HC Deb 02 July 1968 vol 767 cc1455-68


The proviso to paragraph 21(3) of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act 1965 shall not apply to a charitable settlement nor to any settlement which, apart from this provision, otherwise satisfies the conditions prescribed by the proviso to section 25(7) of this Act.—[Mr. John Hall.]

Brought up and read the First time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Hall

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

This Clause is designed to remove an anomaly which, obviously by an oversight, occurred in the original drafting of Schedule 7 to the 1965 Act. Quite inadvertently, gifts to charities have been penalised by the operation of this Schedule. I shall read a definition of the purposes of the Schedule which admirably sets out the provisions. The definition is contained in a letter addressed by the Financial Secretary—I am sorry that he is not present now—to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) in an exchange of correspondence on this point.

The Financial Secretary defined the provisions of Schedule 7 of the Finance Act, 1965, as, designed to prevent the creation of artificial losses by transactions entered into between associated parties. Their effect is, broadly, that transactions between 'connected' persons are deemed to take place at market value, and that a loss arising on a disposal from one connected person to another can only be set off against a gain arising on a transaction between the same two persons. The definition of 'connected persons' in paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 covers husbands and wives and close relatives; it also provides that the trustee of a settlement is 'connected' with any individual who, in relation to the settlement, is a settlor. That seems to be an excellent definition with which no one on the Treasury Bench would quarrel. I am sure that it was not intended when this was provided that it should catch gifts to established charities. In the same letter the Financial Secretary obviously thought that it would not catch those charities because he went on to say: These provisions have no relevance to the ordinary case of a gift to an established charity, with the setting-up of which the donor was not concerned. Unfortunately for the charities and the donors of assets to such charities, he was not correct. Where an individual makes a gift of shares in a publicly quoted company to a charity, to be used as to capital and income for particular purposes and the shares in question show a loss as against their value of 5th April, 1965, the loss so sustained is not available for relief unless the donor makes another gift to the same charity and for the same purposes on which a profit is shown.

The Financial Secretary agreed that that definition as established under Schedule 7 was, in fact, correct, but he went on to say, during interchanges, that it had taken the Treasury a little time to interpret the provisions of Schedule 7. When it takes time for the Treasury itself to interpret provisions, what chance has the ordinary layman of finding his way through this extraordinary morass of fiscal legislation?

The Financial Secretary pointed out that, in practice, this had never cropped up, but he agreed that it could do and said that he would have a look at it. It has cropped up, and I hope that the Minister will have another look at this problem.

An actual case did take place. A man who wished to make a donation of assets to an established charity did so by making over to the charity a number of shares which at the time showed a capital loss in his hands. As he passed the shares on to the charity, the loss was not available for relief from Capital Gains Tax unless at some later stage he made another gift to the same charity for the same purpose on which there was a profit on which the earlier loss could be offset.

Clearly, if he realised that what he might have done was to make a gift of half the value of the assets and keep the other half hoping that in due course the market value would change, he could have offset the second loss against the second profit. I am sure that it was never intended to manipulate gifts to charities in that way to offset losses.

I am certain that it is necessary only to draw this extraordinary anomaly to the Minister's attention for him to do what the Financial Secretary has already promised to do—to have an active and positive look at this, to accept the Clause and remove the anomaly from the Statute Book.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

This is a very complicated point concerning minute details of the Capital Gains Tax. The point has been made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that, because of this anomaly in Schedule 7, a possible donor may not be able to claim relief from Capital Gains Tax on the gift of shares to a charity. There is, therefore, an inhibition on the donor. Anybody who has had anything to do with charities knows that, once a donor has been brought to the point of boiling, as it were, one does not want to lose him by his having any slight worry that he may have to balance, for purely tax reasons, that donation of shares which he wants to make to a charity with another donation later of a different set of shares, possibly to a different charity. This is the law as it stands.

The Clause attempts to remove this obstacle to the flow of compassion. I hope that the Treasury will be receptive to it. If the Treasury is in a receptive mood, we would like it to consider exempting all gifts to charity from the Capital Gains Tax. It is an anomaly in the Capital Gains Tax as it stands that all gifts to charity are, because they are a disposal and, therefore, a liability to Capital Gains Tax arises, liable to Capital Gains Tax. Yet Capital Gains Tax need not be paid on money given to a State charity or to the National Trust.

I hope that the Treasury will bear this in mind. The Capital Gains Tax is complicated and obscure. Some of us are trying to make it simpler. This is a small anomaly. It is a point which affects some charities very much indeed. I hope that the Treasury will look upon it sympathetically.

Mr. Taverne

As to the purpose of the tax—the case which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) raised—I cannot improve on the letter which was written by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary setting out for what reason the tax was introduced. An anomaly was drawn attention to in the correspondence which ensued and the Financial Secretary said that this was a matter at which he would look. It is important to point out that, although there has been one case in which this has arisen, it is likely to be extremely rare. Gifts of assets rather than cash are very unusual. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] AS to hardship, the person can sell the assets and give the cash proceeds. If it is land, it is very unlikely that there would be any loss suffered on land which the donor would then be able to offset against the gain.

Nevertheless, there is a case for looking at this. It is, however, difficult to draw the line, because in the case of gifts to private charitable trusts where the settlor is closely connected with the purposes for which the trust is set up and where, indeed, he has control over this, one is dealing with a case where there is considerable scope for tax avoidance. The private charitable trust could not easily be distinguished from the public established charity. This is something which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that he would look at, but as it was such a rare case, and as one could hardly point to hardship being suffered, because there was the alternative of selling the shares, it was not something which was given great priority and it was not something in respect of which we were in a position to table an Amendment on Report.

The difficulty about the Clause is that it means that the deserving case under the public established charity is mixed up with the private charity, where there is more room for tax avoidance. It seems desirable to distinguish these two. To answer the point put forward by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), there are no general Estate Duty exemptions for gifts to charities. It is reasonable that one should keep the position on Estate Duty in line with the position on capital gains.

On another occasion a Financial Secretary said that it was of considerable importance that one should adhere to precedent, and not do something leading to wide pressure for the extension of the concession to other areas. One has the same position at the moment for exemption of gifts for capital gains purposes, as one has for Estate Duty purposes. If someone makes a gift of shares of a public company, it is likely that he will know what the company's liability will be, and he can sell enough of the shares to provide for this or can come to some arrangement with the charity that he should be repaid the amounts which he has foregone, and which he would have to pay as tax.

If they are shares in a private company, a different position obtains, but it is unlikely that charities would accept shares in such companies. If one looks at gifts of land or chattels, one finds that there is a parallel with Estate Duty. It also applies if there are gifts to the National Trust under Section 32 of the 1965 Act, and in certain circumstances in the case of securities given to the National Trust. The position under Estate Duty and capital gains has been kept the same and it seems eminently sensible that this should be maintained.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

The comparison between Estate Duty and capital gains is faulty. The hon. and learned Gentleman has selected for his argument, cases where they tally. There is the important instance where one can dispose of £1,000 worth of chattels under the capital gains legislation and not incur tax liability. If we use this example there is no comparison between capital gains and Estate Duty. One cannot give away £1,000 worth of chattels to a host of relations or charities and escape liability to Estate Duty. This is an important point, where they do not march side by side. It is not fair for the Minister to quote an example to support his argument but omit those which do not do so.

Mr. Taverne

In almost every case the examples given are exactly side by side. If one takes the position under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act the position is the same. If one looks at the question of gifts of land or securities, in all these cases it is the same. There is no general exemption for Estate Duty purposes. The Clause would provide a general exemption for capital gains.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin

I shall make a brief intervention in the debate on this new Clause since it appeared from his speech that my hon. Friend's point arose out of correspondence I had with the Financial Secretary, which, in turn, arose out of correspondence with a constituent of mine, Mr. Mace.

The Minister of State's reply was strange. He must have heard the reaction of my hon. Friends when he said that gifts of assets to charity were most unlikely. I can assure him that many people owning shares in a private company may feel it right to give shares to charity rather than sell unmarketable securities and give the money. It is wrong to say that it is unlikely. This might happen, and for all I know, has happened.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's second point was equally strange. He sought to distinguish between two sorts of charity, the public charity and the private. I believe that I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) for reminding me of the words of Gertrude Stein, "A rose is a rose is a rose", and I might say to the Minister, "A charity is a charity is a charity".

The law knows no distinction between the so-called public charity and the so-called private charity. The fact that the Minister and his advisers see all sorts of tax avoidance acts in something which he calls a private charity should not be allowed to stand in the way of remedying an admitted anomaly.

Perhaps the most surprising thing the Minister of State said in reply to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) was that this was a matter which had not been given great priority. I gained the impression, and perhaps I do him an injustice, that it had not been given any priority at all. May I remind the Minister of what he wrote in March: In practice, this point has never cropped up but I agree it could and I am having a further look into the question. Was there a further look after that letter, or was there no further look until the Amendment was put down by my hon. Friend for Report? The Minister has given us a most disappointing answer and although my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe will wish to comment on it I feel that it would be right for me to urge him to invite his hon. Friends to support him in the Division Lobby.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid

I am rather sad about the Minister of State, because, although he has not been long in the Treasury, he seems to have picked up all the jargon. For them, almost any action is action of tax avoidance and if any of us fell down dead, we should, in the eyes of the Treasury, have been indulging in tax avoidance. We are sad to see the Minister of State with his arm in a sling, but if he were so incapacitated as no longer to be able to do his duties, he would be indulging, in the eyes of his Department, in an act of tax avoidance. It is about time that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues recognised the facts of life. There are many decent, generous people who want to give money away, who want to divest themselves of their assets for the benefit of charities.

I should like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said about the Minister's scathing attitude to private charitable trusts. What is a private charitable trust? It is a trust set up to distribute funds to recognised charities, and if it is not a charitable trust it does not enjoy any of the advantages of a charitable trust. No one knows that better than the Minister's colleagues. Probably the Minister of State knows it himself. His idea that the formation of private charitable trusts is itself an act of tax avoidance is something of which he must disabuse himself, because it does not stand up to the general conceptions of the people.

To think that any action anyone takes which does not actually involve payment of tax is itself an act of tax avoidance only shows that, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been long at the Treasury—I hope that it was not as a result of a wrestle with his advisers that he sustained his injury—he must have got the language deeply embedded in him. I am glad to accept the invitation to vote for the new Clause, really to show that here is a very intelligent hon. and learned Member who yet speaks not in the language of Mr. Gladstone, but in language tucked away in the Treasury files for about 100 years or more.

Mr. John Smith

I have no wish to grill the Minister of State when he has his arm in a sling, but he has not only distinguished between types of charity —a dangerous road on which to set out; he has also invented a new meaning for tax avoidance. Most of us under- stand by tax avoidance a state of affairs where, instead of the Treasury getting the tax, it remains in the hands of the person who would otherwise have paid it.

I would like to know how it is possible to avoid tax—to make money—by giving money away. If, on £1 worth of securities, Capital Gains Tax of 1s. is payable, the normal meaning of tax avoidance is that some transaction is entered into by which that 1s. remains in the hands of the person who would otherwise have paid it in tax. But if the money is going to charity, the person pays not 1s., but £1. This surely cannot be called tax avoidance.

We have here, as we always have, complicated and restrictive legislation defended on the ground that, if it did not exist, it would be possible for ill-intentioned people to make money. Surely we cannot extend that principle and forgo the beneficial effects of the proposal in the new Clause not in order to prevent a person retaining in his own hands the tax he might otherwise have paid, but to prevent him from giving away a much larger sum and to enable the Treasury, in effect, to collect the tax from a charity.

Mr. John M. Temple (City of Chester)

I was a little disappointed by the reply of the Minister because he seemed to rest his case on two premises with which I am in complete disagreement. First, there was the analogy between this situation and Estate Duty. I refute that completely. The second premise was that gifts of assets other than cash are unusual. I remind him that most of our great charitable foundations, such as the Nuffield Foundation, have been founded on just these sort of gifts—gifts of shares in companies which the entrepreneur has built up and in which he takes great pride and has great pleasure in donating to charities.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept a new Clause of this nature, there will be a very real disincentive towards those very charitably minded people who have built up their own private empires and who desire, very rightly, at a certain juncture, that charity should benefit from some of the work they have carried out during their lifetime.

There is, however, another point with regard to land. The Minister of State seems to dismiss the idea that land could be donated for charitable purposes. As the years roll on, the Capital Gains Tax will become much heavier with regard to land, because land values constantly appreciate. In the nature of things, land is held over a long period of years. Therefore, if towards the end of his life a donor contemplates the giving away of land, which has been the basis of the fortunes of City livery companies throughout the centuries and the basis of many charitable foundations and educational trusts, he will be involved in enormous Capital Gains Tax liability and, therefore, there will be a disincentive to his giving away land.

I make these two points because we are looking upon the Capital Gains Tax as a tax which has operated for only a few years. I fear that in some form it will be with us for a long time, possibly in perpetuity, although, perhaps, not in exactly the form in which we have it today. Nevertheless, one would, I think, accept that it will be a continuing tax. There will, therefore, be this built-in disincentive. My experience has been that these charitable trusts have been based on donations of just the sort I have described. I am sure that the Minister of State would not want to put this disincentive against the desires of donors, but that is what he is doing.

I ask the Government seriously to make another statement on this matter—it deserves another statement from the Treasury Bench—and to say that they accept the principle that we are proposing. Even if they cannot accept it in this year's Bill, let them accept the principle in a more definite manner than we have heard so far.

Sir D. Glover

The Minister of State's reply was so unsatisfactory that, I think, everybody in the House would like to go into the Lobby against what he said. I would like to make three points. The first is that the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he represents his party correctly, is saying categorically that any private aid for the relief of distress is disapproved of by the party opposite and that whilst the Welfare State can look after those who fall by the wayside, for it to be done on a private basis is something on which the party opposite disapprove.

Even if there is some loss of tax to the Treasury, if the money goes to a charity to do a great deal of good with which the State would otherwise have to deal, I cannot see how it can be labelled as tax avoidance, because the person giving the money to the charity gets no benefit from it. The hon. and learned Member should remove the view which he has given to the House, otherwise his party will be regarded for all time as one which disapproves of all forms of private charity.

Secondly, whether inadvertently or not, the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me the strong impression that he thought, presumably representing his party, that there was something slightly unsavoury in what he referred to as a private charitable trust. He did not, perhaps, put it into words, but he left the strong impression on me that his party, the Government, do not approve of private charitable trusts.

I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) said. Some private charitable trusts have done more good to research in medicine and many other ways than almost any other charitable activity that we have seen over the last 50 years.

If this is now to have the label of sin attached to it, it will be a tremendous disincentive to people who have been fortunate in the line of battle and accumulated wealth—and they have to be very clever to have accumulated anything in the light of the State's attack on wealth to make arrangements for the benefit of the nation.

It may be that Lord Nuffield would not have established the Nuffield Trust if life had been kinder to him and he had had a family, but he decided to use his wealth for very beneficial purposes for the nation as a whole. Surely no one will now say that there is an element of tax avoidance in what Lord Nuffield did in establishing the Nuffield Foundation? The Foundation has probably done as much good as £10 million, or whatever the sum was, ever expended for charitable or research purposes in this country, has done.

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remove the impression which he left very strongly in my mind that the Government think there is something disreputable in a private charitable trust.

Mr. John Hall

My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), in the course of his interjection, described the reply given by the Minister of State as disappointing. I think, if I may say so, that that was a masterpiece of understatement. If there was a league table for unsatisfactory replies to points put forward by hon. Members on this side of the House, that last reply would come very near the top.

As far as I can understand, the real reason why the Minister was not prepared to accept this Clause—the validity of which I think he approved—was that very few people were likely to be affected by this, that injustice would be felt by only a few people and he could afford to

ignore them. Because so few people are affected, little pressure was likely to be placed on the Treasury, so let us ignore the fact that some people will suffer an injustice.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument seemed to me "we know very well that we can get away with this without great public pressure or indignation, so we are prepared to penalise charities just because only a few people suffer from injustice". I was about to use the word "disgusting" about this argument, but I will withdraw that, and say that I was amazed by the reply, which shows such a lack of understanding and sympathy that I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will take this to a Division.

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

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 185.

Division No. 261.] AYES [11.3 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Pink, n. Bonner
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Harvie Anderson, Miss Pounder, Rafton
Balniel, Lord Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Heseltine, Michael Pym, Francis
Biffen, John Higgins, Terence L. Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hirst, Geoffrey Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Black, Sir Cyril Holland, Philip Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hooson, Emlyn Ridsdale, Julian
Brewis, John Hornby, Richard Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hunt, John Royle, Anthony
Bromley-Davcnport,Lt..Col.SlrWalter Jenkin, Patrick (woodford) Scott-Hopkins, James
Buchanan-Smith,Allck(Angus,N&M) Kaberry, Sir Donald Sharpies, Richard
Bullus, Sir Eric Kimball, Marcus Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Silvester, Frederick
Carlisle, Mark Kirk, Peter Sinclair, Sir George
Chichester-Clark, R.
Clark, Henry Knight, Mrs. Jill Smith, Duley (W'wick & L'mington)
Clegg, Walter Lambton, Viscount Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Cooke, Robert Langford-Holt, Sir John Stainton, Keith
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Longden, Gilbert Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
corfield, F. V. Lubbock, Eric Summers, Sir Spencer
Crowder, F. P. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dance James Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcarr)
Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Maddan, Martin Temple, John M.
d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry Maginnls, John E. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Marten, Neil Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Maude, Angus van Straubenzee, W. R.
Eden, Sir John Mawby, Ray Waddington, D.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Emery, Peter Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wall, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald More, Jasper Walters, Dennis
Farr, John Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Ward, Dame Irene
Forteseue, Tim Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Glover, Sir Douglas Murton, Oscar Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Goodhart, Philip Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wilson, Ceoffrey (Truro)
Coodhew, Victor Nicholls, Sir Harmar Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Gower, Raymond Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Grieve, Percy Onslow, Cranley Younger, Hn. George
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Gurden, Harold Pardoe, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hall, John (Wycombe) Peel, John Mr. Anthony Grant and
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Percival, lan Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Abse, Leo Alldritt, Walter Armstrong, Ernest
Albu, Austen Anderson, Donald Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Archer, Peter Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Harper, Joseph Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Barnett, Joel Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Baxter, William Hasedine, Norman Moyle, Roland
Beaney, Alan Hazell, Bert Murray, Albert
Bence, Cyril Heffer, Eric S. Neal, Harold
Bidwell, Sydney Henlg, Stanley Norwood, Christopher
Bishop, E. S. Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Oakes, Gordon
Blackburn, F. Hooley, Frank Ogden, Eric
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Horner, John O'Macley, Brian
Booth, Albert Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Oram, Albert E.
Boston, Terence Howie, W. Orme, Stanley
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hoy, James Oswald, Thomas
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Huckfield, Leslie Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Brooks, Edwin Hughes, Roy (Newport) Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hunter, Adam Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Hynd, John Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Pentland, Norman
Buchan, Norman Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'bn&St.P'cras,S.) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.) Price, William (Rugby)
Cant, R. B. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.
Carmichael, Neil Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Kerr, Dr.. David (W'worth, Central) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Chapman, Donald Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Coe, Denis Lawson, George Robinson, w. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Coleman, Donald Leadbitter, Ted Rose, Paul
Crawshaw, Richard Ledger, Ron Ryan, John
Croseman, Rt. Hn. Richard Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Sheldon, Robert
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Lee, John (Reading) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Dalyell, Tam Lestor Miss Joan Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Short,Mrs.Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
Dell, Edmund Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dempsey, James Lewis Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Diamond, Rt Hn. John Lomas Kenneth Silverman, Julius
Dickens, James Loughl'in Charles Slater, Joseph
Doig, Peter Luard, Evan Small, William
Driberg, Tom Lyons, Edward (Bradfort, E.) Snow, Julian
Dunn, James A. MeBride Neil Spriggs, Leslie
Edelman, Maurice McCann John Taverne, Dick
Edwards, William (Merioneth) MacColl, James Tinn, James
Ellis, John MacDernot, Niall Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) MCGUI re, Michael Varley, Eric G.
Faulds, Andrew MACKINTOSH, JOHN P. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fernyhough, E. Maclennan, Robert Watkins, David (Consett)
Fitch, Alan (Wigarr) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wellbeloved, James
Foley, Maurice McNamara, J. Kevin White, Mrs. Eirene
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wilkins, W. A.
Forrester, John Mahon, Simon (Bootle) willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fowler, Gerry MaIlalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Freeson, Reginald Manuel, Archie Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Calpern, Sir Myer Marks, Kenneth Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Gardner, Tony Marquand, David Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Maxwell, Robert Winnick, David
Cregory, Arnold Mendelson, J. J. Yates, Victor
Grey, Charles (Durham) Millan, Bruce
Griffiths, E. (Brightside) Miller, Dr. M. S. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. J. D. Concannon and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Mr. Ioan L. Evans
Hamling, William Molloy, William
Hannan, William Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Diamond.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.


Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.