§
At the end of section 45(1) of the Land Commission Act, 1967 (Contents of Notice of Assessment) add:—
' Provided that the notice of assessment shall not specify a date on which the levy is charged earlier than that on which the
535
proceeds in money or money's worth of the chargeable act or event are due to be received by the person liable to the levy; and so far as those proceeds are to be realised by periodical payments the notice of assessment shall provide for payment of the levy by instalments'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWe can take at the same time new Clause No. 1—entitled" Exemption from betterment levy in cases of disposition at a loss "—
The following section shall be inserted after section 56 of the Land Commission Act 1967:'56A. No levy shall be chargeable in case A where the market value at which a disposition takes place is less than the price paid by the grantor for the relevant land or interest at acquisition '.New Clause No. 3 entitled "Relief from betterment levy in respect of development value assessed to income tax"—
Where a disposition of land produces a gain assessable to income tax under Case VII of Schedule D and it is shown that this gain includes development value, the facts shall be certified by the Board to the Land Commission who shall thereupon direct that no assessment to betterment levy shall be made in respect of the development value so included in the assessment to income tax.New Clause No. 5 entitled "Betterment levy: Offset against tax on land dealing"—Where a person is engaged in land dealings, the profits of which are chargeable to tax under Schedule D, Case 1, as trading profits, that person shall be entitled to offset any betterment levy payable in the relevant accounting period against his liability for tax under Schedule D, Case 1, for that accounting period.New Clause No. 6 entitled "Betterment levy: Provision for further exemptions"—
At the end of section 63(1) of the Land Commission Act, 1967 (Provision for further exemptions) add and such order may take effect retrospectively so as to affect any chargeable act or event occurring after 5th April, 1967 and may provide for the repayment of levy and interest paid and for the making of objections to notices of assessment out of time '.and New Clause No. 44 entitled "Betterment Levy: Deduction of Net Development Value from Chargeable Income"—
Where a person—
- (i) is assessed to income tax on corporation tax in respect of a transaction in land giving rise to a liability to tax under Cases I, VI or VII of Schedule D, and
- (ii) is assessed to betterment levy in respect of the same transaction,
536 - then in computing that person's liability to income tax or corporation tax as aforesaid the net development value upon which the betterment levy has been assessed shall be deductible in ascertaining his taxable income.
Mr. BakerI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
These new Clauses seek to mitigate the harshness and unfairness of the betterment levy. The Bill introduces some relief from betterment levy. We believe that it is fragmentary and inadequate, but we welcome it, and it is a tribute to the campaign waged by the Opposition and certain newspapers against the obvious inequities of the betterment levy. The purpose of the new Clauses is to improve the betterment levy. As I said in Committee, trying to improve the betterment levy is like trying to improve a sand castle. One may dig the moat deeper, build a better drawbridge and make the turrets better, but one knows that in the evening the tide will come in and wash away the sand castle. So it is with the betterment levy and the Land Commission. When the Conservative tide comes in both will be washed away.
9.45 p.m.
It may be difficult to dislodge the officials of the Land Commission because officials in new Ministries tend to have prehensile bottoms, and the axe which will have to be employed will have to be a sharp one. But we are committed to this: that while the betterment levy exists we will seek to try to improve it.
The new Clauses deal with different aspects of betterment levy, but the one on which I wish to concentrate is new Clause 4 which concerns the time of payment of the levy. The levy is payable upon the development value, which is the result of a complicated series of sums, but the development value is not necessarily the realisable value. The transaction may not actually have taken place.
Let us take, for example, a large plot of land on the edge of a city. The city may decide to change the use of that land from agricultural into residential, and there is a substantial profit to the lucky landowner. We on this side do not say that the lucky landowner should get off scotfree, but we are saying that the liability to levy that arises when the change of use occurs should be paid only 537 when a transaction occurs, when the landowner starts to develop.
This is not so at the moment. The development value is defined as an additional value derived from or from the prospect of—and the key phrase is "or from the prospect of"—the right to carry out material development. So there may be a change of use of land on the edge of the city, no material development may take place for many years, but none the less the liability to levy arises.
This matter has been raised recently by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in an article which appeared in a bulletin published by the Co-operative Permanent Building Society. The case put in this article is a good one, and it is that levy should be paid only when there is a cash flow coming in to the person who has to pay the levy. That, in essence, is the case on this side of the House.
The point is that this levy should run on all fours with other taxes. A capital gains tax is payable only when the capital gain is realised and the cash has come in, In some cases a charge may have to be made before any cash is received by the developer, and we feel that this is unfair. We think that it would not cost much, but perhaps the Minister could tell us what would be the likely cost.
I will content myself with speaking to this Clause and I will leave other hon. Members to speak on the other new Clauses. I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to new Clause 4.
§ Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)I am glad to have the opportunity to support the new Clause. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) I do not want to raise the whole question of the Land Commission. Although I may in the past have been intemperate in my criticisms of the Land Commission, tonight I make a resolution to be temperate.
My first question is whether there is any precedent whatever for this levy. We are all accustomed to paying taxes in various forms on income and on capital gains. But so far as I am aware every form of tax which has been levied in any other case is levied on a precise income or upon a precise capital gain. 538 We are here concerned with a tax which is levied on something which is imaginary or ethereal. I know of no precedent for this anywhere else in our system of taxation.
I should like to quote an individual case involving one of my constituents who purchased a house with a large garden. His predecessor had applied for consent for a bungalow at the back of the garden. The planning authority had refused consent largely on the ground that there would be no access to the projected bungalow; access could be provided only on somebody else's land, and the owner of that land was unable or unwilling to provide it. It was evident that the garden could not be developed, but none the less the Land Commission took the view that the ownership might change and that one day it might be developed. It therefore levied a tax on my constituent.
This is the sort of imaginary taxation which I find incredibly hard to justify. It may be said that the person concerned would have a right to appeal, but even on appeal one would be conducting an argument in an imaginary situation. I cannot believe that this is a form of taxation which is either acceptable or just. I beg the Minister to accept the view that to extract money from people who have received no gain out of which to pay that money is a form of justice which cannot be tolerated.
§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)I rise to support the points which have been made by both my hon. Friends in moving this group of Amendments. I shall join with my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) in a year or two in marching with great enthusiasm into the Lobby on the day when this disgraceful body is finally abolished. Meanwhile, we must try to reduce some of its more inexcusable depredations.
I wish particularly to address my remarks to new Clause 1 which stands in my name and which has a purpose that should be supported by all sides of the House. The purpose of the new Clause is simply to ensure that when some luckless citizen is forced to dispose of property at a loss the vultures of the Land Commission do not come along and batten on the meagre return that he may obtain from selling at that loss. 539 It is a straightforward matter of equity. If I had not watched this Labour Government in operation for four years, I would have assumed that one could take it for granted that the Minister would be able to accept this Amendment at least as a straightforward matter of equity. As hope springs eternal, I still hope for the best.
I also wish to illustrate my remarks by quoting the experience of some of my constituents. This involves a company called the Angus Cinema Company, which had a number of cinemas around Dundee. One of the cinemas was at Newport in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). The cinema was erected in 1938 at a cost of between £8,000 and £9,000. As the Minister may be aware, in recent years cinemas, particularly those in country areas, have been finding it very difficult to keep going. This cinemas was closed in the mid-1960's and stood empty for some time.
In January, 1968, the company managed to dispose of the cinema at a price of £3,100, registering a loss from the original cost of erecting the cinema of some £5,000. In fact, the sale was, in effect, a forced sale since it was required to reduce the company's overdraft at the request of the bank. Since that date the cinema in question has been turned into a furniture store.
Suddenly, on 13th March of this year, the company's solicitors received a letter from the Land Commission. They could scarcely believe their eyes. They were told that their clients owed £800 to this preposterous body based on a provisional assessment of net development value amounting to £2,000. I would remind hon. Members that that arose out of a loss of £5,000. That is some indication of the staggering nature of this body's operations.
If the company is forced to pay for this little piece of highway robbery, I am told that it will have to go into liquidation. Of course, the company is disputing the assessment with the district valuer, and I have advised the managing director that in no circumstances should he agree to pay a penny piece.
One further little embellishment on this elegant story should be made. No doubt right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have learned by heart the speeches made 540 by their Leader about the "candyfloss society" in the halcyon days when they were in opposition. I seem to remember that one of the marks of Cain of the candyfloss society was the bingo hall. However, if the cinemas in question had been turned into a bingo hall instead of a furniture store, I understand that the vultures of the Land Commission would have kept away. That is a fine comment on the way in which this Government seek to redeem us from the evils of the candyfloss society.
I understand that the case of my constituents is by no means unique and that there have been several others of a similar nature in England. No doubt the Minister will be more familiar with those English cases than with a case like that of my constituents.
There is a small element of uniqueness about the position of my constituents in that, whereas I understand that the minions on this body in England at least earn their keep however improper the methods by which they earn it, that is not the case of the operations of the Scottish body. To date, it has cost half as much again to operate as it has made in revenue, and that notwithstanding the fact that it has tried to increase its revenue by taxing losses as well as profits.
The principle which I am seeking to establish in my Clause is one which even this Government have recognised as being a principle of good taxation. In the capital gains tax legislation it was laid down quite rightly that if the owner of some equity shares disposed of his shares at a profit on the April, 1965, price but at a loss on the original cost of the equity, no capital gains tax was payable. Although one may have reservations about the capital gains tax, at least that was a measure of equity. In this case, no such measure of equity has been applied.
A number of my hon. Friends have referred to individuals who were required to pay levy when they had had no income from their land transactions. In this case, I am concerned with the, plight of my wretched constituents, who have suffered a substantial capital loss and then have had this monstrous body battening on their losses. I call upon the Minister at least to give us that measure of satisfaction by accepting my Clause.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)I should like briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and to put to the Minister another point in support of what we are seeking to do.
My hon. Friend illustrated the severe penalty which fell on his constituent for selling his property for redevelopment. If he had not done so, if the property had stood empty and useless, he would have escaped the levy. The Conservative Party having said that it will abolish the whole system, there is considerable inducement not to sell unless one must. However, this was a forced sale.
Whilst it may be out of order to go into an argument on the merits of the Land Commission—and I am not trying to do that—a serious point is involved. There is a compelling reason not to sell similar property for redevelopment unless the owner is forced to do so. Therefore, the benefit to the community of the redevelopment and new use of something tying derelict and idle is lost.
The idea was that the Land Commission would make for more satisfactory use of assets which the community would enjoy in that land and buildings would not be left idle without being developed. Yet, the result of the provisions of the, Land Commission positively compel people, unless they are forced to sell, to hang on to their property. I could quote many cases in support of my hon. Friend, but I will not weary the House with them.
In passing, my hon. Friend mentioned that the Scottish section was not earning its keep. The Minister will remember that I have had exchanges with him at Question Time about the West Country section of the Commission doing things covered by the new Clause. The last thing that I want to say about it is that many people who have tried to work this ridiculous system are so disillusioned that the turnover in staff is quite prodigous and the whole thing is hopeless from everybody's point of view.
I hope that what I have said will help the Minister to make a satisfactory choice.
§ The Minister for Planning and Land (NU. Kenneth Robinson)We are discussing six new Clauses, three of which 542 are directly concerned with betterment levy and how it is levied, and the other three principally with taxation matters, albeit with reference to betterment levy.
I should like, first, to deal with the three new Clauses directly concerned with betterment levy, but before doing so perhaps I might deal with one or two of the remarks which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I start with the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) who, as he promised, on this occasion was very temperate. I am grateful to him for that. However, I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that, as well as being temperate, he was irrelevant, because the particular complaint that he voiced would not be remedied by the application of any of the six new Clauses. He was, as he has done before, challenging the whole principle behind the betterment levy. I have debated it with him before and no doubt I shall again, but not on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) complained that the better use of land, which he said, with some justification, the establishment of the Land Commission was designed to secure, was not being achieved because of the alleged effect of the Conservative Party's pledge to get rid of the Land Commission. I do not accept that this is happening. But, if it is, it is hardly a charge that should be laid against Her Majesty's Government.
New Clause 4, upon which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) mainly concentrated, seeks to provide that betterment levy becomes payable not as the Act provides as a capital sum when a chargeable event takes place, but only at such time as the proceeds or benefit of that event are converted into money or money's worth.
Reading the new Clause, I took it that it would apply principally to Case B, which is leases, and Case C, which is development; that is, that the effect would take place on the granting of a lease or on the commencement of development, although it could apply to certain cases on the sale of land under Case A. However, these are very few and they are only cases where the consideration is paid in instalments.
I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is rather more knowledgeable than most 543 hon. Gentlemen opposite on the Land Commission Act and the working of the betterment levy, fell into error on this occasion, because I take it from what he said that he was alleging that betterment levy becomes payable when planning permission is given for a change of use. This is not so. It becomes payable only when a chargeable event takes place. The hon. Gentleman said that in the case of development it should be payable only when development commences. It is payable only in those circumstances, that is Case C, when development actually commences. Normally it is payable when the sale of land takes place, and not when the change of use is authorised by planning permission. It is a basic principle of the Act that the amount due is payable at the time of the chargeable act. The reason for this is that the levy payer then has an asset on the security of which he can, if necessary, obtain funds to meet the levy.
In the case of leases under Case B, which I should have thought new Clause 4 was mainly directed to, the House ought to bear in mind that the sum on which levy is due is discounted to take account of the fact that the levy payer will receive his rent for the period of the lease. Furthermore, if he does not wish to borrow, he can, if he wishes, charge a premium to cover the amount of levy that he has to pay.
In Case C, the start of development is the only practicable point at which to assess current use value, and therefore development value, and I thought that the hon. Member for Acton accepted that in what he said. To delay the point in time of collection of the levy, as the new Clause proposes, would lead to all kinds of complications over assessment, so I could not advise the House to accept this.
New Clause 1 puts forward a proposition which, with two exceptions, is already the general rule in the scheme of levy. The intention of the Clause is merely to remove two exceptions. The first of these concerns the purchase price of land during the interim period, that is between the publication of the White Paper in September, 1965, and the coming into operation of the Act in April, 1967. As I have told the House on more than one occasion, the reason for not accepting 544 the purchase price as the base value in this instance was to prevent collusive sales and the widespread evasion of levy which would otherwise have been all too simple. This was explained in the White Paper, and subsequently through widespread publicity, but it was found that the provision was operating harshly on some people who had engaged in small land transactions in ignorance of the Government's intention, and it was then that my right hon. Friend announced the two extra statutory concessions, which are given statutory authority in this Bill.
The second exception is that we do not take into account the price paid for a purchase before July, 1948. That is when the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act came into operation. In fact, it would be most unusual for land to be sold today for less than it fetched before July, 1948, but it may well be that the case to which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) referred is one of these exceptions. I think he recognised that this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, rather than for me. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in communication with my right hon. Friend about it, but I shall certainly call his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Certainly there must be some unusual features about this case if the hon. Gentleman's account of the facts was an objective one. As the new Clause would abolish both those necessary exceptions, I am afraid that I must again advise the House to reject it.
New Clause 6 seeks to add to the provision in the Act for exemptions by Order the power to make such exemptions fully retrospective. This power of exemption has not so far been used, and could in any event be used only to cover small definable groups of case. It was, for example, inadequate and unsuitable for the more complicated changes in the levy which we are making under this Bill. Our objection here is one mainly of principle. Regulation-making powers are not normally made retrospective, and when the power is to be used to alter the application of a tax, I think that the objection is stronger still. Indeed, I am a little surprised to see the name of the Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee appended to the new Clause, which I would have thought embodies a 545 principle quite contrary to that normally adopted by his Committee.
§ Mr. Graham PageThe right hon. Gentleman is fully aware, of course, that it is a principle of the House to allow retrospective legislation, whether by Statute or by Order, if it is to the benefit of the citizen.
§ Mr. RobinsonWe have had this argument many times, but I was, on this occasion, talking not about the principle of retrospection as such, but about the principle of making changes by Regulation retrospective, which I should have thought was a separate principle. Anyway, it is the Government's view that changes like this are best dealt with by legislation, which is what we are doing in the Bill. There would indeed be formidable practical difficulties, not least those arising from the interaction of capital gains tax and betterment levy, but I would rest chiefly on the argument of principle.
New Clauses 3 and 4 propose that the whole of the development value should be left out of account in the computation of income tax and corporation tax respectively, while new Clause 5 proposes that betterment levy should be set off against tax due under Schedule D, from dealers in land. Under the present law, the amount of levy paid is liable as a deduction in computing either income tax or corporation tax. In this way, it is treated like any other business expense or impost.
Perhaps it could be best illustrated by an analogy with purchase tax. When drawing up an assessment of profits for income tax purposes, any dealer in commodities is entitled to deduct the purchase tax which he has paid in respect of a particular group or groups of commodities. Similarly, a dealer in land would deduct betterment levy already paid, just as would an individual in respect of short-term capital gains on land, which is of course taxable under income tax.
Quite a different principle obtains for long-term capital gains under capital gains tax. To go further than that would be out of keeping with tax more generally and for this reason I must advise the House to reject these three new Clauses. Here again, incidentally, there would be considerable procedural difficulties, which 546 I will not elaborate at this late hour, since the argument rests again on the issue of principle rather than that of practicability.
§ Mr. Peter Walker (Worcester)One thing which one can always guarantee is that a debate on the Land Commission always convinces those who hear it of the urgent necessity to abolish the Commission as early as possible. Tonight has been no exception, as the Minister related the reasons for turning down one new Clause after another.
The first with which he dealt was that containing the outrageous suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker), that people should not be made to pay taxes before they have received any money. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed this as a very unreasonable approach and I hope that my hon. Friend feels duly reprimanded. I was very interested in the basic modesty with which the Minister brushed this aside. He said that, after all, the immediate developments have started and been completed, which meant that the owner then had an asset against which he could borrow money to pay his taxes.
This comes from a Government who have imposed the most perpetual squeeze in history, telling all banks to cut down their lending. Now, on the Finance Bill, a Minister says that this tax is based upon borrowing money in order to pay one's taxes. I hope that a directive will go to the banks tomorrow saying that any approach to borrow money to pay the betterment levy will immediately be granted the proper overdraft facilities and that the interest on those facilities will be allowable against tax. Presumably the new policy which the Minister has enunciated means that somebody in this position can go to his bank manager, wave a copy of HANSARD containing the right hon. Gentleman's comments before him, and all will be well. That was the Minister's theory about new Clause 4.
10.15 p.m.
When speaking to new Clause 1 my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) made what appears to the Minister to be the awfully unfair suggestion that if people make losses they should pay taxes. The right hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend why he had not written to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I know that my hon. Friend 547 has written on many occasions to that right hon. Gentleman, but we still have the outrageous case of a Scottish firm having been forced to sell some of its assets at a loss, based on the price it had paid, with the Land Commission coming along and asking for £800 for improvements that had been made to the assets.
Not only is this an absurdity, but the right hon. Gentleman knows it to be absurd. For any Minister to reject a new Clause which is simply designed to ensure that people do not pay taxes if they make losses reveals the remarkable position in which the Government find themselves.
New Clause 6 makes the simple proposition that if the Minister decides to use his powers of regulation if he finds serious hardship, he should be able to do so retrospectively for the benefit of the citizen. But the right hon. Gentleman has the audacity to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) should not have placed his name to a proposal of that kind. Any hon. Member would be pleased to support such a new Clause, which would provide the Minister with power to undo the hardship caused by thoroughly bad legislation.
§ As for the suggestion that many of my hon. Friends do not fully understand the Land Commission Act, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that they are not alone. Hardly a solicitor, accountant or other professional man concerned with the matter understands the working of the Act. Indeed, according to the present Minister, the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill understands it least of all, for it was he who constantly argued that the Regulations referred to in new Clause 6 could be dealt with in the Finance Bill.
§ The absurd Land Commission continues on its weary way. We are told that the changes made in the Bill will mean that 50 per cent. of its work will be eliminated. Accordingly, its staff is being reduced by 15 per cent.—not bad, and a step in the right direction. We have an absurd Land Commission and an absurd system of taxation, as every debate reveals. I therefore not only urge my hon. Friends to divide the House on this matter but to continue their campaign until the wretched Land Commission is finally done away with.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 256.
551| Division No. 329.] | AYES | [10.18 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Chichester-Clark, R. | Grant, Anthony |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Clark, Henry | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Clegg, Walter | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. |
| Astor, John | Cooke, Robert | Curden, Harold |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Awdry, Daniel | Corfield, F. V. | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Costain, A. P. | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Crouch, David | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Cunningham, Sir Knox | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Currie, G. B. H. | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere |
| Bell, Ronald | Dalkeith, Earl of | Harvie Anderson, Miss |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Dance, James | Hawkins, Paul |
| Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) | Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | Hay, John |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Heseltine, Michael |
| Bessell, Peter | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Biffen, John | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Hiley, Joseph |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Hill, J. E. B. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Doughty, Charles | Holland, Philip |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Hordern, Peter |
| Body, Richard | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Hornby, Richard |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N) | Howell, David (Guildford) |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Errington, Sir Eric | Hunt, John |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Eyre, Reginald | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Braine, Bernard | Farr, John | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Fisher, Nigel | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Jopling, Michael |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Fortescue, Tim | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith |
| Bryan, Paul | Foster, Sir John | Kerby, Capt. Henry |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(St'fford & Stone) | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Galbraith, Hn. T. G. | Kimball, Marcus |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Glover, Sir Douglas | Kirk, Peter |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Glyn, Sir Richard | Kitson, Timothy |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Codber, Rt. Hn. J. B. | Lambton, Viscount |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Goodhew, Victor | Lancaster, Col. C. G. |
| Chataway, Christopher | Gower, Raymond | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Stodart, Anthony |
| Lubbock, Eric | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Pardee, John | Tapsell, Peter |
| Mac Arthur, Ian | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart) |
| Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Peel, John | Temple, John M. |
| Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain | Percival, Ian | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| McMaster, Stanley | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Tilney, John |
| McNair-Wilson, Michael | Pink, R. Bonner | Turton, Rt. Mn. R. H. |
| McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Pounder, Rafton | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Maddan, Martin | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Viewers, Dams Joan |
| Maginnis, John E. | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Waddington, David |
| Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest | Prior, J. M. L. | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Marten, Neil | Pym, Francis | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Maude, Angus | Quennell, Miss J. M. | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Mawby, Ray | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Walters, Dennis |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) | Ridsdale, Julian | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Wiggin, A. W. |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Royle, Anthony | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Russell, Sir Ronald | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Scott, Nicholas | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Scott-Hopkins, James | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Sharples, Richard | Woodnutt, Mark |
| Murton, Oscar | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Silvester, Frederick | Younger, Hn. George |
| Neave, Alrey | Sinclair, Sir George | |
| Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Onslow, Cranley | Smith, John (London & W'minster) | Mr. Jasper More and Mr. Bernard Weatherill. |
| Orr, Capt. L. P. S. | Speed, Keith | |
| Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Stainton, Keith | |
| NOES | ||
| Albu, Austen | Delargy, Hugh | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Dell, Edmund | Haseldine, Norman |
| Alldritt, Walter | Dempsev, James | Hattersley, Roy |
| Anderson, Donald | Dewar, Donald | Hazell, Bert |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Ashley, jack | Dickens, James | Henig, Stanley |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Dobson, Ray | Hilton, W. S. |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Doig, Peter | Hooley, Frank |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Driberg, Tom | Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Dunn, James A. | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) |
| Barnett, Joel | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Howie, W. |
| Beaney, Alan | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Hoy, Rt. Hn. James |
| Bence, Cyril | Eadie, Alex | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Edelman, Maurice | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Binns, John | Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Hunter, Adam |
| Bishop, E. S. | Ellis, John | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) |
| Blackburn, F. | English, Michael | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Ennals, David | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Ensor, David | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas |
| Boyden, James | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras.S.) |
| Bradley, Tom | Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Faulds, Andrew | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Fernyhough, E. | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) |
| Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Finch, Harold | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) |
| Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Fletcher,Rt.Hn.Sir Eric(Islington,E.) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Buchan, Norman | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Foley, Maurice | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Creen) | Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Judd, Frank |
| Cant, R. B. | Forrester, John | Kelley, Richard |
| Carmichael, Neil | Fowler, Gerry | Kenyon, Clifford |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) |
| Chapman, Donald | Freeson, Reginald | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Galpern, Sir Myer | Lawson, George |
| Conlan, Bernard | Gardner, Tony | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Garrett, W. E. | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Ginsburg, David | Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) |
| Cronin, John | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Lee, John (Reading) |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Gregory, Arnold | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) |
| Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Lomas, Kenneth |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Loughlin, Charles |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Luard, Evan |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) | Hamling, William | McBride, Neil |
| Davies, Ifor (Cower) | Hannan, William | McCann, John |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | MacColl, James |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Oram, Albert E. | Slater, Joseph |
| McGuire, Michael | Orbach, Maurice | Small, William |
| McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Orme, Stanley | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Oswald, Thomas | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Maclennan, Robert | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Taverne, Dick |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Palmer, Arthur | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| McNamara, J. Kevin | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George |
| Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Park, Trevor | Tinn, James |
| Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Tuck, Raphael |
| Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Manuel, Archie | Pavitt, Laurence | Varley, Eric G. |
| Mapp, Charles | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Marquand, David | Pentland, Norman | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Perry, Ernest G. (Batteraea, S.) | Wallace, George |
| Maxwell, Robert | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Mendelson, John | Price, Christopher (Perry Bar) | Weitzman, David |
| Mikardo, Ian | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Millan, Bruce | Price, William (Rugby) | Whitaker, Ben |
| Miller, Dr. M. S. | Probert, Arthur | Whitlock, William |
| Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Rankin, John | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Rees, Merlyn | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Molloy, William | Richard, Ivor | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Moonman, Eric | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as) | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Morris, John (Aberavon) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Moyle, Roland | Ryan, John | Winnick, David |
| Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Murray, Albert | Sheldon, Robert | Woof, Robert |
| Neal, Harold | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) | |
| Newens, Stan | Short, Rt. H n. Edward(N' c' tle-u-Tyne) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Oakes, Gordon | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Joseph Harper. |
| Ogden, Eric | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | |
| O'Malley, Brian | Silverman, Julius |