§ Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. Higgins rose ——
§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)
On a point of order. I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Irving. In view of the fact that, prior to the vote before last, only two hon. Members rose to speak, was it normal in those circumstances to move the Closure at that stage?
§ The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving)
That matter is one for the discretion of the Chair and not for argument. I cannot answer that.
§ Mr. Higgins
I am delighted to see that the Minister of State to the Board of Trade is to reply to the debate on this Clause. One of the reasons that the Government decided to move the Closure of the last debate was that the proceedings had been unduly prolonged and a number of arguments had been put forward from this side of the Committee, without a single point of substance being raised in opposition to them from the other side. It was for that reason, because the debate was entirely one-sided, with no argument at all the other way, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee thought it necessary to probe the matter further. We could not understand why, instead of thinking about those Amendments, the right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not give way and agree that they were real and important points which could have been conceded.
We turn now to Clause 34, which is concerned with the question of free depreciation. That was part of the system of investment allowances and other arrangements whereby the former Conservative Government sought to encourage investment in the development districts.
One should state quite clearly, for the reasons which have been debated earlier, that we believe that the system was the right way of encouraging investment in those districts. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, I should spell out precisely the principle involved in free depreciation.
704 It was an arrangement whereby a firm which was investing in a development district was allowed to write off immediately against profits its depreciation allowances to the full extent which it would normally have been allowed to do in other areas over the life of the asset. That was of considerable advantage to the firm concerned, though it required a slightly complicated calculation, because it meant that, instead of the firm having an allowance to be set against its profits year after year, perhaps on a straight line or on a reducing balance basis, it was allowed to write the whole thing off against profits straight away. That meant that it had to bring to a present value what the depreciation allowances would have been worth over the life of the asset, and compare that with the actual benefit that it derived immediately from free depreciation.
A great deal of the principle involved turns upon the fact, first of all, that a firm needs to make profits in order to benefit from free depreciation. We would argue that if the firm was making profits, that was a good reason for encouraging it to invest, particularly in a development district. But, apart from one or two small points about new firms starting up in business, we do not believe that the cash grant system which the Government are now introducing is as good a way of doing it.
Bernard Shaw once said, "Primitives always pay in cash." The Chief Secretary has made great play with the fact that people are not able to appraise what the free depreciation allowance is worth and that that has deterred them from making use of it. But we do not want to encourage firms which are likely to invest in a development district if they are not even capable of carrying out the fairly simple calculation which I have just mentioned.
It is true that some firms are finding difficulty. The National Economic Development Council's Report on Investment Appraisal spelt it out in some detail. On the other hand, there is no doubt that management techniques are improving, and I should have thought that management education was the right way to do it, rather than giving out cash almost willy-nilly in all directions to firms 705 which are not even able to work out the value of a free depreciation allowance.
The Chief Secretary might note the survey of the Confederation of British Industry, where it refers to the question of whether the present system was appreciated by industry. In answer to the question whether they had yet been able to assess the implications of the new system, something like 19 per cent. of replies, with regard to plant and machinery, said that they had not been able to do so. We clearly have a terrific uphill task in improving management education in this field.
The other night, I took the evening off and went to a cinema. There I saw a movie called "Modesty Blaise". To my astonishment, half way through, the villain's henchman quotes at length from a well-known textbook on discounted cash flow methods by Merrett and Sykes. For some years, I had the pleasure of sharing an office with Professor Merrett, and I was surprised to hear the words given birth to in that office embodied in the villain's part in that movie. It is indeed the villain's part. We want to encourage people to look at the investment proposals in the right way. If they do this, then I believe that there is no difficulty in assessing the very real value of free depreciation allowances. I much regret that this Clause has been introduced which will abolish these allowances.
The opening words of the Clause are,Any district which, immediately before 17th January, 1966, was a development districtshall cease to be so. I hope that we may have an assurance that the new boundaries will be guaranteed for a period of years. The fact that boundaries have been changed introduces an element of uncertainty into businessmen's calculations which should be eliminated, and J hope that this will be done.
It is unfortunate that the Clause has been introduced because it gets away from the idea of a growth point and moves towards a wider distribution in which the benefits are diffused and less likely to result in a take-off in the economy.
706 I have some questions to put to the Minister of State. He will agree that these are complicated drafting matters and that it would be for the benefit of industry if the situation could be clarified. First, on the abolition of free depreciation what is the position of someone who has already undertaken investment in a development district but, because it was to his advantage from the tax point of view, because of the pattern of his cash flow over recent years, or because he was making insufficient profits to write off the whole free depreciation immediately, he has not yet done so and has an accumulation of free depreciation? Will this not be affected by the Clause at all and will he be able to write it off in the normal way as if the Clause had not been introduced?
Another point on which the drafting is obscure compels me to ask what is the precise position of free depreciation compared with the other investment allowances which we were discussing on the previous Clause. That Clause imposed a restriction; not only must the contract be signed by a certain date but the assets concerned must be both paid for and in operation by a further date in the autumn specified in Clause 33. Is the same situation true of free depreciation allowances? Clause 34(2) makes a reference which I understand is designed to cover the point, but it is not entirely clear and it would help industry to know whether the same situation is true. Or would it be possible under Clause 33 for an investment allowance to be denied on the ground that the assets had not been paid for and were not in operation by the due date? Or will free depreciation still be claimable?
Another technical point arises under Clause 34(3) which refers back to Clause 33(3). Clause 33(3) could include the old grants in the United Kingdom under the Local Employment Acts, and also the old Northern Ireland grants. As the Clause stands it appears that investment allowances and initial allowances could be withdrawn completely on expenditure which was incurred in the past if it attracted a grant. Equally, initial allowances could be withdrawn on industrial buildings in development areas which still get grants under the Local Employment Acts. This appears to be contrary to the information given in the 707 White Paper, and I assume that the key to the point is in line 25, which gives the Treasury power to make orders by Statutory Instrument, and presumably the Treasury intends to use its power in such a way as to bring the proposals into line with the White Paper. If I understand it correctly, this seems an odd way of doing it. Surely it would be better to write it into the Finance Bill.
I turn from these technical points, which I do not doubt are confusing industry—this is perhaps one reason why industry has not assessed the effect of the new arrangements—to a slightly more general point which is concerned with the delay in bringing in the new arrangement as against the present arrangement which is already in operation.
There has been some debate in the House as to which system industry prefers. For all the reasons previously given, I do not believe that industry will prefer the new method, unless it is incapable of working out the real advantages which accrued under the old method. The C.B.I. survey is significant because it shows a certain percentage of firms—not a very large one—which actually revised investment proposals downwards as a result of the change in the system. Although not a large percentage, it is none the less significant. I suspect that these are firms which worked out the advantages of the old system in advance.
I asked the Minister of State if he can give us a little information on the actual regional pattern of investment. I have mentioned today the fact that the Board of Trade has issued a statement on industry's investment intentions. It seemed pretty pessimistic. It is extraordinary that the announcement of that survey made no mention of what has happened to the regional pattern of investment intentions. I should therefore be glad if the Minister of State could tell us whether the survey covered a regional analysis, an analysis of what firms intended to do with regard to investments in development districts and development areas, if not why it did not, and if it did what were the results. These were not included in the Press announcement.
The main grounds on which we opposed the Clause are on the division of opinion 708 between the two sides of the Committee as to which of the two systems is the better. We also have to look at this matter in the context of general regional policy. We need to emphasise that it might well be true that we should keep some arrangement for free depreciation to offset the unfortunate regional effect of the Selective Employment Tax. That tax, which we are constantly told is infinitely variable and that there is no difficulty in adjusting it, could be used as a deliberate attempt to further regional policy, but quite the contrary appears to be the case. More accurately, the impact appears to be quite random, and on balance this is undesirable.
I refer to page 10 of the current review where the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on the regions is worked out. A plus sign in these tables indicates that the impact is favourable to a region, or conversely a minus. The area which is most favoured is the West Midlands, an area of greatest overheating in the economy. If one were working out a regional policy this is where one would try to deter economic activity, to quieten things down and to take the heat out, because here mainly inflation could be generated. In the North of England the plus is very small indeed, less than 1 per cent., compared with +14.7 per cent. in the West Midlands. In Wales it is a little above ½ per cent. Therefore, the balance appears to be completely wrong. In Scotland it is even worse, a minus of 2.2 per cent. The effect of the tax will be to create a counter-regional policy.
What we need is greater incentive to economic activity in these regions which will offset the unfortunate effects of the Selective Employment Tax in the form in which the Government have introduced it. We must therefore look at the position rather differently from the way in which we looked at it when the debate took place on the new arrangements for fostering development in the development districts. If that was the situation then, the Government have taken action which will be adverse to their regional policy.
What else can we do to stimulate investment in these areas? Given the fact that regional balance is crucial to the question of whether we can maintain a steady growth rate and high employment and stabilise the cost of living, I should 709 have thought there was a case for continuing free depreciation allowances for those firms which preferred it to the system of cash grants which the Government are introducing.
On both grounds—first, because we disapprove of the change of system, and, secondly, because we think that we should have a stronger regional policy—I oppose the Clause, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby against it.
§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling)
It would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were now to try to answer the points put forward by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
I would agree, as everybody must agree, that free depreciation has been extraordinarily helpful to the development district policy. The hon. Gentleman said that the system of free depreciation is better than the cash grants which we are suggesting, even for firms starting up which would not make profits for perhaps some time. This is a difference of opinion which can in the end be decided only by arithmetic.
§ Mr. Higgins
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misinterpret what I said. I conceded that there might be some case for making special arrangements for new firms which had not made profits.
§ Mr. Darling
I do not want to make too much of the point. That is one of the factors which we could have dealt with even if the free depreciation system had been continued. But it is a matter of arithmetic to decide which system is the better.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are carrying out exercises on hypothetical cases—some of them perhaps real cases—to decide whether the free depreciation system or the cash grant system is more beneficial to firms. At the moment we are winning, but I would not put any great stress on that because we have not covered every conceivable case.
The hon. Gentleman suggested—and I agree—that we must do a great deal more to improve management education so that every firm knows what its situation is and 710 the best thing to do as far as practicable, even by using education films. This is outside the scope of the Clause. The hon. Member suggested that we should give a guarantee that development district boundaries should stand for three years, whatever may be in the regulations after the Industrial Development Bill is on the Statute Book. This is a matter which we shall discuss, either this week or certainly early next week, in the Committee on the Industrial Development Bill, when. I assure the hon. Gentleman, the views which he has expressed will be put forward with great vigour by his hon. Friends.
On the question of the regional pattern of investment, when I saw the Press notice about investment—I must confess that this is all that I have seen; the hon. Gentleman will understand that we have been rather busy on the Industrial Development Bill and other matters—I thought that it would be a good idea if the statistics which are available could be broken down to give a pattern of regional investment. If we can get those figures, I will ensure that they are passed on to the hon. Gentleman. I certainly do not have them with me.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should agree to free depreciation in development districts to offset the incidence of the Selective Employment Tax. This is a very interesting point, and I undertake to pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
To come to the real issue of how the Clause will work, what its purpose is, and why it has been framed in this way, I say at once that the arrangements under Clause 34 are quite different from those under Clause 33. The reason why there is a reference in subsection (1) to the idea that on 17th January development districts, so to speak, disappear for free depreciation is this. When free depreciation in development districts was introduced in 1963, to provide inducements to firms to go to those districts, very generous transitional provisions were laid down in the 1963 Act. The transitional arrangements were made because there was power in the Board of Trade—I hate to use this word but I want to deal with the matter briefly, and I hope that it will be accepted—to de-schedule development 711 districts. Obviously, if a district was to be de-scheduled, firms going ahead with expansion plans would be caught out under the free depreciation arrangements unless something was done to cover the transitional period on a development district ceasing to be a development district.
What happened under the 1963 Act— this was laid down very clearly—was that an industrialist would continue to have free depreciation on machinery which he had already installed, on machinery which he had contracted for while the place was a development district, and even on machinery which he had not ordered if that machinery was clearly necessary to complete a project which he had started while the place was a development district. In view of the statutory assurances in the 1963 Act, we have carried this provision over. This is the purpose of Clause 34. The effect will be that, development districts having for this purpose only been deemed to have ceased on 17th January, the same situation in regard to free depreciation on projects in the development districts will stand.
In the instances I have given, the firms concerned will still get their free depreciation, but, of course, in certain circumstances, where their projects come along after 17th January, they will be entitled to the new investment grant. Therefore, Clause 34(3)—this is the purpose of the subsection—provides that, if they have a 40 per cent. investment grant, they will lose their entitlement to free depreciation. Obviously, they ought not to have both. The reference to Northern Ireland is to ensure that, if they are operating in Northern Ireland, firms can have the equivalent grant there, grants in that case coming from the Northern Ireland Government.
§ Mr. Higgins
Then will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, supposing a firm had decided to invest in a development district before 17th January, 1966, but the asset in which it was investing had either not been bought or had not been brought into use by 16th October, 1966, the firm, if it opted to operate under the old system, would be denied the allowances under Clause 33 but would continue to have free depreciation under Clause 712 34? If this is so, it reinforces our argument in the first debate today beyond any doubt whatever.
§ Mr. Darling
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last observation, but it is true that, because we are carrying over the provisions of the 1963 Act to suit the circumstances here, firms which were developing in a development district before 17th January would still be entitled to free depreciation but not to the investment grant also.
The hon. Member for Worthing also asked whether the regulations provided for what he had spelt out. That is so. I confirm another point that the hon. Member raised, that the areas to which the free depreciation would apply would be the areas that were operative as development districts under the Local Employment Act, 1960.
I think I have answered all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I repeat that it is a matter of opinion whether the free depreciation or the investment grant system will be better for the firms which want to go into development districts. We shall continue to look at the examples to see whether arithmetic proves we are right or the hon. Member is right.
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I sat through the previous debate, when I had hoped to raise some points about the impact of the withdrawal of investment allowances, in particular in Scotland, but I was, unfortunately, unable to make them. At least at that time we were under a restraint from the Chair to keep our speeches short, and we are not under a restraint any longer. So I apologise to the Minister of State if I keep him a little longer——
§ The Deputy Chairman
That was an obligation on all hon. Gentlemen to keep their speeches as short as possible on all occasions.
§ Mr, Bruce-Gardyne
I accept that, of course, Mr. Irving.
At any rate, I think it is important that when we are discussing this Clause dealing with the withdrawal of free depreciation we should have regard to the impact on Scotland in particular. I believe—I am sure that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland 713 agree—that the system of free depreciation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in 1963 was the biggest and most effective single incentive to industrial development in Scotland and, what is more, the one single incentive most responsible for the prosperity that Scotland has enjoyed over the past two or three years. This is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their wisdom, are proposing to take away.
During our previous debate the Chief Secretary made an interesting comment which I think is worth referring to. He said that complaints had arisen because of the concentration of investment incentives in certain areas. I assure the Minister of State that the complaints in Scotland, at any rate, are positively the other way round. It is not the concentration that is causing anxiety; on the contrary, it is the diffusion of the new investment incentives over a far wider area.
My constituency, except for a very small area, was not able to attract free depreciation, but it is now included in a development area and, therefore, able to attract the new system of investment grants, and it may be that manufacturing industry in my constituency may be marginally better off. But what right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to realise is that very large areas of Scotland, including the whole of the Highlands, were included in the old development district and, consequently, were able to obtain the benefit of the free depreciation which is being removed by the Clause.
The Minister of State said just now that on the whole, obviously, cash grants were better for new firms than free depreciation. Put in those simple terms, the statement cannot be disputed. But, of course, we had a system of initial allowances and Board of Trade grants and loans which operated in the development districts and these were designed for the new firms and industries setting up. Then, of course, there was free depreciation in the development districts over and above this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has referred to the yardstick of profitability, and it is fundamental. We want new investment 714 in Scotland but not unprofitable investment, because that would not help in the long run any more than it would help in other parts of the country which suffer from under-utilisation of resources. It is not sufficient answer to say that a new firm will be better off with cash grants than it would be with free depreciation.
Another important aspect of free depreciation is that it is easily understandable and easily welcomed by industry. Time and again the Chief Secretary has told us that many firms did not apparently understand the system of investment allowances. But they did understand, by and large, free depreciation. That is why it was such a simple and effective inducement to industry to move into these areas. Inevitably in this debate we are much concerned with the problems of Scotland in particular and it is a little disappointing, though not untypical, that no representative of the Scottish Office is on the Government bench to listen to the debate and consider these matters.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has taken to complaining rather bitterly about the resentment that is being aroused in the Highlands in particular by the new system of investment incentives devised by the Government, coupled, of course, with the impact of the Selective Employment Tax. As the Minister of State knows, more than three-quarters of the employment in the Highlands will be liable to the S.E.T. without the rebate and, on top of this, the Highlands as a whole are to lose the right to free depreciation and are put on a par with the rest of Scotland, the North of England as far south as Scarborough, the whole of Wales and the whole of Cornwall.
The Secretary of State for Scotland seems to be becoming something like a latter-day Marie Antoinette. He goes to the Highlands and says, "Let them manufacture". Where does he think they are going to manufacture? Why should manufacturing firms set up in the Highlands, facing the consequences of the withdrawal of investment allowances on transport undertakings so that transport difficulties are greatly increased, when they can set up in Scarborough, for example, which is much closer to their markets, with precisely the same investment incentives as they can receive in the Highlands? The 715 withdrawal of free depreciation is a recipe for further depopulation of the Highlands and other parts of Scotland.
I was very relieved to hear the Minister of State say that he would pass on to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the admirable suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing that free depreciation might be allowed in development areas to offset the cost of the Selective Employment Tax. I hope that when he goes to see the Chancellor on this matter he will grab his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland by the elbow and drag him along, because the right hon. Gentleman ought to be there to put the case for Scotland. He does not seem to have made very much effort to do that when these matters have been discussed.
I hope that the Minister of State meant what he said when he said that he would put the idea to the Chancellor and I very much hope that the Chancellor will receive it in the spirit in which it was offered by my hon. Friend. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has now joined us. Most unfortunately, he has missed the cream of my speech, but I trust that he will read it in HANSARD tomorrow.
§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)
Tell me the old, old story.
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyne
It is better than that. The right hon. Gentleman has heard several old stories before, but he does not seem to have taken them in and digested the wisdom of the speeches of my hon. Friends even when he has listened to them.
I had contemplated moving an Amendment to the Clause to suggest precisely that free depreciation should be retained throughout the new development areas, but it is not easy to see how the system of free depreciation could be combined with the new system of cash grants. I trust this is a problem to which the Minister of State will find a solution and, as I have said, that he will take his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the elbow and lead him to the Chancellor and that he will persuade the Chancellor to accept his solution.
The Minister of State said that the Board of Trade was conducting an exer- 716 cise to test the relative attractiveness of free depreciation and cash grants in the development areas. I trust that if, contrary to his expectation, but in accordance with ours, he finds that the experience from this exercise suggests that it is the system of free depreciation which is more attractive, he will redouble his efforts to get that system reintroduced in the development areas.
§ Mr. Hirst
I cannot support the Clause and I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will think likewise. The arrival of the Minister of State at the Board of Trade has been very refreshing after the patronising howlers of the Chief Secretary. He treated the Committee with the sort of respect to which I, at any rate, immediately react and which is valuable in our discussions. I followed quite clearly what he had to say and what he believed.
Personally, I have always supported free depreciation in development areas. I have bothered to look it up and I have found that my first speech after my maiden speech—I think that now I would have been brave enough to make it in my maiden speech, but it was not done in those days—was a plea for free depreciation on a much wider basis. I have always believed that one should be able to throw any machinery into the hedge bottom, if one could find something more effective and efficient, without a tax loss. That has always been my philosophy since 1950, which is quite some time back, and I have mentioned it many times in our discussions over the years. I am unlikely on those grounds alone to be able to agree with the Minister of State, but the manner of his exposition and his willingness to speak to the Committee in the way which we like is something which I deeply appreciate.
We are here dealing with an important matter. The trouble of it all comes back to the investment grants. On these benches we have made it perfectly clear that we do not like them and that we think them unsatisfactory. Organised labour has done the same, and I am wondering where the Government went for their material, because I cannot find anyone, apart from the odd individual firm, who thinks it a good idea. I see nothing wrong.
I see nothing wrong in a firm proving its profitability in whatever venture it 717 undertakes, and then getting the advantages arising from such a venture. I have had quite a lot of business experience in my time and I remember particularly in the pharmaceutical business the number of ventures which were launched. We all know the ones which succeeded, such as Eno's Fruit Salts—although I remember that, when it was in a room in a street in Leeds, it had to come to us for help to get it through one day's orders.
That does not alter the fact that we all remember the successes, but we do not remember the massive failures. That is part of the competitive spirit. I am very sorry for people who work hard and fail. It is very distressing, but it is part of a competitive system. One has to prove oneself in this difficult and wicked world, and when one does one gets the rewards of that success. To hand out money right across the board, irrespective of whether the venture is going to be good or not, is against my personal philosophy. I agree with the Minister of State, who has decently said that this is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that the Government are wholly wrong. I cannot support this Clause and I sincerely hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends cannot do so either.
§ Mr. Iain Macleod (Enfield, West)
I wish to endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr.
§ Hirst). The title of this Clause is "Termination of free depreciation in development districts", and I think that the Minister of State, Board of Trade realised from the start that he was on a hopeless wicket. There is a difference of policy and philosophy. As the Member responsible for the conduct of the Opposition on this Bill I would like to thank him very much for the way in which he replied to the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ It was in marked contrast to the shabby treatment that the Committee was given on Clause 33, when we were treated with great discourtesy, in the debate and at the end of it. There is a lesson here, which I am sure will not be lost on the Chancellor, for progress throughout the rest of the Finance Bill, namely, that although we may disagree, as we do, with what we have heard from the Minister of State, yet we listened carefully to the factual argument he put before us. Because we cannot accept this Clause we intend to divide the Committee. We do so recognising that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable contribution to our debate.
§ Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 124.719
|Division No. 50.]||AYES||[10.8 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Carter-Jones, Lewis||Faulds, Andrew|
|Alldritt, Walter||Coleman, Donald||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Anderson, Donald||Concannon, J. D.||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Archer, Peter||Conlan, Bernard||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Forrester, John|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)||Crawahaw, Richard||Fowler, Gerry|
|Barnett, Joel||Cronin, John||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)|
|Baxter, William||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Freeson, Reginald|
|Beaney, Alan||Dalyell, Tarn||Gardner, A. J.|
|Bence, Cyril||Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)||Ginsburg, David|
|Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Binns, John||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)|
|Blackburn, F.||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Gregory, Arnold|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey||Grey, Charles (Durham)|
|Boardman, H.||Delargy, Hugh||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Booth, Albert||Dell, Edmund||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Dempsey, James||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.|
|Boyden, James||Dewar, Donald||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Diamond, Rt. Hn. John||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Bradley, Tom||Dickens, James||Hannan, William|
|Brooks, Edwin||Doig, Peter||Hazell, Bert|
|Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)||Donnelly, Desmond||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dunnett, Jack||Henig, Stanley|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W)||Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)||Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret|
|Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)||Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)|
|Buchan, Norman||Eadie, Alex||Hooley, Frank|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Horner, John|
|Cant, R. B.||English, Michael||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Carmichael, Neil||Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)||Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Mackie, John||Richard, Ivor|
|Howie, W.||Mackintosh, John P.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Hoy, James||Maclennan, Robert||Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)||Rose, Paul|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hunter, Adam||McNamara, J. Kevin||Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)|
|Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||MacPherson, Malcolm||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)|
|Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)||Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)||Sheldon, Robert|
|Janner, Sir Barnett||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Shore, Peter (Stepney)|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Manuel, Archie||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Jeger, George (Goole)||Mapp, Charles||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)||Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Silkin, John (Deptford)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Mason, Roy||Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'tn'pton, Test)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Molloy, William||Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Stonehouse, John|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)|
|Judd, Frank||Morris, John (Aberavon)||Tomney, Frank|
|Kelley, Richard||Neal, Harold||Urwin, T. W.|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Newens, Stan||Varley, Eric G.|
|Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)||Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)|
|Kerr, Russell (Feltham)||Oakes, Gordon||Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Ogden, Eric||Walden, Brian (All Saints)|
|Ledger, Ron||O'Malley, Brian||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)||Oram, Albert E.||Watkins, David (Consett)|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Orbach, Maurice||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)||Oswald, Thomas||Whitaker, Ben|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Page, Derek (King's Lynn)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pardoe, J.||Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)|
|Lubbock, Eric||Park, Trevor||Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Pavitt, Laurence||Winnick, David|
|McBride, Neil||Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)||Winstanley, Dr. M. P.|
|McCann, John||Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)||Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.|
|MacDermot, Niall||Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)||Woof, Robert|
|Macdonald, A. H.||Price, William (Rugby)|
|McGuire, Michael||Redhead, Edward||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)||Rees, Merlyn||Mr. George Lawson and|
|Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Mr. William Whitlock.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Heseltine, Michael||Peel, John|
|Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)||Higgins, Terence L.||Percival, Ian|
|Awdry, Daniel||Hiley, Joseph||Peyton, John|
|Baker, W. H. K.||Hill, J. E. B.||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Batsford, Brian||Hirst, Geoffrey||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Bell, Ronald||Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Pounder, Rafton|
|Biffen, John||Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Holland, Philip||Pym, Francis|
|Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel||Hornby, Richard||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Howell, David (Guildford)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hunt, John||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Bryan, Paul||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Scott, Nicholas|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Sharples, Richard|
|Buck, Antony (Colchester)||Jopling, Michael||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Smith, John|
|Clegg, Walter||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Stodart, Anthony|
|Cooke, Robert||Kitson, Timothy||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)|
|Cooper-Key, Sir Neill||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Corfield, F. V.||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Loveys, W. H.||Temple, John M.|
|Dance, James||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||McMaster, Stanley||Tilney, John|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Doughty, Charles||Maddan, Martin||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Maginnis, John E.||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John|
|Eyre, Reginald||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Farr, John||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Walker, Peter (Worcester)|
|Fortescue, Tim||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Galbraith, Hn, T. G.||Miscampbell, Norman||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Webster, David|
|Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan||Monro, Hector||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||More, Jasper||Whitelaw, William|
|Glover, Sir Douglas||Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Gower, Raymond||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Grant, Anthony||Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gresham Cooke, R.||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Younger, Hn. George|
|Grieve, Percy||Neave, Airey|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian||Mr. R. W. Elliott and|
|Hawkins, Paul||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Mr. Peter Blaker.|
|Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel||Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)|