LAND COMMISSION BILL (Hansard, 25 January 1967)

HC Deb 25 January 1967 vol 739 cc1622-36 1622

§ Question again proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

§ Mr. Peyton
I am sorry that I am still in doubt, Mr. Speaker, about whether I am in order in referring to the Schedules. [Interruption.] The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Social Security, sitting with his feet on the Table, says, "Don't be daft".

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt his submission in order to make references to other hon. Members. I will deal with the point of order. The issue seems to me to be quite clear. Their Lordships have moved that certain Clauses be removed from the Bill. What we are discussing is whether those Clauses should be removed from the Bill as their Lordships have requested 1623 or whether they should be put back. There is no mention of the Schedules.

§ Mr. Peyton
Further to that point of order, although I was not in fact raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understood it, we were certainly discussing whether the Clauses to which you have referred should be left out of the Bill as proposed by their Lordships. With respect, however, the accompaniments of those Clauses are the Schedules which are referred to in Amendment No. 31. It would be very difficult to discuss the Clauses without the Schedules. If, however, you rule, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing only the Clauses and not the Schedules—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not concerned about what is difficult. I am concerned with what is on the Order Paper. What we are discussing is whether certain Clauses are to stay in the Bill.

§ Mr. Peyton
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to obscure the issue or to be difficult in any way. I merely wish to establish whether we can refer to Schedules 4 to 13 at the same time.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have indicated to the hon. Member that he must comment on the Clauses which we are discussing, more especially as he is animadverting on language. He must animadvert on the language of the Clauses, not the Schedules.

§ Mr. Peyton
I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Accepting your ruling that I must refer only to the Clauses, and bearing in mind that it is particularly to the Schedules to which I would wish to refer, I shall defer my remarks in detail until later, understanding, as I do, that Amendment No. 31 will subsequently be discussed separately from Amendment No. 20.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance whether Lords Amendment No. 31 will be discussed. That is not in issue. The issue is quite clear. We are discussing whether certain Clauses shall or shall not remain in the Bill. Anything outside that is out of order.

§ Mr. Peyton
I am very grateful to you, Sir. Unfortunately, I was not here at the precise time when the Question was proposed, so I hope that you will acquit me of any discourtesy to yourself. It was my 1624 impression that we were discussing the Schedules as well as the Clauses. In view of your Ruling, Sir, I shall not make any detailed comment on the Schedules at this stage, but will content myself with expressing the hope that even at this late hour the Government will pause in their headlong stride to destruction and leave out this very damaging part of a very offensive and unpleasant Bill. None of the arguments which we have heard tonight from either the Minister or from the Parliamentary Secretary—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. He must be listened to.

§ Mr. Peyton
—began to convince me that the Bill had been properly thought out. It seems to us to be a mess of unintelligibility. In fact, one could perhaps give the right hon. Gentleman a palm for this in that he has taken from the Inland Revenue and, above all, from the Customs and Excise the technique of being incomprehensible and of producing—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment. It is quite a clear one.

§ Mr. Peyton
Very well, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that a great deal of the Bill —and we are referring to a very large hunk of it now, Part III of the Bill—is incomprehensible.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is the "hunk" to which the hon. Gentleman must now address himself.

§ Mr. Peyton
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am discussing it very directly. I am saying that Part III of the Bill, which we are now seeking to leave out, is incomprehensible. In a way it rivals and outdoes in that technique the ability of the Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, and I give to the Minister a palm of very great distinction although not very enviable.

§ Mr. Willey
Our proceedings were opened with the Opposition alleging that they had not had time to think. I am less enthusiastic now in disputing that than I was at that time. We have discussed Part III for a protracted period. It was discussed in the House, in Committee and in the Lords.
1625 I want to reply to two of the points which have been made. We have the same ambivalence about the levy which we have had throughout the past few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said, we have fought two elections which have been affected by the scandal of land prices. We have never had a clear reply from the Opposition about what is their attitude towards this—a scandal which they themselves created and for which they have responsibility. We have had the debate again tonight, and when it comes to the issue of whether we should have a levy, although some hon. Gentlemen opposite profess themselves in favour, by and large the Opposition do not make their position clear.
Despite all that has been said over the past few weeks, the Opposition are now prepared to have a Land Commission, but they are not prepared to have a levy. This is the second issue which has faced us. We had a levy because if we have a Land Commission we avoid a two-price market.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition are prepared to have a Land Commission but not a levy. What we are discussing in this debate is the levy. I cannot discuss whether we have the Land Commission.

§ Mr. Willey
But we now have a Land Commission, and if it is the view that all purchases should be made through the Land Commission, then let us have it that way. I believe that that is impracticable, at any rate for some time.
We have the levy to avoid a two-price system, because we recognise that it would be unrealistic to expect the Commission to purchase all land for development.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) asked us to accede to what the other place wants us to do. It is remarkable indeed that land speculators have greater support in the Commons among Opposition Members than they have in another place. The other place made it quite clear what it wanted us to do. It wanted us to restore Part III to the Bill. I ask the House so to do.

§ Mr. Allason
My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned the dreadful 1626 implications of the levy. It is no good the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) saying that it will catch the big fish and that therefore we need not worry about the details. That was the whole tenor of his speech. Let us remember that 2,500,000 notifications per year will be made to the Land Commission.

§ Mr. Willey
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Allason
In the other place it was stated that 500,000 actual levies would be applied and it was agreed that there would be one million transactions in land notified and many transactions in addition which would have to be notified to the Land Commission. The Minister should not pretend to be as innocent as his hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton in thinking that these provisions will catch the great land speculators and not affect anybody else.

Mr. J. T. Price
Can I assure the hon. Gentleman once and for all, as he does not know me very well, that I may be wrong headed sometimes but I am far from innocent. I would not like it to be put on the record that I was an innocent Member of the House of Commons. I have been sophisticated quite a long time.

§ Mr. Allason
I fear, however, that the hon. Gentleman has not studied the intricacies of all of the nearly 200 pages of the Bill. It is that of which I accuse him. The Minister has, but he is still trying to pretend to the House that it will catch just the great land speculators and that everybody else will go free.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said that taxation should be just, comprehensive and easy to adminster.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Comprehensive.

§ Mr. Allason
Comprehensible. This levy, which in fact is taxation, is clearly the wrong way to go about taxing betterment. This is a measure which adds 135 pages to the country's tax law, and pretty incomprehensible pages at that. In addition, we have the promise that in the next Finance Bill further pages of tax law will require to be added in order to make this comprehensible, if it ever is comprehensible.
1627 My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that no hint had been given to the House of how much the net gain would be. We know that the levy will amount to £80 million a year, but a great deal of that would have been caught by other taxes anyway and we wonder what the net amount will be. We know that there is the offset of £7 million in costs of collection, and so it appears that this will not be a very satisfactory means of taxing betterment.
It seems to be appallingly inefficient. It involves notifications by all sorts of people who are not to be charged the levy. Local authorities have to notify all their schemes although they will know in advance that they are not required to pay the levy. The same is true of statutory undertakers and of charities to the extent that charities are to be graciously left out of the levy. In addition, there will be an enormous number of exempted transactions. The Minister has given us a tremendous list of small transactions which are to be exempted, but which will all have to be notified to the Commission, so as to determine whether they ought to be exempted. That was the Minister's excuse for local authorities having to send in their notifications.
10.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke about the taxation of the compensation that a farmer will receive for allowing the erection of electricity pylons across his land. I have had the greatest difficulty in explaining to farmers that, according to the Minister, it is right that they should be taxed on the compensation they will receive because it represents an improvement of their land. They find this difficult to comprehend.
We have heard evidence of the need for computers. There will be a computer at Newcastle-upon-Tyne. When it starts working out a nil levy, I hope that it will not do what a great many machines of nationalised industries do—ring up a bill of £999,999 19s. 11¾d. and send it out—because that will cause further disturbance to the people.
This complicated taxation measure will bring heartache and worry to 2½ million people a year. I go so far as to say that 1628 it is the most complicated taxation measure that even this Government have ever brought forward. We have the opportunity of recording our views on the betterment levy and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.

§ Mr. Lubbock
I advise right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House to think again about the advice just offered to them by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). As I understand it, the Conservative Party is committed to some form of betterment levy even though it does not like the exact detail of what is in the Bill. While I agree with much of the detailed criticism made of Clauses 27 to 85, it would be wrong in principle for us to support the House of Lords in this Amendment to strike out the whole of Part III.
I remind the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that, when the House of Lords debated this matter, it was made clear by those who spoke that this was purely a procedural device to keep them within the rules of privilege. I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members on this side that they should defer their criticisms until the detailed Amendments which, I understand, we shall deal with when this has been disposed of. Many right hon. and hon. Members, not only in the Conservative Party but in the Liberal Party, could agree with the detailed criticisms which are about to be made, but it would give a bad impression to the public if a substantial vote were cast against the levy.
The Liberal Party has always been in favour of the taxation of land values and we consider that this Bill is inadequate in many respects in that, as the right hon. Gentleman made clear on Second Reading, one of the basic principles attaching to the levy is that … it will be charged only on development value and not on any increases in the value of land for its current use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 617.] We in the Liberal Party would have a better excuse for voting against Clauses 27 to 85 than the Conservative Party because the Conservatives have always maintained since well before the last election that they were in favour of a better levy as such.
I am in favour of a betterment levy only as an intermediate device until we 1629 can come to the much more radical taxation of land values which I hope some Government in future will give to the country. While the betterment levy is better than nothing, for it will recoup to the community some portion of the increase in land values created by the community itself, it is not a satisfactory alternative to the taxation of land values.
I may be the only person in this debate to say this, but I can assure the Minister and the House that many people outside feel strongly on this matter and would perhaps recommend that Part III be deleted on those grounds. I believe and I hope to persuade my hon. Friends, and perhaps some others in the Conservative Party, that we should go a little way towards this and accept the betterment levy as an interim step towards what we should all like to see—the recouping of betterment values for the community as a whole.

§ Mr. William Price (Rugby)
I have no desire to make myself unpopular with my colleagues on this side of the House but, having sat here since Tuesday of last week and having been able to say hardly anything, when a matter arises on which I feel strongly then I shall state my case on behalf of my constituency. I did not come to this House to agree with Members of the Opposition; if I did, I would resign my seat tomorrow, but I am bound to say that I agree with one or two points raised.
It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister, as he has been consistently asked, what the net yield from this tax is likely to be. It seems to be a perfectly fair, sensible and sound question, yet the Minister sits there and does not even get to his feet. A betterment levy can have only one effect, and that is to put up prices for those who wish to buy their own property. I live in a part of the Midlands where there is an acute shortage of land and I had the unhappy experience in recent months of trying to find a plot of land—a very long job.
Eventually I found one of the Opposition's destitute farmers a Rolls and a racehorse in the yard—and I asked him if he would sell me a certain plot of land. He did not mind either way, and I thought that I would use the Land Commission as a lever, and said, "If you are 1630 not very careful you will lose 40 per cent. of the purchase price." He said, "If you are so naїve I am surprised that you got to Parliament in the first place. The price in future will be £1,500, plus 40 per cent., take it or leave it."
The second example that has arisen in my constituency is that of a small builder who is now negotiating for a piece of land on which he will build 20 houses. He has informed me that the price of those houses will now be £300 more than they would have been before the betterment levy. Does the Minister know of any example of a new tax bringing prices down? If we needed a lesson in this, the S.E.T. provided it without any doubt.
It is all very well for the Tories to sit there with smiles on their supine faces. Let us ask them this: what did they do? They did nothing. They created the circumstances in which racketeers flourish and now the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, is trying to do something about it. I just happen to think that he is wrong.
The unfortunate part about this Bill is that it is not Socialism in its reddest form, as hon. Members opposite would seem to think. It is nothing of the sort. It is a third-rate mouse. To describe it as Socialism is to grossly over-estimate its nature and its potential. We have set out to deal with the sharks as we said in our manifesto. We could not have picked a weaker or more ineffective way of doing it. I am prepared to speak for the Lords Amendments, despite their source. I never thought that I should find myself agreeing with their Lordships about anything, but it has happened. A great deal of public expense goes on the other place, and we are entitled, just occasionally, to have something constructive come down, and it is not my fault that that has now happened. In my view, this Amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to have another look at the Clauses and to substitute the real Socialist answer of public ownership of all building land.
I apologise for delaying the House. I consider that, in its present form, the Bill, and particularly the betterment levy, will have only one effect, to make house ownership even more difficult for my constituents.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
After that voice of realism from the Government benches, 1631 the Minister ought to reply. It has been a long and arduous debate and discussion of the question has gone on a long time, but we have now had from the Government benches a point of view which in no way reflects what is embodied in the Bill. For the Minister to sit silent after that view put from behind him is an abuse of the party system. I hope that he will, even now, before the Question is put, give some sort of answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price), because his courage deserves it.

§ Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)
In the spirit of peace and tranquillity which many of us on this side possess, we contained ourselves in silence during the greater part of the debate earlier this evening, listening patiently to the political extravaganza of hon. and right hon. Members opposite. Only the words "deathly silence" used by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) prompted me to say a word or two on this Amendment.
I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had to say. Plainly, he was inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity when he accused us of grinding down the poor. One would imagine that everyone who had purchased a house would lose his savings and that people were buying houses one day and selling them the next, the implication being that, because of projected legislation, the people were about to be duped. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to know better and to know that hard cases make bad law.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) based his objection to the Bill mainly on the number of Clauses. This cannot be accepted as a valid objection. It is only symbolic of the infamy of the situation existing prior to what we, are trying to do today. We on this side are neither willing nor ready to heed his exhortations, particularly when he tells us to take note of the advice of Oliver Cromwell. That would be the most unpardonable sin of all.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of the privileged position of the local authorities. If that were so—and it is very much open to doubt—it is 1632 high time that the local authorities received more reasonable treatment. When local authorities build houses, they build for the people who need them. When private speculators build houses, they build for the people who can afford them. That is a reason why we say that if there is a balance in favour of the local authorities on this occasion it is right, proper and just that it should be so. The shortage of homes today is the greatest social evil of our time and I can speak with great authority, having given service for many years on a local authority, about the trials and tribulations that have afflicted the people who have not been able to acquire their own homes.
10.30 p.m.
The hon. Member also referred to the position of the charities and laid great stress on it. Fortunately, charities in this country are very well based. They are very well supported, and people in this country are becoming more charitable with every passing day. I do not believe that the charities seek priority and preferential treatment over the ordinary members of the community.
Surely the Opposition are not serious in suggesting alternatives which are most inimical to the progress of society? The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised several queries, and we heard the invariable parrot cry of, "How much?" We do not at this moment know how much, and I think that he was mostly criticising us for refusing point-blank to indulge in conjecture. He challenged my right hon. Friend the Minister to say how much, and of course the challenge was not accepted, because we do not wish to deal in conjecture.
However much it is, the project is worth trying to achieve. In the words of Goldsmith, Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law. Because of the speculative nature of the acquirement of land, and all the avarice that has been indulged in acquiring it, people have suffered from time immemorial. Many people have been robbed of the greatest possession an ordinary person can have. People can have a job, but if they have not a home they are the outcasts of society.
1633 Because of the necessity for the legislation to acquire the maximum number of homes for the maximum number of people, we refuse to accept the Lords Amendments.

1634

§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

§ The House divided:Ayes 178, Noes 100.

1635

Division No. 255.]	AYES	[10.35 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Moyle, Roland
Alldritt, Walter	Gourlay, Harry	Neal, Harold
Allen, Scholefield	Gregory, Arnold	Newens, Stan
Anderson, Donald	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Norwood, Christopher
Archer, Peter	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Ogden, Eric
Armstrong, Ernest	Harper, Joseph	O'Malley, Brian
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Orme, Stanley
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Haseldine, Norman	Oswald, Thomas
Bence, Cyril	Hazell, Bert	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Bessell, Peter	Henig, Stanley	Pardoe, John
Binns, John	Hooley, Frank	Pavitt, Laurence
Bishop, E. S.	Horner, John	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Blackburn, F.	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Booth, Albert	Howie, W.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Brooks, Edwin	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Probert, Arthur
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hunter, Adam	Redhead, Edward
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon, Tyne, W.)	Hynd, John	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Cant, R. B.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)	Rose, Paul
Carmichael, Neil	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Coe, Denis	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Coleman, Donald	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Concannon, J. D.	Kelley, Richard	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Crawshaw, Richard	Kenyon, Clifford	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Lawson, George	Skeffington, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Leadbitter, Ted	Small, William
Dalyell, Tam	Ledger, Ron	Spriggs, Leslie
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Lee, John (Reading)	Swingler, Stephen
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Taverne, Dick
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Thornton, Ernest
Delargy, Hugh	Lomas, Kenneth	Tinn, James
Dewar, Donald	Loughlin, Charles	Urwin, T. W.
Dickens, James	Lubbock, Eric	Varley, Eric G.
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)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	MacColl, James	Wellbeloved, James
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)	Macdonald, A. H.	Whitaker, Ben
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McGuire, Michael	Whitlock, William
Ellis, John	Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)	Wilkins, W. A.
Ennals, David	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mackintosh, John P.	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fernyhough, E.	Maclennan, Robert	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Forrester, John	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Woof, Robert
Fowler, Gerry	Mapp, Charles	Yates, Victor
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Marquand, David	Zilliacus, K.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)	Mendelson, J. J.
Freeson, Reginald	Millan, Bruce	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gardner, Tony	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Mr. Charles Grey and Mr. Charles R. Morris.
Garrett, W. E.	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Ginsburg, David	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Eden, Sir John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Baker, W. H. K.	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Eyre, Reginald
Batsford, Brian	Carlisle, Mark	Farr, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Clegg, Walter	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Biffen, John	Cooke, Robert	Fortescue, Tim
Body, Richard	Currie, G. B. H.	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Goodhart, Philip	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Goodhew, Victor	Maddan, Martin	Russell, Sir Ronald
Grant, Anthony	Maude, Angus	Sharples, Richard
Grant-Ferris, R.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Grieve, Percy	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Sinclair, Sir George
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Smith, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Monro, Hector	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Tilney, John
Hastings, Stephen	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Murton, Oscar	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Heseltine, Michael	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hill, J. E. B.	Onslow, Cranley	Vickers, Dame Joan
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Holland, Philip	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Weatherill, Bernard
Hornby, Richard	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Iremonger, T. L.	Percival, Ian	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Peyton, John	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Pink, R. Bonner	Worsley, Marcus
Jopling, Michael	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Kimball, Marcus	Prior, J. M. L.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Pym, Francis	Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter