HC Deb 17 July 1969 vol 787 cc926-41

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 206, in page 29, line 26, leave out 'a view to' and insert 'the sole or main object of'.

With this Amendment, it might be convenient to refer at the same time to Amendment No. 207, in line 29, leave out 'a view to' and insert 'the sole or main object of'.

and Amendment No. 208, in page 31, line 16, at end insert: (9) This section shall not apply to a gain accruing to an individual which by virtue of section 29 of the Finance Act, 1965 (private residences) is exempt from capital gains tax, or which would be so exempt but for the provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act, 1968 (residence acquired partly with a view to making a gain). These Amendments modify the test of liability under Clause 26 relating to artificial transactions in land. They arise out of some disquiet which was expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid). He pointed out that people who purchase houses in the expectation that they will increase rather than decrease in value may fear that they will be caught by the Clause.

As I then indicated, we sought to delete the words "a view to' and to insert "the sole or main object of", and we thought that that met the point. In addition, by Amendment No. 208 we have tightened the Clause yet further to make it clear that dwelling houses in most cases escape. We have removed from the scope of Clause 26 a gain accruing on the disposal of an owner-occupied house.

This has been done by adapting, with one alteration, the tests used for exempting such property from capital gains tax. The exemption, which goes wider than the capital gains tax exemption, does not incorporate the provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act 1968, which specifically excludes from the capital gains tax exemption a dwelling house acquired wholly or partly for the purpose of realising a gain from its disposal.

It might be said that the exemption goes very wide, but it is the intention, particularly in regard to the clearance procedure which we shall be coming to a little later, that so far as possible ordinary people should be exempted. It is comparatively rare that somebody buys a house wholly for the purpose of realising a gain. We want owner-occupiers not to have the fear that they may have to apply for clearance procedure before they want to sell their house. I hope that the Amendments will be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Michael Shaw

One sees in Amendment No. 206 the phrase "the sole or main object of" in regard to the realising of a gain. In the Amendments which have just been dealt with the wording is different and referred to the main object or one of the main objects. It is a curious phraseology and I wonder why it is different in the two instances. The wording of Amendment No. 207 is much more stringent than in the earlier Amendments which we have discussed.

Mr. Costain

In the debate in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) withdrew an Amendment because the Financial Secretary said that he would consider the matter. He said: … in considering the genuine capital element of the transaction, the increase in the value of the land, this Clause does not apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 24th June, 1969; c. 683.] Does the hon. and learned Gentleman contend that by these Amendments he has altered that part of the transaction or not? This is the case in which a genuine property company sells a property to obtain funds for redevelopment. There was some concern at the time. Does he think that the Amendments meet this point, since Clause 26 is so incomprehensible?

Mr. Taverne

I am trying to recall the exact discussion which we had in Committee on the investment company, but the answer which I then gave to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), or someone else who moved an Amendment on his behalf, was that the position was clear and there was no danger. The Clause has not been altered either in its intention or in its scope, but there was a doubt about whether some transactions might be thought to be caught. To clear this up, we decided that "sole or main object" made it clearer than the words "with a view to".

The reason for these words is the reason which I gave for rejecting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), namely that, if it were the sole object only, an incidental purpose, however slight or insignificant, could mean that the Clause was avoided. The words "main or sole object" deal with the transactions which are intended to be caught, and in one respect we go beyond what the Clause seemed to be doing originally. That is in the special exemption under Amendment 208, which goes exceedingly wide.

Mr. Michael Shaw

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down. In this circumstance, it means that one has to weigh up all the various objectives and decide which is the main objective, and it means that there can be only one. In the Amendments which we discussed previously, it appeared that there could be several main objections and that one need not decide which was most important. Why this difference in treatment? I do not see why there should be any difference in principle. The Government should make up their minds which method they will adopt, rather than applying one case for one set of people and another case for another set. It does not seem fair, if fairness indeed enters into this.

Mr. Taverne

I must confess that, while looking at the Amendments which were to follow, I did not follow the preceding debate with the attention which it deserved, so that I cannot answer this completely. However, I do not think that anyone can object to these words, because they are restrictive; they secure, therefore, that the sale of a house in which a person lives will be excluded.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 207, in page 29, line 29 leave out 'a view to' and insert 'the sole or main object of'.

No. 208, in page 31, line 16, at end insert: (9) This section shall not apply to a gain accruing to an individual which by virtue of section 29 of the Finance Act, 1965 (private residences) is exempt from capital gains tax, or which would be so exempt but for the provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to the Finance Act, 1968 (residence acquired partly with a view to making a gain).—[Mr. Taverne.]

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 209, in page 31, line 28, at end insert— (10) Where a person who considers that paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section may apply as respects a gain of a capital nature which that person has obtained from the disposal of land, or which he would obtain from a proposed disposal of land, supplies to the inspector to whom he makes his return of income written particulars showing how the gain has arisen or would arise—

  1. (a) the inspector shall, within thirty days from his receipt of the particulars, notify that person whether or not he is satisfied that, in the circumstances as described in the particulars, the gain will not, or would not, be chargeable to tax on that person under this section, and
  2. (b) if the inspector notifies that person that he is so satisfied, the gain shall not be chargeable on that person under this section:
Provided that if the particulars given under this section with respect to the gain are not such as to make full and accurate disclosure of all facts and considerations relating thereto which are material to be known to the inspector, any notification given by the inspector under this subsection shall be void.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendments to Amendment No. 209, (r), in line 7, leave out 'or not'; (s) in line 11, at end insert: (c) if the Inspector is unable to notify that person that the gain will not be chargeable under section 26(2) he shall refer the matter to the Commissioners who shall make the decision; and (t), in line 11, at end insert: (c) if the inspector is unable to notify that person that the gain will not be chargeable under section 26(2) he shall furnish him with the reason or reasons for his decision.

Mr. Taverne

I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

In our debates on this Clause in Committee, hon. Members opposite asked for a clearance procedure to be applied to transactions which might be affected or might be thought to be affected by the Clause. I explained, in dealing with the particular clearance procedure suggested by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), that there was a number of objections to the particular form he proposed, but I said that I would move a clearance procedure myself at the appropriate stage. That is what Amendment No. 209 does.

There is one major difficulty in devising a system of clearances, and that is to protect the Inland Revenue in cases where it is not told the whole story, as sometimes happens, at the time of the application for clearance. It may be that a transaction which on the face of it seems outside the Clause, on the information supplied, will later turn out to be part of a more general transaction which would bring it within the Clause.

The Amendment meets the difficulty in two ways. First, the decision on a clearance application will be made by reference to the circumstances as described in the particulars supplied by the applicant, and, if it later transpires that these particulars contain a material error or omission, the clearance notification will be void. Second, as I said, what was required was a clearance procedure which dealt with disposals rather than the original acquisitions. Therefore, this too deals with disposals or proposed disposals of land and not proposed acquisitions or developments.

Obviously, the Inland Revenue will have more facts to go on if asked about the disposals, the last transactions, and not the first chapter of the story. Clearance at the disposal stage has another advantage. It means that a person who acquired property before Budget Day will be able to ask for clearance in respect of this disposal. Perhaps I can deal with the Amendments to this Amendment later.

Sir J. Foster

One cannot be grateful for this clearance procedure, because it is very unsatisfactory. I should like the hon. and learned Member to compare it with the clearance procedure under Section 28 of the 1960 Act, which, although it is itself very unsatisfactory, is much wider than this. The clearance procedure amounts to this: one tells the inspector some facts and he says that he is satisfied or he is not. He usually says that he is not, and what can one do then? Under Section 28, there is a tribunal when one goes back and forth, but up to now—a case is awaiting judgment in the House of Lords—one does not know all the facts which have been given by the Inland Revenue. The taxpayer must be protected against the Inland Revenue as well.

The system under Section 28, although unsatisfactory, protects the taxpayer much more, because there is a tribunal which decides between the two sides where the taxpayer does not know what the Revenue says. Here the inspector keeps it in his mind and turns it over and says "No." Our Amendments to the Amendment suggest that, if the inspector cannot notify that person that the gain would not be chargeable, he should furnish him with the reason for his decision.

It is a great principle of law, which is not completely observed in England, that if one gives reasons one is a little ashamed of giving nonsensical reasons or prejudicial reasons. On the Continent, no decision can be made by any person in a judicial capacity without his giving reasons. It shocks continentals that English judges can just say, "I have found for the plaintiff", and give no reasons. Fortunately, motivated decisions are coming more and more into English law. The judges are rather ashamed to give a decision without reasons. But in certain circumstances, if they do not give reasons there is no appeal, so that they would voluntarily run a risk of an appeal if they did give reasons.

Amendment (s) says that if the inspector says "No" he should refer the matter to the Commissioners for them to decide. That is a little better, because at least the inspectorate can decide whether the facts given are satisfactory or not. I would ask the Government to think about this again and the Minister of State to call for a report on the decisions under Section 28 of the 1960 Act. The procedure is more satisfactory under that provision, which is itself unsatisfactory. I am sure that if the Minister calls for a report on this matter, after he is over the rigours of the Bill, he will be shocked to find how many taxpayers do not get protection.

We are not primarily concerned with straightforward cases. In a doubtful case the inspector is bound to decide the various points in his favour. There is nothing wrong with that, in that he must make a decision. Unfortunately, however, there will be no method of distinguishing between the inspector's views of the law and the facts in the case, for he will naturally be unable to divide his mind and say, in effect, "I find this, but I will appeal against myself to see if I am right or wrong." In a clearance procedure of this sort there should be a form of appeal and, because the clearance procedure proposed by the Government is unsatisfactory, I trust that my hon. Friends will oppose it.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid (Walsall, South)

The Minister will recall that in the much regretted absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir F. Foster) in Committee, it fell to me to move an Amendment on this subject, to which the Minister gave the best answer for which we could hope at that stage. He said that while the form of clearance procedure which we had proposed was unacceptable to the Government, he would introduce a clearance procedure on Report.

It is well know that every immigrant who lands at Dover is thereby seized of a complete knowledge of British law. It is equally assumed that every hon. Member is fully qualified to act as a tax lawyer. This is far from being the situation, particularly in my case.

It was with keen anticipation, therefore, that I awaited the publication of a draft of the promised clearance procedure; for the obvious reason that to judge whether or not it was satisfactory I wished to obtain advice from those qualified in these matters. However, the draft did not appear on the Notice Paper until last Friday morning. This made is impossible for me to have the necessary consultations with those learned in these matters; and my hon. Friends and I were, therefore, obliged to table what might be described as random chosen Amendments (r), (s) and (t). Amendments (r) and (s) go together and deal with one point while (t) deals with another. I will comment on both.

Amendments (r) and (s) say that where the inspector is not able to give clearance the matter must be referred to the Commissioners. The object is simple. Cases which go to the inspector will not be extremely straightforward. The straightforward cases are, to some extent, dealt with by Amendment No. 208, meaning that those which go for clearance are likely to be highly sophisticated. It is desirable, therefore, that there should be the basis of a ruling in these matters, for with the best will in the world the local inspector is not, by his nature, qualified to deal with a matter requiring the ingenuity of people like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich and others equally distinguished in reaching decisions. That is why we have tabled Amendments (r) and (s).

Amendment (t) might be described as a long stop. While even with my legal knowledge of the way in which Somerset House works I would not expect reasons to be given, it is to be hoped that the taxpayer will be given the reason for the failure to give him clearance. The Amendment would mean the inspector furnishing the person with the reason for his decision if there is a refusal.

The Clause deals with what are called "Artificial transactions in land", although the word "artificial" does not appear elsewhere in the Clause. These are matters of a high degree of sophistication and the clearance procedure seems an essential part of it. Our suggestion that such a procedure should exist appealed to the Government in Committee, but I have lost sympathy with them because, having gone this far and having accepted the principle of our proposal, they have not given us a chance to reconsider the draft of their clearance procedure because of the lateness of its appearance on the Notice Paper.

We appreciate that the Government are working under great pressure. They must accept, however, that we, too, are under pressure and that the assistance available is, compared with theirs, negligible. They should have given us at least a week in which to consider the clearance procedure they are proposing. Instead, it was published at the last moment and we have had to scratch up a few Amendments to convey the sense of our aims, although we accept that the phraseology of our proposals may not be acceptable to the Government.

The procedure being adopted by the Government in this matter is repugnant, particularly when we are debating matters as important as this. Many people will need to refer to the clearance procedure in future, particularly since it will affect many transactions in land. The taxpayer is not being treated fairly because the Government's proposed clearance procedure is not acceptable and we have no possibility of proposing worthwhile Amendments to it. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will reject the Government proposal.

Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) was right to point to the extent to which the inspector will be prejudiced and predisposed into giving an unsatisfactory answer when inquiries of this kind are made. The whole of the clearance provisions, read in conjunction with the stiffer definition introduced in an earlier Amendment which introduced the phrase "sole or main object", will make any approach by an honest inquirer to the tax inspector virtually an admission of guilt.

The Government are putting the wretched claimant in the position of the small child who comes out in a violent rash and goes to his mother or nurse to make sure that he does not have measles. It is almost self-evident. If one says to the inspector, "Do these provisions apply in my case?", one can imagine the answer one will receive, particularly since paragraphs (a) and (c) are explicit in referring to … land, or any property deriving its value from land, is acquired with a view to realising a gain from disposing of the land … and … land is developed with a view to realising a gain from disposing of the land when developed … How can a person possibly ask the tax inspector, "Does this apply in my case? Did I acquire the land with the sole or main object of making this sort of gain?" How can the inspector possibly answer that question finally to the honest inquirer? The person must know in his own mind whether it applies to his own case. To expect a man who is in any doubt to ask the inspector to verify or interpret his motives and intentions when, after all, they are so clearly set out in an Amendment which we accepted earlier, is to put the whole thing in the realm of suspicion from the moment he goes to the inspector.

The Minister of State in the Government Amendment has made a clear distinction between going to the inspector before the event occurs and going to him after the event occurs, either to discover what his liability might be after he disposed of the land, or what it might be if he were to dispose of it but so far had not done so. If under the new clearance procedure an inquirer is told by the inspector that if he disposes of land which he has not yet disposed of he will be liable, and has already been caught by the procedure, can any subsequent dis- posal be held to have taken place with a view to avoidance? It must enter into a different dimension once he is told that he cannot avoid. It must be in the nature of a fresh transaction—it is wiping the slate clean. If this eventuality occurs before disposal and is held to be liable, surely he can dispose without being held to be liable under the Clause?

Sir E. Errington

In view of the decision of Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes and Trustees of Grundy, which is a case which was subsequently confirmed in a later case, I believe that in certain circumstances the inspector can make a "discovery" which involves a changed decision. What troubles me is that a discovery may be made subsequently in such a way that there may be a complete change of liability. If that is the case, there is no finality, and the taxpayer is entitled to some sort of certainty.

I therefore feel that sub-Amendment (S), which would refer the matter to the Commissioners, who shall make the decision is right. As things stand, it is always open to the tax inspector—and it may not even be the same tax inspector—to make discovery. In such a Clause as this, in which there is no definition of artificial transactions in land, it is essential that people going on normal business should know clearly where they stand. I hope that some consideration shall be given to this point, otherwise there will be grave difficulties.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) complained about the late date on which the Amendment was tabled. I understand that he has some ground for complaint, although he generously recognised the considerable pressures operating on the Government. However, I apologise for the late tabling of the Amendment.

I did not understand what the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was complaining about. He seemed to complain that Clause 26 was so narrowly drawn that to go through the clearance procedure amounted to a confession of guilt. Even if that were so, I do not think that anyone could complain. The more narrowly it is drawn the better it is for the bona fide taxpayer.

The hon. Member made one reference which I did understand. It is not at the stage of acquisition that one goes through the clearance procedure, but when one makes or is about to make the disposal. If that gives clearance, Clause 26 cannot apply. But there must be safeguards, as I must tell the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). The person will be cleared if the facts are as he told them, but if the facts are not right, or further facts come to light, the inspector's decision is not binding.

The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) asked me to call for a report on the workings of Section 28 of the 1960 Act. I shall be glad to see how that Section has worked. I understand that it did not mean that every taxpayer could go to the tribunal on a clearance application. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman had in mind, but no doubt when I look at the matter I can find that out.

The objections to the Clause are twofold. The first is that there is no reference to Commissioners, and the second takes the form of a request for reasons to be given by the inspector. I am not sure what Commissioners the objectors have in mind. Are they the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as I suspect, or are they the appellate commissioners? If it is the latter, one would be in a very difficult position. I assume, however, that the reference is to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

The local inspector will be quite capable in the majority of cases of deciding whether an application should be refused or cleared. In borderline cases, he will go to the Inland Revenue specialists and, if necessary, to the Board for a determination. If the reference is to the appellate commissioners, new ground would be broken because all other appellate procedures have been allocated to the Inland Revenue. The purpose of the clearance procedure is to benefit the taxpayer and get a quick decision. It is not at that stage a decision by the court but a decision which can put him in a better position than he would be in if the procedure did not exist.

In 1960, the Conservative Government provided a clearance procedure in Section 28. They, too, said that the inspector should not give reasons. If he had to give reasons, and perhaps enter into correspondence and argument, one would not get a quick decision. In the hypothetical case for future disposal this is of particular importance. If there were to be elaborate correspondence, not only would the quick decision be less easily obtainable, but there would be the further risk, which was behind the decision in 1960 not to give reasons, of persons seeing how they could get round the decision. It is in accordance with precedence that no reasons are given. It is to ensure a quick decision that there is no reference to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but in any case of difficulty there will be reference to the Board, or to the specialist department.

Mr. Alison

Once the decision has been given, must that decision always stand for that particular case, or can it be revised with the passage of time? If one had lived in the house for 15 years, could the case be reconsidered?

Mr. Taverne

If the answer of the inspector is that the transaction is in the clear, Clause 26 cannot apply, unless it did turn out that the statement of fact was false, or further information came to light.

Mr. Iain Macleod (Enfield, West)

For various reasons which are no one's fault in particular, we are in something of a difficulty here. When my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) spoke on this matter in Committee he asked for a clearance procedure, and here is a clearance procedure. On the other hard, the Amendment was put down for Report—we understand the reasons very well—at a very late date. The more we look at this particular clearance procedure the less we like it for reasons which have been given by my hon. Friends. We therefore tabled sub-Amendments (r) and (s) for one proposal which we prefer so that the matter should be referred to the Commissioners. The Minister of State was right, it is the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to whom we refer.

We have little hope of achieving sub-Amendment (t). The reasons in those circumstances are not given. It would be ideal if we could vote on sub-Amendment (r), but I understand that that is a matter for Mr. Speaker and no doubt we should have put in an application earlier. We are therefore faced with a decision of whether to accept a clearance procedure which we acknowledge has been put forward to meet the point made by the Opposition, or to register our vote against the Minister of State refusing to accept sub-Amendments (r) and (s), which would vastly improve this quite unfair clearance procedure.

I am in no doubt of the advice I should give to my hon. and right hon.

Friends. I think we should vote on this matter. We understand all the difficulties about the clearance procedure put forward by the Government, but it is not satisfactory to us. I therefore invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to record their votes in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 153.

Division No. 336.] AYES [5.52 p.m.
Abse, Leo Freeson, Reginald Marks, Kenneth
Albu, Austen Gardner, Tony Marquand, David
Archer, Peter G[...]nsburg, David Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Armstrong, Ernest Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mayhew, Christopher
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) Gregory, Arnold Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mendelson, John
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mikardo, Ian
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Millan, Bruce
Barnes, Michael Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Beaney, Alan Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hannan, William Moonman, Eric
Bidwell, Sydney Harper, Joseph Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Binns, John Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Moyle, Roland
Booth, Albert Haseldine, Norman Newens, Stan
Bradley, Tom Hattersley, Roy Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Ogden, Eric
Brooks, Edwin Heffer, Eric S. O'Malley, Brian
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Henig, Stanley Oram, Albert E.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Orme, Stanley
Buchan, Norman Hobden, Dennis Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hooley, Frank Padley, Walter
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Howie, W. Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Park, Trevor
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hughes, Roy (Newport) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hunter, Adam Pavitt, Laurence
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hynd, John Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Pentland, Norman
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Davies, Rt. Hn, Harold (Leek) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Price, William (Rugby)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Probert, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rankin, John
Delargy, Hugh Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rees, Merlyn
Dewar, Donald Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Richard, Ivor
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c' as)
Dickens, James Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dobson, Ray Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roebuck, Roy
Doig, Peter Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dunnett, Jack Kelley, Richard Rose, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lawson, George Rowlands, E.
Eadie, Alex Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Ryan, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) Sheldon, Robert
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Ellis, John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
English, Michael Lipton, Marcus Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Ennals, David Loughlin, Charles Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Luard, Evan Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)
Faulds, Andrew Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Fernyhough, E. McCann, John Silverman, Julius
Finch, Harold MacColl, James Skeffington, Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) MacDermot, Niall Slater, Joseph
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.) Macdonald, A. H. Spriggs, Leslie
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McGuire, Michael Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Foley, Maurice Mackintosh, John P. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Ford, Ben McNamara, J. Kevin Taverne, Dick
Forrester, John Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Fowler, Gerry Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.) Tinn, James
Fraser, John (Norwood) Manuel, Archie Tomney, Frank
Tuck, Raphael Wellbeloved, James Winnick, David
Urwin, T. W. Whitaker, Ben Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Varley, Eric G. Whitlock, William Wyatt, Woodrow
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Watkins, David (Consett) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.
Weitzman, David Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gurden, Harold Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Astor, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Awdry, Daniel Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Peel, John
Balniel, Lord Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Peyton, John
Bell, Ronald Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Heseltine, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Berry, Hn. Anthony Higgins, Terence L. Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Biffen, John Hill, J. E. B. Price, David (Eastleigh)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Holland, Philip Prior, J. M. L.
Black, Sir Cyril Hooson, Emlyn Pym, Francis
Body, Richard Hordern, Peter Quennell, Miss J. M.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hornby, Richard Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brinton, Sir Tatton Howell, David (Guildford) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hunt, John Ridsdale, Julian
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Russell, Sir Ronald
Carlisle, Mark Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Scott, Nicholas
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Kerby, Capt. Henry Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chichester-Clark, R. Kershaw, Anthony Silvester, Frederick
Clark, Henry Kimball, Marcus Sinclair, Sir George
Clegg, Walter Kirk, Peter Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Cooke, Robert Kitson, Timothy Speed, Keith
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Knight, Mrs. Jill Stainton, Keith
Cordle, John Lawler, Wallace Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Costain, A. P. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Crouch, David Longden, Gilbert Temple, John M.
Crowder, F. P. Lubbock, Eric Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Currie, G. B. H. McAdden, Sir Stephen Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Herry MacArthur, Ian Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Dean, Paul Maclean, Sir Fitzroy van Straubenzee, W. R.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Vickers, Dame Joan
Digby, Simon Wingfield McMaster, Stanley Waddington, David
Dodds-Parker, Douglas McNair-Wilson, Michael Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Drayson, G. B. McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Eden, Sir John Maddan, Martin Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Walters, Dennis
Emery, Peter Marten, Neil Ward, Dame Irene
Errington, Sir Eric Maude, Angus Weatherill, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Wiggin, A. W.
Fisher, Nigel Mawby, Ray Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Foster, Sir John Monro, Hector Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) More, Jasper Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Worsley, Marcus
Goodhart, Philip Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wright, Esmond
Goodhew, Victor Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Younger, Hn. George
Grant, Anthony Murton, Oscar
Gresham Cooke, R. Neave, Airey TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Mr. Anthony Royle and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Nott, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Forward to