HC Deb 27 June 1967 vol 749 cc322-37
Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 35, at the end to insert: (6) As from 12th April 1967, section 8(2) of the Finance Act 1964 shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to five groups of a reference to six groups and with the substitution for group (b) of the following groups— '(b) duties of customs or excise chargeable in respect of spirits (other than power methylated spirits), (bb) duties of customs or excise chargeable in respect of beer, wine and British wine,'. The Amendment seeks to separate home-produced spirits from wine and beer for the purposes of the regulator. It should be attractive to the Government because it would give them more flexibility in future, when they are applying the regulator, than there has been since it was brought into existence.

The Amendment is concerned with home produced spirits and whisky in particular. In Committee, on 1st June, my hon. Friends and I sought to prevent the increase in duty on whisky, resulting from the measures of 20th July of last year, from being consolidated in the Bill. We pointed out that, for the first time for many years, there had been a drop in home consumption in Scotch whisky and that this drop, quite a large one, had resulted in the Exchequer receiving a negligible amount in revenue. The drop was recorded over a period of 12 months compared with the previous 12 months. It was the surest way of measuring this change because it took account of the periods which the Government have referred to as "pre-Budget forestalling periods". If we take one period of 12 months—a financial year, in this case—and compare it with the previous 12 months we find that we cover the forestalling periods for two Budgets, so these should even out.

When periods of less than 12 months have been suggested in debates before 1st June, the Government have very often said that there have been abnormal removals of whisky from bond because of pre-Budget forestalling. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been going in for a number of mini-budgets as well as the regular Budgets, and we even heard from the Financial Secretary on 1st June the astounding suggestion that the distilling industry and the whisky trade generally had been able in June of last year to foresee the crisis and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures of 20th July, even though the Government themselves weeks beforehand appeared to have had no idea that a crisis was upon them. That is the reason for the 12-month period being a measure and, unfortunately, a significant measure of the drop in home consumption.

Replying to that debate, the Financial Secretary gave merely technical reasons for not accepting our Amendment. He did not appear deliberately to be wanting to raise the duty on spirits, but claimed that that on whisky was inextricably intertwined with other items in the regulator, and was also related to agreements with countries abroad which enjoined the Government to include the whisky duty in other increases.

The Amendment is one move in the direction of improving that position. If it were accepted, the duty on home-produced spirits would be considered in relation to the merits of the industry, of consumption, and matters connected with those spirits. This major change—the drop in consumption—is something which the Government should take into account. When, previously, each year registered an increase in home consumption, the Government clearly had no need to worry, but now that we have this drop in consumption they should take action to separate home-produced spirits from other items on which taxes are considered.

I hope that the Government will accept the modest change we suggest. I would point out to them at once that, unlike some Amendments to Finance Bills, this Amendment would not cost the Government any money—it would make a procedural change only.

The Financial Secretary also said on 1st June that difficulties arose from the E.F.T.A, and the Irish agreements. I say that the Government, while accepting this Amendment, should also investigate those difficulties. There is nothing now to stop them putting in train whatever action is necessary to ensure that before a future Budget, or other occasion when the regulator may have to be used, consideration is given to the position of the spirits trade, and the whisky industry in particular on its merits. The Government should not allow the whisky duty to be increased simply because it is tightly tied to other taxes that have to be increased.

As a result of this Bill being passed, the tax on whisky will be no less than 37s. 6d. a bottle, which is a very high proportion of the total cost of a bottle of whisky. The industry is providing an enormous part of the United Kingdom export achievement, particularly in the dollar area. In moving this Amendment I have in mind the interests not only of the producers but of the consumers.

I hope that the Government will see the advantages of accepting an Amendment that will not cost them any money and will make the situation more flexible in the future.

6.45 p.m.

Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)

Although I do not accuse the Government of driving us to methylated spirits, I would point out that there is at present an increase in the consumption of drugs, such as L.S.D. I suggest that there is possibly a direct relationship between the price which the citizen has to pay for whisky so as to reach that sort of state of mind which some citizens like to reach and the switch-over to drugs. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear that suggestion in mind when considering this very worthy Amendment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)

It is desirable to make clear that our purpose, certainly my purpose, in putting down this Amendment is not to encourage the Government to impose an additional 10 per cent. on the regulator on whisky. It is essential to say that, because one never knows what the Government may get up to by way of new proposals for increased taxation. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Government to use the regulator exclusively in a downward direction, we hope, with reference to spirits as opposed to wines, including imported wines.

If we had not had so many bitter experiences and disappointments from the Financial Secretary in past debates, we could genuinely expect him to accept this proposal because in terms of the management of the economy it makes very good sense. During the past year we have seen a substantial drop in home sales and deliveries from bond of Scotch whisky. On the other hand, we have seen a substantial increase in the value of imported wines, such as sherry. In other words, we have seen a movement of sales from a home-produced product to an imported product, and it is hard to conceive of anything less attractive to the Government in the present parlous state of the balance of payments.

At the same time, it is only fair to say that—as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) will bear me out—ff ere has also been a substantial increase in home sales of beer. It is, therefore, conceivable that the Government might feel it very desirable to use the regulator on sales of sherry, other imported wines and beer—on beer because there is no evidence of the regulator affecting its sale, and on sherry because we do not want to encourage wine imports.

The attraction of this proposal is that it would enable the Government to make a distinction between home-produced whisky and imported wines and sherries and home-produced beer. From the point of view of management of the economy and of helping the industry in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands which have suffered from so many of the proposals of the present Government, this is an eminently reasonable proposition. It need cost the Government nothing at all at this stage, so I hope that we shall not have the specious explanation which we had before from the Financial Secretary that reduction of duty on whisky would lead to a substantial drop in revenue, a view at which he arrived, apparently, when considering the last time that the duty was reduced, in 1895.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the proposal the welcome which it deserves. It has no disadvantages, but many advantages.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

I join with my hon. Friends in hoping that we shall have a much better reply from the Financial Secretary tonight than we had when we debated the subject on 1st June. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) referred to some of the arguments which the hon. and learned Gentleman advanced at that time. It would be unkind to say too much about what the Financial Secretary said then, because his argument was remarkably weak.

I recall, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman showed great respect for the whisky industry, a respect so deep that he attributed to it most remarkable wisdom. He told us that the whisky trade last year, knowing that there would be an emergency Budget in July, forestalled the July measures by clearing inordinately large amounts of whisky stocks. If that was his belief, he was asking the Committee to accept that the whisky industry knew more than the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the other Ministers who during the whole of that period were assuring us and the whisky trade that no emergency measures would be necessary.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will accept the Amendment, which is designed to help him. I believe that lurking behind his speech was sympathy for the industry. He recognised the enormous help which it gives to our balance of payments and to the whole Scottish economy. The proposal in this Amendment provides a very much finer tool than the crude instrument available to the hon. and learned Gentleman at present. It would allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have much greater flexibility of selection. By isolating whisky and gin in this way he would be helping the Government to find a better tool of economic management than is in their possession at present.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will also recognise that there is a need to ease the problems which confront the whisky industry. I do not have to extend the argument, for he knows that consumption of whisky at home has fallen quite sharply under the impact of additional duty. I am sure that he will accept that in many countries abroad duty is increased in step with increased sales in the domestic market. If this trend continues, the industry will be severely depressed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the Amendment, he and the Government would be provided with the means of helping a great industry which is under severe pressure as a direct result of Government action.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

This is an important Amendment which, I hope, will be accepted. It is very important for Scotland that the whisky industry should be in good heart and flourishing. It is patently obvious to those who live in Scotland that it is not at present. It is balanced on a knife-edge and might fall on one side or the other. There is no doubt that the policies of the present Government will depress the output of the industry. Then there will be a chain reaction which will reduce exports and revenue to the Exchequer.

It is most important that the Government should realise that this Amendment could be of great importance if a downturn comes because then the Government could step in and reduce the excise duty. We are giving the Government an opportunity to step in if a crisis develops. We are afraid that such a crisis might unfortunately happen. This debate gives the opportunity to the Financial Secretary to give a better reply than he gave on 1st June when he appeared to be quite out of touch with the problem and singularly unsympathetic.

I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and as soon as possible put it to good use to reduce the tax because this is what the industry needs and what all hon. Members on this side of the House think should happen.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

I hesitate to intervene in this short debate, but I wish to make a slight criticism of the general policy pursued over the years of taking the easy road by way of levying taxation. It is easy to levy taxation on whisky. The Amendment, which I support, would be a step in the right direction against this trend. It is a trend which can have a great effect on one of the basic industries of Scotland and from which we draw a great deal of revenue.

I have had occasion to visit Canada, New Zealand, and other countries and I have found the amount of taxation levied against Scotch whisky encourages those countries to start to produce a type of whisky of their own. At Invercargill, in southern New Zealand, a new distillery is being built for the purpose of building up a whisky industry, not that they can ever achieve the blend which is necessary for good whisky because of the secret processes involved, but because they will be able to produce, as Canada and America have produced over the years, a type of whisky which, ultimately, will undermine the whisky industry of Scotland. This would have a dangerous effect on industry in Scotland.

Many say that we should try to stop people drinking, but I do not think the way to do so it to put this industry out of business in Scotland, by too heavy taxation. The Government should be mindful of the pleas that have been made to them for some consideration of the burden placed on Scotch whisky. This Amendment would go a long way to giving the Government power to do that and I support the point of view which has been expressed in the debate.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot

Hon. Members who have supported the Amendment have done so on two grounds: first, out of their desire to help the whisky industry at present; and, secondly, to provide the Chancellor with a more flexible tool of economic management.

In Committee, we debated an Amendment which would have had the effect on the whisky industry which hon. Members want to achieve immediately by this Amendment. That Amendment was rejected. I will not go over those arguments again, save to say this. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) referred with some scorn to what I said about the apparent forestalling before the July measures. I have the more precise figures here. There may be some other explanation. I do not know what it is.

The figures are fairly striking. The clearances in June and July, 1966, were up by 201,000 gallons on the previous year—in other words, by about 18 per cent. Only about one-quarter of that increase would be explained by the earlier pattern of increases in clearances. To check this by the subsequent figures on consumption, the clearances for August, 1966, to February, 1967—that is, after the July measures and taking us over the Christmas season—were, in actual figures, 8 per cent. below those for August, 1965, to February, 1966.

The figures for the drop in consumption put forward by the trade on the basis of sales to the public show a drop of only 5½ per cent. Taking into account the increased clearances, be it because of forestalling or for whatever reason, in the months of June and July, there was over the whole period a decrease of 5½ per cent., which tallies with the drop in consumption.

The figures suggest that there were abnormally high clearances in that period, with a resulting greater fall in clearances after. The shipping strike started in May. It may be that some gentlemen in Scotland are more prescient and in any event had taken what for them was an insurance risk which, in the event paid off for them. I attributed to them perhaps a greater intelligence than they deserve. I am still inclined to think that they showed that shrewdness for which their countrymen are famous.

I turn to the question raised by the Amendment, which is wider than that which we considered in Committee. It is the proposal, not just now, but permanently, to separate the spirits duty from the duty on beer and wine with which it is grouped for purposes of the regulator. This would enable a Chancellor at any time to increase or decrease the duty on spirits without affecting the duty on other forms of alcohol, or indeed on any other articles. It is said that this would provide greater flexibility in the regulator and be a useful additional tool of economic management.

It would provide a degree of flexibility which no Chancellor would desire for this purpose and would have awkward consequences for him. The purpose of the regulator is not to adjust individual duties to meet the needs of individual industries. Its purpose is to give the Chancellor the power to regulate the balance of economic demand within the country in a way which will have a speedy effect, either upwards or downwards, and have a direct effect on consumption.

When the regulator was originally introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), it was a very simple instrument to be applied uniformly to the whole range of duties to which it related. However, following criticisms and pressures which were made by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in opposition, in 1964 it was made more flexible by dividing the duties into the now well-known five groups: tobacco; the one we are discussing, which is spirits, beer, wine and British wine; hydrocarbon oil; Purchase Tax; and the other remaining duties which are covered.

This being the case, if we were now to have a further fragmentation of groups in the way suggested and single out one particular class of goods—in this case, spirits—it is difficult to see where the sub-divisions would stop. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do hon. Members honestly think that, if this proposal were accepted, there would not immediately be pressure, if not from them, from some of their colleagues, on behalf of other industries to the effect that they should be separated and that there should be a special category made for them? I am sure that there would be pressure for the hydrocarbon oil group to be subdivided to allow heavy fuel oil to he separated. I think that I can predict fairly confidently which hon. Members would support such a proposal.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne

Why not?

Mr. MacDermot

This is the point I am making. The same would apply to other industries.

We should end up not with an instrument with five broad groups which a Chancellor can use to reduce or increase demand, but with an instrument broken down to cover nearly the whole of the tax field. We must face the fact that on the occasions when the regulator is used—it has been used only twice in its history since it was initiated in 1961—it is an instrument which has, and which is intended to have, a sudden and sharp impact on consumption. If it is used to raise the duty, it will have a sharp depressing effect on consumption over those areas.

It obviously would be extremely invidious for a Chancellor to be expected to pick and choose between different articles in the refined way which would result from accepting this proposal, rather than having certain broad economic groups within which he can decide to act and in which he can vary the rates of duty either upwards or downwards.

Mr. G. Campbell

The Chancellor would still be able to use the regulator over all the groups if he wanted to.

Mr. MacDermot

He certainly would, but, if the regulator is broken down into a refinement, including many groups, it will make it much more difficult for a Chancellor to use the regulator, and, when he uses it, he will be subjected to far more pressure and complaints from industries which will claim that they ought to be given more favourable treatment, or less unfavourable treatment, than other industries.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr)

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman asking the House to believe that, however good the arguments for the Amendment are, it is too much trouble for the Chancellor to put it into effect?

Mr. MacDermot

No. I am saying that, if the instrument is too refined and too complicated, it will not serve its purpose, and there is also the danger that it will not be used when it should be. After all, the regulator is only a temporary instrument which is used between Budgets, and then the matter falls to be reviewed, as it has been reviewed this year in the Finance Bill, to decide whether to consolidate the regulator or return to the previous position.

I am saying that for that purpose one does not want to have the groups broken down so that, when considering whether and how to use the regulator, the Chancellor is compelled to make a minute examination of the position of particular industries, being prepared to defend the precise change which he makes in relation to a particular industry.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman, in considering the drink duties as a whole, accept that they must all be lumped together so that they all go either up or down together? How will he deal with, for example, the dwindling returns from port wine? How will he make sure that, in putting up the duty on wines and spirits as a whole, he does not kill his revenue altogether from that particular dwindling trade?

Mr. MacDermot

That is a question which, if the case be made, we should consider in the ordinary annual review which we have in the Finance Bill. There is ample opportunity for it. What I am saying is that, in the circumstances, when the Chancellor is considering whether to use the regulator, he ought not, by the nature of the instrument, to be forced to consider the position of every single industry in the way now suggested.

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyll)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said, this is an important Amendment, and we hoped to have a more coherent and sensible answer from the Financial Secretary. We did not get it. We have explained how the Amendment would give the Government the flexibility which they could use, if they wanted to, and, moreover, it would be a sensible Amendment to make in view of the experience of the whole drink trade during the past nine months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) told the hon. and learned Gentleman—he knows it perfectly well—that, over the past few months, clearances of wine have gone up by 3.4 per cent., clearances of beer have gone up by 3.2 per cent., but clearances of spirits have gone down by 6 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question whether extra stocks were taken up before the July measures. I have no means of knowing, if this happened, why it happened. Clearly, the people concerned had no possible way of knowing what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister would do on 20th July.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been half as closely in touch with the effects of the shipping strike on the western seaboard of Scotland as I was, he would never have made the suggestion that he did, because the real shortage in that area was not a shortage of whisky—luckily, a lot of it was produced earlier—but a shortage of beer. Therefore, that was in no way a contributory factor to the extra clearances which took place in June and July.

The Financial Secretary has not made out the Government's case. He explained that the regulator, when first introduced, was intended to be a measure with a short, sharp effect going right across the field, and then, at the encouragement and insistence of himself and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, that single attack was changed into a possible attack for regulatory purposes within five groups. This is what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted, and it was done in 1964. Having argued at that time that the basis should be wider so that the Chancellor would have a chance to distinguish between one section of industry and another, the Financial Secretary now argues that the five groups are enough and the principle cannot be carried further. The Committee cannot regard that as an adequate answer, and neither can it accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that the whole purpose of the regulator is merely to have a short, sharp stop-go type of effect. This is certainly not what we have had in the last year. There has been a long period during which the regulator has been used, and the Government have then said that, in addition, they intend to consolidate.

7.15 p.m.

I am not in the least surprised that my hon. Friends felt in the first place that they wanted to exclude a particular industry, which is very important to their part of the country, from the regulator altogether, and that now, having been refused, they have put down a modest and sensible Amendment asking the Chancellor not to reduce the price of whisky, gin or vodka, but merely to accept a further power to be used, if he wants it at some stage, for regulatory purposes. It may well be necessary to use the regulator again fairly soon, in the circumstances produced by the Government's management of the economy. All that my hon. Friends ask is that, in such circumstances, the Chancellor should have the chance to look at a particular industry.

We have not gone so far as to suggest that whisky alone should be taken out. We have offered the same to all the spirit industries, although there is a very good case for saying that whisky is a particularly important side of it both for the interests of Scotland and for the excellence of its manufacture and its quality as a product.

The Chancellor has refused—I assume that this is so, as the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks for him in this debate—to take power to help the industry if the circumstances are such that the regulator must be used. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to divide the House against him. The Government are wrong. If the regulator has to be used—I accept that the Government may feel that they have to use it in certain circumstances—then, whatever the level of percentage increase determined by the Government as necessary, inevitably it will fall with greater severity at the high-priced end of the range. Whisky is at the high-priced end of the range compared with beer and wines, the reason being that it carries a duty of 37s. 6d. a bottle. Were it not for that, the effect would not be so severe.

The Amendment is intended simply to give the Chancellor an opportunity to show sympathy towards a very important side of the industry. The reply has been most unsatisfactory, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.

Mr. G. Campbell rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. This is the Report stage, as I was myself reminded a little earlier.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 196.

Division No. 394.] AYES [7.20 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cooke, Robert Fair, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Cestain, A. P. Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Astor, John Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Baker, W. H. K. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Glover, Sir Douglas
Balniel, Lord Crowder, F. P. Goodhart, Philip
Bell, Ronald Dalkeith, Earl of Goodhew, Victor
Biffen, John Dance, James Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Black, Sir Cyril Davideon,James(Aberdeenehire,W.) Gurden, Harold
Brewis, John Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Digby, Simon Wingfield Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Dodds-Parker, Douglas Harris, Reader (Heston)
Builus, Sir Eric Drayson, G. B. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Burden, F. A. Eden, Sir John Harvie Anderson, Miss
Chichester-Clark, R. Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon.Tyne,N.) Heseltine, Michael
Clark, Henry Eyre, Reginald Higgins, Terence L.
Hiley, Joseph Maginnis, John E. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Hirst, Geoffrey Marten, Neil Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Maude, Angus Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Holland, Philip Mawby, Ray Royle, Anthony
Hooson, Emlyn Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Russell, Sir Ronald
Hornby, Richard Maydon, Lt.-cmdr. S. L. c Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Mills, Peter (Torrington) Smith, John
Iremonger, T. L. Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Catheart)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Monro, Hector Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Jopling, Michael Montgomery, Fergus Temple, John M.
Kershaw, Anthony More, Jasper Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Kimball, Marcus Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Kirk, Peter Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wairnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Kitson, Timothy Murton, Oscar Warters, Dennls
Knight, Mrs. Jill Nicholle, Sir Harmar Whitetaw, Rt. Hn. William
Lambton, Viscount Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Langford-Holt, Sir John Nott, John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Page, John (Harrow, W.) Winstanley, Dr. M, P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Peel, John Wright, Esmond
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Pounder, Rafton Wylie, N. R.
Lubbock, Eric Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Younger, Hn. George
MacArthur, Ian Price, David (Eastleigh)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Pym, Francis TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Mr. Anthony Grant and
McMaster, Stanley Rees-Davies, W. R. Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Alldritt, Walter Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Ledger, Ron
Allen, Scholefield Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lee, John (Reading)
Anderson, Donald Ellis, John Lestor, Miss Joan
Archer, Peter Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Armstrong, Ernest Fernyhough, E. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lipton, Marcus
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Lomas, Kenneth
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Loughtin, Charles
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Ford, Ben Luard, Evan
Barnett, Joel Forrester, John McBride, Neil
Baxter, William Fowler, Gerry MacDermot, Niall
Beaney, Alan Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Macdonald, A. H.
Bence, Cyril Galpern, Sir Myer Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Brldgeton) Gardner, Tony Mackie, John
Bidwell, Sydney Garrett, W. E. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bishop, E. S. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McNamara, J. Kevin
Blackburn, F. Gourlay, Harry Mahon, Peter (Preeton, S.)
Blenklnsop, Arthur Gregory, Arnold Manuel, Archie
Boardman, H. Grey, Charles (Durham) Mapp, Charles
Booth, Albert Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mason, Roy
Boston, Terence Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Mayhew, Christopher
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mellish, Robert
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mikardo, Ian
Brooks, Edwin Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hamling, William Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upor-Tyne, W.) Hannan, William Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Haseldine, Norman Murray, Albert
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hazell, Bert Neal, Harold
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Henig, Stanley Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)
Cant, R. B. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Ogden, Eric
Carmichael, Neil Hilton, W. S. O'Malley, Brian
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hooley, Frank Orme, Stanley
Chapman, Donald Horner, John Oswald, Thomas
Coe, Denis Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Coleman, Donald Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Concannon, J. D. Howie, W. Padley, Walter
Conlan, Bernard Huckfield, L. Palmer, Arthur
Culien, Mrs. Alice Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Dalyell, Tam Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Park, Trevor
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hunter, Adam Pavitt, Laurence
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Pentland, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Janner, Sir Barnett Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&st. P'cras, S.) Price, William (Rugby)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Probert, Arthur
Dempsey, James Jones, Dan (Burnley) Reynolds, G. W.
Dewar, Donald Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter& Chatham) Richard, Ivor
Doig, Peter Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dunn, James A. Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Lawson, George Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Leadbitter, Ted Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Eadie, Alex
Ryan, John Taverne, Dick Weitzman, David
Sheldon, Robert Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Wellbeloved, James
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Tinn, James Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Tomney, Frank Whitlock, William
Silverman, Julius (Aston) Tuck, Raphael Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Slater, Joseph Urwin, T. W. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Small, William Varley, Eric G. Winnick, David
Spriggs, Lesile Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Yates, Victor
Stonehouse, John Wallace, George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Watkins, David (Consett) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Symonds, J. B. Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.