HC Deb 06 July 1965 vol 715 cc1402-21

(1) Where a person engaged in an agricultural or forestry enterprise conveys, transfers, leases or otherwise disposes of assets or his interest in assets used for that enterprise to any persons comprising a firm of partners of which he is one and the remaining partners are members of his family, for the purpose of the partnership carrying on an agricultural or forestry enterprise, the transaction shall be treated for the purposes of this Act—

  1. (a) as if the consideration for the disposal of the assets, or his interest in the assets, were (if otherwise of a greater amount or value) of such amount as would secure that on the disposal neither a loss nor a gain accrues to him, and
  2. (b) as if the value of the share in the assets, or in the interest in the assets acquired by him as a partner in the partnership were reduced by the excess of the amount or value of the actual consideration over the amount of the consideration which he is treated as receiving under paragraph (a) above,
and in this section "members of his family" means spouse, brothers, and sisters, of self or spouse, children over 18 years of self or of spouse or of brother or of sister.

(2) Subsections (4), (5), (7), (8), (10) and (11) of section 31 shall apply to this section as if "old assets" meant assets disposed of to the partners referred to in subsection (1) of this section, and "new assets" meant assets acquired by those partners, and "trade" means agricultural or forestry enterprise.—[Sir M. Redmayne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Martin Redmayne (Rushcliffe)

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

This Clause seeks to ensure that when, in particular, a farmer takes his son into partnership there is no loss of capital to that enterprise by reason of Capital Gains Tax.

The points have been covered broadly in Committee with reference both to farming in particular and to private business in general. A good deal of progress has been made in respect of relief on retirement and there is a better understanding about the replacement of business assets. However, we have tabled this Clause because it seemed to us that here was a case where there was still in the Bill a strong disincentive to men to take their sons into partnership, particularly in a small enterprise like farming, because they would then be liable to Capital Gains Tax.

It is true that the Government showed a little sympathy for this point in Committee. When I spoke in Committee the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) accused me of making an emotional speech, which I took a little hard from a Member who is a master of perpetual emotion; but, in any case, it was not without some value because I thought that my plea was not unanswered by the Financial Secretary at Column 856 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 27th May.

I will not quote at great length, but it is relevant that I should quote a small passage. He said: The second Amendment is based on a case which we have considered a number of times in Committee and which has aroused a good deal of interest and sympathy …. That is the case of the disposal of a farm handed on, perhaps, by a farmer to his son. I am leaving out one or two sentences. I said yesterday that there was a real problem here and I said that I would look into it. We will be coming to the question of the man who disposes of a small business in similar terms—on retirement, perhaps to provide for his retirement—and there is obviously an analogy here. What I have in mind is that we should consider that in relation to this question of farming land. Apart from that—which, as I say. I regard as a special case—I do not see any reason or grounds why farming land as such, or an interest in farming land, should be singled out for special treatment compared with any other form of capital gain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1965; Vol. 713, cc. 856–7.] That is a point of view which is understandable on the part of a Government bringing in this new tax. At the same time—and I have said this before—farming is a special case, not because it deserves any special sympathy or compassion but because it works in an artificial situation created by the policies of successive Governments and has to be sustained by grants and subsidies, and, because of its great expansion, it is inevitably short of capital. Therefore, if it is robbed of capital at any stage, as it will be if it is assessed for Capital Gains Tax, foreign capital has to be reinjected into the industry. Here we shall have a case in which the Treasury is not, as it so often is, robbing Peter to pay Paul; it will be robbing Peter to pay Peter. That seems to me to make very little sense.

In its drafting we have tried to narrow down the Clause as much as possible so that it meets the case of the farmer who wishes to take into partnership primarily his son, but also, by definition, other members of the family. We have done this intentionally to make it all the easier for the Government to accept the Clause. In any case, as it is drafted it is only a deferment of tax, in precisely the same sort of terms in which Clause 31 defers the payment of tax in relation to the reinvestment of business assets, and to which the Financial Secretary in the passage which I quoted admits there is an analogy.

In this case the father would reinvest part of the proceeds of the enterprise in the same enterprise instead of in a parallel one. On those grounds, I feel that the Clause ought to be acceptable to the Government. In due course, the enterprise will be caught on the retirement of the father, or equally on his death, as, indeed, it will catch us all in time.

On a similar point in the course of these debates the Financial Secretary to the Treasury suggested, although he did it in a very mild way, that young men were frequently taken into partnership for the avoidance of Estate Duty.

Mr. MacDermot

No, I did not say that. I said that quite often—and this was the case which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) raised—the farmer who transfers the farm to his son at a time of his retirement does that rather than bequeath it to him under his will in order to escape death duties, and that proposition was accepted.

Sir M. Redmayne

I said that the hon. and learned Gentleman said it without malice and very mildly.

Mr. MacDermot

But I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. This is a different thing. The purpose would not be served by bringing the young man into partnership. I was talking about complete transfer.

Sir M. Redmayne

I accept entirely what the hon. and learned Gentleman has now said, but even if he did not say what I suggested earlier it can be said that Estate Duty has been to some extent an incentive to elderly men to pass on part of their estates to their sons, and Capital Gains Tax as at present drafted has the opposite effect.

We have been told time and again that throughout the various stages of the Bill the House has accepted the principle of a Capital Gains Tax and, therefore, having accepted that principle, it must also accept the principle that it strikes ever so often on change of ownership. In view of what the Financial Secretary has previously said and the special circumstances in the farming industry I hope that the Government may be disposed to accept the new Clause, I hope as drafted. If not, I ask the Financial Secretary not to allow himself to escape on the argument which he used last night that there is nothing to be done at this stage of the Bill.

This is not true. If on any proposition which we put to them the Government are sufficiently prepared to accept it in spirit even if they cannot accept the drafting, it is perfectly simple for them to recommit the Bill in respect of that item. If they choose to do that in this very good case we shall not hold up the business of the House in any sense.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

As we are discussing relief on the disposal of an agricultural asset, may I thank the Financial Secretary for kindly writing to me about the point raised in Committee and for making clear that, as I thought, the compensation payable to crofters on the termination of a crofting tenancy is not liable charge for capital gains?

May I ask a question which I think it would be convenient if the Financial Secretary could answer now? I understand that it is clear under Schedule 6(4,1,b) that if a farmer increases the value of his farm by expending his own money he is not chargeable for any Capital Gains Tax on the extra value which his farm therefore acquires. To put it simply, if he spends £12,000 and out of that £8,000 is his own money he is not liable to charge on that, but what happens to the proportion which may well be grant? If £4,000 of the £12,000 is grant, is he liable for Capital Gains Tax on the grant? It would be convenient to have an answer on the record in conjunction with the Clause.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Barnett

It cannot be said strongly enough that the really small farmer or business man is not affected by Capital Gains Tax at all. The small farmer will not be affected by the Bill, because if he sells to buy another farm Clause 31 gives him relief, and if he retires he is covered by the new Clause 30 up to £10,000, and in my experience few small farmers tend to give their farms to their sons much before retirement.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to grants. A grant given to a farmer is liable to Income Tax in the normal way. If he increases the value of a farm by plant, stock and debtors these increases are not subject to Capital Gains Tax. They are increases in profits and are subject to Income Tax. Increases in the value of plant, stock and debtors—and vehicles are a good example—will not be subject to Capital Gains Tax for a very good reason. It is extremely unlikely that plant and vehicles would increase in value from the date of first purchase, and any increase over the written-down value for capital allowance purposes would be subject to a balancing charge for Income Tax. There would be no question of Capital Gains Tax applying because these increases are a reflection of increased profits, subject to Income Tax or Corporation Tax.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South)

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government grants for agriculture are subject to Income Tax, but he will remember that many Government grants are capital grants paying one-third towards approved capital expenditure and are not subject to Income Tax. Therefore, I think that they would be allowable deductions from the computation of eventual capital gains.

Mr. Barnett

It depends what the hon. Member means by a capital grant. If it is for the purchase of an implement or a machine, this would reduce the capital value on which the farmer can claim capital allowances and when he eventually sells there will be a balancing charge subject to Income Tax. The assets which are caught for Capital Gains Tax are land and goodwill and nobody would surely claim that for a small farm there would be any goodwill when it came to a sale.

Throughout the stages of the Bill we have had ad nauseam the plea for the small farmer, but for the small tenant farmer the Capital Gains Tax will not apply because the increase in value on his tenancy, the increase in manurial value, will be subject to Income Tax in the normal way and not to a Capital Gains Tax. There will be no Capital Gains Tax to the tenant farmer on land. In practice it will apply only where there is a sale of buildings or land as such. We know that there are cases where farmers sell some land for building purposes and make large capital gains. I should not have thought that even hon. Members opposite would wish to exclude that type of sale from the Capital Gains Tax.

As to the small farmer and the increase in the capital value of his farm, as I have explained, it is only the increase in the agricultural value of the land which is really at the heart of the problem and this would be covered on retirement by new Clause 30 giving exemption up to £10,000. So I hope that we will now hear no more about the harsh effect of this tax on the small farmer.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

The small farmer may be subject to Capital Gains Tax in a variety of ways. His farm may become one of about 150 acres in future, which is the optimum size that most countries are aiming at. It is conceivable, therefore, that the value of his holding might be about £30,000, and there is a great deal of scope for capital gains in that. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) may have overlooked a possible source of capital gain for which, as far as I know, no provision has been made by the Government. This is the question of herds kept on a herd basis where, by express arrangements between the farmer and the previous Government, the farmer made an option for all time from which he cannot resile to exclude his herds from revenue computation each year and bear the risk and reap what may or may not become a capital gain. This is one answer to the hon. Member.

More important than the figures is the psychology behind the new Clause. What we wish to do—again, I am sure that this is part of a common agricultural policy—is to encourage the younger generation into managerial positions so that they will bring in up-to-date knowledge and modern techniques. I think that it must be fairly common experience that father is sometimes apt to hang on a bit too long in the management of his farm, particularly as he and his son who may succeed him are living in the farmhouse anyhow. It is desirable, therefore, that we do everything possible to encourage the handing over of responsibility from one generation to another fairly promptly. Whether or not its ultimate incidence will be very great, if it is thought that the Capital Gains Tax will be applied, farming fathers will, on the whole, be rather chary of entering into formal arrangements with their sons, however much their sons ought to be given a proper share of responsibility in a partnership.

Moreover, the farming partnership may become progressively more important as a direct result of this Bill. At present, one often finds a family farming company which may or may not include the farm as an asset of the company. The disadvantage of this Bill is that, if the farming company realises any of its assets during its time as a company, it will pay Capital Gains Tax on those assets, and then, later in the family history, perhaps when father dies and the company is liquidated, as quite often happens in a single generation, because the shares will have appreciated by the increased capital value of the assets realised by the company, the asset will, as far as the family is concerned, suffer taxation twice. This will be a powerful reason for not having any more family farming companies, at least companies holding assets likely to appreciate.

Therefore, the only way of bringing other members of the family into positions of responsibility will be by some such arrangement as a partnership, the son coming in and no incidence of Capital Gains Tax at that moment. When father retires eventually the tax deferred may be raised, but, by that time, the son will have plenty of notice and, we hope, be firmly in the saddle. For these reasons I hope that the Financial Secretary will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow)

I support the new Clause. The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) said that, in his opinion, the small farm would not be damaged by the Clause. I put it to him and to the Committee that, when considering a taxing statute of this kind, we must project ourselves some years into the future and visualise the effect that it can have not just in relation to things as we know them today but in relation to things as they may be in five, 10 or 15 years. If we do the converse and look back to the state of affairs five, 10 or 15 years ago, we can see the possible dangers to what might be called the smaller farms to which a taxing statute of this kind might have given rise.

The new Clause is designed to aid or preserve those who want to keep a family farm within the family. We have discussed this in a number of previous debates, but the point still remains. The object of the new Clause is that a farming family which wants to continue its business shall not be penalised by values which it is easy to say have increased but which are nevertheless paper values. If the movement of land values continues, as it has in certain areas, and affects what are now called small farms in the way that has happened in the past two or three years, it will be entirely possible, unless there is a protective Clause of this kind, that the tax which might be leviable in terms of capital gains will be prohibitive and sufficient to prevent the carrying out of an operation of this kind, which, in the interests of agriculture and of the nation as a whole, ought to be encouraged.

I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter not merely in the light of things as they are now but in the light of the continuous process which has been so clearly visible in agriculture in the past few years and which, so far as one can see, is likely to continue. I hope that he will give us some encouragement by saying that he is prepared to accept our proposal.

Mr. MacDermot

Before replying to the debate, perhaps I may reply to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which, by no stretch of the imagination, can be related to the subject matter of the Clause. The answer to his question is "No". The fact that some of the moneys expended have been acquired by grant does not lead to any liability for Capital Gains Tax where there would be no liability if it had all come entirely from the man's own funds.

While I am dealing with minor points, perhaps I may tell the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) that I dealt with the question on the herd basis when we discussed the matter in Committee. It would be only in the very rarest case that there could be any liability in respect of the herd basis, and this would be only when each individual beast in the herd was worth over £1,000, which, I suppose, could only arise in the very high-class pedigree herd. I think that my answer will cover virtually all herds.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

Each individual beast, not any one beast?

Mr. MacDermot

I do not follow the difference between each individual beast and any one beast. They seem to mean the same.

Mr. Hill

I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant that Capital Gains Tax would be charged only on a herd in which each beast, if it was dispersed, sold for more than £1,000. What is likely is that some beasts would sell for £1,000 or more because the competition would be concentrated on the favoured animals. But there is the danger that a herd, particularly a limited blood line herd, might be considered as a set because there would be no other herd holding that particular blood line.

Mr. MacDermot

There is complete exemption for any chattel of value £1,000 or less. Therefore, no liability to Capital Gains Tax would arise in respect of herds in which the individual beasts were of less than that value.

The Clause would allow a person engaged in agriculture or in forestry to transfer assets used in the enterprise to a family partnership of which he is a member for use in agriculture or forestry by that partnership without incurring liability to Capital Gains Tax on that occasion. In form, it follows the provision for the transfer of business assets in Clause 31 and would lead to a deferment of rather than an exemption from liability to Capital Gains Tax. As drafted, it would, incidentally, allow forestry assets to be replaced by assets for farming and vice versa.

This gives me an opportunity to correct a slip which I made in Committee, and about which I have written to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). It is not possible to use the transfer of business assets provision in Clause 31 on the transfer of assets from agriculture to forestry, but it is within the many branches of agriculture. I was wrong in saying that forestry was for this purpose a branch of agriculture. It is a separate trade.

Although the new Clause is modelled on Clause 31, the circumstances envisaged in it are entirely different from those which gave rise to Clause 31, which deals with a case where old assets used in a trade are sold and the sale proceeds are used to buy new assets for use in the same trade. As has been explained before, the primary concern which led to the Clause was the case of the redeployment of industry, but it extends beyond that and, as I have said, will include the transfer of assets in farming.

6.30 p.m.

The situation envisaged in the new Clause is quite different. There is no requirement that the consideration received by the farmer or the woodland owner on the transfer of the assets of the partnership must be invested in the partnership business. As the Clause is drafted, there would be nothing to prevent him from taking a profit—it might be a handsome one—on the transaction tax free and using the proceeds for his private purposes.

I accept what the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) said in moving the Clause, and in which a number of his hon. Friends have supported him, that what they have in mind is a rather different transaction where a farmer brings his son into business with him and probably no money passes; it is a gratuitous grant to the son of a share in the business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) pointed out, this perhaps, particularly in the farming community, is not a frequent occurrence. Indeed, one hon. Member who spoke in support of the Clause referred to the tendency for farmers to hang on rather long before handing over to their sons or allowing them to participate in the business.

Be that as it may, the Clause goes much wider and could be used as a means for extracting capital gains from a business tax free and in that way making a considerable inroad into the Capital Gains Tax. To look at it another way, it is indirectly a Clause which would push back in time the retirement exemption which the House passed and accepted yesterday, because it would enable persons in partnership, by bringing in a new partner, to realise a gain, defer the liability for tax and then, when the time came for retirement, to use that retirement exemption to extinguish the liability completely and the revenue would be lost for all time. So that what was intended to be a retirement exemption to provide for retirement could be anticipated for other purposes.

These factors show, and are an excellent illustration of, an idea, which is put forward with admirable motives and in a reasonable and persuasive way, directed to a limited point but which, if accepted, would be bound to lead to a much wider application of the principle and to open up a big gap in the whole basis of the tax. For these reasons, I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept the Clause.

A small incidental point is that the Clause is also open to the objection that it is confined solely to farming and forestry. I appreciate that hon. Members who have put forward the Clause have a particular concern and interest in farming and forestry, for which they fight assiduously in our debates. If, however, it were right in principle to accept the Clause, it would not be right to confine it to farming and forestry. We know that there are special exemptions and privileges for farming and forestry in our tax law, but I do not think that this is one which could be sustained or justified and it would be necessary, if it were accepted, to extend it over the whole range of trade and business.

The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe pointed out that in a case where a farmer takes his son into partnership, if a liability for Capital Gains Tax arises there might be difficulty through lack of funds in paying the tax. This is a similar problem to one which may arise on payment of Estate Duty on death. Just as the Inland Revenue, in practice, adopts a reasonable approach to the difficulties in these circumstances and will allow the Estate Duty to be paid over a number of years when the difficulty has been established to the satisfaction of the Revenue, I assure the House that it is the intention to apply the same fair administration to the kind of circumstance to which the right hon. Member referred.

That is to say, if a son were taken into partnership and there was a lack of funds in the business at that time to pay the whole of the tax at once, it could be spread over a period of time, which might be a number of years, before it is paid.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I was a little surprised to hear the Financial Secretary tell the House that he had quite inadvertently misled the Committee about the difference between agriculture and forestry. If I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, he now states that his previous interpretation was inadvertently in error and that agriculture and forestry are separate businesses. In other words, on the transfer of business assets, if an asset which has been invested in agriculture is reinvested in forestry, there is no benefit under Clause 31.

That is a serious statement and it is a completely new departure, because hitherto agriculture and forestry have always been run together. An employee in forestry comes under the Agricultural Wages Act in exactly the same way as an employee in agriculture. The two are exactly the same.

Mr. MacDermot

It is not a new point. It is purely applying the existing law. For the purposes of tax law, they are different trades now. As I pointed out in debate in Committee, agriculture has a great advantage over many trades in that it is an extremely widely defined trade and includes many different kinds of agriculture—arable, dairy and pig farming, for example; they are all considered as one trade. My slip was in suggesting that it extended to include forestry. I dealt with the matter three times. I stated it correctly twice and incorrectly once.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

We need to get this clear. The hon. and learned Gentleman now says that if a farm is sold and the owner invests the proceeds in the purchase of woodlands, although the men who erect and repair the fences on the farm are exactly the same men who will erect and repair the fences on the newly-purchased woodland, that is a completely different type of business activity. This is difficult to understand. In terms of any agricultural estate, which always comprises both farming and forestry, this definition is extremely difficult.

Mr. MacDermot

May I try to help the hon. Member again? Where woodlands form part of a farm holding, they may then come within the definition of trade of agriculture. Where, however, a person switches from farming to forestry as a different trade, Clause 31 does not apply.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

I do not think that we are at cross-purposes. The point which I am trying to make concerns an individual who is engaged on one estate in both agriculture and forestry and has been for many years. If he switches a portion of his hitherto agricultural assets into a new forestry venture, although he is already an owner of woodlands commercially managed, what is his position under the Capital Gains Tax Clauses?

Mr. MacDermot

It must be a matter of degree. If his woodland activities are incidental to his farm, they come within the same trade, namely, agriculture. If he has been carrying on two different trades, one agriculture and the other forestry, he cannot switch between them and enjoy the benefit of Clause 31.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

I am sorry to have to follow the Financial Secretary after he has given a rather unsatisfactory answer. I am grateful to him for writing to me and drawing my attention to the mistake he made during the Committee stage. We have an Amendment on the Order Paper to Clause 31, for discussion later on, and we shall then be able to consider these questions. I hope that we shall find the Government in a more co-operative mood than they have been for the last hour or so. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) will be able to deploy his arguments, which have a great deal of force.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the concession he gave at the end of his speech, when he said that if the tax should bear hardly on the farmer who put his son into partnership and had to pay Capital Gains Tax on the realisation, he would be able to spread the payment over a number of years. But that is not sufficient. The fact remains that this tax will take capital out of the farm.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) seemed to think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) was dealing only with small farmers, but we are referring to farmers in general. The hon. Gentleman is experienced in accountancy, but I doubt whether he is as experienced in agriculture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) pointed out, this tax can bear hardly on the medium-sized farmers as well—indeed, on the large bulk of farmers We need not go into detail about the size of farms. But where the farmer takes his son or a relation into partnership the tax will mean considerable capital outflow. We believe that farming is in a special position in this respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South also raised the question of the herd basis. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there would be only rare cases in which an animal worth over £1,000 would be sold. There may be only a few animals in herds where farmers have elected to go on to the herd basis, but the point raised by my hon. Friend concerning a son going into partnership with his father in such cases is very pertinent and we must be clear about this. It appears that the contractual agreement between the Government and farmers

who opted for the herd basis in 1947–48 is being broken by applying Capital Gains Tax on beasts valued at over £1,000 on disposal. We shall return to this matter later, when I am sure that my hon. Friend will once again raise powerful arguments.

The Financial Secretary's main criticism was that, as drafted, the Clause would go too wide and that there might be a question of escaping tax, with the sum realised being used for other purposes when someone is brought into partnership. That is not our intention. We intend that when a father and son partnership takes place the money involved should be reinvested in the farm. If our wording goes too far, the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider withdrawing the Bill and recommitting it so that we could include such a provision.

I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts the narrow point we are trying to bring about—that Capital Gains Tax should not apply when a father wishes to bring his son into his farming business as a partner in that narrow sense only, where only a paper transaction is involved, or even in the wider sense, where assets have been realised but reinvested. That is all we are trying to do.

I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sympathetic to that case. If that is so, I ask him to consider whether he cannot find a means of remodelling this provision for inclusion in the Bill. I do not believe we should leave this matter where it is. It is very important, particularly for the farming community. Unless he can give such an assurance, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide against the Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 271.

Division No. 234.] AYES [6.47 p.m.
Agnew, Commander Sir Peter Atkins, Humphrey Bell, Ronald
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Awdry, Daniel Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Baker, W. H. K. Berkeley, Humphry
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Balniel, Lord Berry, Hn. Anthony
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Biggs-Davison, John
Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Barlow, Sir John Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Astor, John Batsford, Brian Black, Sir Cyril
Blaker, Peter Hamilton, M. (Salisbury) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bossom, Hn. Clive Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.) Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Harris, Reader (Heston) Onslow, Cranley
Box, Donald Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Braine, Bernard Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Brewis, John Harvie Anderson, Miss Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hastings, Stephen Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hawkins, Paul Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry Hay, John Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Peel, John
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Percival, Ian
Bryan, Paul Hendry, Forbes Peyton, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Higgins, Terence L. Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Bullus, Sir Eric Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Burden, F. A. Hirst, Geoffrey Pitt, Dame Edith
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Pounder, Rafton
Buxton, Ronald Hooson, H. E. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Campbell, Gordon Hopkins, Alan Price, David (Eastleigh)
Carlisle, Mark Hordern, Peter Prior, J. M. L.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hornby, Richard Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P. Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Channon, H. P. G. Hutchison, Michael Clark Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Chataway, Christopher Iremonger, T. L. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Chichester-Clark, R. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Jennings, J. C. Ridsdale, Julian
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Cole, Norman Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Cooke, Robert Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Roots, William
Cooper, A. E. Jopling, Michael Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Scott-Hopkins, James
Corfield, F. V. Kaberry, Sir Donald Sharples, Richard
Costain, A. P. Kerby, Capt. Henry Shepherd, William
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge) Sinclair, Sir George
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Kershaw, Anthony Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Crawley, Aidan Kilfedder, James A. Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kimball, Marcus Spearman, Sir Alexander
Cunningham, Sir Knox King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Speir, Sir Rupert
Curran, Charles Kirk, Peter Stainton, Keith
Currie, G. B. H. Kitson, Timothy Stanley, Hn. Richard
Dalkeith, Earl of Lagden, Godfrey Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dance, James Lambton, Viscount Studholme, Sir Henry
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr) Lancaster, Col. C. G. Talbot, John E.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Langford-Holt, Sir John Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dean, Paul Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Teeling, Sir William
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Litchfield, Capt. John Temple, John M.
Doughty, Charles Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Drayson, G. B. Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Longden, Gilbert Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Eden, Sir John Loveys, Walter H. Thorpe, Jeremy
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lubbock, Eric Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Emery, Peter McAdden, Sir Stephen Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Eyre, Reginald MacArthur, Ian Tweedsmuir, Lady
Farr, John Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fell, Anthony Mackie, George Y. (C'ness & S'land) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Fisher, Nigel Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Vickers, Dame Joan
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Walder, David (High Peak)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton) McMaster, Stanley Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Foster, Sir John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) McNair-Wilson, Patrick Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maginnis, John E. Wall, Patrick
Gammans, Lady Maitland, Sir John Walters, Dennis
Gibson-Watt, David Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Ward, Dame Irene
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan Marten, Neil Weatherill, Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central) Mathew, Robert Webster, David
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Maude, Angus Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glover, Sir Douglas Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Whitelaw, William
Glyn, Sir Richard Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Goodhart, Philip Meyer, Sir Anthony Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Goodhew, Victor Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wise, A. R.
Gower, Raymond Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Grant, Anthony Miscampbell, Norman Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant-Ferris, R. Mitchell, David Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Gresham Cooke, R. Monro, Hector Woodnutt, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) More, Jasper Wylie, N. R.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Younger, Hn. George
Gurden, Harold Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Hall, John (Wycombe) Murton, Oscar TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Neave, Airey Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
NOES
Abse, Leo Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange) Molloy, William
Albu, Austen Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Monslow, Walter
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hale, Leslie Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Alldritt, Walter Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, William (West Fife) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Bacon, Miss Alice Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.) Murray, Albert
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hannan, William Neal, Harold
Barnett, Joel Harper, Joseph Newens, Stan
Baxter, William Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Bence, Cyril Hart, Mrs. Judith Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hazell, Bert Norwood, Christopher
Binns, John Heffer, Eric S. Oakes, Gordon
Bishop, E. S. Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur Ogden, Eric
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret O'Malley, Brian
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Boardman, H. Holman, Percy Orbach, Maurice
Boston, T. G. Horner, John Orme, Stanley
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Oswald, Thomas
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Owen, Will
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.) Padley, Walter
Bradley, Tom Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Howie, W. Paget, R. T.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Hoy, James Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pargiter, G. A.
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Buchanan, Richard Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parker, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline) Parkin, B. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, A. E. (Feltham) Pavitt, Laurence
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hynd, H. (Accrington) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Carmichael, Neil Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Pentland, Norman
Chapman, Donald Jackson, Colin Perry, Ernest G.
Coleman, Donald Janner, Sir Barnett Popplewell, Ernest
Conlan, Bernard Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Prentice, R. E.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jeger, George (Goole) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Probert, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Crawshaw, Richard Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Randall, Harry
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rankin, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Redhead, Edward
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rees, Merlyn
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Darling, George Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey Kelley, Richard Robertson, John (Paisley)
Delargy, Hugh Kenyon, Clifford Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)
Dell, Edmund Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dempsey, James Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Rose, Paul B.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lawson, George Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dodds, Norman Leadbitter, Ted Rowland, Christopher
Doig, Peter Ledger, Ron Sheldon, Robert
Driberg, Tom Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P. Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dunn, James A. Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Dunnett, Jack Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Edelman, Maurice Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, John (Deptford)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lipton, Marcus Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
English, Michael Loughlin, Charles Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ennals, David Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ensor, David McBride, Neil Skeffington, Arthur
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley) McCann, J. Small, William
Fernyhough, E. MacColl, James Snow, Julian
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty) MacDermot, Niall Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McGuire, Michael Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McInnes, James Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McKay, Mrs. Margaret Stonehouse, John
Floud, Bernard Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Stones, William
Foley, Maurice McLeavy, Frank Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Ford, Ben Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Swain, Thomas
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Manuel, Archie Swingler, Stephen
Freeson, Reginald Mapp, Charles Symonds, J. B.
Galpern, Sir Myer Marsh, Richard Taverne, Dick
Garrett, W. E. Mason, Roy Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd Maxwell, Robert Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Ginsburg, David Mayhew, Christopher Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Gourlay, Harry Mellish, Robert Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Mendelson, J. J. Thornton, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold Mikardo, Ian Tinn, James
Grey, Charles Millan, Bruce Tomney, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Miller, Dr. M. S. Tuck, Raphael
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Urwin, T. W.
Varley, Eric G. Whitlock, William Winterbottom, R. E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints) Wigg, Rt. Hn. George Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Wilkins, W. A. Woof, Robert
Wallace, George Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wyatt, Woodrow
Warbey, William Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Watkins, Tudor Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) Zilliacus, K.
Weitzman, David Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
White, Mrs. Eirene Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) Mr. George Rogers and Mrs. Slater.