HC Deb 25 January 1967 vol 739 cc1651-67
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in page 33, line 12, at the end to insert: Provided that no levy shall be chargeable in respect of a disposition to which this section applies where the disposition is in respect of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house which is the owner's only or main residence or land which he has for his own occupation and enjoyment with that residence as its garden or grounds up to an area (inclusive of the site of the dwelling-house) of one acre or such larger area as the Commission may in any particular case determine, on being satisfied that, regard being had to the size and character of the dwelling-house, the larger area is required for the reasonable enjoyment of it (or of the part in question) as a residence. The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt from the payment of the levy the disposition of an owner-occupied house. As the Bill stands, with the levy provisions restored, on the sale or leasing for more than seven years of an owner-occupied house the question of the levy will arise. It is far from clear how effective the charge of the levy would be or what its scope would be.

Throughout our proceedings the Minister has sought to play this down. He will recall that on the Bill in a previous Parliament he took the line that this would not apply to owner-occupied houses at all. He has somewhat modified that view and, indeed, he may recall that I asked him a Question earlier this week as to the amount of revenue that he expected to get from the levy falling on the disposition of owner-occupied houses. He referred me to an answer which he gave on the same day to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), which I should like to quote. He said: It is not possible to estimate this. In the great majority of cases no liability for levy will arise on transactions related to owner-occupied houses, because no development value will be realised.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 167] I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But, taking the matter on his own statement in reply to that Question—and it is a line on which he has been quite consistent throughout these debates—two things follow. First of all, the cost of this proposal would be very small. Secondly, none the less the levy would fall on some owner-occupied houses.

We are here dealing with a case which which I hope will appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We are not dealing with land sharks, whatever kind of mammal or reptile those creatures may be. We are certainly not dealing with speculators. We are dealing specifically with the houses that people live in, and the Amendment is carefully—perhaps rather restrictively—drafted to be limited to that.

Again we are not creating any possibility of evasion. Not the most mobile of land sharks—mobile by land or by sea—can possibly have a large number of main residences. We have tied this up firmly so that it deals with the category of person with whom we are really concerned. Be the number rather large or rather small, the same principle applies, and the more the right hon. Gentleman is right and I am wrong the less my proposition will cost him.

On this question of the scope, of how many people and how much money is affected, I should like to ask him to comment on the observations which were made on an earlier Amendment by one of his hon. Friends. He said with immense assurance that between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. of owner-occupiers would not be affected. Does he accept those figures? Are they official? Was the right hon. Gentleman leading from dummy, if I may so put it, having declined to give the figures himself, handing them to his hon. Friend? Or did his hon. Friend invent them? Those of us who have been asking for the figures for the best part of two years were surprised to hear them come from a position in close physical proximity to him, and come with apparent authority and great assurance. Are they right or wrong? Be they right, or be they wrong, the issue remains: is it the wish of the House to impose the levy on the disposal of an owner-occupied house and garden? That is the practical question the House will have to decide.

It has been the policy of all Governments to encourage, or at least say that they were encouraging, owner-occupation. I must pay tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who gave real attention to the position of the owner-occupier when he imposed his Capital Gains Tax. He exempted the owner-occupied house from Capital Gains Tax. If the Chancellor, aided by his genial friends in the Inland Revenue, were prepared to take a generous line on a matter of straight taxation of that sort, it is a little curious that the Minister should be harder: that when it comes to taxation, the owner-occupier should find himself better treated by the Chancellor, with all the vast economic and financial problems that fall on him, than by the right hon. Gentleman, who, on his own showing, would lose very little money by making the concession for which we ask.

There are 8 million owner-occupiers in this country. Almost all have acquired their homes, or are acquiring them, as a result of real and considerable sacrifice, which at the moment is sharper than ever because the party opposite has bilked on its 1964 pledge to reduce mortgage interest rates.

All parties have said that they believed in owner-occupation. There is something immensely valuable socially in the person who owns his own house and is not dependent on the wishes or whims of any landlord, however kindly, or any local authority, however benevolent, and can close his own front door on himself and his family. I believe that that is the basis of a stable society—the family's home owned by the householder, with the independence and sense of security that that gives.

One of the things of which I am proudest from all the years of Conservative Government is that the number of owner-occupied houses doubled during that period. It doubled because my right hon. Friends did not pay only lip-service to the cause of owner-occupation, as hon. Members opposite do, but helped it with the magnificent success to which I have just referred. The right hon. Gentleman knows now that the trend towards owner-occupation is faltering, that building for owners is falling off, and much of the troubles of the building industry are directly related to that.

I hope that he does not want to give that an additional push downwards, because he must realise that one of the things that encourage people to make the great sacrifice involved in making the payments to obtain a house of their own is that they create a capital asset which can go to their family or be sold to endow their family when they die or retire. That is very valuable, yet the right hon. Gentleman will nibble a considerable lump off at any rate some of those capital assets if he persists in his attitude.

What social, economic, moral or financial good does he think he is doing by that? He told us again and again, in that terrible speech which he made moving the Second Reading of the first Bill, about how he was anxious to help people to house themselves economically. This is a very curious way of doing it, when they have made the effort to house themselves, to impose a swingeing tax on the assets that they have created. It shows in a curious light the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's desire to help people to house themselves.

11.45 p.m.

He cannot deny that, if he does not accept the Amendment, every one of those 8 million people, when he comes to sell his house or to grant a long lease on it, will have to report his intention to the Commission and then wait for any period up to six years during which the Commission can make up its imperial mind whether, in its view, a levy is payable and, if so, how much it shall be.

Even in the case of those who do not, in the event, have to pay—and no one knows at this stage how many will have to pay—they will have the anxiety and difficulty of concluding a bargain, not knowing what to ask for a house if they do not know how much levy they will have to pay. It must be remembered that we are talking, in the majority of cases, of quite small people with small properties and few assets, apart from their houses. They will have the worry and anxiety of not knowing whether this charge will hang over their heads.

The right hon. Gentleman could free them from that if he would accept the Amendment. I do not know why the Government have not accepted it at earlier stages. They purport to support home ownership. On the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, there is very little money involved, and there is no question of evasion. The only possible explanation is one which I hesitate to attribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and that is his sheer obstinacy, not having excluded them from the beginning. Having tried to pooh-pooh this as being of no importance, he does not like the loss of face involved in admitting that he has been wrong about this, and putting the matter right, as he has the opportunity to do now. I beg him to rise above that, and do it in the interests of a very large section of our community.

In my constituency, there are large numbers of people with houses and small bits of garden in an area of rising values. As I read the Bill, they will all find themselves caught with development value if they sell their houses. This is a matter of great anxiety to them, and the right hon. Gentleman could free them from it tonight if he would accept the Amendment.

If that appeal fails, let him reflect on the effect on the fortunes of his party of antagonising 8 million people.

Mr. Willey

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will help me in allaying anxiety, if that is his main concern, and perhaps some of his right hon. and hon. Friends will do the same, because it is something which I have said repeatedly, and it is something which repeatedly has not been revealed in the Press. The figure of 85 to 90 per cent. is the figure of all land transactions which will not attract the levy. That is a statement which I have made repeatedly. It is one which, repeatedly, has been concealed.

If we take all land transactions over a year, we estimate, on the best advice that we have, that 85 to 90 per cent. will not attract the levy.

As I have told the right hon. Gentleman, I have not the figures relating to owner-occupation. They are difficult figures to get. However, one can assume that the figures relating to owner-occupation will be higher still.

Mr. Eyre

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the headquarters of the Land Commission will be loaded up with over 1½million forms a year relating to transactions which will have to be examined by valuers, out of which there will be no yield by way of the levy?

Mr. Willey

Because of the figures that I have just given and the figures which have been before hon. Members for a long time, it is clear that the machinery on which we are relying—the machinery of the return for stamp duty purposes—imposes no extra burden. We have had all this nonsense about the complexities for the owner-occupier. There is no extra burden. All they have to do—as they are obliged to do now and have been for a considerable time—is to fill in a stamp duty form. This is not a difficult administrative problem.

We are concerned only with development value. What do we mean when we talk about development value in connection with an owner-occupied house? It is the case of the house being pulled down for redevelopment. We are not talking about the security of the owner-occupier. We are talking about the case in which the land has been redeveloped and a block of flats or a housing estate has been built in place of the house that was formerly there. The hon. Member expresses concern for the owner-occupier; so do we. This Government—not that of the hon. Member—without hesitation exempted the owner-occupier from the Capital Gains Tax.

We shall shortly be discussing leasehold enfranchisement. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on that issue, and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)? That affects the security of the owner-occupier.

We are concerned here with the question of development value arising in the circustances I have given. Of course we have the de minimis provision. Here again the fraction of one-tenth applies, and no question of development value arises unless it is more than one-tenth over and above the present value of the house. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman will persist in saying, this is not a difficult administrative matter for the Commission.

Now let us face the problems that arise in dealing with development. What has concerned me throughout our discussions on the Bill has been the question of equity in the operation of the levy— equity between landowners, householders and owner-occupiers. It can happen that an owner-occupier makes an enormous windfall profit, just as a speculator can. We now have a definition. A house may be enclosed on an acre (or more) but cannot be developed because there is no access or services. The local authority provides the access and the services, perhaps increasing the value of the land and house tenfold. We are not saying that we shall penalise the owner-occupier. From the point of view of the market value of the house it bears no Capital Gains Tax and on the development value—the windfall profit—we are exempting one-tenth of the value.

In a developed part of a town there may be two identical houses, but for commercial purposes, or for the purpose of denser development, the house on the corner site will receive permission for development. It may be a most attractive site, and become a valuable one. The owner-occupier may have decided to redevelop or sell his land and house for redevelopment, and we say, "You are not prejudiced in the value of your own house. You can buy another house and the market value is not affected. It does not bear Capital Gains Tax. But it is right and proper that the windfall profit should attract the levy."

If I made such an exemption as is proposed, then within the exemption there would be bound to be anomalies; everyone knows that. It would be inequitable to allow a distinction between people occupying adjoining properties, where one of them took advantage of increased development value.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Does not the same apply to the exemption which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in respect of Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. Willey

No. This Amendment would be a concession—if we regard it as a concession—to the person who takes the enhanced value through redevelopment. The market value of the house bears no levy because the levy does not touch the current use value. It does not attract Capital Gains Tax, either. The person who redevelops his house can buy a similar house without being prejudiced. Over and above that, he has the enhanced value created by the prospects of redevelopment. Upon that the Land Commission will impose a levy of 40 per cent.

I have given two cases which I am sure hon. Members will agree could not be covered if the exemption were made, but I will give a simple case. A house may have a market value of £5,000. Because there is planning consent to redevelop, the house is pulled down and the land redeveloped, and the value may be £10,000. In selling his house and leaving it for redevelopment, the owner will get rather more than £8,000. I do not know how that can be regarded as unfair and unjust. We are saying that the owner-occupier will not suffer Capital Gains Tax. We have recognised his position, and if he sells his house to go to another part of the country, he will not be prejudiced. But it is right and proper that he should suffer the levy on the development value.

Mr. Eyre

Has the Minister considered the cost of administering this so-called equity? Since he has quoted accurate figures, he must have some idea of the proportion of the £7 million that it will cost to run the Land Commission that will be spent in collecting the small percentage which will yield this levy. He said that there will be over 1,500,000 transactions a year which will yield nothing in the levy. Surely the collection will not be profitable to the State, on the figures which he has given.

Mr. Willey

I do not like to be raised by 50 per cent. every time I make a statement. I said previously—not tonight—that there would be about 1 million of those transactions.

I emphasised that this is not an attractive argument administratively, and I have shown that if one were to deal with it one would have much greater administrative difficulty than lies in the simple task of dealing with the Stamp Duty form. I am concerned with the bother of collecting a small amount of levy. If we could devise ways of doing it, we could consider the matter. But it cannot be disputed that if we made this exception we should be excepting cases in which there was a substantial amount of development value involved.

12 m.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Whenever the Opposition point to particularly foolish or unjust parts of legislation the immediate retort from the Government is, "You need not worry about this, because it will not apply to very many people".

I am becoming suspicious of the Minister using that argument in this case. If this part of the Bill will not apply to the majority of people and if we have no need to worry, why have it in the Measure? It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of owner-occupiers will not be affected, but is he certain of his figures? It has not been made sufficiently clear in which circumstances owner-occupiers will have to pay the levy. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that only 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of owner-occupied property would be developed. But that is surely not the only way in which a property could become more valuable and, therefore, be liable for the betterment levy.

If an owner-occupier lives in a house which has a small garden in a town where the town council decides to revise the town plan and increase the density of the area from, say, 50 to 80 houses per acre, and the owner-occupier goes on living in the house and it is not to be pulled down, would that owner-occupier become liable to pay the levy? We do not know how often local authorities increase densities. The frequency with which that happens must have a bearing on this case. These examples immediately spring to mind. There must be others. That is why I question whether the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. owner-occupiers being affected can be correct.

I am also puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's claim that owner-occupiers will not need to fill in more forms than they must already complete. As I understand the position, the seller of the property will be liable to pay the betterment levy, whereas at present the buyer or the solicitor acting for the buyer must fill in the appropriate forms. Will the same forms apply in the same way? It seems, from what we have been told so far, that in future owner-occupiers will, on selling their houses, have to fill in these forms.

Although we have been told that no more forms than are at present needed will have to be completed, that does not tie up with what we have so far understood about the Bill. In view of the number of questions that remain unanswered, I cannot be satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's soothing syrup when he says, in effect, "You have nothing to worry about. It will not apply very many people." If that is true, and if it will not apply to many people, what the heck is it doing in the Bill?

Mr. Bessell

When the Minister replied to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) he made the best possible case for the Amendment, for he said that in his view 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all transactions in land would be exempt from the levy. But that does not mean that the vendors or purchasers will be exempt from notifying the Commission of those transactions. This means that the work which will be involved in 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all the transactions that will be notified to the Commission will be totally abortive, will be a totally unnecessary expense to the taxpayer and will reduce by a substantial amount any benefit which might accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the betterment levy.

This reasonable Amendment should commend itself to the Government, not only because it would ease the amount of work that will have to be undertaken by the Commission, but because it would satisfy a principle to which I do not believe the Government have the slightest objection. It is that where a land transaction takes place involving a small amount of money the owner-occupier should be exempt from all the complexities and difficulties which the Bill presents.

However much I might disagree with much that is contained in the Bill, I am certain that the Government deserve credit for introducing a Bill designed to prevent land speculation and to prevent those who have abused the natural right and the inheritance of the people in this way for far too long. I pay that tribute to the Government because I am sure that that is the intention of the Bill. But there can be no question whatever when we are dealing with one plot of land owner and occupied by one person and his family of that person being a land speculator. He is not someone going into business with the intention of buying properties in the City of London, putting them together and seeking to make a vast profit. He may have the good fortune, but not through design or cupidity, to discover that the house he occupies suddenly has an enhanced value.

Surely it is not the wish of the Government to rob someone of something that he has acquired in this way? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] If that is the intention of the Government, let us be clear about it. I disagree with hon. and right hon. Members on the Conservative benches; I do not believe that is the intention. I believe that the intention is to get at the land speculator, but it is ridiculous to associate the land speculator with the owner-occupier. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) may have been right when he suggested that the Minister was being plain obstinate about this. There are about 8 million owner-occupiers and everyone of them will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.

It may be that they or their successors will have only to make a notification in the event of a sale and that may be only a paper transaction, but what a waste of time. We are looking for efficient government. We want to see the Civil Service working more effectively. Yet we have this nonsense of notifications, many thousands—perhaps half a million —of which could be avoided each year by accepting an Amendment on these lines. The principle has been well established. In the 1965 Finance Act, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer showed greater charity and wisdom. Section 29(2) of that Act states clearly that capital gain shall not be a chargeable gain if the dwelling-house or part of the dwelling-house has been the individual's only or main residence throughout the period of ownership, or throughout the period of ownership except for all or any part of the last twelve months of that period". That was a sensible and reasonable provision. I cannot understand why we have this complete contradiction of existing Government policy—and a contradiction of all radical policy expressed throughout this century on the subject of land. I had occasion recently to look at this for another purpose and found that as long ago as 1928 David Lloyd George was advocating throughout the country in his "Land and Nation" programme a betterment tax. He introduced it earlier, in a Budget prior to 1910. In the proposals by radical Governments, the Liberal Party and indeed the Labour Party of those days there was never any question of imposing a tax of this kind on the owner-occupier. The ludicrous part about it is that there is no intention of doing so today. It is simply that we cannot discover a formula whereby to exempt the owner-occupier from notification.

I see a weakness in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If we say that we will exempt all land which is owner-occupied, if it includes a residence and a garden or grounds of up to an acre, I see possibilities of serious evasion of the intention. If I had an acre of land on which I had a house in the middle of the City of London or the City of Westminster, there is no doubt that it would yield me a fat profit if I were lucky enough to find the right developer. In such a case, there is reason for expecting that a land shark might well abuse the intentions of such an exemption as is suggested by the Amendment.

There is, however, no reason why a ceiling value should not be placed upon it. I am sure that the Minister's ingenuity has not diminished so much as a result of his difficulties with the Bill that he cannot find a formula. There is no reason why an owner-occupied property should not be exempt provided that it had a value on the first appointed day of, say, £4,000 or £5,000. Such a formula would overcome all the problems and difficulties which are contained in the Amendment as it has been proposed.

Had the Government come forward with an alternative proposal, it would have been not only sensible, but equitable and in keeping with all the intentions which have been expressed concerning this Measure. I regret deeply that they have not done this, that they have not eased the burden on the taxpayer which will result from all these unnecessary notifications, and the anxiety that will be needlessly and unnecessarily caused to owner-occupiers.

If the "little" man is fortunate enough to make a swift gain on the property which he has owned or inherited or into which he has put all his savings, let him do it. He is not a land speculator or shark. Let that man have a chance. I believe that the Government's reputation would be greatly enhanced and that their intentions would be in no way undermined.

Mr. Graham Page

The Minister has said that he cannot find a formula for relieving the owner-occupier of this burden—and which would relieve the Land Commission of the job of investigating these cases. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of his draftsmen, and of himself in giving instructions, to find the formula if he really wants to find it. The House must conclude that he has given up trying to do so and that he does not want to relieve the owner-occupier.

The Minister has astonished the House tonight by telling us that, he thinks, only one in every ten transactions will be charged to levy and that the figure is even less for owner-occupiers. These figures must be open to suspicion. What about the pre-1914 house which can be turned into flats? That has a development value. There are a good many of those houses. What about the house which has become near a shopping area, a shopping area having been built near it, and which has increased its value in that way?

Mr. Skeffington

The case which the hon. Member has mentioned of a house which is turned into flats is not material development. Therefore, it certainly would not attract the levy. If he bases his case on that kind of calculation, it is wholly irrelevant.

Mr. Page

It is material development according to the Bill. What the Minister may do by way of regulation, I do not know—he has not told us—but in the Bill a conversion of a house into flats is material development.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Willey

I apologise for making an intervention, but the hon. Gentleman must not go on saying that he does not know what will be in the Material Development Regulations when I explained this at great length in Standing Committee and said that if he wished to raise any point upon it I would of course consider it

Mr. Page

Are we to understand, then, that the conversion of any dwelling-house into flats is not material development and, therefore, will not be charged to levy? The prospect of it will not be included in the development value? This is valuable, if this is going to be so, but what about other cases—the house with a gable end on it where an advertisement can be placed? As the advertisement is to be material development that house has a development value. This, when it is investigated by the Land Commission, will be chargeable. What about the case which my hon. Friend put just now, the change in the development plan which has increased the value of the property because the density has been changed? This is an increase in the net development value and this will be chargeable.

There are many more cases than one in ten, and I am sure this figure is suspect, but if in fact it is only one in ten, why on earth is it being included in the Bill at all? Why are we having the owner-occupier in at all if nine out of ten are to escape the levy? Even with the one, the right hon. Gentleman says, "he has got only just to fill in a form." He has got only to fill in a form and wait and wait and wait—six years before escaping the levy.

Mr. Skeffington

Nonsense.

Mr. Page

Six years before he escapes the levy. This is in the Bill. If the

Parliamentary Secretary wants to deny it I will give way.

Mr. Skeffington

Yes, I do. There is a later Amendment on which we can deal with the matter more fully, but I have explained to the hon. Gentleman time and time again that in the normal course of events the Commission will be able to settle the matter within a matter of months. The hon. Gentleman drags in the six years everytime, and that is completely misleading, and I think he knows it.

Mr. Page

"In the normal course of events." We do not know what the normal course of events is or will be. What we know is that the Bill prevents the owner-occupier from asking the Commission to tell him whether he will be liable or not; he has to wait six years before he can be certain.

On the sale of a home there is, almost invariably, the purchase of a home. When a man sells his home he does so in order to buy another home. If he has to pay this tax, this levy, on the sale of a home, it is in fact a tax on buying a home. Let the public be quite clear about this. If there is only one owner-occupier in every ten who has to pay for buying a home, then it is a shame he should do so, and it is shocking that this Government should bring that sort of legislation before us.

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

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 146.

Division No. 258.] AYES [12.20 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Eden, Sir John Hornby, Richard
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Iremonger, T. L.
Baker, W. H. K. Eyre, Reginald Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Batsford, Brian Farr, John Jopling, Michael
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kimball, Marcus
Bessell, Peter Fortescue, Tim King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Biffen, John Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Knight, Mrs. Jill
Body, Richard Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Goodhart, Philip Lubbock, Eric
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Goodhew, Victor Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Grant, Anthony Maddan, Martin
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Grant-Ferris, R. Maude, Angus
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grieve, Percy Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Carlisle, Mark Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Clegg, Walter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooke, Robert Harvie Anderson, Miss More, Jasper
Cordle, John Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Currie, C. B. H. Heseltine, Michael Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Dalkeith, Earl of Hill, J. E. B. Murton, Oscar
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Holland, Philip Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Onslow, Cranley Russell, Sir Ronald Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Osborn, John (Hallam) Sharples, Richard Weatherill, Bernard
Page, Graham (Crosby) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pardoe, John Sinclair, Sir George Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Smith, John Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Percival, Ian Steel, David (Roxburgh) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Worsley, Marcus
Prior, J. M. L. Tilney, John
Pym, Francis Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James van Straubenzee, W. R. Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Vickers, Dame Joan
NOES
Allaun Frank (Salford, E.) Ginsburg, David Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Alldritt, Walter Gourlay, Harry Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Allen, Scholefield Gregory, Arnold Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Anderson, Donald Grey, Charles (Durham) Newens, Stan
Archer, Peter Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Norwood, Christopher
Armstrong, Ernest Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Ogden, Eric
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Haseldine, Norman Orme, Stanley
Bence, Cyril Hazell, Bert Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Binns, John Henig, Stanley Pavitt, Laurence
Blackburn, F. Hooley, Frank Percy, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Booth, Albert Horner, John Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Brooks, Edwin Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Howie, W. Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Probert, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'ctle-upon-Tyne, W.) Hunter, Adam Rhodes, Geoffrey
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cant, R. B. Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Carmichael, Neil Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P' cras, S.) Rose, Paul
Coe, Denis Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Coleman, Donald Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Concannon, J. D. Kelley, Richard Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Crawshaw, Richard Kenyon, Clifford Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lawson, George Skeffington, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Ledger, Ron Taverne, Dick
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Lee, John (Reading) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Thornton, Ernest
Delargy, Hugh Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Tinn, James
Dickens, James Lomas, Kenneth Urwin, T. W.
Dobson, Ray Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Doig, Peter Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Driberg, Tom McBride, Neil Watkins, David (Consett)
Dunn, James A. McCann, John Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Dunnett, Jack MacColl, James Wellbeloved, James
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Macdonald, A. H. Whitaker, Ben
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McGuire, Michael Whitlock, William
Ellis, John Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherford) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ennals, David Mackintosh, John P. Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Maclennan, Robert Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fernyhough, E. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) McNamara, J. Kevin Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) MacPherson, Malcolm Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Woof, Robert
Forrester, John Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Yates, Victor
Fowler, Gerry Mapp, Charles Zilliacus, K.
Fraser, John (Norwood) Marquand, David
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Mendelson, J. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gardner, Tony Millan, Bruce Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Edward Bishop.
Garrett, W. E. Milne, Edward (Blyth)