HC Deb 15 June 1967 vol 748 cc835-51

In section 13 of the Finance Act 1957 (Relief for persons over 65 with small incomes) as amended by section 10 of the Finance Act 1965, for the references to '£390' and '£625' there shall be substituted references to '£420' 'and £675'.—[Mr. Maurice Macmillan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

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

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele)

We can discuss at the same time new Clause No. 11 entitled "Interest from building societies"— For the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the Finance Act 1957 (Relief for persons over 65 with small incomes) interest from a building society, which has already borne tax in the hands of the society, shall not be included in the calculation of total income; new Clause No. 52 entitled "Old people's income (income tax)"— In the Income Tax Act 1952 section 211(2) and (3) shall be deleted and the following subsection inserted:— '(2) The claimant, if he proves that at any time within the year of assessment either he or in the case of a married man his wife living with him was of the age of sixty-five years or upwards, shall be entitled to a deduction from the amount of income tax with which he is chargeable equal to tax at the standard rate of—

  1. (a) two-ninths of the amount (up to a maximum of £4,005) of the claimant's income plus
  2. (b) one-ninth of the amount (up to a maximum of £5,940) of any excess of his income over £4,005';
and new Clause No. 53 entitled "Old people's income (surtax)"— For the purposes of charging surtax for the year 1967–68 or any subsequent year of assessment in section 14(1)(a) of the Finance Act 1961, the reference to subsection (1) of section 211 of the Income Tax Act 1952 shall be a reference to subsections (1) or (2) of that section of that Act.

Mr. Macmillan

The object of the new Clause is very simple. It is to raise the limit of relief from taxation for persons over 65 years of age with small incomes. New Clauses Nos. 52 and 53 are a separate issue, although they are closely related to the object of new Clause No. 15 dealing with the level at which the incomes of persons over 65 are taxed. New Clause No. 11 deals with a more specialised problem, and I am sure that the Committee would prefer to leave it entirely in the expert hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour).

New Clause No. 15 is precisely the same in all its terms as that which was moved last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). As it was drawn last year, it was rather wider than it is now because it extended the changes to the marginal provisions for those who were just excluded from total relief. This relief was originally given in 1957, and the level of full exemption was then £250 for a single person and £400 for a married couple. There were marginal provisions for graduated relief for £50 above the limit of total exemption. This year we have confined the new Clause to the full exemption limit. The marginal relief on the present system will obviously apply at a higher level altogether for the £50 above the proposed new relief.

I read the learned and complex arguments which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and the Financial Secretary put forward last year, but since they are not strictly relevant to this new Clause and this debate I merely ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would perhaps repeat the undertaking which he gave in column 180 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 4th July, 1966, to see whether there was any way in which he could, as he put it, "soften the first stages" of the marginal relief which impinges rather heavily immediately above the total relief level.

Subsequent to the original introduction of this relief, changes were made by stages throughout the years. The last one was made in Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1965, when the limit was raised from £360 to £390 for a single person and from £575 to £625 for a married couple. When the Chancellor made the change, he said that it was clearly needed because of a general rise in the cost of living. In fact, he increased the figures by £30 and £50, respectively, above the previous year's levels. As my right hon. Friend said last year, even the increase in the cost of living more than justified a further raising of the exemption level. He worked out that the correct arithmetical increase then would have been £32 for a single person and £52 for a married couple.

There has been a considerable rise in the cost of living since this extra relief was sought last year. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, the total relief for which we could ask now is something in the nature of £40 or more for a single person and getting on for £70 for a married couple. Even if my arithmetic is wrong, it is irrelevant, since all that the Clause seeks to do is to raise the levels by the same £30 and £50 for which we asked unsuccessfully last year. It is worth reminding the Committee that the cost of living has risen by some 3 per cent. since we made our request last year. Therefore, we are seeking no increase in real terms but are asking merely for the bare minimum needed to keep pace with inflation.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will not try to oppose the Clause on the grounds of cost. He said last year that it would cost some £8½ million in a full year, and presumably it is roughly the same today. If there is any change, clearly it is negligible. That figure is little more than the Government's overoptimistic estimate of the administrative cost of the Land Commission, which they said was £7½million, but it would be a very much more worthwhile way of spending public money.

In his speech last year, the hon. and learned Gentleman added: …if this were a year in which my right hon. Friend was able to grant reliefs, this relief is one which would have a strong claim for review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 178.] I would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that that claim is even stronger today on all the arguments about the cost of living, the relatively small cost to the Treasury, on grounds of equity and social justice and, above all, on the ground that it meets the Chancellor's own criterion of being among the most deserving cases. What more deserving case can one make than for the over sixty-fives, who have spent a great deal of their working lives at a time when it was difficult to save, when earnings bore little relation to present-day living costs, and who find that any savings which they have made have been eroded by post-war inflation? However, there is no exemption except below an equivalent level of something less than £8 a week for a single person and about £12 a week for a married couple.

6.15 p.m.

In effect, it means that, as the cost of living increases and as social benefits go up, these older people living on the income from their savings are bearing a higher proportion of the welfare benefits which in most cases they have never had the advantage of themselves.

There is a further reason why I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to accept the new Clause, at any rate in principle. It is that it is time that a Labour Government introduced a Budget which had some relatively substantial social service relief, in view of his argument last year that in principle he would have accepted our request for a further concession if it had been possible economically. There has been no change since then to alter that view, and I hope that he will give serious consideration to this Clause and to the others which we are discussing with it.

New Clauses Nos. 52 and 53 have the object of raising what is known as the "age relief allowance". At present, if a claimant or his wife living with him is over 65, he has the right to have all his income treated as earned, provided that the total does not exceed £900 a year. It is important that the Committee should realise that it is the total and not the taxable income which is the criterion.

The last change in this concession was made four years ago in 1963, when the figure was raised from £800 to the present level of £900. That rise was needed to meet the increase in the cost of living, clearly, and it is equally clear that a further rise is needed this year to meet the cost of living increase which has occurred in the last four years. Taking January, 1962, as 100, the index shows that when the concession was last increased in April, 1963, the figure was 104. In April, 1967, it stood at 119.5. Even if the Chancellor cannot go the whole way and treat all income of people over 65 as earned income, I hope that we can have some indication that the Government will consider raising the rate.

Perhaps the Financial Secretary will bear in mind that it is the total income which provides the limit. No matter what marginal relief is given in other ways, even an income of £1,000 a year does not qualify at present and, nowadays, £1,000 a year is not as much as it used to be. If it were treated as earnings, it would represent retirement on half-pay with a salary of £2,000, which is not very large.

In the course of today's debates, we have heard about the need to encourage savings. I do not want to belabour the point unduly, but it is true that younger people today doubt whether saving is worth while. They have see the erosion of savings by rising prices, they have seen the fall in the value of many forms of lending to the Government, and they know that the record of the United Kingdom is bad compared with those of other countries. At a time when the tax system makes saving so difficult, just as economic circumstances made saving very hard for many people in the past, so it is necessary to encourage people to save by ensuring that the fruits of their savings can be enjoyed in old age.

As it is so difficult to get people to save now, it will mean that in the future those who are going to live on savings, even from relatively high earnings, will not have so much as they might otherwise have had. I know that we shall hear a great deal about the iniquity of helping the Surtax payer, but this suggestion is that those over 65 should be allowed to treat as earned up to the present level of Surtax of £5,000 a year their income from savings, and I think that in the present circumstances this is not an unusually ambitious request.

I confess that I have rather less hope of getting anywhere with new Clauses 52 and 53 than with this Clause, so I conclude with a special plea based on an additional factor operating this year. Last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out that the Pension (Increase) Act had brought into the tax range many people —married and single—who previously had been exempt. This is still true, but this year there is an additional factor, because we understand that pensions are to be raised. We do not know by how much. We do not even know when. It is hard to be certain what one does know about this, since the Government have not seen fit to tell the House of Commons, but he preferred to allow the details, such as they are, to leak out to the Press.

I do not know—and I do not think anyone in this Committee can know—whether it will be necessary for the Government to raise the exemption level as we have suggested in the Clause, as previous Governments have had to do to match increases in the pension, to avoid bringing too many old people into the taxable category. Whether it is necessary or not he should do it, although the Chancellor has said that the relationship betwen the residual sum that is left to a man after he has earned his income and the allowance given by the State is tenuous. But in this case is not real; for in this case it is a relationship, not between beneficiaries as such but between taxpayers as such. Without this concession the burden which the increased pension must put on taxpayers as a whole will be proportionately higher and more burdensome on the elderly, since it is bound to bear more hardly on those whose incomes are fixed in money terms.

I would, therefore, be grateful if the Financial Secretary would tell the Committee of his intentions, even if he cannot yet give the amount. I hope that it will be this Committee, or this House, which will be informed, rather than that we have to wait for one of his right hon. Friends to announce it to the Press. But, even if it is done that way, I will forgive the hon. and learned Gentleman provided that he can persuade the Chancellor to make this long-overdue rise in the level at which old people start to pay tax.

Mr. Ian Gilmour (Norfolk, Central)

Mr. Steele, you have kindly ruled that new Clause 11 may be discussed in this debate. The purpose of our proposal is to relieve old people living on small incomes from paying tax on what they receive from building societies, as tax has already been paid on that money by the societies.

Under the present system, if a married person living on a pension of £625 a year receives £40 from a building society, he has to pay £18 by way of tax on that £40. It is true that he gets marginal reliefs. If he did not, his tax bill would be £31.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that such a person has to pay tax on the income he receives by way of building society interest? If he is, he is mistaken.

Mr. Gilmour

I do not want to go into the metaphysics of taxation, or to claim that such a person pays tax twice, because I am not certain that that would be a good point; and, anyway, I am not qualified to do it. The fact is, however, that he has to pay tax of £18 purely because he gets an income of £40 from a building society.

A constituent of mine does not quite fall into that category. He has an income of £624, and he receives £29 from a building society. He has to pay Income Tax of £13, which is nine-twentieths of the £29. He feels that this is unjust. Whether or not he is paying tax twice —and I would prefer to stick to the practicalities, rather than argue that issue —he feels that he is paying tax twice, and all the lucidity of the Financial Secretary, and all the tax experts in the world, will not convince people in that position that they are not paying tax twice over. What is certain is that tax is being paid twice as a result of receiving that income.

These people have small savings. They have small incomes, and it seems reasonable that the Government should grant this concession. If they gave way on this, they would do four things, all of which would be worth while. First, they would remove an undoubted sense of injustice amongst a small, but deserving, class of people. Secondly, and more important, they would remove the injustice, as it seems to me, of these people having to pay tax in this way. Thirdly, they would help to simplify the tax system and save the Inland Revenue the trouble of receiving irate letters from taxpayers who, understandably, do not appreciate the position. Fourthly, they would provide some well-needed help for people who in no sense can be said to be well off.

The only people who will be affected are those who are married and have incomes of between £625 and £800 a year. I ask the Financial Secretary to accept the proposal.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

New Clause No. 15 is an abbreviated form of a Clause which I moved last year, and I endorse the clear and cogent argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).

I want to go a little wider, because in my view the taxation of the elderly is monstrously harsh today. It is so regarded not merely by the elderly, but by their neighbours who live near them. If a man who has never been within the tax scope, working in agriculture, for instance, enters the pension range and goes on working, he is suddenly harshly hit by huge taxation on Pay-As-You-Earn, which he cannot understand. We must either justify and explain that, or alter it. In my view we ought to make the basic pension tax-free, but I cannot pursue that point under the rules of order.

The Government ought to be considering this from every angle. I can see no argument which could be used in 1967 to reject new Clause 15. The cost of living and value of money argument was clearly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham. On the merits, the Financial Secretary's argument last year is useless this year.

6.30 p.m.

However, there are two other arguments. We cannot put more of these people with the basic pension and small savings into the tax scope if we are raising the pension by £1 a week for a couple. The limits must, therefore, be raised by £50 a year. Because in view of the rise in the cost of living since the last increase, no Government could possibly give a pension rise of less, and I therefore assume that it will be £1. This problem is particularly hard for the elderly couple, as the wife of a working man before pension age can earn £1 10s. a week untaxed. This does not happen with aged pensioner couples. A man may go on working, but the wife never does and there is, therefore, no such source of untaxed income for them.

The proposed change is further necessary, particularly, in the light of the supplementary pension scheme introduced this year. The Ministry of Social Security pamphlet, "New Benefits for Retired People", says that a married couple of retirement age will get a supplementary pension, if their income comes within the guaranteed weekly income level, of £7 2s. a week, plus rent. Assuming that their rent is 50s. a week, the guaranteed level would have to be £500.

Paragraph 4 of that pamphlet says that there is entitlement to supplementary pension even though the present weekly pension is higher than the guaranteed level, and continues: This is because at least the first £1 of any income other than your retirement pension will normally be ignored as well as the first £2 of any part-time earnings. Therefore, according to this pamphlet, a married couple would have a limit of £656 for entitlement to supplementary pension. Yet the present tax relief limit is £625.

Press reports show how worried everyone is about the disincentive to thrift. Of course, we must help those in need by a supplementary pension, but we must also try to put our tax scale well away from that so as to exempt from tax those on small incomes. It is the failure of both parties when in office for many years to understand the need to raise the exemption limit for old couples on basic pension and with small savings which has done more damage to their standing in the community than anything else.

They live in streets in which the average wage is £15 to £19 and they have the basic pension and small savings. They cannot understand these tax demands. They have put away savings pittances of £1 or £2 a week, and cannot understand why they should pay these tax demands when they are so out of line with the incomes in the rest of the street or village.

I therefore beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider this matter sympathetically and to accept the new Clause. I would ask him to get the Chancellor to make a thorough review of this problem, which would remove a great injustice felt by old people in all parts of the country and of all political persuasions.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Steele)

The Question is—

Mr. MacDermot

I am sorry, Mr. Steele. I had assumed, wrongly, that I would be listening to other representations before replying. I apologise.

We are discussing a number of Amendments which affect the tax position of the elderly. Most, but not all, deal particularly with those just above the age exemption limit. New Clause 15 is directed specifically at them and proposes to raise the limits.

Age exemption was introduced in 1957 to give special exemption to old people with an income just above the point at which they would normally have to start paying Income Tax. The original limits were £250 for a single person and £400 for a married couple, since when they have been increased five times and, on every occasion except one, the increase has been linked with and closely related to increases in the National Insurance pension. The exception was in 1964—I do not know whether the Opposition would hold that year up as a model which we should follow for managing the economy.

The argument for the increase is made first on the basis of increases in the cost of living and, more generally, by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on the claim that taxation of the elderly is monstrously harsh. I am not sure that that criticism is well-founded if we compare the position of the elderly with the benefit of this exemption with that of single people on low incomes aged under 65.

The increases and movements of these exemption limits since 1957 compare favourably with the starting points for Income Tax for other people. The normal starting point for single people has risen since then from £180 to £283, whereas that for the aged single person has risen from £250 to £390. The starting point for married couples has risen from £309 to £438 and, for the aged married couples, with the exemption, from £400 to £625.

In contrast, the tax saved to elderly people who benefit from the exemption at the present limits, compared with that paid by people with the same income who are under 65, is £17 a year for a single person and £34 for a married couple. It has to be remembered that, although the elderly have their difficulties and sometimes added expenses, working people also have expenses for which they get no tax relief and which retired people do not have, such as fares to work and National Insurance contributions. The increases in the limits have also kept up favourably with increases in ordinary personal allowances.

The case, then, is argued on the basis of the problems of elderly people on small incomes due to increases in the cost of living. As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget speech, the Government are very much aware of this problem, particularly as it affects the elderly, but the problem is greater still for those old-age pensioners with incomes below the present exemption limits.

I was asked for the cost of these proposals and the answer is close to the figures which I have given each year, as they go up only gradually with the increase in the proportion of elderly. The present figures show that the cost would be appreciable, £5½ million in the first year and £9 million in a full year, which is quite beyond what the Chancellor has felt able to grant in concessions this year.

As to Press reports that an increase in National Insurance pensions is pending, I am not answerable for what appears in the newspapers. When any decision is taken, an announcement will be made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security. If such an announcement were made, that would, of course, have to be considered by my right hon. Friend in relation to these limits, because of the known and traditional link between the limit and the pension level—

Miss Pike

I should like to clear up that point. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that this so-called leak about pensions is not true and that, as far as—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. We are not discussing that at the moment.

Mr. MacDermot

I thought that I had made it clear that I was not answer table for anything which appears in the newspapers. The hon. Lady could not expect to draw me on such matters even if it were within the rules of order.

New Clause 11 is the proposal to exclude building society interest from the computation of a taxpayer's total income for purposes of calculating the marginal age exemption relief. I stress that it is a relief which is being calculated and not the addition of some liability to tax.

The purpose of the marginal age exemption relief is to avoid a big jump in tax liability when someone's income rises just above the age exemption relief which we have been discussing. Under the provision, it is restricted to nine-twentieths of the excess of income over the exemption limit, if that proves to be less than the liability computed by reference to the normal allowances and relief. It operates, therefore, only to the taxpayer's benefit, bearing in mind his normal tax liability, and it cannot add any liability.

To operate this one must look at the total income, including building society interest. The argument which is usually put forward for suggesting that this interest should be excluded is that, while other investment income—for example, dividends—is, it is suggested, treated favourably in that the taxpayer is given credit for the tax that is deducted at source, that does not apply to building society interest. It is suggested that, for that reason, there is some unfair treatment and that building society interest should be excluded from this calculation.

But this is only one of the consequences of the building society arrangement for a composite rate, which is greatly to the advantage of the building societies and, in general, to the people who invest in them. It is an essential feature of that arrangement that the investor first pays no Income Tax on his interest as he receives it and, secondly, cannot claim any tax repayment in respect of it.

It may be that the effect of this is not always to the advantage of people with small amounts to invest in that tax is deducted by the building society at the composite rate—at present 6s. 3d. in the £—before they receive their interest, and there may be better ways for some of them to invest their monies. But this is not due to the marginal age exemption provisions and, if the point be valid, it is not confined to people who are entitled to claim the exemption.

The object of the marginal age exemption is to give a tapering relief to elderly people whose incomes are a little above the limit for relief. If we are to operate this marginal age relief fairly as between different taxpayers within this band, we must take into account all their income, including building society interest. To do otherwise would be unfair to other taxpayers who have incomes which do not include building society interest.

New Clauses 52 and 53 were discussed by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) with, I thought, a little less conviction than his remarks about new Clause 15, for these Clauses propose to abolish the distinction between earned income and unearned income for people over the age of 65, or for someone married to a person over 65, on the first £9,945 of their investment income. Out of the generosity of their hearts, hon. Gentlemen opposite want this to apply to Surtax as well as Income Tax.

The Committee will not be surprised to hear that this would be an expensive proposal. It would cost about £50 million in a full year, £30 million of that attributable to Income Tax and £20 million to Surtax. In present circumstances, the Committee may think that I hardly need say more. I certainly do not intend to rehearse, here and now, the well-known reasons for the distinction between earned and unearned income for tax purposes and for the existence of earned income relief.

When a somewhat similar proposal was put forward under the last Conservative Administration, my predessor in this office, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), in rejecting the proposal, stressed that it was important to retain the distinction which is implicit in earned income relief.

Those who argue in favour of this proposal argue from the principle of the age relief, a provision whereby the investment income of people of 65 or over whose total income does not exceed £900 a year is given the equivalent of earned income relief. But that is intended to equate the tax liability of a person who, in retirement, must live on a modest income from the investment of his savings with that of a retired taxpayer who lives on a pension which qualifies for earned income relief.

I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously expect any concession on these lines, or that, if they were in power, they would dream of introducing it. It is not unfair to classify it as little more than a propaganda exercise, and I do not believe that the people at whom it is aimed would be so foolish as to take it seriously. And I am sure that the Committee will not, either.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 161.

Division No. 368.] AYES [6.52 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Grieve, Percy Murton, Oscar
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gurden, Harold Nott, John
Awdry, Daniel Hall, John (Wycombe) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Bell, Ronald Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bessell, Peter Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Biggs-Davison, John Harrison, Brian (Ma don) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Harvey, Sir Arthur vere Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Harvie Anderson, Miss Prior, J. M. L.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hawkins, Paul Pym, Francis
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Higgins, Terence L. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hiley, Joseph Rid8dale, Julian
Bullus, Sir Eric Hirst, Geoffrey Royle, Anthony
Campbell, Gordon Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Russell, Sir Ronald
Carlisle, Mark Holland, Philip Scott, Nicholas
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hooson, Emlyn Sharpies, Richard
Clegg, Walter Hutchison, Michael Clark Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Iremonger, T. L. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Costain, A. P. Jenkin, Patrice (Woodford) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Teeling, Sir William
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Jopling, Michael Temple, John M.
Crouch, David Kimball, Marcus Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Cunningham, Sir Knox King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dalkeith, Earl of Knight, Mrs. Jill Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Langlord-Holt, Sir John Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Lubbock, Eric Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) McAdden, Sir Stephen Ward, Dame Irene
Doughty, Charles MacArthur, Ian Weatherill, Bernard
Drayson, G. B. Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&crom'ty) Webster, David
Eden, Sir John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Eyre, Reginald Maddan, Martin Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Farr, John Mawby, Ray Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monro, Hector TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Glover, Sir Douglas More, Jasper Mr. David Mitchell and
Grant, Anthony Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Timothy Kitson.
Gresham Cooke, R. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Albu, Austen Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hamling, William
Anderson, Donald Davits, Harold (Leek) Hannan, William
Archer, Peter Davies, Ifor (Gower) Harper, Joseph
Armstrong, Ernest Dell, Edmund Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ashley, Jack Dewar, Donald Haseldine, Norman
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Hazell, Bert
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Dobson, Ray Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Barnes, Michael Dunnett, Jack Hilton, W. S.
Barnett, Joel Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Beaney, Alan Ellis, John Homer, John
Bidwell, Sydney English, Michael Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bishop, E. S. Ensor, David Howie, W.
Booth, Albert Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Hoy, James
Boston, Terence Faulds, Andrew Huckfield, L.
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Fernyhough, E. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Brooks, Edwin Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Forrester, John Hynd, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Fraser, John (Norwood) Janner, Sir Barnett
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Jeger, Mrs.Lena'H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Cant, R. B. Freeson, Reginald Jenkin, Hugh (Putney)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Gardner, Tony Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Chapman, Donald Ginsburg, David Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Coleman, Donald Gourlay, Harry Judd, Frank
Concannon, J. D. Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Kelley, Richard
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Gregory, Arnold Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Cronin, John Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Dalyell, Tam Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lestor, Miss Joan
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hamilton, William (Fife, w.) Lipton, Marcus
Luard, Evan Murray, Albert Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Norwood, Christopher Ryan, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradlord, E.) O'Malley, Brian Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
McBride, Neil Oram, Albert E. Sheldon, Robert
MacColl, James Orbach, Maurice Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
MacDermot, Niall Orme, Stanley Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Macdonald, A. H. Page, Derek (King's Lynn) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret Paget, R. T. Swain, Thomas
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Swingler, Stephen
Mackintosh, John P. Park, Trevor Taverne, Dick
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, CO Parker, John (Dagenham) Tomney, Frank
McNamara, J. Kevin Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Urwin, T. W.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Pavitt, Laurence Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Weitzman, David
Marquand, David Pentland, Norman Wellbeloved, James
Maxwell, Robert Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) Whitaker, Ben
Mayhew, Christopher Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Whitlock, William
Mellish, Robert Price, William (Rugby) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mikardo, Ian Probert, Arthur Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Millan, Bruce Rankin, John Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Rees, Merlyn Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Reynolds, G. W. Wyatt, Woodrow
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Richard, Ivor
Molloy, William Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Roebuck, Roy Mr. John McCann and
Moyle, Roland Ross, Rt. Hn. William Mr. Charles Grey.