firms taking part in this research work. He said that Dr. Hill had estimated that industry each year got a return of £100 million from the £8 million it spent with the research associations. Although he did not give that estimate his own endorsement, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was convinced that the benefits were immense.

I think that the benefits from fundamental research are less than those which could be derived from putting a greater effort into the application of such research to production scales. The definition of research and development adopted by the D.S.I.R. and the Federation of British Industries actually includes the production of pilot plant.

This is sensible because a criticism often made of this country is that, whereas as my hon. Friend pointed out we are very good at producing new inventions, since the war we have failed in a number of very significant cases to carry those new ideas to the production stage.

I do not say that we have necessarily spent enough on fundamental research itself. I agree with my hon. Friend that the amounts which are spent by the research associations are minimal, but if we have a certain amount of money to spend it may be that better results would be obtained by increasing the amount spent on application of the results of fundamental research so that inventions already produced in this country can be better exploited.

As I see it, there is no hard-and-fast dividing line between fundamental research and development. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who has experience of the chemical industry, will perhaps confirm that in that industry, as I believe in the drug industry as a whole, the construction of a pilot plant is an extremely important stage in developing a new product or process. Particularly in the organic chemical field the behaviour of these products is notoriously unpredictable. The processes are very much influenced by factors such as rate of flow and temperature of the raw materials concerned Hence, when these new products are developed, it is necessary for small pilot plants to be put in in advance of full-scale investment, which would be very costly indeed.

I think that there is no doubt whatever that the amount of help which would be given by this Amendment would be very valuable indeed. In the Report of the Research Council for last year we read: By means of a scheme for special assistance to industry we have offered grants with the object of demonstrating how research results can be applied in industry to improve efficiency and increase productivity. This is recognised by the Research Council, although I admit that it was not so much concerned with capital expenditure as with the dissemination of information on new projects, but the object is still the same. I also quote another interesting point raised in the Report of the N.R.D.0 last year, which said on page 2: But frequently development projects emerge which while appearing worthwhile from the national point of view, are not attracted to industry. For example, the development period may be too long; industry cannot afford to lock up its money over the period. Or a firm, while having a meritorious invention, may not be able itself to raise all the finance necessary for its development, notwithstanding that it has the desire to do so. Or there may be no industry in being to which the invention is applicable; application will require the establishment of an entirely new industry. Or the financial return from a successful project while likely to bring large profits to users and others who will benefit from the results may be insufficient to recoup the organisation which foots the bill. In those circumstances, we may be missing out on modern inventions which would be extremely valuable to this country if they could be exploited, but for the reasons admirably summarised in that Report the finance is not necessarily forthcoming. By this Amendment we seek to improve on the number of inventions brought to the production state. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Barber

I intervene at this stage only because I think that what I have to say will give considerable weight to assuring the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr, Lubbock) that this Amendment is not necessary. It may, therefore, be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now.

The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that capital expenditure on pilot plants for the application of scientific research qualifies for the scientific research allowance. The allowance, as the Committee knows, is to be improved under the Clause as it stands so as to be allowed at once for the first year of assessment instead of being spread over a five-year period as it has been hitherto.

I hope that I shall be able to convince the two hon. Members that the Clause is wide enough as it stands. The position will be that any new plant and machinery provided by a trader for the purpose after 5th November last qualifies for an investment allowance of 30 per cent. of the cost. If it is provided for scientific research connected with the trade it will qualify for the 100 per cent. write-off. Otherwise it would have the initial allowance of 10 per cent. and, under Clause 35, the annual allowances on the scale laid down in that Clause.

Clause 36 does not in any way affect the type of expenditure which qualifies for the scientific research allowance. It only alters the way in which the allowance is given. The allowance is given to a person carrying on a trade for capital expenditure on scientific research relating to that trade, and then scientific research is defined in Section 340 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, as: Any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge. That is expanded further, but I will not trouble the Committee with the details of that further expansion.

The relief is given, in short, for capital expenditure on scientific research as it is generally understood—that is to say, activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge"; and it would therefore be given for such expenditure both in original research and in the application of know scientific principles in a new field.

The Amendment would deem any expenditure on pilot plant for the application of such research to be included in scientific research expenditure for the purposes of the allowance. The present practice is that capital expenditure not only on pure research but on the development of pilot plant to demonstrate that the research can be applied on a manufacturing scale is treated as allowable. The explanatory notes issued to the public by the Board of Inland Revenue read—and I will read two or three lines which I hope will reassure hon. Members: Capital expenditure incurred by a trader on scientific research related to his trade …for example on the provision of laboratories, pilot plant or other equipment, is allowable for Income Tax purposes by five annual instalments. That latter position is being improved.

If hon. Members have any case in mind in which they think that this provision raises any difficulty, I shall be happy to look into it but, in view of what I have said, I hope they will feel that the existing law is wide enough to cover pilot plant in the normal use of the phrase. I hope that they will feel that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Mitchison

We have here a defini- tion of development in the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and it runs: Work directed to the introduction or improvement of specific projects or applications up to and including the prototype or pilot plant stage. Is that covered by scientific research?

Mr. Barber

I can only tell the hon. and learned Member that what is included in capital expenditure on scientific research—it must be related to the purposes of trade—is the provision of laboratories, pilot plant and other equipment. I know of no difficulty in which any trader has been involved in connection with this application to what I might call the parent Section. As I mentioned at the outset, the Clause in no way affects the type of expenditure which qualifies for the scientific research allowance.

I understand that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West doubts whether either in law or in practice the legislation dealing with scientific research allowances, which are merely improved by the Clause, covers pilot plant used for the application of research. As far as I understand the legal position, it does. As for the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have said, namely, that capial expenditure on scientific research, including pilot plant, is allowable for Income Tax purposes.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Member said that he has had no complaint from manufacturers about the application of the existing law. Has he had any correspondence with research associations? Have they found any difficulty from their point of view, when manufacturers set up pilot plant, to take advantage of what the research associations have recommended?

Mr. Barber

Personally I know of none. This is clearly something of great concern to the Liberal Party and it is relevant to all that we desire—such as economic growth and the betterment of the people, to which much reference has been made. But since three Liberal hon. Members have raised the matter, and since I think that the Amendment is wholly unnecessary because the point is covered in legislation, I am entitled to ask the representatives of the Liberal Party whether they know of any case which goes contrary to what I have said.

Mr. Mitchison

There is another course open to the hon. Member. Why does he not accept the Amendment? If the present law includes pilot plant, I assure him that it is far from self-evident on the language of the Act. If he does not like this form of words let him take another form.

I am surprised to hear that scientific research expenditure as defined in the Income Tax Act is read by the Inland Revenue as including the building of pilot plant. I share some of the doubts of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) about exactly what pilot plant is. There are a number of cases in which it is quite clear and a number of others in which it may not be so clear, but no doubt it represents something.

May I refer to the definition of development in paragraph 59 of the last Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policies? This is in a series of three paragraphs headed "Types of Research"; and the other types of research dealt with are basic research, applied research and then development.

Financially, this is quite a serious matter, because on page 38 of the same Report we find that expenditure on scientific research and development is given as though they were separate things. It is divided in respect of private industry under basic research, applied research and development, and, not unnaturally, development covers 77 per cent. of the total spent by private industry. It is much the largest item. I suggest that if development is covered by the existing provisions there is a case for clarifying the language of the 1952 Act.

If the hon. Member is prepared to accept the Amendment, or to assure me that a definition will be inserted expressly to include pilot plant, I shall have little more to say. He might take the words in the Report and not be far off the mark, even for fiscal purposes. But without that assurance I have more to say. I will give way to him if he will give me that assurance. If he will not, I must add that this is an important matter not only from the strictly fiscal point of view, but also from a point of view stressed by both the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

If one looks at the N.E.D.C. Report, the first green Report, which is a very important document, one finds that it strongly expresses the relation between productivity and not only the discovery of new things but the application of new things. The Report goes at some length into the difficulty. But I do not wish to take up time. It refers to getting these things into the head and practice of the British industrialist. It is not a criticism of all industrialists. The Report specifically refers to the difficulty with small firms.

In previous debates on this matter an hon. Member opposite talked about the innate conservatism of British industry. I dare say that innate conservatism just before a General Election, in one sense of the word, may have its advantages, but in another sense it is holding this country back badly. This becomes clear from looking at the Report, and I could give other instances, too. The real problem is to get the practical application of what the scientists in the universities, Government establishments and places financed by research councils discover put into practice by British industry. That is what we call development.

People now talk about "the gap" and in this context the gap they mean is the gap between the basic or applied research and developments in the sense in which it is defined in the Report. The Amendment is intended to make it quite clear that both sides of the gap are covered by the provisions of the Clause. We can discuss them in detail later on the Clause as a whole. There should be no doubt what is covered. At present, the language of the legislation is far from clear to the ordinary person. Whatever the practice of the Revenue, this matter should be clearly written into our legislation.

Mr. Barber

I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would be the first to agree that if it were clear in our legislation that pilot plant was satisfactorily dealt with on the lines proposed by the Amendment he would not wish to move an Amendment, or to support one to alter the law; that is, if it was clear. At the moment, he doubts that it is clear.

There are two points I would like to bring to the attention of the Committee in this connection. First—and this is by no means conclusive, although extremely relevant because we are interested in the legislation itself—I would remind hon. Members of something about which I previously thought it would not be necessary to trouble the Committee. The point is that this allowance was introduced in 1944 when the Chancellor of the day said that research had three aspects. About fundamental research of the scientist, he said: …what I might describe as the pilot plant stage, where laboratory results are tried out experimentally on a larger scale…". Then he went on: Every industrialist knows that it is a real difficulty to translate the delicate skill of the scientific researcher and the artificial conditions in which he may have worked, into terms of large-scale production. And then he described his proposals as a …comprehensive attempt to relieve from taxation altogether funds devoted by industry to the support of fundamental research, to the translation of laboratory research to production, and to the full-scale development of the product"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1944; Vol., 399, c. 677–9.] This, I believe, is the fundamental desire of hon. Members opposite. Thus the question is, first, whether this is provided for satisfactorily in the legislation as it stands, and, secondly, whether it is giving any difficulty. In all sincerity, I ask hon. Members opposite—and I will deal with the legislation in a moment—to let me know of any case where it is thought that pilot plant should have qualified but has not. I would be delighted to look into it. I had assumed that the Liberal Party had a number of such cases, or at least one to bring to my notice. When I came into the Chamber this afternoon I thought that its representatives would cite some instances.

As for the existing legislation, I would remind the Committee that an allowance is given to a person carrying on a trade for capital expenditure on scientific research related to his trade. As I said, scientific research is defined in the Income Tax Act, 1952, as …any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge… When I dealt with this matter earlier, I said that I could expand upon that, but I did not know at the time whether or not it would be right to delay the Committee in doing that. However, it can be expanded on as follows, as laid down in the 1952 Act: …references to expenditure incurred on scientific research do not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights in, or arising out of, scientific research, but, save as aforesaid, include all expenditure incurred for the prosecution of, or the provision of facilities for the prosecution of, scientific research; references to scientific research related to a trade or a class of trades include— (a) any scientific research which may lead to or facilitate an extension of that trade … The proof of the pudding is in the eating and, so far as I know, there is no current case where this is causing difficulty. I am talking about the present, for I do not know what happened ten or fifteen years ago. If any hon. Member will let me know—it may be more convenient for him to do so by post so that I can have all the details—of any case where difficulty has arisen I will, in all sincerity, look into it to see whether any change is required.

Mr. Mitchison

Is the Financial Secretary not aware that the difficulty here concerns the sphere of natural or applied science? We are considering the setting up of a pilot plant and the meaning of its establishment in ordinary language. I see no reason for differing from that and this is related to the further sphere of development. If the Revenue treats it this way—and there is support for what the Financial Secretary said in the very announcement of 5th November—he will be aware that the Chancellor spoke of wishing to encourage research and development.

I am glad that it is the intention of the Government to do so, but why should they not accept the Amendment or undertake to put a similar one in its place, because it is not clear in the language of existing legislation what the position is? If there is considerable doubt about it and the matter is taken before the courts I think that the person who must prove that a pilot plant was within the definition of the legislation would find himself in considerable difficulty. I hope that the Government will either accept the Amendment or undertake to put in something else. If not, I hope that the Liberal Party will not drop the matter.

Mr. Barber

I want to be fair. I think that hon. Members know perfectly well that if there is a case which merits any consideration, I am the first person to consider it.

The Clause does not affect in any way the type of expenditure which qualifies for the allowance. This has remained the same since 1945 and, so far as I know, no difficulty over the definition and what is covered has been experienced. I repeat once again: if any hon. Member will write to me with details of any case I will look into the matter. If the law needs amending it will be amended, no doubt with the support of the Opposition, but, at the moment, I cannot see that it does.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Failure to develop our own inventions has been a national characteristic of the British as far back as 1856. At that time aniline dyes were invented in this country, but by 1912 we had to depend for them on German industry. Surely the same sort of thing applies to computers. If my figures are correct, in the early 1950s this country led the world in the manufacturing of computers. The present position is that there are about £2,000 million worth of computers in the United States and about £42 million worth in Britain. We are importing about half the computers we need.

The Financial Secretary asked for an example. I will give him a concrete one concerning equipment for molecular biology. In the late 1950s this country led the world in this sphere. Now, in 1962–63, we are told that nine-tenths of those practising molecular biology are operating in the United States, and it is the opinion of the team in Cambridge that one reason for this is that so much of the highly sophisticated equipment has been made in the United States.

8.30 p.m.

That brings me to the Amendment. We are worried about the definition of a pilot plant, because we are not concerned so much with dramatic inventions as with the other more refined equipment necessary which constitutes

technological advance. I would ask the Financial Secretary whether the definition of pilot plant as he uses it extends to the refinement of scientific equipment which is, perhaps, not basically different from what has been used before but is a little different here and there.

Mr. Wade

I accept the invitation to write to the Financial Secretary, and I now have only two points to make. The first concerns the legal interpretation. I am aware of the Section that he read out, of which the material words are: …scientific research' means any activities in the field of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge… Can one really contend that the erection of plant with a view to production comes within that definition as being for the extension of knowledge? I think that it is rather doubtful. I am aware of the other words …the provision of facilities for the prosecution of, scientific research … but one still conies back to the phrase …for the extension of knowledge… I believe that it would be well worth while to consider whether some modification of the wording is necessary.

I do not think that the practice of the Revenue is sufficiently well known, and I am glad to have heard what has been stated. Nevertheless, I am still a little uncertain whether it covers all that I mean by pilot plant erected with a view to production. I hope that the Committee will feel that it has been worth while my raising this matter in order to elicit the information we have had from the Treasury Bench, but I am not yet entirely satisfied. It might be worth while having some amending legislation later.

Dr. Bray

I wonder whether the Financial Secretary might not take a way out of the difficulty, not by altering the law relating to this matter but by causing the country generally to adopt the very enlightened usage of the Inland Revenue in the interpretation of "research", which seems to be wholly admirable?

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 169, Noes 224.

Division No.117.] AYES 8.33 p.m.
Alnsley, William Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central) Beaney, Alan
Albu, Austen Bacon, Miss Alice Bence, Cyril
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Balrd, John Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeten)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Baxter, William (stlrligshire, W.) Benson, Sir George
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Blyton, William Hoy, James H. Probert, Arthur
Boardman, H. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs, S.W.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Randall, Harry
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hunter, A. E. Rankin, John
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Redhead, E. C.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Rhodes, H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Carmichael, Neil Janner, Sir Barnett Robertson, John (Paisley)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jeger, George Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Chapman, Donald Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Collick, Percy Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ross, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Short, Edward
Cronin, John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Crossman, R. H. S. Kelley, Richard Skeffington, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice King, Dr. Horace Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Dalyell, Tam Lawson, George Small, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Ledger, Ron Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Spriggs, Leslie
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Steele, Thomas
Deer, George Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Stones, William
Delargy, Hugh Lubbock, Eric Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, O.)
Dempsey, James Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Swain, Thomas
Diamond, John McBride, N. Swingler, Stephen
Dodds, Norman MacColl, James Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacDermot, Niall Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McInnes, James Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) McKay, John (Wallsend) Thornton, Ernest
Finch, Harold MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Timmons, John
Fitch, Alan Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) Tomney. Frank
Fletcher, Eric Manuel, Archie Wade, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mason, Roy Wainwright, Edwin
Forman, J. C. Mellish, R. J. Warbey, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mendelson, J. J. Watkins, Tudor
Galpern, Sir Myer Millan, Bruce Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn) Milne, Edward White, Mrs. Eirene
Ginsburg, David Mitchison, G. R, Whitlock, William
Grey, Charles Monslow, Walter Wilkins, W. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Moody, A. S. Willey, Frederick
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Morris, John Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Moyle, Arthur Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Neal, Harold Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillip (Derby, S.) Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)
Hannan, William O'Malley, B. K. Winterbottom, R, E.
Harper, Joseph Oram, A. E. Wyatt, Woodrow
Hayman, F. H. Oswald, Thomas Yates, Victor (Lady wood)
Herbison, Miss Margaret Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Parker, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hilton, A. V. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Holman, Percy Pentland, Norman Mr. Ifor Davies.
Hooson, H. E. Prentice, R. E.
Agnew, Sir Peter Chichester-Clark, R. Emery, Peter
Allason, James Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Ashton, Sir Hubert Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Errington, Sir Eric
Atkins, Humphrey Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Farey-Jones, F. W.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Cole, Norman Farr, John
Bainiel, Lord Cooke, Robert Finlay, Graeme
Barber, Anthony Cooper, A. E. Forrest, George
Barter, John Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford& Stone)
Batsford, Brian Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Freeth, Denzil
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Corfield, F. V. Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Bingham, R. M. Costain, A. P. Gammans, Lady
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Gardner, Edward
Bishop, F. P. Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) George, Sir John (Poilok)
Black, Sir Cyril Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Gibson-Watt, David
Bourne-Arton, A. Crowder, F. P. Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Box, Donald Curran, Charles Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Dalkeith, Earl of Goodhart Philip
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Dance, James Goodhew, Victor
Brewis, John d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Gower, Raymond
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter Digby, Simon Wingfield Gresham Cooke, R.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Buck, Anthony Doughty, Charles Gurden, Harold
Bullard, Denys Drayson, G. B. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric du Cann, Edward Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Duncan, Sir James Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Eden, Sir John Harris, Reader (Heston)
Cary, Sir Robert Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Channon, H. P. G. Elliott, R.W.(Newc' Le-upon-Tyne, N.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macciesf'd)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Marten, Neil Shaw, M.
Harvie Anderson, Miss Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Shepherd, William
Hay, John Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Skeet, T. H. H.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Mawby, Ray Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Riley, Joseph Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Smithers, Peter
Hill, Dr. RI. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Hirst, Geoffrey Mills, Stratton Speir, Rupert
Hobson, Sir John Mlecampbell, Norman Stanley, Hon. Richard
Hocking, Philip N. Montgomery, Fergus Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Holland, Philip Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Stodart, J. A.
Hollingworth, John More, Jasper (Ludlow) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hopkins, Alan Morgan, William, Storey, Sir Samuel.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Morrison, John Studholme, Sir Henry
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Nabarro, Sir Gerald Summers, Sir Spencer
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Tapsell, Peter
Hughes-Young, Michael Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hulbert, Sir Norman Osborn, John (Hallam) Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Iremonger, T. L. Page, Graham (Crosby) Temple, John M.
Jennings, J. C. Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Partridge, E. Thompson, SirRichard (Croydon,S.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Peel, John Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry Percival, Ian Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Peyton, John Turner, Colin
Kershaw, Anthony Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Tweedsmuir, Lady
Kitson, Timothy Pilkington, Sir Richard van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lagden, Godfrey Pitt, Dame Edith Vane, W. M. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John Pott, Percivall Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leather, Sir Edwin Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Vickers, Miss Joan
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Price, David (Eastleigh) Walder, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Prior, J. M. L. Walker, Peter
Lilley, F. J. P. Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Wall, Patrick
Linstead, Sir Hugh Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Ward, Dame Irene
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Pym, Francis Whitelaw, William
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Quennell, Miss J. M. Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Longden, Gilbert Rawllnson, Sir Peter Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Loveys, Walter H. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Rees, Hugh Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
McAdden, Sir Stephen Renton, Rt. Hon. David Wise, A. R.
McLaren, Martin Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Roots, William Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Woollam, John
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute& N.Ayrs) Russell, Ronald Worsley, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley R. Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Maginnls, John E, Scott-Hopkins, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES,
Markham, Major Sir Frank Seymour, Leslie Mr. Ian Fraser and
Marahall, Douglas Sharples, Richard Mr. MacArthur.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill