New Clause.—(CREDIT CARRIED FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS CHARGEABLE ACT OR EVENT.)

HC Deb 26 October 1966 vol 734 cc1025-53

Where in accordance with Part I of Schedule (Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event) to this Act a credit is to be taken to have arisen from a chargeable act or event, such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event shall have effect as therein mentioned.—[Mr. Willey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.45 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey)

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

This is merely a paving Clause, providing a link——

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be to the convenience of the House if we were to discuss with new Clause 1 the Schedule which appears on page 3189 of the Notice Paper, as the Clause intends to introduce that Schedule?

Mr. Speaker

That makes sense to me if the House agrees.

Mr. Willey

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that would meet with the convenience of the House. These new Clauses are merely paving the way for new Schedules which are replacing old Schedules. I am certain that it would meet the convenience of the House better if we kept to our regular procedure and discussed the Schedules when we came to them. I think that it is far better to discuss first of all the provisions of the Bill and then come to the Schedules.

Mr. Graham Page

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Leader of the House let the cat out of the bag a few days ago when he said that we usually take a certain time discussing the early pages of the Notice Paper and then romp through the latter pages. I am anxious that these Schedules should not be dealt with in the early hours of Friday morning. They are something of a new Bill. This Bill went into Committee as one Bill. It has come out as two Bills.

We should discuss these Schedules, which are a new Bill in themselves, as a Second Reading with the new Clauses. It is quite ridiculous to pass these Clauses which introduce new Schedules without discussing the Schedules themselves. The Schedules are the machinery of the Bill, and we should discuss them now with the new Clauses.

Still on the point of order, I do not know what our position would be if the new Clauses which introduce these Schedules were accepted and then we came to discuss the Schedules later. It seems that we should have prejudiced the House by dealing with the new Clauses without discussing the Schedules which they intend to introduce.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making the confusion with which we are becoming all too accustomed. He is identifying his own convenience with that of the House, and I do not think that the two are identifiable at all. I feel very much the same as my hon. Friend. If we are deprived now of an opportunity of discussing this new Schedule so lately introduced to us, we shall be nullifying the purposes of debate. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman will not add to his reputation, because he will be deceiving the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker

The Chair is in the position that the Notice Paper is drafted in the normal form. Unless both sides of the House agree, I cannot depart from the usual procedure. But I do not see any harm in referring, in the debate on the new Clause, to the Schedule as far as it is connected with it.

Mr. Willey

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that this is a paving new Clause providing the link with the Schedule on credits, which is, in fact, the Schedule discussed before in Standing Committee. It is a Schedule which has now been marshalled with two provisions from Schedule 8.

Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)

Before I speak to the Clause itself, I wish to declare the same interest that I did in Committee, first of all, that I own a house with about half an acre of land and an interest in some other business properties.

My second interest is that I am a solicitor. I am declaring this interest because many guineas are to be gained for the legal profession because of the Bill, but I have yet to meet a member of my profession who is now in practice, and who has considered the Bill, and who would not willingly trade the guineas which he will get for the Bill if the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about the way in which the Bill has been presented to us. We have before us about 86 pages of Amendments. This is a very complicated matter, indeed, and we on this side of the House, particularly on the back benches, feel that we have been dealt with very shabbily by the Leader of the House in the time which he has given us to consider these complex and complicated Amendments.

I am speaking as a new Member of the House. I have not the expert backing which the Government have, and I therefore cannot do justice to my constituents whose interests are affected by the Bill, because of the short time which we have had to think about these Amendments before discussing them.

You have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that we may refer to the Schedule to which the Clause relates. Indeed, it is almost impossible to debate the Clause without referring to the Schedule. When the old Schedule 6 which this Schedule replaces was discussed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) was rash enough to congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is the custom, when referring to the proceedings in Committee, to give the column number. It helps other hon. Members.

Mr. Clegg

I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. It is column 920 on 4th August. On that occasion, my hon. Friend said: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules. In fact, in Part III, the provisions for carrying credit forward, it really becomes perfectly simple. In fact, it oversimplifies matters. The right hon. Gentleman's reply to that was: As this is so clear to the hon. Gentleman, I am not going to run any risk at all. It is going to remain as it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 4th August, 1966; c. 920.] In spite of that we now have a completely new Schedule. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be learning to live dangerously. Perhaps this is because his Ministry may no longer be with us in a very short time.

I propose now to refer to the Schedule to amplify what I was saying earlier about its complexity. It is indeed a formidable Schedule, but that is by no means unique in this Bill. It is not only formidable, it is rather like a cannibal, because it feeds on itself. It consists of 227 lines, no fewer than 65 of which are devoted to an interpretation of the Schedule itself. To the average man in the street it will be complete and utter gibberish.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Hexham)

To anybody.

Mr. Clegg

The Government are asking Parliament to enact a Measure which, as my right hon. Friend has just said, cannot conceivably be understood by anybody, perhaps not even by the right hon. Gentleman.

It used to be said that ignorance of the law excused no man, but that was put forward in simpler Roman times. It seems to me that that position is now changing, when we get legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to help the hon. Gentleman. He must link his remarks to the Clause. This is not the Third Reading of the Bill, or indeed the Second Reading, nor even the Second Reading of the new Schedules. The hon. Member must link what he has to say to the Clause before us.

Mr. Clegg

This Clause, with its implications, seems a good example of the sort of legislation which might one day lead our judges to pronounce that ignorance of the law is an excuse, because I feel that they will be driven to do so. This Clause, as part of the Bill, leads me to the reflection that the right hon. Gentleman is an amiable man, as we found in Committee, but so was Frankenstein. Frankenstein built a complex monster, which, in the end, ran amok, and the only way to destroy it was by fire. This Clause, the Schedule, and the Bill, ought to be so destroyed.

Mr. Peyton

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said about the surprise that the Minister is still with us. With that lingering optimism which still affects our proceedings, we had hoped that he would have gone by now, but when he meets his fate he will at least have the consolation of knowing that he has gone out with the most disgusting of obsequies. I am referring to the sort of stuff that we are considering today. I do not believe that it is possible to find words adequate to condemn this kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian. He knows that he must talk about the Clause which we are discussing.

Mr. Peyton

If one can talk about the obscene, my restraint in coming to it is due to the measure of disgust which I feel at these proceedings. We have not had adequate time to consider this matter. The Leader of the House was asked five times the other day to delay the consideration of the Bill so that we could have an opportunity of ascertaining——

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would give the House a Ruling on the way in which the proceedings are being conducted? The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the Bill. The subject before us is the new Clause, but so far we have heard nothing about it from the hon. Gentleman. Are we to continue in this way? My right hon. Friend has moved the Clause, and that is all that he needs to do. Therefore, so that we may get on with our proceedings, I think that the Chair should no longer be defied.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for reinforcing the Ruling which I was modestly and temperately trying to convey to the House.

Mr. Peyton

If I may say so with respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is paying you no compliment. I am exceedingly grateful that you are the occupant of the Chair, and not the hon. Gentleman.

As I said before, I was tip-toeing delicately towards the obscene, and I now approach it. Having sat through the ordeal of listening to the Chief Secretary move Amendments to his own Finance Bill, I can say that never before have I heard a Minister, with quite such an unintelligible new Clause on the Notice Paper, get up and say that it was a paving Clause, and sit down. I believe that we are entitled to some explanation of what this gibberish means.

I repeat my objection to the attitude taken by the Minister about separating this Clause from the Second Reading of the Schedule. I believe that there are times when Ministers ought to sit and listen to what they have done. The Clause reads: Where in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule (Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event) to this Act a credit is to be taken to have arisen from a chargeable act or event, such of the provisions of Parts II and HI of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event shall have effect as therein mentioned. The Minister has the insolence to get up and say that it is a paving Clause—crazy paving!

I am not clear whether I would be within the rules of order if I were to read the whole of this abominable Schedule, but I believe that Ministers should be punished for their impudence.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have no views at all on the Tightness, morality, desire to inflict justice, or revenge on the Minister. I simply warn the hon. Member that he must not read out the Schedule.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Peyton

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. That saves me from a very painful ordeal. May I ask for your guidance? To what extent are we entitled to ask the Minister, at this stage, what is meant by the Schedule? I take it from your Ruling that we are not in order in discussing the details of the Schedule now.

Mr. Speaker

It is clear that the hon. Member knows he is not in order in discussing the details of the Schedule. This is a new Clause. It makes certain provisions which affect certain Schedules. He can discuss the Schedules only as they affect what is in the new Clause.

Mr. Graham Page

Further to that point of order. We are in great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We cannot consider this Schedule just as an abstract theory. If we are to discuss the effects of the new Clause we have to discuss the effects of the new Schedule which it introduces. To discuss the effects of that, we have to look at the Schedule in some detail. I do not know whether we are permitted a further debate on the Schedule when we reach it on the Notice Paper.

I have looked at Erskine May on the subject, and I should like, with respect, to refer you to page 565, which gives quite clearly the order in which matters are dealt with on Report, and also to page 548, which deals with new Clauses and any new Schedule to which they refer. I would have thought that we could not discuss a new Clause and just vaguely and in theory discuss a Schedule to which it refers. We cannot come to a decision on a new Clause until we know the contents of the Schedule, and we shall not know the contents of the Schedule unless we can consider it in some detail.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

There is another difficulty. Unless we have some clarification about the new Schedule there is no certainty that the House will agree to it. Therefore, in this Clause we are agreeing to carry out provisions contained in the Schedule although it may be that when we reach that Schedule it will be so obnoxious that we shall not accept it. We should surely have the right to discuss the Schedule and also have an explanation from the Minister about it while we are debating the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the hon. Member wanted to pursue a point of order. We dealt with this question some time ago. I have ruled that unless the consent of both sides of the House can be obtained, the Chair must follow the Notice Paper in the order in which the items appear on it.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has referred to Erskine May. With respect, I suggest that he has misinterpreted it. If he will look at page 566 he will see that it is there stated that After the amendments to the clauses of the bill have been considered new schedules may be proposed and amended in the same way as new clauses. Amendments may then be made to the schedules of the bill as reported by the committee. As I understand it, this is a normal Notice Paper. We must proceed. All that I suggest is that it would be intelligent to refer to the Schedules as far as they affect what is contained in the new Clause. I hope that the House will proceed. We have a long discussion ahead of us.

Sir E. Errington

I rarely intervene in these matters, Mr. Speaker, but from your Ruling the position seems to be that during the course of this discussion on the new Clause reference may be made to the Schedule. As I see it, the words a credit is to be taken in the Clause may refer to four or five different kinds of credit as referred to in the Schedule. I submit that at least those should be made clear, either by the Minister or by somebody. If this is not done the discussion is completely in the land of clouds.

Mr. Speaker

Apparently the hon. Gentleman was not here when we discussed this point of order. What he has said can be argued in the debate.

Mr. Peyton

I entirely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I now address my remarks to the Minister.

It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman intentionally imposed upon the Opposition restraints and inconveniences which are wholly unnecessary. Without any explanation at all he said that he was introducing a paving Clause, although at the time he was aware that by imposing his ban—which he is entitled to do, according to your Ruling—he was preventing our discussing the Schedule with the Clause. He has just put down this piece of paving in order subsequently to drag in his dirty cargo of a Schedule. We are entitled to have a better explanation from him as to what the new Clause is about.

I know very well the opinion the Government have formed of the House of Commons. We have become accustomed to the derision and contempt with which the House is treated by the Government. Long ago, when there was a Conservative Administration, in the happy far-off days, I complained that the House of Commons had become the pekingese of the Administration. It has now been reduced to something far below that stage by Ministers who are so convinced that they are right that they are not prepared to bother to explain what is meant by the gibberish that they put before us.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

In my opinion and in the opinion of tax experts the Schedule to which the new Clause refers is quite unintelligible. I have gone to incredible trouble to try to understand the Schedule. I have been to three tax experts, all of whom have told me, "Do not be ashamed if you do not understand it. If anybody says he understands it he cannot be telling the truth". The Minister says that this is a paving Clause. The whole of the property world is waiting for him to explain what is in the new Schedule. One interpretation is that it will mean that tax will be charged at 87½ per cent. on any land deals.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is wandering into a debate on the Schedule. He must link what he has to say with the new Clause.

Mr. Costain

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am as confused by your Ruling as I am by the Schedule. May I have some help from you? When can we obtain an explanation of the Schedule? Without it the Bill will be quite impracticable.

Mr. Speaker

When we reach the Schedule the Schedule will be debated, and I suppose that the information which the hon. Member seeks will be forthcoming.

Mr. Costain

I await with renewed interest the Minister's explanation in this respect.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has clarified the debate more than anybody who has so far spoken. He tells us that he has seen three tax experts who have admitted that they do not understand the new Clause and cannot explain it. Perhaps it is not understandable by the right hon. Gentleman—who has never been considered to be particularly bright. Perhaps that is why he is unable to explain it to the House.

Mr. Manuel

Which right hon. Gentleman?

Sir D. Glover

The right hon. Member who is officially in charge of the Bill, but seems to be quite unable to explain to the House what is meant by the new Clause. I do not mind if there is some difficulty over this, because there are limitations to what he can say about the Schedule. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) told us that five roads would be covered by the paving Clause. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot argue by back-chat across the House.

Sir D. Glover

Thank you very much for your protection, Mr. Speaker.

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is perfectly true that the reason that the Minister has not given a proper explanation of the new Clause is that the Minister himself does not understand it. The House will be forced to that conclusion unless, before we leave the Clause, the Minister intervenes again to explain the Clause to the House and make it intelligible, so that the ordinary Member of Parliament can understand what it is that Parliament is being asked to pass.

Mr. Graham Page

The way in which the Minister introduced the new Clause in a few words was shocking. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman intended to be discourteous, as that is not in his nature; he has been most courteous in Committee and in our previous proceedings. But this just shows that the Bill is quite impossible and unintelligible and that even he is not prepared to explain to the House what the new Clause is about. He leaves it to us, in Opposition, to explain to him what his own Clause means.

The penultimate line of the new Clause refers to a "chargeable act or event" and says that it shall have certain effect as mentioned in the Schedule. A chargeable act or event in this Bill has the effect that a levy is imposed on somebody. The implications of a Case A sale of land by Mr. A to Mr. B are that the levy is charged on the difference between the market value, which may well be the sale price of the property, and the base value, some other value calculated in accordance with the Bill. That is to say, one takes a base value, finds out the market value, and, the market value being, one assumes, greater than the base value, there is a difference and levy is calculated on it.

How stupid can an Act get when, having calculated all that in accordance with the miles of Schedules, one finds that the base value exceeds the market value? This is the purpose of the Schedule. In short, the Clause, which introduces the new Schedule, says that one can go through all the calculations of all the other Schedules in the Bill, which are all based on the fact that someone is making a profit out of selling land, and that one will be charged a levy out of what one gets for selling it as compared with what one paid for it. This is a rough basis.

But having gone through all the calculations of finding out what the base value is and what the market value is, in some cases one will find that one has made a loss—that the market value is less than the base value. For that reason, we have to introduce a Schedule to say that, under those circumstances, one will have a credit.

This is in the Clause: … a credit is to be taken to have arisen". But what happens to the credit when it has arisen, when the base value, as calculated in accordance with the Bill, exceeds the amount for which one sold the property? The Clause says that a credit has arisen. I understand "a credit" as meaning something to which a person is entitled. If I have a credit, I expect to realise it and to get some money from it, but that is not what happens under the Bill. Under this new Schedule, a credit arises and it is then rubbed out and completely disappears.

This is where the whole folly of the Bill is proven. One goes through elaborate calculations to find out on what sum of money to levy a credit and finds in the end that one is levying it on a minus quantity and so sets out a Schedule under which one says that there is something which, in ordinary English, means a sum of money, a credit, and then in the Schedule which we are discussing, one reads that that credit is just wiped out and that nobody gets it. To understand this Schedule, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, one must read through 67 lines of interpretation, and then Part II and Part III.

In trying to calculate the figures on which the levy is to be calculated from other Schedules in the Bill, we have come to be familiar with the phrase, "current use value". I thought that we understood this, but in the Schedule which we are trying to introduce in this Clause, the "current use value" does not have its 10 per cent. added as in other Clauses and Schedules and Part III seems to muck about with the 10 per cent. and put it on some other amount altogether, which again makes the whole calculation quite unintelligible.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Gentleman and I went through those long Committee discussions together and we tried to understand what was going on. We gained some knowledge at any rate. In effect, what the new Clause is doing is what the hon. Gentleman would do with property of his own. If he assumed that it had a certain value which it did not attain when put up for sale on the market what would he do about it? He would accept what he could get even if it fell below the notional value which he thought it had. This is all that the new Clause is doing, and nothing else——

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. Am I not right in thinking that interventions in speeches should be kept within modest limits, and is not the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) well exceeding those modest limits?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

That is the principle. I do not think that the hon. Member has quite reached that limit at the moment, although he is very near it.

Mr. Graham Page

I was obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention, because it supported my argument to the hilt. I am saying that the Bill sets out the most complicated calculations for finding out on what sum the levy is to be levied. Having gone through all those calculations we now find in this new Schedule that they may turn out to be a farce, resulting in something ridiculous such as a minus quantity, so that the Schedule must be put into the Bill to take into account this ridiculous situation. The very fact that this has to be done shows the stupidity of the rest of the Bill and shows that, when one starts to impose a levy of this sort, this is the sort of stupid difficulty against which one comes.

The Minister has struggled manfully to put theory into practice, but right at the beginning of this Report stage, with this new Clause introducing a Schedule of that sort, he has proved that the machinery to put this levy into operation just will not work. The machinery is so complicated that it will break down before the administration can go into operation.

I trust that I have not gone into too much detail on the new Schedule, as we shall certainly want to come back to it when it is reached, so as to ask for explanations in detail of the various unintelligible phrases used in it.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

I intervene because I wish it to be on the record that there is a considerable: body of opinion on both sides of the House that people will have great difficulty, to say the least, in understanding the implications of the whole Bill. I have spoken to Queen's Counsel and a solicitor because I wanted to be briefed on the subject and to gain an understanding of the Bill greater than I had been able to gain as an amateur. Like the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), they expressed great difficulty in understanding it and admitted that they could not understand some parts of it.

It does not do this House any good to have Measures before it which probably even the Ministers concerned do not fully understand. With respect, I advise my right hon. Friend to find a more simplified method of achieving the objects of the Bill, and certainly of the new Clause, using the Queen's English and being understandable without there existing dubiety about the meaning of it.

Certain principles are involved in the new Clause, but they will be lost by the passage of time because nobody will be able to understand what the Measure means, and the whole thing will break down. Perhaps that is the purpose of the exercise. That is possible because I recall that the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, was not understood to any great extent by many people. That broke down and could not work. That might be the purpose of this Measure. If so, we should not make a farce of legislation and we should not place legislation on the Statute Book unless it is based on a simple formula which is understandable at least to hon. Members and solicitors.

The Bill should be withdrawn and reconsidered. I say that advisedly. It is fantastic that I should be asked questions about the meaning of some of its provisions and am not able to give a reply. How can I intelligently vote on this matter one way or the other? I agree with the broad principles involved, but they are lost in a morass of irrelevancies. That is why I say the Bill should be withdrawn and recommitted to a Committee upstairs on the basis of language which people can understand.

Mr. Rippon

We are grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter). Indeed, it might be appropriate if we were to ask leave to report Progress, because the House as a whole is in very great difficulty about the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has taken counsel's opinion and has been advised that much of the Measure is unintelligible. I said at Blackpool the other day that it was unintelligible and unworkable, and that remains my view. It is obvious that hon. Members simply do not understand what the Government are trying to achieve.

The Minister described the new Clause as a "paving Clause", although he did not say what the Bill meant as originally placed before the Committee. Many hon. Members present today were not on the Committee. There, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was perfectly satisfied with the Bill. Now, apparently, he is not, so we have a new Clause and a new Schedule. What was the original position and why does he think that it is no longer satisfactory? What change is he about to make and why is he making it?

Sir John Foster (Northwich)

One of the difficulties about the new Clause is that it refers to a "chargeable act" and later refers to "any subsequent chargeable act". What is the difference between the two? In the Schedule they are said to be the same thing and it is inconvenient that there should be a reference in the new Clause to two things which appear in the Schedule to be the same. Are they the same in the new Clause? The whole thing seems to make very little sense.

I press on the Minister a desirable reform in the drafting of legislation; that words defined in a definition Clause should be printed in black letters and words defined, in a Schedule, elsewhere than in a definition Clause, should be printed in italics. That way anybody reading it would immediately come upon the expression and know that it is defined somewhere. When reading the provision one gathered that a "chargeable act" was the same as "any subsequent chargeable act", but are they different? An act today would appear to be different from a subsequent act, although the Schedule makes them the same.

Mr. Peyton

On a point of order. I was under the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) suggested that we might report Progress, so that the Government might have an opportunity to clear up the abominable miasma of misunderstanding and confusion which they have created. I was not certain whether my right hon. and learned Friend formally moved that Motion, but if he did not, would you accept such a Motion from me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since it seems that if ever there were grounds to report Progress—I admit that there is not much progress to report—they are here now.

As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out—and as the intervention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) confirmed—none of us understands what is meant by the new Clause. For the Government to sustain their invitation to the House to continue sitting and to deliberate on a Clause which nobody has yet even claimed to understand cannot be right. The Minister merely described it in the most glib way and the further we go into this business the more sympathy I have for the right hon. Gentleman. He described it as a "paving Clause" and said no more.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understood that the hon. Member was rising to a point of order. The answer to it is that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did refer to a Motion to report Progress, but did not move such a Motion. No such Motion is appropriate on Report. It is appropriate only in Committee and if the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham had attempted to move such a Motion or a similar one I could not have accepted it. We are debating a new Clause and it is perfectly competent for an hon. Member to discuss what it means or is intended to mean.

Mr. Rippon

Further to that point of order. I did not formally move the Motion for the reason that you have given, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, the House is in great difficulty and I hope that I have at least persuaded the Minister not to sit any longer in solemn silence on this matter, but to tell us what it all means.

In our view, and on the best advice we can get—from tax experts, surveyors, estate agents, solicitors and Queen's Counsel—it does not mean anything at all. It does not matter what the Government's policy is, this does not give effect to their policy or to anybody else's policy. It is gibberish. It is pop-art. It is as though the print has been thrown at the paper and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking to a point of order. He has already made a speech and has, therefore, exhausted his right to speak further on the new Clause. It did not appear to me that he was raising a valid point of order, but was objecting to being unable to understand the new Clause. The whole object of the debate is to enable the House to enlighten itself as to the meaning of the new Clause. No point of order arises.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It appears that there is a certain amount of unease on both sides because we fail to understand the purport of the new Clause. Knowing how anxious you are to help all hon. Members, I ask you to ask the Government Front Bench to send for the Solicitor-General, so that we may have the benefit of his advice in interpreting certain lines and portions of this Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In answer to that point of order, it is not competent for the Chair to arrange for any particular Member of the House to be present. The House is in process of enlightening itself as to the meaning of the new Clause, and there are hon. Members present who, I have no doubt, are competent to do that.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)

On a point of behaviour coupled with a point of dignity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is highly infra dig. and does the reputation of the House no good outside to continue a discussion at great length when we do not know what we are discussing—and the Treasury Bench knows even less. Is there nothing we can do to stop this farcical behaviour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate, of course, that that is not a point of order. The whole purpose of the debate on the Clause is to enable the matter to be elucidated, and for the House to form an opinion about it and vote on it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington)

Perhaps I might come to the assistance of the House. I am a little sorry, if I may say so with respect, that some of the speeches made at the beginning of this debate were made at all, because those who were in the Standing Committee will agree that very few Ministers could have been more patient and courteous than was my right hon. Friend. Although there are 97 Clauses and 13 Schedules to the Bill, we never once moved the Closure, and we had this very excellent discussion and argument in which we tried to answer all the points made.

Some of what has been said—although this may be part of the operation of prolonging the discussion, which I do not altogether understand—has been unfortunate and, I think, unfair. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) does not usually like to be put in that position, but I believe that he has been very unfair this afternoon.

Mr. Peyton

Perhaps I may intervene, as my name has been mentioned. I have no personal grievance against the Minister. I was merely commenting on what we have had to endure this afternoon. We have been told by the Government that we cannot discuss the Schedule and the new Clause together. The Minister then says that something that no one understands is just a paving Clause, which is the most impudent thing I have heard for a long time.

Mr. Skeffington

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance in regard to the allusions to my right hon. Friend. We based ourselves on page 566 of Erskine May which says that after a Bill has been discussed and amended in Committee, there will be adequate explanation of what the Amendments and Schedules mean.

Some hon. Members referred to Schedule 6, and said that this was clearer than the new Clause. My right hon. Friend had said that it would remain as it was, and referred to an Amendment he had made to add the word "value" after "development". It was that concept that he thought was perfectly clear, and I thought that at the time he carried the Opposition with him. I therefore feel that there has been some misrepresentation, no doubt unintentional, of what he then said.

The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) made some play with the fact that one can go through all the procedure of assessment of levy and then find that in certain circumstances no levy may be payable. That, however, has always been a feature of the Bill. When the Committee discussed this very Schedule, and other Schedules, we were asked to consider a number of additional possibilities, and that is precisely what we have done. Having had discussions with a number of practitioners outside the House and having brought in a provision making it unnecessary to look at three or four Schedules to come to a conclusion, I find it a bit rough to get the sort of treatment that has been meted out to us this afternoon.

The new paving Clause introduces the giving of credits, and authority for this must be provided in the Bill itself. As a result of this provision, these credits, which are very much in the interests of the levy payer, can be taken into account very much more easily than before, and there is a lot of advantage to a levy payer both as to the method and as to the actual substance of the credits themselves.

There may be all sorts of cases when no levy will be payable, and I do not think that it is any demerit of the Bill to provide for this. There are cases—it will not often happen, but there will be cases—where the base value, that is, in the case of material development of Class C, the price which the developer has paid for the land, will exceed the development value on which the levy would be realised.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite would be the first to complain if we had not adequately provided for those cases, as we have done here.

All the new Clause does is to provide a link authorising these credits as specified in the new Schedule—Amendment No. 184—and explain how credits shall be calculated, the circumstances in which they arise, and how the procedure will operate. It merely gives authority for that to be done so that, in that sense, it is a simple paving Clause.

In view of my explanation, I hope that the House will be able to proceed to many of the very important considerations which have arisen in further discussions by the Government in which we have had the benefit of the views of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and the views of various bodies. We have tried, after the very full Committee stage, to carry this matter a step further.

Mr. Graham Page

If this is what the Schedule does, what is the objection to agreeing to discuss the Schedule with the new Clause? We are only precluded from doing that—and the Chair has ruled, as I understand it, that we shall not discuss the Schedule with the Clause—because the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will not agree to it. We have been told what the Schedule contains, but surely, with the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman, we could discuss the Schedule now.

Mr. Skeffington

The view that my right hon. Friend took—with which, with respect, I agree, and which, I feel, would meet the general convenience of the House—is that the Schedules can only properly be assessed when we have added the Clauses and made any other Amendments to the Bill. This is in accordance with normal procedure; I have already indicated the reference in Erskine May to Bills as amended. We think it in the best interests of individual Members of the House that this should be done. That is our honest view, so I hope that we can now proceed to a decision on this Clause.

Sir J. Foster

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point referring to a chargeable act or event and any subsequent chargeable act or event"? It seems idiotic to refer to an event and a subsequent one. Are they different in the Clause? Will he look at the Schedule——

Mr. Skeffington

When we come to it.

Sir J. Foster

It is not a question of looking at the Schedule, but a question of looking at the Clause now. The words in the Clause are: a chargeable act or event and then it says: such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent chargeable act or event. It is necessary to find what those words mean. The only place where one can find what they mean is the Schedule and the Schedule says that they mean the same. Does that make sense?

Mr. Skeffington

Yes.

Sir J. Foster

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why?

Mr. Skeffington

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at other Amendments which have been put down he will see how it makes sense in respect of the new Schedule and the old Schedule and other parts of the Measure to which I referred.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

The House will be grateful for at any rate so much of explanation as has been vouchsafed by the Parliamentary Seceretary. When he is—I was about to say "more usefully"—employed as a member of the Bar, he is accustomed to applying his mind to these complex matters.

The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister will recall what happens when Measures like this are put through Parliament with insufficient discussion and insufficient explanation. We have lived through all this before in the context of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act in which insufficient information was given, in particular of Part VII. It has died an ignominious death, but not before it had brought great difficulty into transactions in land and had puzzled people, councils, surveyors, solicitors and the like, for a number of years before it met that fate.

Therefore, it is desirable in a Measure such as this that the maximum explanation should be given, and at the first reasonable opportunity. When we have a new Clause which refers to such of the provisions of Parts II and III of that Schedule as are applicable to any subsequent; chargeable act or event the House cannot decide whether this is an appropriate Clause without looking to see in that Schedule what are those provisions referred to and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said, looking to see what the "chargeable event" referred to is.

When one sees an immediate doubt, ambiguity, indeed contradiction, raised in the first subsection of the new Schedule printed on page 3189 of the Notice Paper and then sees another new definition introduced, the previous chargeable act or event". and then turns to the following page and sees a variety of new definitions of the "original chargeable interest", "the original chargeable unit", "the original chargeable owner", and so on, the matter obviously cries out for clear, early and comprehensible explanation.

Then, when one goes on to discover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, that the Schedule makes it clear, of course, that there may well be minuses when one is making the calculation for the Case C levy, again the House realises that it is on a point very fundamental to the Bill on which an early explanation is requisite. It is even worse than my hon. Friend suggested. Not only is there a minus liable to come out, but there may be a succession of chargeable events and a series of reductions and still there will be a minus at the end of the day. It will still be there.

4.45 p.m.

On page 3192 of the Notice Paper, paragraph 10 (4) of the New Schedule says: If the primary amount is less than the credit, then—

1. (a) no levy shall be chargeable in respect of that act or event.…"

That seems to be very reasonable if there is a credit and it has not been extinguished. At least one will not be charged any more. I suppose that with the present Administration one should be thankful even for such small mercies. We go on to (b): the credit shall thereupon be reduced by an amount equal to the primary amount of which we have a lesser credit.

Then we go to paragraph 11, which says: Where the credit is reduced in accordance with any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule … then, in the case of each successive subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the original chargeable interest (or, as the case may be, each successive subsequent chargeable act or event affecting the interest previously affected). These words, of course, are subject to the doubt referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. The new Schedule goes on to say: those provisions of this Part of this Schedule and of the regulations shall apply in relation to the credit as so reduced (or as progressively reduced by virtue of this paragraph, as the case may be) until the whole of the credit has been extinguished". So there will be a succession of subsequent chargeable events still taking bits off the credit and still there will be a credit left. The minus to start with may be so large that it is not extinguished by a series of chargeable events. Suppose that it is never extinguished. This new Schedule seems to come to an untimely stop. Heaven alone knows why it should stop. As one reads paragraph after paragraph one wonders why it should ever stop or come to a definite conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he seems now to be in discussion of the merits of the Schedule rather than the merits of the new Clause.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I were embarking upon the merits of the Schedule I would have finished a very long time ago and would have been extremely short. Nor was I even embarking on the demerits of the Schedule, which would have been a considerably longer exercise.

All I was doing—I respectfully hope that I was within the bounds of order—was, in the context of this new Clause, to seek to show cause why it was impossible for the House to come to an informed conclusion as to whether the Clause should be added to the Statute Book without some examination and certainly some preliminary explanation of the new Schedule. I was making these points in illustration of that proposition.

I believe that the proposition is well founded and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again if he wants us to add this new Clause quickly to the Bill. Would it not be better to essay his comprehensive—and, I hope, comprehensible—explanation of the new Schedule now?

Sir J. Foster

We understood when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, that he ruled that the Schedule could not be discussed in detail with the new Clause. That was on the basis that this was a paving Clause. If the Chair has been unintentionally misled, as there must be a certain amount of taking what the Government say as being correct, in my submission the Government spokesman was wrong and this is not a paving Clause. A paving Clause is a Clause which only says that a Schedule should be inserted to such and such a part. Here the wording of the Clause shows that it is not a paving Clause.

Is there any procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by which, if the Chair has been unintentionally misled, it can retrieve the position? It is not anyone's fault and I quite understand that the Government want to have the Schedule debated in the middle of the night, but it is very wrong. Assuming that I am right, and that the Chair has been misled, and if Erskine May could be turned up to see what is a paving Clause, I think that it will be found that a paving Clause is just an introductory Clause which no one in the world could debate except to say whether there should be "the" or "and".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am not sure, without consideration, whether the phrase "a paving Clause" is a term of art. In a sense, it is a paving Clause. Paving Clauses take various forms. I was not here when Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling. Therefore, it is not competent for me to say whether he was misled. As I understand, the Schedule cannot be discussed with the new Clause, except with the consent of the whole House. Certain hon. Members have objected to that course.

Hon. Members

Two.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

An objection by only one Member is sufficient. Therefore, we are confined to a discussion of the new Clause in that context and general reference only can be made to the Schedule. It cannot be discussed in detail.

Mr. Graham Page

Further to that point of order. The new Clause refers to a Schedule with the title Credit carried forward from previous chargeable act or event". There is already a Schedule which has that title, namely, Schedule 6. If the new Clause is agreed to, we shall not be introducing a Schedule which appears on the Notice Paper later as a new Schedule. We shall be confirming Schedule 6 which is already in the Bill. What shall we then do when we reach the Amendment by which the Government seek to insert a new Schedule 6? Already during the course of this stage of the Bill we shall, if we agree to this Clause, have confirmed that Schedule 6 of the Bill as it is at present printed shall remain.

The new Clause makes no mention of the new Schedule which is set out from page 3189 of the Notice Paper onwards. The Clause makes mention of a Schedule in the Bill with a certain title. That is what we shall agree shall remain part of the Bill if we agree to this Clause. This is what makes it so impossible to discuss the Clause without discussing the new Schedule at the same time.

Mr. Peyton

Further to that point of order. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said that you yourself are in some difficulty here. In that regard, vou only share the difficulty which the whole House is experiencing. I seek your advice as to what course should be adopted. Would it not be right for the sitting to be suspended or adjourned to give the Government the opportunity to think out what they mean and then explain it to the House? As hon. Members opposite have said that they do not understand what it is all about and as you, with all your experience, have felt obliged to say that we are in a difficulty, we are frustrated to a terrible extent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must not interpret what I said. I did not say that I was in difficulty, except as regards answering the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) as to whether this was correctly described as a paving Amendment. The Chair is, as always, anxious to help the House. For that reason, in the debate on the new Clause the Chair has permitted a fairly wide reference to the Schedule so that the effect of the Clause can be appreciated before the House votes upon it. Consistently with references to the new Schedule, I must adhere to the Ruling by Mr. Speaker that it would be contrary to the rules of order and inconvenient to discuss the merits or demerits of the Schedule in detail.

Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary would not wish to mislead the House. On reading what he said I think that he will find that he suggested that the Minister had made his remark about how satisfactory Schedule 6 was on an Amendment. At the foot of col. 919 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Standing Committee there is this entry: Question proposed, That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill. An Amendment had previously been made. I then spoke on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill" and said this: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it reads so much more likely than other Schedules. In fact, in Part III, the provisions for carrying credit forward, it really becomes perfectly simple. In consequence of that, the Minister said this: As this is so clear to the hon. Gentleman, I am rot going to run any risk at all. It is going to remain as it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E; 4th August, 1966, c. 920.] That was clearly said on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill". I must apologise for this, because it was I who drew the Minister's attention to the fact that there was a simple part of the Bill, but the Minister had to correct it by introducing the new Schedule.

I wonder whether this will be a precedent for paving Amendments not being discussed with the Amendments to which they refer. Are we to go through the whole of Report stage merely dealing with a paving Amendment and agreeing to it and then coming to the substantive Amendment in its turn? It will be extraordinarily inconvenient if that is the way the Government intend to work. However, it is apparently the rule that it has to be a unanimous decision that a paving Amendment can be discussed with the substantive Amendment.

Once more I invite the Government to explain the Schedule. If this is a paving Amendment, will the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary change their minds and agree to the wish expressed on both sides of the House that we should discuss the Schedule at this point? If they are not willing to give that undertaking, in protest we must divide the House.

Mr. Reginald Eyre (Birmingham, Hall Green)

On a point of order. Would it not be reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, who, as far as we know, are the only two Members of the House who are maintaining an objection to the Schedule being discussed with the Clause, should reconsider their decision and withdraw their objection? In Standing Committee both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary tried very hard, in very difficult circumstances, to satisfy us about inquiries that were made. The Minister said in Standing Committee that the Schedule would stand as it was, but he has withdrawn the original Schedule and introduced a completely different one.

Many members of the legal profession are unable to understand the Clause and the Schedule and, indeed, the whole Bill. If there is to be a proper discussion of this matter in the House, it is essential that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw their objection to our having a discussion in a proper and informed manner. If we are to avoid a fiasco greater than the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, it is essential that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw their objection and enable us to discuss this matter in a proper manner by taking the Clause and the Schedule together. I ask, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they consent to this request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have no power to influence the course any hon. Member takes in the debate as to whether he agrees to the Schedule being discussed with the Clause.

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

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 151.

Division No. 179.]	AYES	[4.59 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Loughlin, Charles
Albu, Austen	Ellis, John	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	English, Michael	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Alldritt, Walter	Ennals, David	McBride, Neil
Allen, Scholefield	Ensor, David	McCann, John
Anderson, Donald	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	MacColl, James
Armstrong, Ernest	Faulds, Andrew	Macdonald, A. H.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Fernyhough, E.	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Finch, Harold	Mackintosh, John P.
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	MacPherson, Malcolm
Baxter, William	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Manuel, Archie
Beaney, Alan	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mapp, Charles
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.	Floud, Bernard	Marquand, David
Bence, Cyril	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Ford, Ben	Mendelson, J. J.
Binns, John	Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian
Bishop, E. S.	Fowler, Gerry	Millan, Bruce
Blackburn, F.	Galpern, Sir Myer	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Gardner, Tony	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Boardman, H.	Garrett, W. E.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Booth, Albert	Ginsburg, David	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Boyden, James	Gourlay, Harry	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Moyle, Roland
Bradley, Tom	Gregory, Arnold	Neal, Harold
Brooks, Edwin	Grey, Charles (Durham)	Newens, Stan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Oakes, Gordon
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Ogden, Eric
Buchan, Norman	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	0'Malley, Brian
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Orbach, Maurice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Hamling, William	Orme, Stanley
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hannan, William	Oswald, Thomas
Cant, R. B.	Harper, Joseph	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Carmichael, Neil	Haseldine, Norman	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Chapman, Donald	Hazell, Bert	Padley, Walter
Coe, Denis	Heffer, Eric S.	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Coleman, Donald	Henig, Stanley	Palmer, Arthur
Concannon, J. D.	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hooley, Frank	Park, Trevor
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Horner, John	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Crawshaw, Richard	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Pavitt, Laurence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Howie, W.	Pentland, Norman
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dalyell, Tam	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George	Hunter, Adam	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Hynd, John	Pries, Willam (Rugby)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Janner, Sir Barnett	Probert, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Jeger, George (Goole)	Randall, Harry
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Rankin, John
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Rees, Merlyn
Delargy, Hugh	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Dell, Edmund	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dempsey, James	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S)
Dewar, Donald	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dickens, James	Kelley, Richard	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Dobson, Ray	Kenyon, Clifford	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Doig, Peter	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Rose, Paul
Driberg, Tom	Lawson, George	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dunn, James A.	Leadbitter, Ted	Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Dunnett, Jack	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Eadie, Alex	Lipton, Marcus	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lomas, Kenneth	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)	Thornton. Ernest	Williams, Alan (Swansea. W.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Tinn, James	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Varley, Eric G.	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Skeffington, Arthur	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Slater, Joseph	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Winnick, David
Small, William	Wallace, George	Winterbottom. R. E
Spriggs, Leslie	Watkins, David (Consett)	Woof, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)	Zilliacus, K.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Symonds, J. B.	Whitaker, Ben	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Whitlock, William	Mr. Ioan L. Evans and
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Mr. Walter Harrison.
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Neave, Airey
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Astor, John	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Onslow, Cranley
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Baker, W, H. K.	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Pardoe, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Hawkins, Paul	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bessell, Peter	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Percival, Ian
Black, Sir Cyril	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Peyton, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Heseltine, Michael	Pounder, Rafton
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hiley, Joseph	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hirst, Geoffrey	Prior, J. M. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter	Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Pym, Francis
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Holland, Philip	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hooson, Emlyn	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Hordern, Peter	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bullus, Sir Eric	Howell, David (Guildford)	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Campbell, Gordon	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Roots, William
Carlisle, Mark	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Royle, Anthony
Chichester-Clark, R.	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Clark, Henry	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clegg, Walter	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Sinclair, Sir George
Cooke, Robert	Kimball, Marcus	Smith, John
Cordle, John	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Corfield, F. V.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Summers, Sir Spencer
Costain, A. P.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Talbot, John E.
Crouch, David	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Tapsell, Peter
Dance, James	Longden, Gilbert	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Loveys, W. H.	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	MacArthur, Ian	Thorpe, Jeremy
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)	Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	McMaster, Stanley	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Errington, Sir Eric	Maginnis, John E.	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Farr, John	Marten, Neil	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Fisher, Nigel	Mathew, Robert	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Maude, Angus	Weatherill, Bernard
Forrest, George	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Webster, David
Fortescue, Tim	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fetter, Sir John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whitelaw, William
Gibson-Watt, David	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Monro, Hector	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Glover, Sir Douglas	More, Jasper	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Goodhart, Philip	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Worsley, Marcus
Gower, Raymond	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Wylle, N. R.
Grant, Anthony	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Grant-Ferris, R.	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grieve, Percy	Murton, Oscar	Mr. George Younger and
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Gurden, Harold

Clause added to the Bill.