HC Deb 10 June 1964 vol 696 cc515-51

(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) 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. Millan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)

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

The purpose of this proposed new Clause is to give Income Tax capital allowances to commercial buildings which are built in development districts. I am not sure that it is always appreciated that, in normal circumstances, no capital allowances are allowed for anything other than industrial buildings. That means, in effect, that there are no capital allowances for shops, showrooms, hotel accommodation, office accommodation and the rest. This is one of the peculiarities of very considerable standing of our Income Tax law.

I do not wish on this occasion to argue the merits and demerits of the present situation, but I think that it is significant that both the Tucker Committee on the Taxation of Trading Profits, which reported in April, 1951, and the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits, which reported in 1955, came to the conclusion that this was an anomaly and that capital allowances should be given for commercial buildings as well as for industrial buildings. The new Clause does not go as far as that. As I say, there are obviously arguments on both sides when one is dealing with the general consideration. My own frank opinion is that it would be difficult to justify the rather considerable expense which would be involved in extending the whole range of capital allowances to non-industrial buildings.

We are concerned in this new Clause with an argument, not about the general principle but about whether it would be desirable to make these capital allowances available for commercial development—shop development, office development and the rest—in scheduled development districts.

Last year, a similar new Clause to this was discussed and turned down by the Government. Many new Clauses of this sort are produced year after year and they are just as regularly turned down by the Government. I hope, however, that the arguments which the Government deploy this evening will not be confined simply to the arguments used last year. This, unfortunately, has been our experience on a number of other new Clauses which we have already discussed, but there have in this case been certain developments in the Government's thinking—rather tardy developments. They are now accepting things which we have pressed on them for a number of years, but, nevertheless, there have been these developments in the Government's thinking about office development over the last year in particular.

There was a time when the Government poured scorn on any suggestion from this side of the Committee that, when one considered the dispersal of employment and the imbalance of employment opportunities in different parts of the country, office development was extremely important—in some ways just as important as industrial development. It is certainly becoming increasingly important as a higher percentage of the employed population become employed, not in production but in distribution and commerce.

7.30 p.m.

There was a time when the Government did not accept that argument and pretended that office development was, relatively speaking, completely unimportant. We on this side, for example, have urged that there should have been similar regulations concerning office development as already exist regarding industrial development certificates. That is another argument which is not covered directly by the new Clause, but it is consistent with the argument that we have previously used in putting forward the new Clause tonight.

Over the past year, the Government have recognised the need to disperse office development, quite apart from other commercial development. We have had, for example, the Flemming Report on dispersal of Government offices. We have had the establishment of the Location of Offices Bureau and we have had the first major fruit of Government office dispersal in their decision to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow. The Government have moved considerably from what was their position for so many years. Most important, however, we have had the publication of the South-East Study, a section of which, dealing with the London office problem, is a more eloquent condemnation of Government policy concerning offices than anything ever offered from this side of the Committee in any of our debates on the distribution of industry problem.

The South-East Study gives figures, which I am not sure were ever published before in such detail, of the tremendous scale of the London office problem. I refer in particular to paragraph 9, on page 38, m a section headed "London employment and the office problem". The problem is now so great that a complete chapter in the South-East Study is devoted to it. Paragraph 9 on page 38 shows that The war damage losses in the central area were quickly made up and by mid-1962 there was nearly 115 million square feet of office floor space in central London compared with the pre-war figure of 87 million square feet. The Study goes on to point out that there was at that time another 18 million sq. ft. under construction or for which planning permission had been received, and not only that, but that there were still office sites which were ripe for development. It concludes: At a generous estimate "— despite all the tremendous development which had taken place up to the publication of the South-East Study— of 150 square feet of floor space per office worker this means an extra 170,000 office jobs still to come. That is a conservative estimate of what is likely to happen over the next few years in the London area. It is not a problem only for the London area, because the South-East also is to some extent involved in the problem. The growth of office development in London is one of the major factors in the continuing attraction of London and the South-East area for industry and for population from other parts of the country.

The new Clause would give certain financial incentives to developers who wish to develop office and other commercial premises out of the overcrowded areas of London and the South-East and in the development districts. I am con- vinced that this kind of incentive would be a considerable attraction to development in the development districts and a considerable disincentive to development in London and the South-East.

If we on this side had a completely free hand in the kind of new Clauses that we were able to move to the Finance Bill, and if it were possible for us to move new Clauses which had the effect of imposing a tax on office development in London and the South-East, doing it that way rather than giving special allowances for office development in the development districts, I would at least consider that that should be seriously examined. Naturally, I do not commit any of my hon. Friends whose names appear to the new Clause to that view. It is, however, my own view about the matter. But we are not able to do that, and it seems to me that the kind of proposals which we are making in the new Clause are an acceptable alternative.

Last year, when the Government spokesman replied—I think that it was the present Minister of Health, who was then Economic Secretary to the Treasury—he produced an argument which was astounding even for a Treasury reply to Finance Bill debates. The argument was that it would be a bad thing to introduce discrimination. That was in 1963, in a debate on the Budget in which the Chancellor had introduced free depreciation for development districts. If that is not discrimination, I do not know what is. Only a year ago, however, the Government were arguing that the proposal which is contained in the new Clause would introduce an undesirable element of discrimination. I cannot believe that that is a serious argument and I credit the Chief Secretary to the Treasury with rather more subtlety of mind than to expect him to use a similar argument in refuting the new Clause this year. I do not believe that that is a serious argument or that the Treasury would accept it as a serious one.

The other Government argument, which is more serious, is that this kind of discrimination is not required because we already give certain advantages to industry and to other private developers wishing to develop in the development districts. In particular, we had last year's new arrangements for free depreciation and standard grants. In the first place, however, free depreciation applies exclusively to plant and machinery. Therefore, it does not affect building development, not even industrial development. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant to consideration of the new Clause. In the second place, standard grants are much more important from the point of view of industrial building than from the viewpoint of commercial and office building. That is because the standard grants which are payable under the Local Employment Act are subject to the condition that the expenditure of the money in question has to be justified in relation to the number of new jobs which are provided.

It may be that large sums of Government money have been paid out in standard grants for commercial development. I simply do not know. The Board of Trade's annual reports on the operation of the Local Employment Act make no distinction between industrial and commercial building. In any event, the standard grants, which replace the previous building grants, have operated only for the last year. If the Government use the argument that the standard grants are an incentive to commercial development in the development districts, I hope that we will get figures from the Chief Secretary tonight showing the actual sums which have been paid out by way of standard building grants for commercial as distinct from industrial development. My suspicion, which is borne out by the experience that one has about individual applications for grants under the Local Employment Act, is that that Act deals much more with industrial than with commercial buildings. That is not a good reason in itself for rejecting the new Clause.

We shall probably be told that the cost of the new Clause would be too much. We were told last year that if it were accepted as it stood the cost would be something like £24 million a year. I want just to put this point to the Chief Secretary. I do not know what figure he will quote tonight. It may well be the figure for this particular new Clause, but certainly I am myself, and I think my hon. Friends are, too, very much more concerned with getting the principle of discrimination applied here than with the actual level of discrimination. At the present time we have investment allowances, for example, of 15 per cent. for industrial buildings, and we have, I think, an initial allowance of 5 per cent. and annual allowances of 4 per cent. It may be that it would be too much to give that scale of allowances for a new Clause of this sort, but I would be very much more concerned to have the Government accept the principle of making this discrimination than to have them accept a particular scale of allowances which are payable at the present time. I hope, therefore, that the Chief Secretary will not think that the figure he will quote of cost is the one which we on this side of the Commiltee would necessarily accept, because it is the principle of the thing with which we are very much more concerned.

It does seem to me that this is a new Clause which does deserve serious consideration, and I hope the Government, even if they are not able to accept it in the terms in which it is now, will make sympathetic noises towards it, and give some indication that they may be willing to consider the principle of it. The fact is that despite everything which is being done by the Local Employment Act and by previous legislation there is still a tremendous imbalance of employment opportunity in different parts of the country. This is brought out every time the unemployment figures are published. This is particularly serious, of course, for certain sections of the employed population, particularly serious for young people leaving school.

One of the most serious aspects of this is that in Scotland, in Glasgow, in other parts of the country which are development districts, there is imbalance of employment opportunity in offices and commercial employment. The imbalance is not just an imbalance in industry. In fact, as our economy develops and productive industry becomes more modernised and demands proportionately fewer workers, office and commercial development becomes more important in terms of employment. Unless, therefore, something really radical is done to stop this drift to the South, and this continuing increase in office and commercial development in London and the South-East, the imbalance of employment opportunities and the difficulty of solving unemployment problems in Scotland and the North-East of England will continue unabated and will indeed grow worse over the years.

From that point of view, and for the other reasons I have already adduced, I hope very much that the Committee will be able to accept this new Clause.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I have the honour to represent a constituency which is in a development district but which is almost wholly commercial or residential and has, generally speaking, no industry in it at all. So I am particularly interested in this new Clause, because in my constituency we have the land, we have the space to develop for accommodating offices, and if we are to try to attract the offices of the big commercial firms and the offices of Government Departments we have got to have the improvement of the shops, the hotel accommodation, the showrooms, the storage and so on. Therefore, I believe that if capital allowances were granted for commercial development in such areas as this it would be just the right encouragement to cause the drift of employment not to the South or the South-East, as is happening now, but, in my case, to the North-West, to Mersey-side, where this type of job is badly needed.

When capital allowances were first introduced—I think it was as long ago as 1945—they were introduced as a matter of policy. It was a policy decision, as I understand it, that capital allowances were to encourage the modernisation, expansion and re-equipment of our productive and manufacturing industries. Well, a policy decision is needed now—as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said—to stop the drift to the South-East.

For what is happening, for example, in the North-West and on Merseyside? We have been tremendously successful in resuscitating industry there. Fords, Vauxhall, others who have come to that district, have increased the number of industrial jobs very successfully by taking advantage of capital allowances for industry. But this is putting employment out of balance. We cannot have industrial expansion without three things happening—first, without creating a demand for more and better office space, more and better shops, showrooms, and hotels. These naturally follow from industrial expansion. Secondly, we cannot have industrial expansion without bringing in commercial firms additional to the industrial firms.

7.45 p.m.

I do not mean just the office side of the industrial firms which come, but I mean additional commercial firms which provide employment for other members of the family. All the working members of the family cannot take industrial jobs. We have this anomaly at times, that we create more industrial jobs in an area but the percentage of unemployment there remains the same, because we are bringing in other members of the family who are not industrial workers. Thirdly, we cannot have industrial expansion without making the rebuilding of the town centres even more urgent than it is without the introduction of industry into the area. Therefore, commercial development is necessary in the development districts to stop the drift out of those districts as well as to provide for the drift into those districts brought about by industrial expansion there.

Whether an allowance for commercial property at all is justified I would have thought is beyond question, whether it is in development districts or elsewhere. The Committee on the Taxation of Trading Profits recommended it in 1951; the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income recommended it in 1955; and surely, had those Committees been sitting and recommending now, their recommendations would have been even stronger.

Both offices and shops are faced at the present time with the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. When they try to carry out the terms of that Act, I think that in the majority of cases in the older towns they will be able to do so only by rebuilding office premises and shop premises. The old ones cannot be patched up and yet there is, of course, a very great temptation to patch up the old buildings, the old offices, the old shops, with our tax laws as they are at present. The tax laws encourage patching up rather than rebuilding, particularly so in the development districts.

Modern offices need more and more space for the men and machines which are being introduced into the offices. It is not true to say that by introducing automation and machines into office work we need less space. Indeed, we need more space for introducing the machinery into the offices, and we are usually creating more jobs, eventually, by doing so. It is quite right that it should be so. The modern office needs more space and modern shops need more display and storage room for the variety of articles they sell. Again, under the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act there will be need for considerable rebuilding to make premises of the fireproof standard that the law now requires.

The result of patching instead of rebuilding is a loss in taxation, I suggest, because when one is spending money in patching one can put a lot of that expenditure down to repairs and so avoid tax on that part at any rate. Furthermore, an old building will still be expensive to maintain in future if one is merely patching it, and one can set that maintenance against taxable income. Thus there is loss of taxation in the encouragement of patching rather than rebuilding. Incidentally, it is also a loss to local authorities because they do not get the increased rateable values of new buildings. Everything points, therefore, to encouraging new commercial building in development districts.

In constituencies like mine, we get no benefit out of being in a development district because we get none of the allowances granted to industry. Yet obviously it must be a right policy to increase employment in that part of the district where office development is the right thing and not to make those who can take office employment travel many miles to other parts of the district in order to find jobs.

The hon. Member for Craigton referred to the cost in loss of tax revenue. We must first take into account the loss of revenue in patching instead of rebuilding, but, apart from that, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who was Financial Secretary at the time, said last year, in dealing with capital allowances for commercial property over the whole country, that the loss of revenue would rise to no less than £172 million a year. That seemed to me to be a rather shocking figure until I discovered later that it referred to the figure which would be reached in 25 years. However, that point was not revealed in the course of the debate then, when we were led to believe that we were asking for a loss of revenue totalling £172 million a year.

It is not right to take this 25 years ahead. Many things may happen before then and it is my contention anyway that to grant capital allowances in this way would increase production and, therefore, indirectly increase revenue. The figure for the first year for capital allowances for commercial development all over the country and not just in development districts would only be about £20 million I am not sure where the hon. Member for Craigton got his figure of £24 million. Perhaps that is the figure for 25 years hence.

I do not know the figure for development districts alone. I should have to guess at a proportion of the £20 million. It might be a quarter of the commercial development of the country or even a half—£5 million or £10 million in the first year. It is a very small amount that we are talking about, but it is an important amount.

I do not think that we can set this against other kinds of priorities. In last year's debate we were told that we must think of priorities. It is wrong, when talking of a loss of revenue of this sort through such a relief, to set it against possible reliefs to widows and disabled persons and others. They are very deserving, but when considering priorities they are a wrong comparison with a relief of a commercial kind—what I would call a productive rather than a social relief. After all, such a relief to commercial enterprise would increase the gross national product and thus increase the revenue.

For these reasons I am sure that it is right to encourage the creation of employment in development districts. Great progress has been made with industrial jobs in these places, but now we want to get the balance right and attract commercial jobs there as well

Mr. A. E. Oram (East Ham, South)

My principal reason for hoping that the Committee will accept the Clause is the same as that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I believe it to be an essential additional weapon in the fight to encourage employment possibilities in development districts. Certain welcome steps were taken in last year's Budget. I believe this proposal to be in the same character and that it should be added to the instruments created then.

The Clause would also represent an important breach in a wall of prejudice which I believe exists, certainly in the Treasury and several quarters of this House—a prejudice against distributive and commercial operations in comparison with manufacturing or productive operations judged from the point of view of public or social usefulness. At the moment, we enjoy capital allowances worked in such a way as to perpetuate the myth that factories are good, necessary and productive but that the distributive process is wasteful, unproductive and, at best, a rather necessary evil.

My hon. Friend hoped that the Chief Secretary would not deploy exactly the same arguments as employed by the then Financial Secretary last year. My hon. Friend said that he relied on the greater subtlety of the Chief Secretary's mind. I admire subtlety, but I am less confident than my hon. Friend that we shall not have the same arguments trotted out again by the Government.

One of the main arguments used last year was that it would be wrong to differentiate so sharply, as it were, between commercial undertakings in development districts and others outside them. Like my hon. Friend, I do not believe that to be an argument that can be sustained. If there is anything in that case, then it is just as wrong and illogical to attempt to differentiate between commercial buildings and industrial buildings in development districts.

I believe it to be an economic myth that manpower and resources used in distributing goods are less usefully employed than manpower and resources used in a factory, yet under our present taxation advantages are given to industrial buildings as against commercial and distributive buildings.

Let us take a pair of shoes as an example. That pair of shoes is of no use to a consumer all the time that it remains behind the factory door. A pair of shoes is of use only when in the customer's home. I can see no reason for giving a tax advantage to the owner of a factory who wants to modernise his factory and withholding that tax advantage from a shopkeeper who wants to modernise the shop in which the shoes are sold.

8.0 p.m.

At the moment, the tax perpetuates a fallacy which, as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Crosby, dates back to the 1945 situation, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Anderson, said: It is productive or creative industry that provides in the main industrial employment and is the foundation of our national prosperity. It is the production of things and the export of things rather than the distribution at home of things that matter most in this connection."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 259.] I believe that that was a fallacy then and that it is a fallacy now and that the tax advantage which was based on that argument in 1945 was wrong then and is wrong now.

The most which can be argued in favour of it is that mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby—that of priorities. In 1945, it was possible to argue that the first priority was the rehabilitation of factories rather than shops and that the tax advantage should therefore be given to factories as against shops But, nearly 20 years later, that argument no longer holds good. We should take this opportunity of removing this disadvantage from which commercial premises suffer. What cannot be argued is that there is some logical distinction between commercial and industrial premises, as is the present position which continues to be maintained by the Government.

I therefore support the new Clause, not as going all the way which I would wish, but as an important step in the right direction. No doubt we shall be hearing about the enormous cost of giving this concession over the whole range of commercial buildings and the danger if this move is extended. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Crosby say that it was possible that we had been misled about the extent to which there would be financial difficulties, and I shall be interested to hear the Treasury's reply. The Government would be well advised to accept the new Clause as at least a step in the right direction.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I, too, welcome the new Clause and I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) that this is a matter to which the Government should give particular attention. As a representative from an area of particularly high unemployment in Northern Ireland, I am sure that if my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary were to reconsider this matter, that would give great encouragement to the expansion of shops and offices in Northern Ireland, which would help to meet our unemployment problem.

It is undoubtedly true that, as the prosperity of a country increases, there is a tendency to move more and more from secondary employment into tertiary employment, just as a hundred years ago people moved from primary production on the land, producing raw materials and food, into secondary employment. This is the mark of a civilised society and it is being accelerated by the growing use of automation and automatic methods of production in factories. With this trend, if we are to maintain high employment in the United Kingdom and to meet the special problems of areas such as the North-East, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we must encourage an even more rapid development of offices, whether they are used as shops, banks or insurance houses, or for any other purpose, including hotels. The people employed in these buildings make up an ever-growing proportion of the country's working population.

Because of the anomalies of the present Income Tax Acts, which distinguish between shops and offices and factories, we have a situation in which the anomaly is most noticed when a factory has office premises attached to it. If a factory is rebuilt, or if a new factory is built, and some of the buildings are used partly for production and partly for offices, there then arises the problem about what investment allowances or Income Tax allowances can be given on the office or any portion of the premises. I know from complaints from my constituents that this can give rise to difficult tax problems. If the Clause were accepted, at least that anomaly could be overcome.

The other commercial premises I have mentioned, insurance offices and the banks, all contribute to the wealth and prosperity of the country, providing services for the people not only of this country but abroad, services which add to our exports. We call them "invisible exports", but they nevertheless help our balance of trade.

I therefore support the idea behind the Clause. It would help us in Northern Ireland., and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a basic change of Government policy along these lines, a change involving the use of Income Tax to encourage employment in development districts in a more positive way than it has been used before.

Two or three years ago, when the regulators were being debated, I introduced an Amendment to exclude Northern Ireland. I hoped in this way to use the tax system to encourage the creation of employment in areas affected by high unemployment. Here we have another way in which our Income Tax laws can be used deliberately and positively to help such areas. For a short period, less tax would be gathered from these areas, but one would hope that the policy being successful would rapidly lead to full employment in the areas, so that the need for the differentiation would disappear. The gross national product would increase, the taxable income of the areas would also increase and the country as a whole would benefit from the Government's foresight.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider this idea between now and Report. The wording of the Clause would not be acceptable to me because it does not make a particular mention of Northern Ireland, but if the Government accepted the idea, it could be redrafted. I do not necessarily want my hon. Friend to give a reply tonight, but I should like him to consider these matters with a view to dealing with them at some later stage.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

Any effort aimed at attracting employment to the development areas is worth supporting, and this new Clause has that as one of its objects. The Minister's indication that the Government are prepared to associate themselves with the principle of the new Clause would be welcomed on both sides of the Committee. If he considers the problem in the development areas, the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the very deep moving reasons why hon. Members from these parts of the United Kingdom support new Clauses of this nature.

I represent a Scottish constituency which always has a hard core of unemployment. In reply to a Question recently, the Minister of Labour said that 5.2 per cent. of the insurable population of my constituency were unemployed. Nearly 10,000 people in Lanarkshire are unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate why I would support a new Clause offering financial inducements to commerce and the establishment of offices and administrative premises.

We are very happy at the moment to have the electronics, heavy steel and other industries coming into the area, but we need a similar development of commercial enterprises. The obvious aim of all wise economic planning is to attempt to have balanced enterprise, balanced Industries and balanced employment opportunities. In this respect we are rather sadly wanting, because, apart from the restrictive services for the needs of ordinary shopping, there is no spectacular provision of this type of enterprise in my part or many other parts of Lanarkshire.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) in this matter. We have in Scotland school leavers who are interested in commercialised development, in office studies, in accountancy, in the development and control of stocks and finances and in the wider field of administration, but there is very little opportunity for them to employ those talents because of the lack of this type of employment development in our localities. If this new Clause can help to obviate this, then in my view it is well worth while supporting it.

It is always remarkable to me that when we study the ordinary day-to-day commodities supplied by retail shops in provincial towns we find that if one wishes to place orders with a company one has to do so by writing to its headquarters in the Midlands, London or the South of England. I know of one par- ticular commodity for which there is one of the largest sales in the shops, yet one has to write to the headquarters in the Midlands to discuss the purchase of this commodity, the price, the sale of it and the conditions under which it may be displayed.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir John Arbuthnot)

Will the hon. Gentleman relate what he is saying to the new Clause which deals with Income Tax allowance on commercial buildings?

Mr. Dempsey

That is just what I am doing. We sell these goods and commodities in my part of the country, but in order to deal with this type of problem we are required to make representations to someone in the Midlands or the South of England. The purpose of this new Clause is to give that type of proprietor a financial inducement to establish his administrative headquarters in places like North Lanarkshire which is a development area. If we can attract commercial developments of this nature, then we certainly can provide a much wider scope of employment and opportunity for our people.

This may seem unimportant to the Minister or the Government, but just a year ago we received the shocking news that in North Lanarkshire at this particular time, which is the school leaving period in Scotland, there were 33 school leavers for every job. That is a disgraceful state of affairs when we know that in the Midlands there are five jobs for every school leaver. This position could be very well reversed were these opportunities, which are provided for commercial undertakings in the Midlands, transferred to places like North Lanarkshire and other development areas within Scotland. I am making a plea not only for my constituency but for Scotland in general.

For years we have been agitating against the deep-rooted tradition, almost a symbolism of suspicion, about establishing commercial enterprises in Scotland. I feel that the movement of the Post Office, for example, has helped to break down this prejudice against central administration providing commercial buildings and employment in Scotland for the administration of enterprises throughout the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I am supporting this new Clause, because I believe if we can succeed in doing that we shall help to redress the serious unemployment problem which exists in those parts of the country.

8.15 p.m.

I speak as an ex-shop assistant. On many occasions when I want to deal with a single patented article I find that the commercial headquarters are in the Midlands. It seems to me that there is no reason why all these buildings should be concentrated in the Midlands or in London. They do not have an exclusive monopoly, for example, of efficiency in administration. We can quite easily say that in Scotland we have the material, the brains, the tradition, the skill and the organisation to play our part in the commercial enterprise development of the nation. All we ask is to be given the opportunity. That opportunity could be provided if there was a more equitable distribution of the commercial empires which are established in the South and if not only Scotland but the other development areas in the country were given their share.

There is no need for me to say that I represent a constituency which would welcome such commercial buildings coming into its midst. We should be very happy to see that because it would certainly help to reduce the present unemployment figures in my constituency. If there is one effective way of inducing commercial buildings or commercial enterprise to come to development areas like mine and other parts of Scotland, it is by financial inducement, and that is the intent of this new Clause.

We have read, for example, that industry has been induced to provide employment in the development areas. But the distributive trades provide employment. Office provision provides employment. It provides employment for clerks, costing clerks and sales control staff. It can provide an abundance of opportunities for jobs in the development areas. That is why a financial inducement of this nature could, in my view, help to achieve that balanced type of employment for which we strive. What I do not understand is the argument of the Chancellor that this form of tax allowance would mean a deficit and that we should require to find some alternative source of revenue to meet it.

If by spending this money we can induce people to build new offices in our area, to bring in large retail administrative enterprises and to put up large fashion shops with magnificent showrooms and arcades as embellishments, we shall put to work thousands of people who at the moment are unemployed. They would thus be in a position to pay Income Tax, instead of having to rely on the State for benefits and other forms of subsistence, and there would not be the severe loss of revenue to which reference has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

Many sites are available in my constituency, and nothing would be finer than to see office accommodation rising on them. Such buildings would not only grace the town, but would give it an additional civic pride. Further, they would help the local rating authority, which at the moment is overburdened, by providing more revenue by way of rates. It is because the provision of such facilities would enable us to look forward to more jobs, to more money from the rates, to greater civic development and to a diminution of unemployment that I ask the Minister to accept the principle of the new Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I wish to make one or two points in this debate which began with the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) who covered the ground very well indeed. All that we can hope to do is to supplement what he said.

I start from the fact that I believe in discrimination if we are to distribute employment throughout the country in the way in which we feel it should be distributed. The Government have gone some way towards accepting that principle. It has taken a long time to persuade them to accept the principle wholeheartedly. In the last year or two they have done so in relation to industry, but not with regard to other forms of employment.

As has been said, these other forms of employment are becoming increasingly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) pointed out that we need office employment in Scotland. I have been interested in this subject for some time, and on one occasion I introduced a Private Member's Bill dealing with the matter. We need much more than we are getting. We need to provide varying kinds of employment, not only because of the present unemployment situation, but because we are losing office employment.

Offhand I can think of two firms in Scotland which have been taken over. One firm employed quite a large staff, the other a slightly smaller number, and all those people transferred to the South. That is what happens every time a business in Scotland is taken over, or there is an amalgamation. The worst feature of the present situation is that the best jobs are always moved south, with the result that the opportunities available in the area for ambitious people are reduced, and they in turn have to move south to look for the better jobs. We need a far greater proportion of the increased office employment than we are getting at the moment, and anything that will help to provide that has my support.

I think that we ought to provide new shops in development districts. One of the curses of development districts is that the shops are situated in older properties. There is nothing wrong with the shops themselves, but they simply do not attract people. We hear a lot of talk about the amenities of industrial districts, about the attractions of those districts, and about the fact that wives do not like to go to certain areas. One reason for that is that many of these service amenities need refurbishing. We need new shops, and better display rooms in these areas. We need to make them attractive to industrialists. Part of the difficulty of attracting industry to these areas is that they are not always attractive to people who have not lived there all their lives. We ought to do all that we can to make these areas attractive, and I think that the new Clause would help us to do that.

Nobody has referred to the part played by hotels in the development districts. No matter what we do, the tourist industry will probably be the most important industry in at least half the area of Scotland, and hotels are essential amenities for such an industry. We need modern hotels in these areas. I do not think that a new hotel has been built in Edinburgh for many years, and that is true of many parts of Scotland. The hotels there are old and have many of the inconveniences which one associates with hotels built at the end of the Victorian era. Many hoteliers in Edinburgh have tried to modernise their hotels, and have done so successfully, but this is an expensive and difficult business in the Highlands. If we want to develop the tourist industry in Scotland, we must provide not only hotels, but a vast number of other amenities; in many cases amenities of a commercial nature. There is a report in the Scottish Press today of what one person intends to do. It gives an indication of the kind of things that ought to be done, and the Clause would help in that direction.

Reference has been made to cost, I do not intend to discuss this at any length, but it seems to me that the essential point is that the cost element must be weighed against the number of additional jobs that are likely to be provided, and also against the social purposes that it achieves. At one time, under the Local Employment Act, it cost £1,000 to provide one new job. I think that it now costs about £500 per new job. If that is what we are prepared to pay for jobs in industry, surely we ought to be prepared to pay for jobs in other forms of employment. The cost, whether it be a few millions as suggested by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), or the figure suggested by one of my hon. Friends, has to be measured against the number of job opportunities that it creates, against the social purposes that it serves, and also against the side effects of making areas more attractive for the industrialists whom we wish to bring to those areas.

There has been a lot of discussion about the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow. The lack of amenities has been mentioned as one of the reasons for not making this move. But this is not true of Glasgow. There are some industrial areas of which it may be true, however, and we must try to get over the difficulties there.

I hope that I have not taken too long. I have tried to confine my remarks to points which have not been made, and which I think are of importance. The Clause is very important for development districts, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, because we need to provide this kind of employment and development there if we are to be successful in properly distributing industry and employment.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Bence

I want to make a point which has not so far been made, except as an aside, by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and one of his hon. Friends, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey). The point concerns commercial premises as related to industrial properties. In the older parts of the country it is upsetting to come across excellent industrial plant which is not serviced by adequate commercial premises. There are many such areas in Scotland, the North-East and Northern Ireland. One can go to excellent manufacturing units in these areas, but if one wants to see really efficient display and handling by technically efficient sales forces one has to go to London.

I know of a big plant in the Midlands around which potential buyers have been shown, but its best display centre is in London. That is quite wrong. When we try to induce manufacturers to go to development districts we ought also to provide some inducement for adequate commercial and display centres to go with them, together with a technically efficient sales force, so that the potential buyer can get all his information and make his contacts there, rather than having to go to London.

Anyone who visits Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen is struck by the excellent commercial properties which have been built in the last century. I defy anyone to deny that Glasgow and Edinburgh, in particular, can boast of shopping and display premises, dealing with every kind of manufactured article, equal to anything in London, with the exception of some of the bigger stores in Regent Street. But most of those properties were built in the last century. Owing to the high cost of capital construction and the heavy unemployment in these areas it is very doubtful whether, in the creation of new amenities and properties, the fine architecture of the last century will be repeated, unless we provide the same inducement for commercial as for industrial properties.

Some of the new factories which have been built in these areas are magnificent buildings. That is because we have provided inducements for their building. But it is also important to have good commercial premises, especially hotels. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee accept the need for discrimination. We should extend that discrimination in this direction, so that more commercial properties are provided in our development districts, to which buyers from all over the world can come and examine the various products in the sort of environment that one would expect in this modern age.

Time and time again we receive complaints about the insularity of the British. We produce goods excellently, but we are rotten salesmen. Time and again we have been told that we cannot compete with the Germans and with other nations in displaying and selling our products. In these development districts we have a chance to increase the number of premises and showrooms attached to our modern industrial plant, thereby encouraging manufacturers to display their products better and to sell them more efficiently, and so enabling us to compete with the rest of the world.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

In the course of the debate there has been general agreement about the value of diversification of employment in the development areas. I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said in that context about the dispersal of the work of Government Departments from Central London. I join issue with him, however, when he suggests that this is a new development in our policy.

It is true that last year we took an additional initiative, in the appointment of Sir Gilbert Fleming to undertake a review of the whole work of the Central Government machine and to advise us on what could usefully and without loss of efficiency be moved from London, but our action in doing so followed a whole series of measures to this effect, and I would not like to leave the Committee under the impression that the initiative, with which I was concerned last year, was a completely new aspect of Government policy. It amounted to an intensification of it, as I think the hon. Member would agree, and should not be allowed to reflect upon the action already taken in the last eight or ten years in that direction.

I want to pick up the remarks made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). He reiterated three or four times the argument that the best jobs go south. I do not know whether or not that is true. What is true is that many Scotsmen come south and take the best jobs in England.

Mr. Williis

That is the only way they can get the jobs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am sure that the Committee will agree that that is a great advantage to this country. We need not look further than this House to find extremely good examples of that fact.

The new Clause would mean a radical change in the present pattern of capital allowances. The proposal contained in the Clause, which was clearly explained by the hon. Member for Craigton, is to apply to commercial buildings in development areas the allowances which at present apply to industrial buildings throughout the country. At present there is no discrimination between development areas and the rest of the country in respect of buildings; the discrimination which my right hon. Friend introduced last year in respect of free depreciation relates to plant and machinery situated in development areas.

To extend this to buildings would have a curious effect on the pattern of the allowances. The Clause would leave the position in respect of industrial buildings exactly as it is now, with the same allowances being made inside and outside development areas: but, in respect of commercial buildings, whereas there would continue to be no allowances of this kind outside development areas, they would be introduced in development areas. We should get a situation which was the same inside and out for industrial buildings, but there would be very striking discrimination in respect of commercial buildings because there would be allowances inside and no allowances at all outside.

The fact that it would distort the system is not, obviously, a conclusive reason why the Committee should reject the proposal, but I think it is a reason why we should seek to test it very sharply and clearly. The proposal goes a very long way. I thought that I read into the speech of the hon. Member for Craigton some doubt whether it did not go too far. It would apply not only to annual allowances, which over the years have been urged in respect of commercial buildings, but also to initial and investment allowances. In the first year it would come to an allowance of 24 per cent. There has been some discussion about the cost. In the first year, for reasons which I think are obvious to the Committee, the cost would be negligible, but over a period of four or five years—here I reply to the question put by one hon. Member as to the time the cost would take to develop—from the negligible figure of the first year it would rise to the substantial figure of £37 million a year. That is so substantial a figure that I think we should look somewhat critically into the question whether it would be likely to achieve the result about which I think one or two hon. Members were somewhat over-optimistic.

Mr. McMaster

I feel that my right hon. Friend is dwelling a little too much on technicalities. Surely we could have commercial buildings throughout the country treated in the same way as industrial buildings. The free depreciation measures introduced last year could apply to development districts in respect of commercial buildings. That would be quite easy, and would meet the last point raised. It would also achieve the purposes of this proposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It might be quite easy, but it is not the proposal before the Committee, and I must tell my hon. Friend that obviously it would be enormously more expensive than the proposal which is before the Committee.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that I am dwelling on technicalities, except from the point of view that any change in the system of Income Tax allowances involves technicalities. It might be said that the whole system is one of technicalities, and the Committee cannot judge the merits of a proposal of this kind without having in mind the effect of what my hon. Friend calls the technicalities of such a change.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me discourteous if at this stage I do not—I might be doubtfully in order if I did—proceed to deal with the proposition which he put but confine myself to the proposition in the new Clause. I would say to my hon. Friend that his own proposal struck me—though I hesitate to make a calculation off the cuff—as one which would cost very large sums indeed. For that reason alone it is one about which I would hesitate to make even what one hon. Member called "sympathetic noises".

The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) said that there was a kind of prejudice against commerce and commercial processes compared with industry and industrial processes. If there is any prejudice, I certainly do not share it. I often think that in this country we do not sufficiently appreciate, for example, the vast contribution made to our well-being and balance of payments by the operations conducted in offices in the City of London, so that the hon. Member does not need to convert me. On the other hand, when we come to the issue of Income Tax allowances, it is quite plain that the case for applying them to commercial property is very different from the case for applying them to industrial buildings, and still more, perhaps, to industrial plant. There are differences of subject matter.

Generally speaking, commercial property has a longer life than industrial property. In many cases, far from diminishing in value over the years its value appreciates. Taking the country as a whole and looking at the issue broadly, these initial and investment allowances are, of course, a specific incentive to the provision of additional plant and factories. Looking at the country as a whole, I do not think there is the same reason to give an incentive for additional offices, to take the example of what would be the major recipient of the benefits of this new Clause—

Mr. Oram

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks, not in terms of offices but of shops, is it not the case that over the last decade we have virtually passed through a revolution in shopping? The suggestion that shops have a long life and appreciate in value does not necessarily square with the fact that radical changes have had to be made by commercial operators in shopping.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Member is perhaps giving me my other point. I do not think, looking round the country, that there is a need to provide additional incentive to stimulate the provision of shop premises. Investment in that direction has been very high in recent years, largely for the reason to which he referred, the great improvements in the methods of distribution which have been taking place.

The question arises as to whether we would achieve objects proportionate to the cost, as the proposers of this Clause suggest, by applying this system to the development areas. Frankly, I very much doubt it. The hon. Member for Craigton referred to the Location of Offices Bureau and the work it does. It is very clear that, although it is having considerable success in its first objective of securing dispersal of offices from the centre of London, it has had the experience that a great many of those offices, for practical reasons which have nothing to do with building costs, are not able to move more than perhaps 50 or 60 miles from central London. I do not think those reasons would be altered in the slightest by the introduction of this allowance or that they would be induced to go to the development areas.

The main recipients of this additional benefit would be the people who will build commercial premises in the development areas anyway. I very much doubt whether in those circumstances a change of this sort, not only with the distortion of the system of tax allowance it would involve but with the not inconsiderable expenditure to which I have referred, would be justified.

Mr. McMaster

I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for giving way twice to me, but one thing he has left out, which was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is hotels. Does he not consider that there is a need, in particular in the development areas such as those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for new hotels, and the cost of providing them is prohibitive? There is a great similarity in running hotels and running industry. There is a good case for the allowance to be extended to hotels.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If my hon. Friend is right about that—and I am by no means certain that he is—this new Clause is an enormous steam hammer to crack a nut of rather limited size. On the subject of hotels, I thought the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was rather unfair to the magnificent hotel accommodation of Edinburgh.

Mr. Willis

I raised the question of hoteliers in Edinburgh. In relation to the Edinburgh Festival and tourism generally, they have done a magnificent job. What I said was that there has not been a new hotel built in Edinburgh since the end of the war. There may be one in the next few months. Most of the good job which has been done by the hoteliers has been done in a period which had a great many inconveniences.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. Member has perhaps been very fair to the hoteliers of Edinburgh. I think they are extremely good—

Mr. Willis

So do I, and I want to help them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

—but if the hon. Member accepts that, the argument that we have to introduce a special allowance to provide adequate hotel accommodation in Edinburgh is so much the weaker.

Mr. Willis

I should have thought it was stronger.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I therefore do not think that this general Clause is the right method of dealing with this problem.

The Committee may then ask what I think is the right method of dealing with the problem, and in this respect I think that the proper and much more selective instrument is the one that has already been referred to—the standard grant from the Board of Trade. I can confirm that the Board of Trade has full authority to make this grant in respect of commercial buildings on the same criteria as to the provision of employment as in respect of industrial property. This is an instrument which can deal with the difficult individual case—it may be the sort of case that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has in mind—far more selectively and, I think, far more efficiently than a tax change over the whole range of commercial buildings in the development areas.

I understand from the Board of Trade that not only has it the power, but that it has used the power. The Department will go further, and say that when, for example, an industrial development is taking place, it takes into account in respect of grant, the amount of employment provided in the administrative and other offices associated with the industrial development.

It seems to me that from the point of view of the diversification of employment in the development areas, other methods than those we have been discussing are really more appropriate, and I must say to the Committee that I am extremely sceptical as to the amount of extra commercial building we would get by applying the provisions of this Clause to the development areas.

Mr. Millan

The Chief Secretary will remember that I asked whether he could give figures for Board of Trade standard grants to commercial premises. He has now mentioned administrative buildings associated with industrial developments, but that is rather a different thing. I was thinking of specifically commercial developments, office employment, provision of hotel accommodation, and so on. I said that I thought that any assistance, if any, that has been given in Scotland, for example, must have been very small. If the right hon. Gentleman has figures to refute that idea, perhaps he will let the Committee have them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

No, I do not have the figures. What I have just given is the information that I was given by the Board of Trade in response to an inquiry I put to that Department after hearing the hon. Gentleman's question. I was anxious to give him such information as I could, but in the time available—perhaps not unconnected with the hour of the evening—that is all the information I could obtain.

Coming back to the issue, I am extremely sceptical whether there would be any additional commercial building as a result of this proposal. What is clear is that a building that was to take place in any case, and those who were undertaking it, would benefit. That seems to me a somewhat doubtful direction in which to apply a substantial additional sum of public money. It does not seem to me to amount to sufficient grounds to alter the carefully considered arrangements in respect of Income Tax allowances that at present subsist. In those circumstances, although I am very far from differing with hon. Members opposite in their objectives, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the new Clause.

Mr. Douglas Houghton (Sowerby)

The verdict of the Committee on this new Clause will rest on an economic assessment, because we are not dealing with tax concessions in conventional form. If I may comment at once on the Chief Secretary's estimate of cost, I would say to him that the cost to the Exchequer in taxation reliefs will be strictly in ratio to the amount of development that takes place in consequence of the inducement offered.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misunderstanding there. Under this proposal, development that was to take place in any case, and not as a consequence of the inducement offered, would benefit equally with new development.

Mr. Houghton

I fully understand that, but that is the case in all investment allowances for industrial building, for plant and machinery and, indeed, in the use of the additional encouragement of free depreciation. All these things in some degree will go towards development, re-equipment and replacement which would have taken place anyhow. Therefore there is no distinction in that particular respect between this proposal and the investment allowances now in operation. I therefore can only say that in general the cost to the Exchequer would be in strict proportion to the amount of development that took place.

All that the right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head about is how much of that development would have taken place anyhow. He does not know and I do not know, but what we both know is that the cost to the Exchequer would be related to the amount of development in these areas. If a certain amount of development did not take place it would not cost the Exchequer as much as the right hon. Gentleman estimates. If it did take place one could assume that desirable results would flow in the provision of employment, the giving of a better balance to the activities of these areas, and in making their future more assured. This is the purpose of the new Clause.

This is not a fiscal Clause in a strict sense at all. Its purpose is to provide jobs not only in the short term but also in the long term. The ultimate purpose of all the steps which the Government have taken, and this would be an additional one, in regard to the development districts is to retrieve the position which lamentably has been allowed to go on for some time, with the drift and deterioration in these areas. The purpose would be to restore them to their earlier prosperity, to re-invigorate them, to introduce new industries, and to provide a firm base for their economic, social and municipal future.

Would the Clause help towards that end? If it would, it is worth while considering even though it might be regarded as costly to the Exchequer. Many things are costly to the Exchequer, but if the social or economic purpose is achieved the cost can be easily borne because the results will well repay the money which the Revenue is asked to give up.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the length of life of commercial buildings as compared with industrial buildings. I know that it has been thought in the past that commercial buildings have a longer life. Industrial buildings, and more especially industrial plant, become out of date. They do not properly accommodate new techniques and new machinery. They often have to be pulled about or pulled down and fresh factories have to be put up.

I think that commercial buildings will find themselves under similar stress in the future, because in many cases new techniques of commercial activity and new types of operations will require different kinds of accommodation. Moreover, I believe that we shall have much more replacement of obsolete buildings of all kinds. I do not think that we shall go on building offices which will last for the next 100 years. I believe that in this country, as in the United States, we shall be building, pulling down, and rebuilding after periods of decades and we shall not have, as in the past, buildings lasting far too long, outliving their usefulness and in many cases providing office slums which should have been demolished and replaced long since. I think that the contrast which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn between the length of life of industrial buildings and of commercial buildings is likely to diminish.

9.0 p.m.

The main purpose of this Clause is to get people to go to the development districts with their offices and commercial activities, and provide jobs and ancillary services for an increased population. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the location of offices organisation is finding difficulty in persuading people to go far afield. They go 25, 30 or 50 miles from London but for good reasons, so the right hon. Gentleman says, they are not induced to go further. We want to induce them to go further. We want to break down their resistance to going further. If that resistance could be broken down, many of them would find that the inconveniences of being further away from London would be much smaller than they feared.

Let us concede to the Government that they are providing striking examples of long-distance dispersal of Government staffs already. The first computer centre for the Inland Revenue will be in Scotland. Work has been shifted in bulk from London to Liverpool, Bootle, Bradford and Manchester, and other areas are receiving depots, so to speak, for work which hitherto has been done in London.

I should like to refer to the case of the London-Provincial tax office which is doing a substantial proportion of London Pay-As-You-Earn. Provision has been made for the taxpayer to telephone this office from London at the price of a London call, which gives him the con- venience of an office round the corner so far as telephone communication is concerned. He can have a consultation with his local office by the transfer of papers to the London office for this purpose. This is how the Inland Revenue can overcome difficulties which probably would cause many industrial firms to hesitate about undertaking a longdistance move of that kind. We want to encourage this sort of thing, and the Clause is designed to do it.

The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not the best way of doing it. What is the other way? The other way is for the Board of Trade to carry on with its work under the Local Employment Acts. We want to reinforce all existing inducements and provisions. The need is desperate, especially in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These inducements that we seek to provide in the new Clause would be additional to those already existing, and would provide inducements to those who may not, for various reasons, qualify for a grant from the Board of Trade. In that sense, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the new Clause.

The discrimination involved here has already been conceded in principle last year. It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that investment allowances in the development districts for commercial buildings would be higher—indeed, they would be the only places

where there were investment allowances for commercial buildings—whereas for industrial premises the investment allowances would be uniform throughout the country.

One form of discrimination is not necessarily bad because it differs from another. Many of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were being used two years ago, when we were pressing for discriminatory tax reliefs in the development districts and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was turning them down. We urged free depreciation upon the Chancellor. Two years ago he found all the reasons in the world for refusing it. We voted on it and lost on it. The following year the Chancellor introduced free depreciation. If the Government could hope for another year of life, which of course they cannot, I am sure that this or a similar Clause would make its appearance in the Finance Bill next year. As it is, the right hon. Gentleman is leaving it to us to remedy his own deficiencies, his own lack of judgment and his own lack of imagination. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will support the new Clause because it represents really what the right hon. Gentleman should be doing. We shall be looking at this matter very carefully this time next year.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 156, Noes 205.

Division No. 105.] AYES [9.5 p.m.
Ainsley, William Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Harper, Joseph
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central) Deer, George Hayman, F. H.
Bacon, Miss Alice Delargy, Hugh Herbison, Miss Margaret
Barnett, Guy Dempsey, James Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Diamond, John Hilton, A. V.
Beaney, Alan Dodds, Norman Holman, Percy
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Doig, Peter Holt, Arthur
Bence, Cyril Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley) Hooson, H. E.
Benn, Anthony Wedgwood Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Houghton, Douglas
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hoy, James H.
Benson, Sir George Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Blackburn, F. Evans, Albert Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Blyton, William Fernyhough, E. Janner, Sir Barnett
Boston, T. Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.) Finch, Harold Jeger, George
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Fletcher, Eric Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Brockway, A. Fenner Forman, J. C. Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Callaghan, James Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Carmichael, Neil Galpern, Sir Myer Kelley, Richard
Collick, Percy George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn) Kenyon, Clifford
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Ginsburg, David King, Dr. Horace
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Lawson, George
Cronin, John Gourlay, Harry Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Dalyell, Tam Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Darling, George Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Loughlin, Charles
Lubbock, Eric Owen, Will Snow, Julian
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Sorensen, R. W.
McBride, N. Pargiter, G. A. Spriggs, Leslie
MacColl, James Pavitt, Laurence Stones, William
MacDermot, Niall Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Symonds, J. B.
Mclnnes, James Pentland, Norman Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Popplewell, Ernest Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
MacKenzie, J. G. Prentice, R. E. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
McLeavy, Frank Probert, Arthur Thornton, Ernest
MacPherson, Malcolm Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Timmons, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Randall, Harry Wade, Donald
Mallalieu. J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Rankin, John Wainwright, Edwin
Manuel, Archie Redhead, E. C. Warboy, William
Mapp, Charles Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Weitzman, David
Mason, Roy Rhodes, H. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Millan, Bruce Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Whitlock, William
Milne, Edward Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilkins, W. A.
Mitchison, G. R. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Willey, Frederick
Monslow, Walter Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Moody, A. S. Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw) Ross, William Winterbottom, R. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mulley, Frederick Silkin, John
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
O'Malley, B. K. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Oram, A. E. Small, William Mr. Grey.
Oswald, Thomas Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Farr, John Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Allason, James Fisher, Nigel Kershaw, Anthony
Anderson, D. C. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kimball, Marcus
Atkins, Humphrey Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Kirk, Peter
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Barlow, Sir John Gammans, Lady Leavey, J. A.
Barter, John Gardner, Edward Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Batsford, Brian Gibson-Watt, David Lilley, F. J. P.
Berkeley, Humphry Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan Linstead, Sir Hugh
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Biffen, John Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Longoen, Gilbert
Biggs-Davison, John Glover, Sir Douglas Loveys, Walter H.
Bingham, R. M. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bishop, Sir Patrick Goodhart, Philip MacArthur, Ian
Black, Sir Cyril Goodhew, Victor McLaren, Martin
Bourne-Arton, A. Gower, Raymond Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Box, Donald Creen, Alan Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Gurden, Harold Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Braine, Bernard Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Maginnis, John E.
Brewis, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Maitland, Sir John
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter Harris, Reader (Heston) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Marshall, Sir Douglas
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Bryan, Paul Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Buck, Antony Hastings, Stephen Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Bullard, Denys Hay, John Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Burden, F. A. Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Campbell, Gordon Hendry, Forbes Mills, Stratton
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hiley, Joseph Montgomery, Fergus
Chataway, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Neave, Airey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hirst, Geoffrey Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Holland, Philip Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cole, Norman Hollingworth, John Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Cooke, Robert Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Partridge, E.
Cooper, A. E. Hopkins, Alan Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Hornby, R. P. Percival, Ian
Costain, A. P. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Coulson, Michael Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Pitman, Sir James
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pounder, Rafton
Critchley, Julian Hulbert, Sir Norman Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Curran, Charles Hutchison, Michael Clark Prior, J. M. L.
Dalkeith, Earl of Iremonger, T. L. Proudfoot, Wilfred
Dance, James Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pym, Francis
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F. James, David Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Digby, Simon Wingfield Jennings, J. C. Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Doughty, Charles Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
du Cann, Edward Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Roots, William
Duncan, Sir James Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kerby, Capt. Henry Seymour, Leslie
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Sharples, Richard Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Walker, Peter
Shaw, M. Teeling, Sir William Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Skeet, T. H. H. Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Ward, Dame Irene
Spearman, Sir Alexander Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stainton, Keith Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Whitelaw, William
Stevens, Geoffrey Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Turner, Colin Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Storey, Sir Samuel Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Studholme, Sir Henry Tweedsmuir, Lady Wise, A. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer van Straubenzee, W. R. Worsley, Marcus
Talbot, John E. Vane, W. M. F.
Tapsell, Peter Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Walder, David Mr. Hugh Rees and Mr. More.