HC Deb 28 May 1963 vol 678 cc1255-71

  1. (1) Chapter I of Part X of the Income Tax Act 1952 (which relates to capital allowances for industrial buildings and structures) shall apply to capital expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act on the construction of a commercial building in a development district as it applies to the construction of an industrial building.
  2. (2) In this section a "commercial building" means a building constructed and to be occupied as a retail shop, showroom, hotel or office or for any purpose ancillary to the purposes of a retail shop, showroom, hotel or office; and section 38 (5) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.-[Mr. Houghton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

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

While the Government are considering whether or not they should resign, following the result of the last Division, I hope that the Committee will note subsection (1) of the proposed new Clause, which states: (1) Chapter 1 of Part X of the Income Tax Act 1952 (which relates to capital allowances for industrial buildings and structures) shall apply to capital expenditure incurred after the passing of this Act on the construction of a commercial building in a development district as it applies to the construction of an industrial building. Subsection (2) defines a "commercial building".

The new Clause does not raise the wider issue of whether the capital allowances for industrial buildings shall apply to commercial buildings generally. It deals solely with capital expenditure on new buildings and new constructions after the passing of the Bill—and only in local employment areas.

As the Committee knows, the Tucker Committee of 1951 recommended that the capital allowances granted to industrial buildings should be extended to commercial buildings generally. Hon. Members will recall that on pages 67 and 68 of the Tucker Report there were set out that Committee's arguments in favour of that recommendation. That recommendation was further considered by the Radcliffe Commission four years later, and in paragraphs 379 onwards of that Commission's Report is confirmed the recommendation made by the Tucker Committee. The Radcliffe Commission was also of the opinion that the capital allowances granted to industrial buildings should also apply to commercial buildings.

Nothing has been done about the recommendation of the Tucker Committee, as approved by the Radcliffe Commission. In the new Clause we are not proposing the wider application of the recommendation of these two important and authoritative bodies. We feel, however, that since special steps are being taken to encourage new industries to go to the local employment areas, it would add to the encouragement if we were to extend to commercial buildings the allowances given for new industrial buildings.

In the development areas, as they used to be called—"local employment districts" as they are now called—one of the important factors has bean the diversity of industry; the widening of the scope of employment for different types of people. Hon. Members will remember why it was that the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance went to Newcastle and why an important branch of the Inland Revenue went to Cardiff. It was because there was a need for the diversity of local employment, which was then dangerously and heavily concentrated on particular industries—mostly heavy industries.

The transfer to Newcastle and Cardiff of substantial branches of public administration offered employment to many thousands of people for whom work in heavy industries was scarcely suitable. I am thinking of women and girls, disabled persons and others with a bent for office, clerical or commercial work, as distinct from industrial skills. Part of the policy of the Government now is to encourage development and administration to move from the south-east, especially London, to elsewhere. The Government are setting an example in that respect by transferring substantial branches of the public administration, in one case to Durham and in another to Chesterfield.

Some commercial undertakings that have their offices out of the centre of London, but not very far away from London, should be encouraged to move quite a distance from this area and, if possible, induced to go to the local employment districts, where commercial expansion could well take place alongside industrial expansion. At the present time, the capital allowances—both initial allowance and annual depreciation—granted to industrial buildings are withheld from commercial buildings—shops, and offices of all kinds. The only non-industrial building that qualifies for an industrial building capital allowance is, apparently, a sports pavilion run by a firm as part of its welfare services for its employees. I do not, of course, quarrel with that, but it rather looks as though the administrative block of an industrial concern would be excluded from the allowances for an industrial building.

The representations that have been made to the Chancellor by various bodies have pressed upon him the need to extend the industrial buildings allowance to commercial buildings generally—which, I must make clear, once again, we are not proposing to do. This new Clause is very narrowly drawn, and has a specific purpose. I hope that I have satisfied the Financial Secretary that to have commercial development alongside industrial development would be a healthy combination in the areas that we now wish to help. There is no reason why industrial concerns and commercial undertakings should not send their administrative branches into these areas.

At the present time, as the Committee knows, if a shopkeeper, for example, puts in a new shop front, he cannot get any capital allowance on that expenditure; only when he replaces the shop front can he get any set-off against his taxable profits—and only then if he can show that what he has done is a replacement and not an improvement. These are considerable handicaps to the development of commercial enterprise—and I do not think only of office development in this connection, but of the distributive trades as well.

We think ours is a very reasonable proposal and one which, when linked with what the Chancellor is proposing to do for the local employment areas, would provide a mare comprehensive remedy than the remedies contained in the Bill. I stress that the capital allowances for industrial buildings are very different from the capital allowances for industrial plant and machinery. They are very much more modest. It seems that, as a general proposition, commercial buildings should qualify for some measure of depreciation, and this is argued at some length in both of the Reports to which I have drawn attention. In the narrow way in which we have drawn this proposal, it would apply to local employment areas only.

The hour is late, and I do not wish to develop the matter more fully because other hon. Members may wish to speak. Above all, we shall be interested to have the reply of the Financial Secretary. Here there seems to be an opportunity to improve the Chancellor's proposals, and to add these additional inducements to the remedies far local distress and stagnation which it is one of the immediate objects of the Finance Bill to provide.

10.30 p.m.

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

As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) pointed out, the purpose of the Clause is to extend the scope of the capital allowances provisions in the chapter of the 1952 Act referred to in the new Clause. The consequence would be to grant investment allowances of 15 per cent. of the cost, initial allowances of 5 per cent., and annual allowances of 4 per cent. for capital expenditure on commercial buildings incurred after the passing of the Bill where the buildings are erected in development districts. Commercial buildings would mean retail shops, showrooms, hotels and offices, and premises kept for ancillary purposes, and so on.

I would remind the Committee from the outset that capital allowances were limited in 1945 to industrial buildings, that is buildings in use for the purposes of traders in certain defined classes. These are productive, manufacturing and processing industries and certain other types of major undertakings. Commercial buildings were excluded from the relief as a matter of deliberate policy, because the intention was to encourage the expansion and modernisation of the premises of productive industry.

The hon. Member for Sowerby made the scope of the new Clause quite clear. He pointed out that he was not here concerned with a general extension of capital allowances for all commercial buildings. I frankly admit that I agree with him that any form of discriminatory taxation in favour of areas of high and persistent unemployment, such as the development districts and Northern Ireland, has a certain superficial attraction, but I hope that the Committee will agree with me that the more one examines this proposal the less attractive it becomes. I think that it is now accepted by virtually the whole Committee that in order to tackle the problem of the development districts discriminatory taxation is justified. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's proposals, to which the hon. Member for Sowerby referred, for free depreciation in these districts has been almost universally applauded.

Several hon. Members opposite have contended that what my right hon. Friend proposes in the Bill for these districts is somewhat analogous to their proposals in previous years, but what matters most is not the apportionment of credit but the achievement of results. It will be obvious to anyone that when my right hon. Friend was working out his proposals for giving some measure of tax advantage to the development districts he considered at that time not only the allowances in respect of plant and machinery but also allowances for industrial buildings and the position of commercial buildings. For reasons with which the Committee is now very familiar, because we have gone over the ground several times in the past few weeks, my right hon. Friend came down in favour of free depreciation limited to plant and machinery, a proposal, I remind the Committee, which in a few years' time will cost about £45 million a year.

The first point to bear in mind about the proposal in the new Clause is that it would create a quite remarkable distinction between commercial buildings in development districts and commercial buildings elsewhere. As I understand, the hon. Member for Sowerby was saying that this was just what the Opposition wanted, because this would provide the incentive for people to set up offices and shops and make extensions in the areas and consequently improve the tone of the areas and provide employment. But, in all seriousness, I ask the Committee to bear this in mind. Although my right hon. Friend has made a general improvement in the capital allowances for industrial buildings as distinct from commercial buildings, with which the new Clause deals, the Bill does not include any differentiation at all between capital allowances for industrial buildings in development districts and industrial buildings elsewhere.

One of the principal reasons, of course, is that the Board of Trade already provides capital grants to cover these cases. But, this being so, the capital allowances for industrial buildings being the same both within development districts and outside—a principle which is not challenged by the new Clause—one must ask whether it would really be right to make such a remarkable distinction as is proposed here for commercial buildings. The result would be that a shop and office building in a development district would not merely qualify for annual allowances of 4 per cent., as has been requested by several hon. Members seeking these allowances for commercial buildings generally, but also in the development districts would qualify for 5 per cent. initial allowance and 15 per cent. investment allowance. That means allowances amounting in all to 24 per cent, of the cost of the commercial building in the first year. But similar buildings outside a development district would qualify for no relief at all—not a penny.

It is one thing to argue that shops and offices generally should receive annual allowances at the same rate as, say, industrial buildings or even that they should all be eligible for initial allowance and investment allowance, but to make available all three allowances for a block of shops and offices within a development district as distinct from a similar building just outside, which would qualify for nothing at all, seems to me to be going too far.

Mr. Houghton

The hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of maintaining the principle of universality for these reliefs or of avoiding a distinction between the development districts and other districts; but he must bear in mind that his right hon. Friend has already breached the principle when providing for free depreciation within the development districts and for no such thing outside.

Mr. Barber

I thought that I had made clear at the outset that my right hon. Friend had accepted that, in his view, in order to deal with the problem in the development districts and Northern Ireland, there must be some degree of tax discrimination. I said that this had been generally welcomed by the Committee and outside also. But, obviously, one can carry this to the most extraordinary lengths. There must be some lengths beyond which one would not wish to go. All I was pointing out was that it seems very odd to say that that there should be be this quite remarkable discrimination—the allowance in respect of shops and offices of annual allowance, investment allowance and initial allowance, but no allowances at all outside, there being no such discrimination proposed for industrial buildings which, after all, are of more importance in the development districts, I suggest, than commercial buildings.

I should have understood the hon. Gentleman's proposal better if it were suggested that there should also be some preferential tax treatment for industrial buildings as well, but this is not suggested.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of commercial development in these districts. I agree that this is a matter of great importance. As my right hon. Friend said in a previous debate, on the Budget or since, it is important in the development districts not only to improve productive capacity but also to try to improve the general tone of the area. But the Committee will bear in mind that the 25 per cent. capital grant which is administered by the Board of Trade is available in proper cases for the construction of commercial buildings as well as industrial buildings in a development district, assuming always, of course, that the project is of a type worthy of assisttance when judged by the criterion of providing employment. This was one of the main objectives which the hon. Member mentioned in talking of the Government Departments which had been moved to development districts.

The Committee will, I hope, take the view that my right hon. Friend was right to concentrate what tax relief is available for the purpose of providing incentive to modernise productive industry, both by doubling the annual allowances for industrial buildings throughout the whole country and by the new scheme of free depreciation for plant and machinery within the development districts, to which the hon. Member referred.

The cost of the new Clause, I am told, would be about £24 million in a full year. If that amount of additional taxation relief were to be made available to development districts and to Northern Ireland, I should have thought that there were other candidates rather than shops, offices, showrooms and the like which should have priority, quite apart from the extraordinary disparity of treatment, which is important, which would result as between industrial and commercial buildings.

Having pointed out all these facts briefly and followed, I hope, the good example of the hon. Member for Sowerby in keeping my observations brief, I must tell the Committee that I regret that I cannot advise hon. Members to accept the new Clause.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

The Financial Secretary has advanced two arguments, quite apart from his lengthy introduction, which amounted to no argument at all. To take them in the reverse order, the hon. Gentleman's second argument was the question of priority, that the new Clause would cost about £25 million and that this money could be spent in better ways. That is, possibly, an attractive argument, but the fact is that the Government are not spending this or any particular £25 million in this or in any other way.

We already have indications from the Government about what they intend to spend for the Local Employment Act and other Measures which have been discussed. For example, the money for the Local Employment Act has fallen from £45 million in the last year to about £25 million in the present year. We are told that there are various reasons for that, including the fact that no big developments are taking place this year comparable with those which last year's Estimates covered.

We have also had the provision by the Chancellor in connection with Clause 38 of the Bill which is directly and deliberately aimed at helping the development districts. Therefore, the argument that the £25 million which the Clause would cost could be spent in a better way is a false one, because the Government are not proposing to spend £25 million in another way apart from the Clause.

The hon. Gentleman's first argument concerned differentiation. Its basis was that there is no differentiation for buildings under Clause 38 because this is dealt with, I presume, through B.O.T.A.C. and the Local Employment Act in grants for buildings. If I am wrong, I should like to know. I tried to interrupt the hon. Gentleman to get this clear.

Mr. Barber

I am sorry if I did not give way. I did not intend to be discourteous, but I was developing an argument. The point is that the extraordinary distinction which would arise would be between the treatment of allowances for commercial buildings within and without a development district as contrasted with the present tax treatment—in other words, the provision of capital allowances—in respect of industrial buildings where there is no distinction as between a building within a development district and one outside. It was not a B.O.T.A.C. point.

Dr. Mabon

Nevertheless, when one considers how these things are operated through B.O.T.A.C. in relation to giving assistance in development districts, I do not see why this is not considered a particularly good point, even in discrimination.

The Financial Secretary argued, for example, that if there was a good case for a certain project of a commercial nature attracting jobs to an area, it would get proper treatment through the B.O.T.A.C. organisation and, ultimately, the sanction of the Treasury. I cannot think of any large-scale commercial project which has been approved by the Government under the Local Employment Act. I am open to correction, and perhaps the information might be given to me, but most of the job-providing projects which have been approved by the Government in the last three years have, I think, all been of an industrial character. I cannot think of a substantial commercial development which has been approved.

10.45 p.m.

Since the Financial Secretary has underlined this, the point that I am making is that this is the very kind of thing that has to be brought into the development districts. Quite apart from the prestige value of many of the projects—someone has used the phrase that it raises the tone of the district, which is true—it attracts into the district industry, and also offers to the people employment of an entirely different kind. For instance. they may be able to go to work with clean clothes and come home again clean, which is rather different from what happens in the development districts where the occupations have of necessity involved a great deal of dirt and uncleanness. This raises the tone of the district and offers job opportunities to many youngsters which they would not otherwise get. Therefore, it is important to attract this sort of thing into the development districts.

If this is the wrong way to do it, why do not the Government suggest some other way in which commercial projects of this kind can come to the areas? There is also the point that by the very nature of industry as distinct from commercial establishments there are advantages in giving free depreciation for plant and machinery. The plant and machinery of commercial enterprises bear little comparison with the plant and machinery involved in industrial enterprises. One of the main incentives in attracting commerce ought to be the provision of relief for the construction of the building itself. If the Financial Secretary can tell me that these commercial projects have been encouraged to the full through B.O.T.A.C. I shall rest content.

But I am dissatisfied from the point of view that my constituency now tops the United Kingdom unemployment poll. We feel that not enough is done to bring down the high unemployment levels in the areas which are affected not only when there is stagnation and restriction in the economy but also when there is expansion. We still have chronic unemployment, and we think that more ought to be done by the Government.

Last year the Government resisted what is, in effect, Clause 38 with all kinds of arguments which seemed strong at the time, but they have retreated from them now. We have had two rather feeble arguments to resist it tonight. Are we to take it that if we have to vote on this Clause tonight, next year the Chancellor might look at another argument and then introduce the Clause and be greeted with cries of "Brilliant" by his supporters-who will probably vote against the Clause tonight?

I urge the Chancellor to give further consideration to the Clause. These things are important in development districts. The commercial side of development has been neglected, and I plead with the Government to think about it again.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

When one has a Royal Commission Report on one's side, it is usual in Finance Bill debates to quote it. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made the best of it. When one cannot find a quotation in any Royal Commission Report, one forgets all about it. But there are two Reports in support of the Clause—the Tucker and Radcliffe Reports—and the Clause is very modest when compared with the recommendations of both Reports.

The Clause applies only to commercial buildings within development districts and seeks to extend to commercial buildings the benefits which industrial buildings receive. Some parts of development districts are quite inappropriate for industrial development. There are the older residential areas of development districts which are admirable for office development but quite inappropriate for industrial development. I have some such areas in my own constituency on Merseyside. The Government are doing something to help there.

Inquiries are being made for sites for Government offices within that older residential area in my constituency. But I am not sure this is quite fair. If the Government are to do commercial development there, it may prevent private enterprise from doing it, when private enterprise might do it if it had even slight encouragement. Industrial firms are having encouragement for their developments there.

When there is an industrial development in a development district, it can be successful only if commercial development follows, particularly retail shops and the type of distributive service which industrial development requires. Again I turn to Merseyside as an example. Ford's development at Halewood has necessitated any number of commercial developments to go along with it, particularly retail shops.

What happens when there is no allowance for building new shops is that old shops are patched up. This is not a wise policy. If retail shops were having the benefit of an allowance, particularly in development districts, so that commercial development could accompany industrial development, we would have a better type of development, certainly in shopping areas. After all. it is in development districts that urban renewal is so very essential.

It is just this type of town-again I speak of Liverpool and Merseyside—where urban development is so necessary and where we do need to encourage the commercial enterprises as well as the industrial. My hon. Friend said that the policy when capital allowances were introduced for industrial development was to encourage the expansion and modernisation of productive industry. But can one really make a distinction, particularly for a development district, between productive and distributive industry? I do not think that such a distinction is real.

The policy now, at least within the development districts, should be to expand and modernise both productive and distributive industries and give all encouragement to it, I think it right that at present there should be discrimination between areas and that this encouragement could be applied only to development districts, because I do not believe we can be successful with industrial development in these districts unless we also encourage commercial development as well. This Clause may go too far in the allowances which it seeks to give, but that could be rectified at a later stage. Something on these lines should be seriously considered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ernest Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I reinforce the plea by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I cannot believe that the Financial Secretary, before he made his speech, had consulted the Lord President of the Council. Lord Hailsham is the overseer, as it were, of the North-East and after his "Cook's tour" of the area he concluded that it required a face-lift. He did not confine that to industrial buildings. He said that because it was an old industrial centre the whole of the social furniture needed renewing, and that included the whole of the commercial furniture. A Clause of this kind would make that a possibility.

We who represent the North-East are often told that the reason we cannot attract new industries to the area is not because the businessman will not come there, but that his wife finds the shops so dowdy and nothing like so attractive as those in Oxford Street and Bond Street. At the cost of £24 million, accepting the figures given by the Economic Secretary, this is an opportunity which the Government could grasp. They could kill two birds with one stone-not only attract new industries but make it much easier for the wives of businessmen, so far reluctant to go to Liverpool, to Scotland or the North-East, to go there because the social furniture, the commercial buildings and the shops could become equivalent with those in other parts of the country.

I do not want to detain the Committee because I understand that some hon. Members want to catch trains. I hope that the Economic Secretary will consult with the Lord President of the Council and ask him if he does not think that this new Clause would be a good thing for the North-East. If in private conversations with the Economic Secretary, the Lord President is to live up to the public utterances he has made in the North-East, there is no doubt that the Economic Secretary would have to consider and grant this modest concession.

Mr. Barber

I can answer the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) straight away. Of course, anyone who has in mind the interests of the development districts and of Northern Ireland—I mention that because we are not only concerned with development districts in England and Wales and Scotland—would be attracted by any action we in this Committee might take to improve the general position in those districts and in Northern Ireland. The only point I tried to make in answer to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in saying that one should consider how best one might spend the money available was how best to provide whatever taxation relief is available for those districts, and I do not think it follows that this is the best way to do it. I should have thought it very doubtful whether this was the most sensible way. There is an argument for saying that one can use to greater advantage taxation relief of £24 million by providing a differential in the industrial buildings allowance or even in providing greater incentive to industry to move to these areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was beginning to touch on somewhat wider ground. He thought that we should extend the allowance for industrial buildings to commercial buildings generally, which would be a very expensive affair. I am not sure that I go with him the whole way in suggesting that the Tucker Committee and the Royal Commission would have approved of this new Clause because it is of more limited application. From my reading of the Tucker Report and the Royal Commission's Report, I should doubt very much whether they would approve of the discrimination as proposed in this new Clause. The Tucker Committee said: A tax which refuses to give an allowance for the depreciation of all business premises is not limiting itself to a tax on income, but is encroaching on capital. The Committee was saying that on business principles a deduction ought to be allowed in computing profits for the loss in value of business premises through normal depreciation. While that argument can be adduced in favour of some sort of annual allowance, there is very little case for the investment allowance and initial allowance suggested in this new Clause.

I have been over the grounds why my right hon. Friend could not accept the new Clause and I do not want f0 go over them again. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for not speaking a t greater length on the new Clause.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)

I am sure that the Committee will forgive the Financial Secretary and that it will forgive me if I speak briefly, because I am conscious of the fact that a number of my hon. Friends are anxious to demonstrate their views about the lack of understanding by the Government of the needs of development districts. It was true that in 1951 and in 1955, when these two Reports were made, the development areas had not established themselves as solid areas of unemployment such as we have seen in Northern Ireland. It is true that in 1951 we had not had a Conservative Government for very long. We were, therefore, at the start of a period during which the Northern Ireland unemployment figures have averaged between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. year after year.

But now we have reached a situation in which it is impossible to demonstrate that we must give preference to industry in those areas to the exclusion of commercial buildings. The commercial buildings also provide employment, and it is not possible for us to say that those areas do not need the benefit which would come from the Clause.

The Financial Secretary's reply to the arguments of my hon. Friends was totally inadequate. He has given no attention whatever to the need for giving a new and fresh look at the needs of

development districts. He has tried to put us off with arguments about the comparison between industrial buildings and commercial buildings. If we start with industrial buildings which have considerable advantages outside development districts, we need not give them comparatively increased advantages within development districts. When we are dealing with commercial buildings which have no tax advantages outside development districts, they will have comparatively larger advantages if we give them anything at all within development districts. The hon. Member's argument would lead to our giving nothing at all to help commercial buildings being installed in development districts, and we wish to register our very strong protest against that attitude.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118, Noes 175.

Division No. 128.] AYES [11.3 p.m.
Alnsley, William Griffiths, David (Rather Valley) Oram, A. E.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Oswald, Thomas
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Hannan, William Pentland, Norman
Beaney, Alan Harper, Joseph Popplewell, Ernest
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hart, Mrs. Judith Price, J. T. (Weethoughton)
Benson, Sir George Herbison, Miss Margaret Probert, Arthur
Blyton, William Hill, J. (Midlothian) Redhead, E. C.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Loics, S.W.) Hilton, A. V. Reynolds, G. W.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Holman, Percy Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Bradley, Tom Houghton, Douglas Robertson, John (Paisley)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hoy, James H. Ross, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Short, Edward
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, A. E. Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Callaghan, James Hynd, John (Attercllffe) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Small, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cronin, John Janner, Sir Barnett Spriggs, Leslie
Crosland, Anthony Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Stones, William
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Dan (Burnley) Swingler, Stephen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Taverne, D.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.
Delargy, Hugh Jonee, T. W. (Merioneth) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Dempsey, James Kelley, Richard Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Diamond, John Lawson, George Thornton, Ernest
Dodds, Norman Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Tomney, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P. Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Wainwright, Edwin
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Watkins, Tudor
Edwards, Robert (Boston) McBride, N. Whitlock, William
Fernyhough, E. MacDermot, Niall wigg, George
Finch, Harold McInnes, James Wilkins, W. A.
Fitch, Alan Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Wililame, Ll. (Abertillery)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Forman, J. C. Mason, Roy Winterbottom, R. E.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mayhew, Christopher Woof, Robert
Galpern, Sir Myer Millan, Bruce Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
George, Lady MeganLloyd (Crmrthn) Milne, Edward
Ginsburg, David Mitchison, G. R. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gourlay, Harry Morris, John Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Grey, Charles O'Malley, B. K. Mr. McCann.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Ashton, Sir Hubert Barber, Anthony
Allason, James Atkins, Humphrey Barter, John
Arbuthnot, John Awdry, Daniel (Ghippenham) Batsford, Brian
Bennett, F. M (Torquay) Hastings, Stephen Pym, Francis
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Finn) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Quennell, Miss J. M.
Berkeley, Humphry Hendry, Forbes Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Biffen, John Hiley, Joseph Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Biggs-Davison, John Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Rees, Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bourne-Arlon, A. Hirst, Geoffrey Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Box, Donald Hobson, Sir John Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Hocking, Philip N. Ridsdale, Julian
Brewis, John Holland, Phillip Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Brootnan-White, R. Hollingworth, John Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hopkins, Alan Roots, William
Buck, Antony Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bullard, Denys Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Russell, Ronald
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hughes-Young, Michael St. Clair, M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hutchison, Michael Clark Scott-Hopkins, James
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Iremonger, T. L. Sharpies, Richard
Chataway, Christopher Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Shaw, M.
Chichester-Clark, R. James, David Shepherd, William
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Skeet, T H. H.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Smith, Dudley (Br'nthd & Chiswick)
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.) Kaberry, Sir Donald Smithers, Peter
Cooke, Robert Kerr, Sir Hamilton Stanley, Hon. Richard
Corfield, F. V. Kershaw, Anthony Stodart, J. A.
Coulson, Michael Langford-Holt, Sir John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Leavey, J. A. Studholme, Sir Henry
Crawley, Aldan Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Summers, Sir Spencer
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Tapsell, Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldimld, Sir Henry Lilley, F. J. P. Teeling, Sir William
de Ferranti, Basil Litchfield, Capt. John Temple, John M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Loveys, Walter H. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Drayson, G. B. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
du Cann, Edward MacArthur, Ian Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Elliot, Capt. Welter (Carshalton) McLaren, Martin Turner, Colin
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Emery, Peter Maddan, Martin van Straubenzee, W. R.
Farr, John Markham, Major Sir Frank Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Finlay, Graeme Marten, Neil Vickers, Miss Joan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vesper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Walder, David
Gammons, Lady Mawby, Ray Walker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wall, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mills, Stratton Ward, Dame Irene
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Miscampbell, Norman Webster, David
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Montgomery, Fergus Wells, John (Maidstone)
Goodhew, Victor Morgan, William Whitelaw, William
Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Sir Gerald Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Grant-Ferris, R. Osborn, John (Hallam) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Gresham-Cooke, R. Partridge, E. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Wise, A. R.
Gurden, Harold Pilkington, Sir Richard Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Pitt, Dame Edith Woollam, John
Harris, Reader (Heaton) Pott, Percivall
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Price, David (Eastleigh) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Mr. Peel and Mr. Ian Fraser.
Harvie Anderson, Miss Proudfoot, Wilfred

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.