HC Deb 30 January 1962 vol 652 cc925-53

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after "then" to insert: after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection and". This Amendment is a further attempt to clarify the position of Scottish local authorities in this matter. The Amendment seeks to give them statutory powers to ascertain the validity of information given in the notice by organisations when applying for mandatory relief, or, alternatively, to request those organisations for additional information. At present, nothing in subsection (2) of the Clause requires an organisation even to reply to letters which a local authority may send as a result of its application, or even to reply to a request for further or additional information.

As the Clause stands, it is almost tantamount to an organisation being in the position of dictating to a local authority. For example, the Bill says: If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year that any lands and heritages…then, subject to the provisions… In effect, that means that when a local authority receives a notice from an organisation and proceeds to give or refuse mandatory relief, it has no right or opportunity to ascertain certain facts of which it ought to be in possession. In Committee, the Lord Advocate said differences of interpretation would arise as to what was and what was not a charitable organisation, and that it would be a matter to be decided by the courts rather than by the local authorities.

It is entirely wrong that at this stage we should have definitions in a Bill which will give rise to litigation. It may be all right for some of the fee-paying schools such as Gordonstoun, which has received considerable publicity recently as a result of a certain event, a school which is regarded in the Income Tax Acts as being a charitable organisation, or Fettes College where, I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is proud to have been educated. Those are schools which will have mandatory relief under this provision. I understand that other distinguished members of the Government Front Bench, such as the Leader of the House and the Lord Advocate, were also educated at that school. No doubt at future general elections they will be proud to proclaim at the hustings that they were educated in a charitable organisation.

In St. Andrews, in Fife, we have two schools with a total rateable value of about £8,600. The rates due in the current year would be about £6,352, giving a relief of £3,176. Of that, the county requisition would be about £5,100 which means a loss to St. Andrews of no less than £2,000 instead of an income of about £1,252.

The fees at Gordonstoun are more than £500 a year, about the fees paid at Eton. Organisations such as that will be able to afford the cost of legal action if a local authority refuses to give relief under this Clause. But organisations like old-age pensioners' associations, of which there are many in Scotland, because of the lack of sustenance provided by the Government for such people, boy scouts' organisations, even rifle clubs and badminton clubs will be in an awkward position, because, although they would be covered by certain interpretations of the Recreational Charities Act, they would not have the wherewithal to go to court to establish their claims. Many of them have no dealings whatever with the Inland Revenue and would not be in a position, therefore, to be registered as charities under the Income Tax Acts.

The Pritchard Report, which was mentioned in Committee, made some valuable recommendations, one of which could well have been accepted in Scotland. That was Recommendation 18, which said: The proposed compulsory registration of certain classes of charitable trusts with the Ministry of Education or the Charity Commissioners should be extended to include all charities in rateable occupation of land, and made applicable for rating purposes. This would meet the need for a cheap and expeditious test of the status of a candidate for mandatory relief. To some extent, that is our case this afternoon.

In Committee, the Lord Advocate said that these organisations could have recourse to the courts, but the main question is whether we ought to have some system whereby they could expeditiously and cheaply have a test of status. If the Government had seen fit to accept that recommendation for Scotland, it would have obviated many of the difficulties which are bound to result from the Bill. It is extremely bad legislation which provides ground for unnecessary litigation.

The words in the Amendment, after the rating authorities are satisfied following reasonable inquiry are not new, for they were used in Section 17 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, which says: Where a rating authority are satisfied that the owner of any lands and heritages… We have used those precise words in our Amendment. The local authority should have some statutory right to make inquiries of these organisations when they apply for mandatory relief and should have the right to ascertain the facts and seek more information from the organisations.

The wording of the Amendment is by no means new, but it would greatly improve and facilitate the working of the Bill and I ask the Government to accept it in the spirit in which it is moved.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

The Amendment which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has moved raises the same point as he made in Committee. He then moved a somewhat similar Amendment, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate gave, I think, a very convincing reply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may care, if he has with him the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage of our proceedings, to glance, while I am speaking, at column 68.

I realise that what worries hon. Members opposite is that they fear that a self-styled charity, merely by giving notice in writing, may thereby be able to obtain mandatory relief and that no inquiry by the local authority will be possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend explained at considerable length in Committee, that is not so. What will happen is that the body concerned will put in its claim to be regarded as a charity. Normally, the matter will be quite clear, particularly if the body is already getting relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes. But where the local authority is not satisfied with the claim it will so inform the body; it will then be up to the body which considers itself a charity to go to the courts to get confirmation that it is in fact a qualifying charity.

The trouble with the Amendment is that it applies a subjective test. If the Amendment were accepted all that would be necessary would be for the local authority to be satisfied. But the local authority may, of course, make a mistake in becoming satisfied: if it did make a mistake it would be very difficult for the aggrieved charity to do anything about the matter. In place of this proposed subjective test the Bill, as drafted, applies a clear objective test: are the lands and heritages within the categories so described, or are they not?

If they are within them they qualify for mandatory relief and if they are not they do not get that relief. It is a question of fact, not of opinion.

Mr. Gourlay

That is the point that the Amendment seeks to cover. The local authority ought to have the right to ascertain those facts from the organisation if it has not had all the information in the original application. There is no statutory form of application.

Mr. Galbraith

If the so-called charity does not satisfy the local authority, then the local authority will charge it the full rates and if the charity does not pay the rates and still considers itself a charity, then the due course of the law will take place. That is the only way that one has to settle this sort of difficulty. It will not depend on what the local authority thinks; it will not be a subjective test. It will not be based on the opinion of the local authority; but on a matter of fact, which, in the last resort, can be established in the courts.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Surely if the Amendment is accepted, the right to go to the courts still remains.

Mr. Galbraith

If the hon. Gentleman recalls the debate that we had in Committee he will realise that in that case it is a very much more difficult matter. Then the court would be dealing with whether or not the local authority was right in being satisfied or not right in being satisfied, which is a much harder matter to determine.

I want to make quite clear that the Clause does not put local authorities at the mercy of bodies claiming to be charities any more than it puts genuine charities at the mercy of the local authorities that dispute their claims. All that the Clause does is to provide an objective test which the local authority must apply in making its investigations and which, in the exceptional case of a disputed claim, will also be applied by the courts.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

The hon. Gentleman has said that the local authority must apply the objective test when making an investigation. There is nothing in the Clause about an investigation. That is what we are worried about on this side of the House.

Mr. Galbraith

I thought that I had dealt with this point. Let us go through it quite simply. What will happen is that a body regarding itself as a charity will so inform the local authority. The local authority will then say, "Why do you think that you are a charity?" The body will say, "Because we get Income Tax relief", or on some other ground of relief. If the local authority is satisfied, that is the end of the matter. If the local authority is not satisfied and persists in asking the so-called charity to pay full rates, the charity will either decide to pay the rates or not. If it decides not to pay them, then the matter will go to the courts. The courts will then decide, as a question of fact, whether or not the charity comes within Clause 4 (2, a) and (2, b), or whether it does not: the courts will not be concerned whether the local authority was right to be satisfied or not.

It is for these reason's that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)

I must say quite candidly that the hon. Gentleman has given a most unsatisfactory reply to the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) in merely saying that my hon. Friend submitted a subjective test and that the Bill provides for an objective test. Wherein does the Bill provide for this objective test? The local authority must obviously satisfy itself that the charitable organisation comes within the Income Tax laws. Surely that is not enough. A charitable organisation may find itself within the Income Tax laws, but there are other considerations.

Would it not be right for the local authority, for example, to take into account monetary considerations and the financial resources of the charitable organisation? Surely these factors ought to be taken into consideration. It is because of these factors that I consider the Amendment to be imperative. Local authorities should institute inquiries to satisfy themselves that the charitable organisation concerned comes within the categories described in Clause 4 (2, a) and (2, b) and also that there is some degree of justification for the granting of the 50 per cent. remission of rates.

5.0 p.m.

May I illustrate my case by taking as an example the Loretto School, in Musselburgh. This is a privately owned, fee-paying school. It paid rates on a rateable value of £3,318. This was prior to revaluation. With the rates at 22s. 9d. in the £, it paid altogether £3,774. After revaluation, the school paid rates on a rateable value of £3,808. In other words, its valuation was increased by £490. I am assuming that the rates were still 22s. 9d. in the £. The figure may, however, have been less. Assuming that the rates remained the same, on a rateable value of £3,808, the school paid £4,431, a difference of £657 between the old and the new rates.

Under this Clause, Loretto School can justifiably make an application for a remission of 50 per cent. of the leviable rate. If the application is granted, a remission of 50 per cent. of £4,431 will amount to £2,215, leaving the school to pay £2,215. Prior to revaluation it paid £3,774, but as it will now pay only £2,215, it will be better off by £1,559. We therefore have the situation of private fee-paying schools being given the opportunity of paying less rates than they did pre-war.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

Subsidised by the ratepayers.

Mr. McInnes

Subsidised, as my hon. Friend says, by the ratepayers of Musselburgh and Scotland generally, subsidised by shopkeepers, by commercial firms, and by industrial undertakings, at a time when almost every section of the community is being asked to pay between 50 and 100 per cent. more rates than it did prior to revaluation.

There is another point about these fee-paying schools. The valuation which has been placed on Loretto School is equivalent to £15 per pupil. The valuations placed on local authority schools in Midlothian work out as follows: Musselburgh Grammar School, 10 guineas per pupil; Dalkeith High School, £11 10s. per pupil; Penicuik Senior Secondary School, £10 15s. per pupil; Lasswade Senior Secondary School, £12 per pupil. These sums approximate to that in respect of Loretto School, but the local authority schools do not get a 50 per cent. remission of rates.

Surely this preferential treatment is grossly unjustified. This is snobbery in legislation. It is class legislation. Let us not "kid" ourselves about this, because no one, in the light of the facts, can justify a 50 per cent. remission of rates to schools coming within the categories laid down in Clause 4.

I would not have objected if similar facilities were being afforded to local authority fee-paying schools and to local authority schools generally. I would have been satisfied that there was a justification for all schools and all forms of education to be encouraged by this method, but this is deliberate class legislation in respect of privately-owned fee-paying schools simply because they come within the category of being tax dodgers. Even in the matter of Income Tax they do not have to fulfil the same obligations as the rest of the community.

I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

When we discussed this matter in Committee we did our utmost to prevail on the Minister to realise that the purpose of the proposed wording was to strengthen the Bill. There is nothing mischievous about the Amendment. It is a sensible suggestion, and it is being argued by people who have had some experience of dealing with charitable organisations from a local authority angle.

The Minister this afternoon seems in a great hurry to drive charitable organisations and local authorities into court to settle by litigation what is a bona fide charitable organisation. If the Amendment is accepted, in many instances there will be no need to resort to litigation because the local authority concerned will conduct a full investigation to establish in no uncertain manner that the organisation in question is a bona fide charitable one. If the Amendment is not accepted, it will be difficult to define which bodies come within the purview of the Bill and which remain outside it, thus fostering in many cases unnecessary litigation.

I am, therefore, at a loss to understand why we debated this matter in Committee and why we are compelled to debate it again today. No great political principle is at stake. No legal issue arises. No administrative difficulties are involved in accepting the Amendment, and it seems to be sheer obstinacy on the part of the Minister to refuse to accept it. After all, we are dealing with a Clause which asks a charitable organisation, or an alleged charitable organisation, to notify a local authority of its position. That is all that is involved.

I can visualise a host of difficulties arising because all sorts of organisations claim to be charities. We receive applications from all sorts of associations to be registered as charities. As a former member of the local authority, I have had applications even from football clubs. The Rangers Supporters Club, the Celtic Supporters Club, and other professional supporters clubs claim that they are charities because they spend part of their finances on charitable work. If a local authority has to assess whether an organisation is a charitable one merely on the submission of a notice by that organisation, the task will be an almost impossible one.

It is clear that if it is mainly or wholly a charitable undertaking it qualifies for relief. But how is it humanly possible for a local authority to determine whether or not an application is from an organisation which is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes, unless that organisation submits a detailed account of its activities and its income and expenditure, and states what proportion of that expenditure is spent on charitable undertakings? Unless a local authority receives that necessary information it cannot possibly adjudicate. Yet the Minister says that all that is required is a notice from the organisation claiming relief.

That is absolutely nonsensical. In most cases a local authority will have no alternative but to refuse. Some bona fide charitable organisations will be willing to give a detailed statement, but others will not be so co-operative. Some of them can be extraordinarily difficult, and unless we have something on the Statute to support our point of view we shall get into considerable trouble with these organisations. I know that it is difficult to define a charity. We have heard about this from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes). I am naturally interested in all the fee-paying schools that will receive relief.

I want to ask a question about some fee-paying schools which have not yet been mentioned. Nobody has yet said where an approved school stands. Approved schools are fee-paying schools. Some of the parents have to pay part of the cost of persons remanded in approved schools. I wonder whether they will receive the same treatment as other fee-paying schools. The Minister has so far remained completely non-committal on the matter. No matter how small may be the earnings of an individual, if he has a delinquent child who has been sent to an approved school he must make a contribution towards that child's upkeep from his limited earnings.

I know that many members of the Cabinet take pride in claiming that they are products of fee-paying schools. According to the Bill's definition, a fee-paying school is a charity, and we can therefore look on these Ministers as charity boys of the Government. If the schools from which these charity boys have come are to have the advantage of this relief from rates we are entitled to know where other educational establishments stand.

It is absolutely essential that local authorities should have the necessary power and prerogative to investigate applications from certain organisations. It is a recognised fact that some charitable organisations can be accepted as genuine, but there are others about which there is considerable doubt. Local authorities require power to be able to satisfy themselves that organisations claiming to operate wholly or mainly for charitable purposes do so. That is why the Amendment has been worded in this way. No great bone of contention is at stake. No political principles are involved, and there is no threat to bring down the Government. There is no threat to the political future of the Ministers arrayed on the Front Bench. They are safe for some time yet.

But do not they realise that in introducing a Bill of this kind they must ensure that this provision can be applied with discretion, firmness and meticulous thought by local authorities? No local authority can hope to accomplish this mission unless it is given power to elicit from applicant organisations all the details necessary to enable the authority to determine, one way or the other, whether those organisations constitute charitable organisations under the Clause.

That is all the Amendment asks. It is a very modest request, and I cannot understand why the Minister will not grant it. I hope that he will have further thoughts on the matter, and will realise that the purpose of the Amendment is not to act mischievously but to strengthen the Bill. We are offering the Minister our help and aid. We are giving him the benefit of our experience and advice free of charge, and he should have a similar charitable mind, when dealing with a charitable cause, by indicating his willingness to accept the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ross

This is a very important Clause. It is another example of the Government overriding local authorities and telling them what they ought to do. At the moment these establishments have to pay their share of the rates, but they will be allowed to make application to the local authorities, who will then decide whether or not they will remit the rates. There is no room for argument; the Clause is quite clear. It says: If notice in writing is given…that any lands and heritages are occupied by, or by trustees for, a charity and are wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes the rates to be levied shall not exceed one-half of the rate that would be leviable apart from the provisions of this subsection". If the Under-Secretary is in doubt about it, let him look at the proviso, which says: Provided that where lands and heritages cease to be within the said categories, a previous notice given…shall not have effect… The operative instrument in relation to the action of a local authority in connection with the remission of rates is the notice, and nothing else.

I did not have the benefit of taking part in the proceedings in Committee, and I was therefore denied the pleasure of hearing the outpourings and legal wisdom of the Lord Advocate, but I can see nothing in the Clause that provides that a local authority has any right to refuse if one of these bodies sends it a notice stating that it is a charity. It is said that the local authority can refuse to grant the application. Equally, I say that if the local authority asks for information the body that has given notice can tell the authority that it has no right to that information. It is said that the auhority can take the organisaion to court for misrepresentation of facts, but in this case such misrepresentation is not a criminal offence. Much less serious breaches have merited penalty clauses, but there is no penalty in respect of the misuse of these notices.

That is the position in law, and I should have thought that it would have been far better to give a local authority the right to make inquiry to see whether or not the organisation concerned falls within the terms of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b).

I think that it was the Under-Secretary himself who said that local authorities make mistakes. We are trying to avoid the making of mistakes. We do not want to deny to these poor, charitable bodies, these impoverished institutions—Gordonstoun, Loretto and the rest of them—the right to get relief from rates. We want to make sure that local authorities do not make mistakes. Or is it that the Under-Secretary does not want these institutions to proclaim their need of charity to the local authorities?

I think it a good thing that we have been able to have some sort of debate on this Clause. I am sure that the whole British nation will be surprised to discover that Gordonstoun is in need of charity. I have often wondered why the English call their private schools, "public schools". Now we know. They need public assistance.

The Government propose to take no chances. There is to be no argument. There is no means test about this public assistance. There is no argument about whether or not it is needed. That applies only to people who are receiving unemployment benefit and cannot get quite enough to keep body and soul together. It applies to widows and other people in that sort of category. But not to public schools. They are charities, and so they just send a notice stating that to the local authority and, with the rest of the country complaining about the rating burden and about the new assessments, 50 per cent. is the maximum of rates which is to be paid by these newly discovered charities.

All the legal strength of Scotland tells us that it would be wrong to give any right to the local authorities to make sure that these are charities, that they are still charities and wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes. Consider what the town councillors in Scotland will think about this, the guardians of the "bawbees" of the town. As soon as they receive a notice, the notice is right. Of course, if they are in any doubt, if they take the step which they have no right to take on receipt of this notice, and refuse it, they are liable, not to prosecution but to action in the courts.

I do not doubt that the Lord Advocate thinks this a wonderful thing for lawyers. But, after all, even local authorities have the right to choose who shall defend them. Who are the rating authorities in Scotland? It is not just the City of Glasgow. It is not just the counties. The rating authorities include small burghs, not authorities which have legal departments. Indeed, there may well be burghs which would shrink from the expense of defending a legal action. After all, the scales are weighed against them. It is the notice which is effective and it is on the notice that they act. They have nothing to do with the notice except to receive it, to take note of it and to act upon it. And a Scottish Lord Advocate states that it would be wrong to give the local authorities the legal right to make inquiries.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. William Grant)

I said during the Committee stage proceedings that any sensible local authority would make inquiries before giving a 50 per cent. rating relief and it has the power to do that under the Bill.

Mr. Ross

It has the power to do this under the Bill? Where?

The Lord Advocate

Any local authority is entitled to refuse rating relief—

Mr. Dempsey

That is different.

The Lord Advocate

—if it is not satisfied after making due inquiry that the alleged charity is a charity. It can do so and then go to the courts.

Mr. Ross

We have had at least three attempts by the Lord Advocate and he finished up by proving my point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that they had a power in the Bill to make inquiries. That was his first effort. Then he said, "after making due inquiry". Then he said that any sensible local authority would do something. A local authority doing something and a local authority having the power to do something are two entirely different things. That would determine the reaction of the person about whom the authority was making inquiries. If someone comes to a person's house and demands entry, the first thing asked is whether they have the power to do so. In actual fact there is no power in this Bill, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated, giving the right to a local authority to make these inquiries. In fact, that is what we are asking. One would think that our request was world-shattering. It is plain common sense—which is more than can be said for the utterances of the Lord Advocate. All we want to insert is: after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection. I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench looking as mystified as ever. We were told on another occasion that it is right that the right hon. Gentleman should not attend Committees, so that he may come with a fresh mind to problems. If his mind is as fresh as it ought to be, he will be wondering what all the fuss is about.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can see absolutely nothing wrong with our Amendment and everything to commend it. Since he is taking away the power of rating from the local authorities, and making it mandatory on them to place this share of the rates that would have been paid by these charitable institutions on other section of the people—tenants, shopkeepers and industrialists—before they do so, and to ensure that they have complied with the law, they should be permitted and empowered to make reasonable inquiry. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be able to see that right away, and tell his junior colleagues and his legal colleagues to stop making a fuss, and that this is the least we can do for the Scottish local authorities. There is yet time for the Secretary of State to assert himself and save recourse to the courts and make the encouragement of the legal colleagues of the Lord Advocate quite unnecessary.

Miss Herbison

The interjection of the Lord Advocate and the reply we received from the Under-Secretary of State seemed to back the case which hon. Members on this side of the House have been trying to make. This Amendment is important. Both during the Committee stage and this afternoon the Government have made heavy weather of it. It is important because here for the first time the law is to make it mandatory on local authorities to give this 50 per cent. relief to charitable organisations. However, I shall not discuss this or that charitable organisation. It may be that on Third Reading we can develop that matter.

5.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary today gave us nothing new in addition to what we have had from the Lord Advocate. He was merely opposing an objective to a subjective test. He said that the local authority could make inquiries from the applicant before it reached a decision. What have we in the Bill? All the supposedly charitable organisation need to do is to give notice in writing that it is covered by either (a) or (b). No details are given in (a) or (b). The Under-Secretary cannot show me anywhere in Clause 4 where the local authority would even have the right to say to any charitable organisation which has sent in that notice, "Are the facts in this correct?" Nor could it make reasonable inquiries.

I turn to the information given us in Committee by the Lord Advocate. The Under-Secretary told my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment today to look at column 68 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee. I have examined and re-examined that column. In it the Lord Advocate told us: I quite agree that nothing is specifically stated with regard to appeals or court action or the like, but it is plain, I think beyond doubt, if a local authority disputed a claim, the matter could and would be litigated in the courts. I do not think there is any doubt about that. He went on to say: In order to reach a quick and rapid decision,"— this is the local authority— I think that it would say, ' Do you get relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes?"— That is our complaint. There is nothing in this Clause which gives the local authority the right even to ask that simple question, "Do you get relief as a charity for Income Tax purposes?" If the Lord Advocate thinks it would be good for the local authority to be able to ask even that simple question, I cannot see why he resists our Amendment. It is the one thing which would give the local authority the right to ask that question.

Local authorities which are not satisfied do not have the chance of asking questions of charitable organisations which, if answered, would allow the local authority to give this mandatory relief. They would accept that this is being placed upon them, however unwilling they are, by the Secretary of State. If they could get points cleared up with the organisation, responsible bodies would have to accept the law once it was operating. Under the Clause as it stands they have not the right to ask simple questions.

The Lord Advocate based part of his case on stating that they could ask these simple questions of the organisation. He said: If the answer were 'yes', then, because of subsection (10), the body would qualify. If the answer were 'no', it would not qualify. That is simple enough, but the local authority has not the right to ask that simple question. He went on to a more difficult case, and said: In a borderline case, if a local authority decided that it was not satisfied about the claim… the very words we are asking to have put into the Bill— it would so inform the body concerned". Is that a subjective or an objective decision of the local authority?— and it would then be up to that body to go to the courts and get a declarator that it is a qualifying charity. Then he came to the alternative which might run small burghs into great expense. The organisation might say, "We still consider ourselves a charity and we will not pay rates." The Lord Advocate realised that and said: Alternatively, the local authority could sue the body for rates and then it would have to satisfy the courts that it was in fact a charity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 5th December, 1961; c. 68.] Some local authorities are small burghs. They would be involved in legal expenditure which their ratepayers ought not to have to bear. The whole case is in favour of having these words included in the Bill.

I turn to another point made by the Lord Advocate. He said that because of this subjective test it would be extremely difficult to get the matter right, but he did not develop that. He did not tell us why it would be extremely difficult to get the matter right. It seems that every speech which has been made by Government spokesmen has backed to the hilt the case we are making. Local authorities ought to have this right.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked, I ask that the Secretary of State should reply to this debate. He, a great man of fredom, is putting a mandatory obligation on to local authorities. He is saying to responsible local authorities in Scotland, "You cannot even ask one single question of the organisation that makes an application". That is completely wrong. I ask the Secretary of State now to tell us that at long last he is willing to accept the Amendment. If he cannot accept the Amendment, I ask that he should say that the case has been so forcibly made that an Amendment on similar lines, but perhaps in more legal language, will be put in in another place.

Mr. Galbraith

I speak again with the permission of the House.

The continuation of this debate was undertaken by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McInnes), who picked out the figures for Loretto School. I do not know if he had all the figures for Scotland, but of all the figures I had Loretto is the only one of a school which as a result of this Bill will pay less in hard cash. All the other schools for which I had figures, which I gave in Committee, will, even after the provisions of this Bill, be paying more in hard cash than they were before.

Mr. McInnes

The hon. Gentleman did not provide any figures for the Committee. He mentioned one or two, but we sought specific information about these fee-paying schools to enable us to determine the justification or otherwise of the situation, and we did not get it.

Mr. Galbraith

Unless my memory is playing me false, which is possible, I mentioned Loretto, Trinity College, Glenalmond, Morrison's Academy, Crieff, the Dollar Academy, and Gordonstoun, Morayshire. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Fettes?"] I have not got the figures for Fettes. Of these five, only one will pay less under the Bill than it paid before. All the others will pay more.

Mr. Dempsey

Is the hon. Gentleman trying to insinuate that the other schools will not receive the 50 per cent. mandatory relief?

Mr. Galbraith

No, I am not trying to give that impression. I am giving examples showing that this mandatory relief will not be such a desperate thing for local authorities, because in most cases they will get more in hard cash under the provisions of the Bill than they received before. This is a comparatively simple point.

Whatever hon. Members may think about the merits of these private or public schools, whatever one likes to call them, the fact remains that they are charities. Therefore, they benefit under the Bill. If hon. Members wish to attack them, Amendments to that effect should have been tabled. But hon. Members cannot attack these schools by suggesting that the local authority should have discretion, because these schools are charities and the object of the Bill is that charities should have mandatory relief.

The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) asked me what right a local authority had to investigate a claim. He and one or two of his hon. Friends wanted to know whether this is laid down. As they know, it is not laid down anywhere. Nevertheless, it is clearly implied. Here I think I am quoting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said. It is clearly implied. Anybody who claims a right such as rate relief must substantiate his claim.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that there was not room for argument—

Miss Herbison

The Under-Secretary cannot brush us off with the statement that any organisation which makes an application must substantiate its claim. That is our quarrel. There is no provision in the Bill to this effect. The Lord Advocate has told us that, if a local authority is not satisfied, all it can do is to go to court and spend the ratepayers' money. There is no provision to the effect that the organisation must substantiate its claim.

Mr. Galbraith

The hon. Lady is tempting me.

Miss Herbison

Tell me.

Mr. Galbraith

—I intend to succumb to her temptation, but not at the moment.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that there was no room for argument. He is right. There is not meant to be any room for argument. This may be what separates the two sides of the House. It is not the intention of the Government that there should be any discretion left to the local authority, at least as regards charity. If a body is a charity, it ought to get mandatory relief.

Mr. Ross

The Government have made the point that a local authority can make mistakes. Would it not be far better for mistakes to be obviated by reasonable inquiry than for them to be put right by legal action?

Mr. Galbraith

Here I think we shall get some help from what my right hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, which perhaps the hon. Lady did not notice. He said: If a body says it is a charity but does not produce evidence to satisfy the local authority, the authority can say, We do not consider that you are a charity, on the information which you have given,—or which you have not given—and accordingly we shall levy full rates upon you.' It is then up to the body either to produce evidence to make the local authority change its mind, or to raise an action in court. There is nothing in the subsection to prevent a local authority from saying 'No', if it considers that the body is not a charity. What the subsection does, and the Amendment does not, is to ensure that where there is a dispute in a very technical branch of the law the court shall have full power to decide one way or the other, and that it shall not be left to decide finally whether a body is charitable under the Income Tax Acts. A local authority is not the best body for making that decision."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 5th December, 1961; c. 76–7.]

5.45 p.m.

Miss Herbison

The Under-Secretary said that I should have read this passage also. I assure him that in preparing my case for the Amendment I have read everything that happened in Committee. There is another course. If the local authority says, "No. We are not going to give you this relief because we do not consider you are a charity", the organisation can refuse to pay its rates. Which body has to pay money for litigation in the first instance? Which body has to institute the proceedings and risk the ratepayers' money. It is the local authority.

Mr. Galbraith

At the end of the day somebody has to decide whether a body is a charity. The Opposition say that it should be for the local authority to decide that. We say that it should be for the courts. The effect of the Clause as drafted is that relief of one-half of the rates otherwise leviable can be given only if the premises are within the categories described. This means that the applicant has to prove that this is the case. The words in the Bill apply an objective test: are they lands and heritages within the categories so described? The effect of the Amendment is to substitute a subjective test: is the local authority satisfied that the lands and heritages are within the categories so described?

The rating authority will no doubt, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, satisfy itself by whatever means it thinks best—for example, by examining the body's constitution or accounts or inquiring whether it is regarded as a charity for Income Tax purposes—the rating authority will try to satisfy itself in those ways that the application passes the objective test. If the local authority decides that the organisation fails to do so and demands the full rates and if the occupier then refuses to pay, the matter will in the last resort, but only in the last resort, be decided by the courts. The final decision will be for the courts. When they are considering the matter they will not have to consider the satisfaction or otherwise of the local authority; they will be considering a matter of fact. It is for those reasons that I regret we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gourlay

Does the Under-Secretary realise the complications in which this procedure could involve the organisation? Once a local authority has determined the last day on which debts can be paid, under present legislation a 10 per cent. penalty is automatically imposed on the ratepayer. It does not lie within the power of the local authority after that date has passed even to give relief of that 10 per cent. How would such an organisation stand if it refused to pay rates, if the date for the 10 per cent. penalty passed, if the 10 per cent. penalty were imposed, if subsequently the local authority sued the organisation, and if the court finally determined that the organisation was a charitable one?

Mr. T. Fraser

I wish that the Lord Advocate would have another go at this matter. The Under-Secretary has reiterated that the Amendment proposes a subjective test for what would otherwise be an objective test. The Under-Secretary and the learned Lord Advocate have time and again made it abundantly clear that the relief of rates will be granted only when the local authority is satisfied that the body giving notice is a charity under paragraphs (a) or (b). Is not that true? Is not that what has been said by them both? That is what is said in this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary has said that if the Amendment were accepted, instead of the court considering whether or not the organisation came within either of those paragraphs it would have to consider some more abstruse matter about the satisfaction of the local authority, but both the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Advocate have said that, in any case, the local authority would not grant the relief in rates until it was satisfied on the score. Apparently, all that the Government object to is the writing of these words into the Bill.

If the Amendment were accepted, and if the local authority decided that an organisation did not come within either (a) or (b), and the applying organisation—or the organisation that did not apply at all but merely gave notice—went to court, the issue before the court would continue to be whether that was an organisation as defined in those two paragraphs.

The learned Lord Advocate shakes his head in a manner implying that he disagrees with me, but if the Amendment were accepted the subsection would read, If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year"— That relates to any lands or heritages. Then follow paragraphs (a) and (b), which means that those must be lands and heritages occupied by one of the organisations referred to in those paragraphs, and then there follow the words …any rate leviable…shall not exceed one-half of the rate… That is a specific, mandatory provision, without giving any indication to the local authority that it may ask any questions at all. Clearly, if an organisation believed that it came within the terms of either paragraph and the local authority decided otherwise, the organisation would have the right to ask the court to say that it came within those terms.

If our Amendment were accepted, those words would be the same. The subsection would then read: If notice in writing is given to the rating authority not later than the thirtieth day of June in any year…after the rating authority are satisfied following reasonable inquiry that the lands and heritages are within the categories described in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection and subject to the provisions of this section… The words: …subject to the provisions of this section… remain. Therefore, if, in the view of the court, the organisation falls within the terms of (a) or (b) it would still qualify for relief. That would be the question before the court.

The Lord Advocate has, I think, assumed that the words after line 21 are to be taken out but they would remain, together with the words in the Amendment. In the circumstances, the court would still be considering a claim by the organisation that it was a charity as set out under those two paragraphs. The test would not be whether or not the local authority was satisfied about something. There would he no question of going to court to test that.

If the local authority. after any kind of inquiry, says, "We are satisfied that this is not an organisation," the court can say that the local authority is not satisfied. We therefore cannot have the test that the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State have been describing. We cannot have a court considering whether or not the local authority is satisfied. The local authority has already said, "We are not satisfied." The question before the court will be whether or not the organisation comes within the terms of those two paragraphs, and that position is safeguarded by the retention of the words …subject to the provisions of this section… In those circumstances, we ask the Secretary of State to accept an Amendment which merely gives to a local authority power in law to do what both the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary say any sensible local authority would do. The Amendment would give the sensible local authority statutory power to do what common sense would tell the local authority to do.

If that power is not given by Statute, the local authority initiating any kind of inquiry can be sent about its business by the organisation that will have been told in an Act of Parliament that all it has to do is to give notice in writing not later than 30th June. By Statute, therefore, the organisation can on that date give notice saying, "We come under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section 4 of the Act of 1962, so please remit 50 per cent. of our rates"—and not even "please remit", but "You are obliged, therefore, to remit 50 per cent. of the rates that would otherwise be payable."

If the local authority then asks the organisation, "What makes you think you are a charity under either of those paragraphs?" the secretary of the organisation can say, "By what right do you ask that question? You have no right by Statute to bother me. I have complied with the Statute. I have given notice in writing not later than 30th June, and that is all I am required to do."

The Secretary of State, the learned Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary should know that there are many organisations which feel themselves to be entitled to this kind of relief, but believe that under the tests as they are being applied they will not so qualify. Lots of old-age pensioners' organisations have been told before now that they are not charities because they have never been given a certificate under the Income Tax Acts—because they have never had an income that made them liable for Income Tax. Nevertheless, they have provided little local halls for the convenience of old-age pensioners. Last year, those halls carried a valuation of £45. They now carry a valuation of £325, and the organisations concerned find that the amount of money they can collect at people's doors is quite insufficient to pay the rates on the little halls. They are, therefore, having to dispose of the property.

It is no good saying to such an organisation, "You can go to court." If the town clerk or the county clerk were to write to the dear old lady who is secretary of an organisation asking what made her think she was entitled to relief under either of these paragraphs she would wonder what had gone wrong with the man. She would not know how to reply, and the organisation's finances would not permit it to get advice from a local solicitor. That is why we want this Measure to look sensible and require a local authority, when it gets an application of this kind, to make due and proper inquiry, and allow the councillors to decide whether it is reasonable to regard these organisations as charities. I believe that if the Government accepted the Amendment, far from excluding the deserving charities it would lead to deserving charities coming within the provisions of the Bill which would otherwise be left out.

6.0 p.m.

In all these circumstances, and since the Amendment provides only that the rating authority shall make reasonable inquiries before making a decision as to whether an organisation comes within paragraph (a) or (b) of the subsection, we should not assume what will be done but be as sensible as the Minister seems to think local authorities will be and add another two lines to the Bill making it a provision, by law, that they must do this.

I hope that the Secretary of State will himself speak on this matter, for the handling of the Bill by Ministers has left a lot to be desired. A lot of worthwhile Amendments have been proposed and, up to now, not one has been made to the Bill. I appeal to the Secretary of State to accept this most reasonable Amendment.

Miss Herbison

Surely we are to have a reply from one of the three Ministers present.

The Lord Advocate

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) raised a point which was dealt with in Committee at some length. He said that the Amendment would not cut down the right of the court to decide in favour of a rightful charity which had been refused relief under the Bill. It would do so, to a large extent, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a simple example.

When the hon. Member for Hamilton claims expenses, rightly, as he does as an hon. Member, he has to satisfy his tax inspector that the expenses have been wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred. The relevant Act, however, does not say that the inspector must be satisfied. merely that the expenses are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred. Accordingly, if the hon. Member disagrees with the inspector cutting off whatever the sum might be, the hon. Gentleman, considering them to be reasonable constituency expenses, can appeal to the courts and the special commissioners, who are not concerned with whether the inspector was satisfied or not, but whether, in fact, the expenses were wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred.

If the provision read: After the inspector is satisfied that the expenses are wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred then relief will be granted", the court would be limited to considering whether the inspector concerned had made a reasonable approach to the matter and had considered all reasonable factors. But they could not start from the beginning and decide the case on its complete merits.

Accordingly, the Amendment, in the same way, takes away a large part of the jurisdiction of the courts. The result

is that they would be considering not the merits as such, but whether the local authority had applied its mind reasonably. Instead of helping a charity the Amendment would defeat many charities because a local authority, having made due inquiry, might well be satisfied that the body was not a charity. That particular charity—perhaps a good one responsible for the halls the hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned—would not have a hope in hell—if I may use that expressionof ever succeeding in appealing in order to get justice. I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser

Does the Lord Advocate not agree that the words I used, subject to the provisions of this Clause", would safeguard the position entirely? If those words do not do that, what do they mean?

The Lord Advocate

There are two things. Under the Amendment there are two conditions which must be fulfilled before a charity can get rating relief. It must, first, have the satisfaction of the rating authority and, secondly, the provisions of the Bill. Failure of either one is fatal. If the charity falls down under (a)—the one in the Amendment—then it cannot succeed. It must fulfil both.

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

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 233.

Division No. 52.] AYES [6.6 p.m.
Abse, Leo Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hamilton, William (West File)
Ainsley, William Davies, Harold (Leek) Hannan, William
Albu, Austen Dempsey, James Hart, Mrs. Judith
Allaun, Prank (Salford, E.) Diamond, John Hayman, F. H.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Dodds, Norman Healey, Denis
Awbery, Stan Driberg, Tom Herbison, Miss Margaret
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Beaney, Alan Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hilton, A. V.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Fernyhough, E. Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Bence, Cyril Finch, Harold Hoy, James H.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fitch, Alan Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Blackburn, F. Fletcher, Eric Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Blyton, William Forman, J. C. Hunter, A. E.
Boardman, H. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.) Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Boyden, James Galpern, Sir Myer Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn) Jeger, George
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Gourlay, Harry Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Callaghan, James Grey, Charles Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Cliffe, Michael Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Kelley, Richard
Collick, Percy Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Kenyon, Clifford
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gunter, Ray Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Cronin, John Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) King, Dr. Horace
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Owen, Will Stonehouse, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Parker, John Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke. on-Trent. C.)
Lipton, Marcus Pavitt, Laurence Symonds, J. B.
Loughlin, Charles Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
McCann, John Pentland, Norman Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
McInnes, James Prentice, R. E. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Randall, Harry Thornton, Ernest
Mackie, John (Enfied, East) Reid, William Timmons, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wainwright, Edwin
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Robertson, John (Paisley) Warbey, William
Manuel, A. C. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Watkins, Tudor
Mapp, Charles Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Mason, Roy Ross, William White, Mrs. Eirene
Mellish, R. J. Short, Edward Wilkins, W. A.
Mendelson, J. J. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Millan, Bruce Skeffington, Arthur Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Milne, Edward Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mitchison, G. R. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield) Winterbottom, R. E.
Monslow, Walter Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) Woof, Robert
Neat, Harold Sorensen, R. W. Zilliacus, K.
Nod-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Spriggs, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Steele, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Oliver, G. H. Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead.
Agnew, Sir Peter Eden, John Kershaw, Anthony
Aitken, W. T. Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton) Kitson, Timothy
Allason, James Farey-Jones, F. W. Lagden, Godfrey
Ashton, Sir Hubert Farr, John Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Atkins, Humphrey Fell, Anthony Leburn, Gilmour
Barlow, Sir John Finlay, Graeme Legge-Bourke. Sir Harry
Batsford, Brian Fisher, Nigel Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Lilley, F. J. P.
Bell, Ronald Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Litchfield, Capt. John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Berkeley, Humphry Gammans, Lady Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Bidgood, John C. Gardner, Edward Longbottom, Charles
Biffen, John Gibson-Watt, David Longden, Gilbert
Biggs-Davison, John Gilmour, Sir John Loveys, Walter H.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Godber, J. B. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Goodhart, Philip MacArthur, Ian
Black, Sir Cyril Goodhew, Victor McLaren, Martin
Bourne-Arton, A. Gower, Raymond Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Box, Donald Gresham Cooke, R. McMaster, Stanley R.
Boyle, Sir Edward Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Maddan, Martin
Braine, Bernard Gurden, Harold Maginnis, John E.
Brewis, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Maitland, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Harris, Reader (Heston) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Marshall, Douglas
Bryan, Paul Harvey, Sir Arthur vere(Macclesf'd) Marten, Neil
Buck, Antony Hastings, Stephen Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Bullard, Denys Hay, John Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hendry, Forbes Mawby, Ray
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Mills, Stratton
Cary, Sir Robert Hobson, John More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Channon, H. P. G. Holland, Philip Nabarro, Gerald
Chataway, Christopher Hollingworth, John Neave, Airey
Chichester-Clark, R. Holt, Arthur Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hopkins, Alan Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Collard, Richard Hornby, R. P. Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Cooke, Robert Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cooper, A. E. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Page, Graham (Crosby)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hughes-Young, Michael Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Corfield, F. V. Hutchison, Michael Clark Partridge, E.
Costain, A. P. Iremonger, T. L. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Coulson, Michael Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Peel, John
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Jackson, John Percival, Ian
Craddook, Sir Beresford James, David Peyton, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Curran, Charles Jennings, J. C. Pike, Miss Mervyn
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pitman, sir James
de Ferranti, Basil Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pitt, Miss Edith
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Pott, Percivall
Drayson, G. B. Joseph, Sir Keith Prior, J. M. L.
du Cann, Edward Kaberry, Sir Donald Proudfoot, Wilfred
Duncan, Sir James Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Pym, Francis
Duthie, Sir William Kerr, Sir Hamilton Ramsden, James
Rawlinson, Peter Studholme, Sir Henry Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Walder, David
Rees-Davies, w. R. Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Walker, Peter
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Taylor, Frank(M'ch'ster, Moss Side) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Rippon, Geoffrey Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Ward, Dame Irene
Roots, William Thomas, Peter (Conway) Webster, David
Russell, Ronald Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Scott-Hopkins, James Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) Whitelaw, William
Seymour, Leslie Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Sharpies, Richard Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Shaw, M. Thorpe, Jeremy Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Skeet, T. H. H. Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Wise, A. R.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Turner, Colin Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Smithers, Peter Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Woodnutt, Mark
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher Tweedsmuir, Lady Woollam, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander van Straubenzee, W. R, Worsley, Marcus
Speir, Rupert Vane, W. M. F. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Stodart, J. A. Vickers, Miss Joan TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Wade, Donald Mr. J. E. B. Hill and
Storey, Sir Samuel Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Mr. Gordon Campbell.