§ Mr. TaverneI beg to move Amendment No. 175, in page 41, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'an' in line 27 on page 43 and insert:
'subject to such a trust as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph, but the whole of the combined income of all the property from time to time subject to that trust arising during the relevant period was not paid to or applied for the benefit of the deceased as a result of the discretion so mentioned, there shall be treated as passing on the death by virtue of that sub-paragraph part only of the property in question, being a part bearing to the whole of the property in question the same proportion as, subject to paragraph (d) of this subsection, the part of the combined income of that property which was so paid or applied during that period bears to the whole of that income arising during that period; and for the purposes of this subsection—
- (a) the expression "the relevant period" means such period during which the property in question was subject to the trust and the deceased was eligible to benefit as a result of the discretion aforesaid as falls within the material period for the purposes of head (aa), (bb) or (cc). as the case may require, of the said sub-paragraph (iii);
- (b) subject to paragraph (c) of this subsection, any sum paid to or applied for the
989 benefit of any person eligible to benefit as a result of the discretion aforesaid out of any of the property subject to the trust, whether purporting to be so paid or applied out of income or by way of a distribution of capital, being a sum paid or applied after 15th April, 1963 and not being a sum paid as mentioned in section 30(5)(d) of this Act, shall be treated as having been paid or applied out of income as a result of that discretion if or to the extent that the sum in question does not exceed the amount, if any, by which the aggregate amount of all the income with respect to which that discretion was exercisable arising during the period beginning with 16th April, 1963 and ending with the date when the sum in question was so paid or applied exceeds the aggregate amount or all sums previously paid or applied out of that property during that period to persons eligible as aforesaid and, if or to the extent that the sum in question does not fall to be treated under this paragraph as having been paid or applied out of income, it shall be treated as having been paid or applied by way of a distribution of capital; - (c) in determining, for the purposes of the application of paragraph (b) of this subsection to a particular sum paid or applied as therein mentioned, the aggregate amount of all sums previously so paid or applied, there shall be left out of account any sum so previously paid or applied if or to the extent that it falls to be treated under that paragraph as having been made by way of a distribution of capital; and if two or more sums were so paid or applied on the same date, that paragraph shall apply as if both or all of those sums had been a single sum of their aggregate amount, and, if part only of that aggregate amount falls to be treated under that paragraph as having been paid or applied out of income and both or all of those payments or applications were not to or for the benefit of the same person, that part shall be apportioned between the different payments or applications in proportion to the sums respectively paid or applied;
- (d) if, in consequence of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection, the aggregate amount which falls to be treated as having been paid or applied during the relevant period as a result of the discretion aforesaid out of income exceeds the amount of the income with respect to which that discretion applies which arose during that period, the combined income of all the property from time to time subject to the trust arising during that period shall be treated as increased by the amount of the excess;
- (e) the amount of the combined income of the property from time to time subject to the trust during any period shall be treated as increased by'
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this Amendment I understand it will be convenient for the House to consider the following Amendments: No. 258, in line 42, leave out from 'period' to first 'the' in line 44 and insert: 990
'of seven years ending with the date of the deceased's death, or so much of that period as falls after 15th April, 1963)'.No. 259, in page 42, line 18, leave out 'after 15th April, 1963' and insert 'during the relevant period'.No. 260, in line 25, leave out 'after that date' and insert 'during that period'.
No. 180, in page 43, line 44, leave out 'paragraph (a)' and insert 'paragraphs (b) and (c)'.
No. 181, in line 47, leave out 'paragraphs (b) to (d)' and insert 'paragraph (e)'.
No. 302, in Schedule 17, page 135, line 42, leave out 'subsisting at the date of the earlier death'.
No. 303. in line 49, after '2(1)(b)', insert:
'then, if either the earlier death occurred before the said substitution had effect or the relevant period referred to in section 31(3) of this Act was not the same in regard to that death as in regard to the later death,'.
§ Mr. TaverneAmendment No. 175 makes the necessary modifications to the computation of the charge on discretionary trusts which flow from the limitation of the charge by reference to receipt of benefits within seven years but it also clarifies the rules determining whether payments are income or capital. This is the problem to which I referred in Committee and also when I moved Amendment No. 201.
On the determination of the charge I do not think that in the ordinary course of income benefit this will give rise to considerable difficulty, but when it comes to paragraph (b) we are in rather more controversial territory. Paragraph (b) provides the rule determining whether the payment is income or capital. The difficulty we face is that it is very easy to get round or limit the charge by making advances of capital but it is difficult to determine what is capital in dealing with cases where the income has been accumulated.
We looked at it in every possible way to devise a satisfactory method of getting round the difficulty of having to keep accounts of past income payments, both income paid out and total income of the trust, to determine how far something has been payment of capital or payment of income, but it is not possible to find a 991 satisfactory way of getting over the difficulty without requiring a comparison beginning at the fixed starting point of 16th April, 1963.
Other possibilities were looked at but they had to be dismissed because they were artificial or more burdensome for the trustees. It is very important for the trustees to know at any particular time whether a payment is of income or a capital payment. It must be known at the time it is made because the charge will depend on whether it was income or capital.
It was, therefore, felt that the way of doing it is to start at the period of 16th April, 1963, and look at the aggregate income of the trust up to that time when the distribution was made to see whether it was less than the total of earlier distribution. This still involves keeping a number of accounts but it is less onerous than the previous presentation of this Clause. There will no longer be a need to keep track of beneficiaries who have disappeared or to find exactly who died. This will resolve difficulties about past payments but there will still be a need to keep records of the income of the trust and all payments out.
In the next few years this will not give rise to particular difficulties because the starting date is April, 1963, and it may be expected that we shall be able to find a way round which will mean that one can identify what is capital and what is income and when the period of time becomes onerous those past records will no longer be kept. At present every alternative arrangement we looked at would have been more onerous or more artificial or difficult and unsatisfactory and the only way we could see was to have regard to the accumulations of income from 15th April, 1963. If a better method comes forward or we can agree on one which the professions regard as more suitable no doubt it can be incorporated in a future Finance Bill.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThe Minister of State recognised what is going to be the source of contention between the two sides of the House on paragraph (b). When the Bill was originally issued it contained the calculation of the charge under a 992 discretionary trust by reference to payments to beneficiaries going back over the whole life of the trust up to 1963. In those circumstances it was perhaps not unreasonable when considering what payments are income and what are capital that the same time-scale should apply. It we are to keep the records to determine the amount of the charge it is not unreasonable to keep the records for the capital point as well.
Now the Minister of State, having accepted on an earlier Amendment that the calculation of the charge should be made only by reference to income payments in the last seven years, it is very unreasonable that the capital question should still require records to be kept over the whole life of the trust. Unless all the income is distributed every year, so long as there are no accumulations during the period of the trust and no distribution of capital—unless all those things apply—the trustees will have to keep records throughout the life of the trust of payments of income and capital. I cannot accept what the Minister of State said about the removal of the obligation to trust beneficiaries who have long since ceased to benefit and to maintain records of beneficiaries who may have died offers any amelioration to the duties of the trustees.
In the vast majority of trusts all records will have to be kept as they would have to be as the Bill was originally drafted. As the Bill stands, if there is an accumulation of interest in year 1 and then in years 2 to 24 and it follows year by year and the records have to show what is income and what is capital and will be treated as income up to the amount of the accumulation 25 years earlier. The advantage has been mainly nullified by paragraph (b) in this Amendment.
We on this side of the House are gravely disappointed. I recognise the difficulties which the hon. and learned Gentleman faces, but our Amendments Nos. 258, 259 and 260 would deal with them. We agree that if accumulations made outside the seven years period are ignored—as would be the case under our Amendments—and followed by a capital payment inside the period, then, if the whole of the income has been distributed within the seven-year period, there could be some reduction in the charge.
993 Against that must be weighed the arguments of the massive inconvenience to trustees, the cost of maintaining records, the risk of the loss of records over the life of a long trust, changes in I the identity of trustees, and so on, over the whole period of the trust. We have little doubt where the balance of advantage lies.
The Minister of State was good enough to say that he will reconsider this, but we must make it perfectly clear that we thoroughly disapprove of the decision the Government have made in paragraph (b), and I hope that, when the time comes, my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel it right to mark their disapproval by dividing against the Amendment.
Before we come to that, however, there is another point arising on this group of Amendments with which I must deal. We are discussing also Amendments Nos. 302 and 303. Schedule 17 deals with quick succession relief. In Committee, I expressed anxieties when the Government sought to include certain words in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 17 relating to quick succession relief. On that occasion the Minister was delightfully frank; he said that he did not understand his own Amendment. Perhaps in mitigation I should say that it was after midnight.
Having studied the matter with the benefit of a letter which the Minister of State was good enough to write to me, I am more than ever convinced that I was right, though I recognise that the matter is somewhat complicated. Quick succession relief is an abatement of duty if two deaths happen within five years covering the same property. The shorter the interval, the higher the abatement. It can go up to 75 per cent.
However, the property must be the same; or, under rather elaborate rules in the 1958 Act, it can be regarded as being the same. Let me take a relatively simple case. The life tenant dies. Duty is paid on his death. Subsequently the settlement ends. The assets are sold. The cash is distributed. One of the residuary beneficiary gets it, and he dies within five years. That is treated as the same property and the relief applies.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 17 is intended to extend the application of the quick succession allowance to discretionary trusts. If a discretionary trust comes to an end, 994 the slice that is dutiable is fixed by reference to the benefits in the seven years before the death. The quick succession [...]elief, therefore, should apply where two beneficaries die within a year or two after the settlement ends.
If that were all, I gain the impression that the Minister of State would not disagree. However, in Committee the Government added words in the third line of paragraph 6 to provide that the settlement should be
subsisting at the date of the earlier death".This has the effect of preventing the operation of quick succession relief where two discretionary beneficiaries die after the settlement has come to an end and the quick succession allowance applies only if the first death occurs while the settlement still subsists.I cannot see why this limitation should apply. If the seven-year period is the same for the two beneficiaries, I agree that there can be no overlapping slice and no relevance of the quick succession relief. This appears to be the delusion under which the Minister of State is labouring. He said this in the letter he wrote to me on 3rd July:
There can however have been no 'accruer' or reallocation when the discretionary trust has come to an end before the death of either beneficiary, because the shares prospectively chargeable in the ensuing seven years on the death of any of the beneficiaries are fixed at the date when the trust comes to an end by reference to their enjoyment of income up to that date, and are not altered by later events. The Amendment therefore provided that paragraph 6 should not apply in this one case.This assumes that the sum of their shares of the slice of capital cannot add up to more than 100 per cent., but it can. Let us suppose that there is a beneficiary who has enjoyed 'all seven years—it would be slightly less than that, because we are assuming the deaths after the end of the trust, but we will suppose that he has enjoyed up to nearly seven years of benefit under the trust, during which he has had most of the income, except during the last couple of years when he married and his wife had most of the income. Then, after the settlement comes to an end on some other event, they are both killed in a car crash. On those two deaths the effect of the calculation—
§ Mr. Taverneindicated dissent.
§ Mr. JenkinThe Minister of State shakes his head, but I have consulted Chancery lawyers and they assure me that there well can be cases where then, is a substantial overlap in circumstances where quick succession relief should apply in these circumstances and that the view expressed by the Minister of State in the paragraph of the letter which I have read that there can be no overlapping is a mistaken one.
Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 would put this right by removing the requirement that the settlement should have been subsisting on the date of the earlier death. I believe that this is necessary if quick succession relief is to apply properly in the case of discretionary trusts. I drew the attention of the Minister of State to this in Committee. I have studied his letter. I have discussed this question with experts. I am satisfied in my own mind that the case which I have advanced is a justified one. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to accept this.
§ Sir E. ErringtonThough I have some legal training, I should not presume to intervene in the detailed discussion on the Amendment were it not for the fact that I am very worried about the difference of opinion which arises between the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and those implicit in the shaking of the head of the Minister of State showing disagreement. This extraordinary position resembles the problem of Schleswig Holstein, in which there were three people who knew all about it—one was dead, one was mad, and I shall say nothing about the third, who might be my hon. Friend. These problems must be worked out and understood by people who have to go into them very minutely and with the greatest possible care and they are not helped by this sort of Clause.
The answer which the Minister of State gives is that the problem will be dealt with next year. However, people have to make their arrangements. They must understand these matters early on certainly. Things go on during the intervening twelve months. This is an example of those occasions when the best that the Opposition can do is to table an Amendment which they believe to be helpful. The situation should never have arisen 996 because the original Clause should have been thought out carefully. If greater care had been devoted to this question, the problems that have been so skilfully adumbrated from the Opposition Front Bench would not have arisen.
This will involve considerable expense. It will add to the considerable amount of work which must be done by the Estate Duty Office of the Inland Revenue. The answer will be nil until next year. This is most unsatisfactory. Without going into the detailed merits of the Amendment, I suggest that the Clause, which runs to four pages, should not have been produced until it had been properly thought out.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§ Mr. TaverneThere must be some artificial quick succession relief in the case of discretionary trusts. If beneficiaries die successively, and the second has received a larger share than he did previously after the death of the first, it is reasonable that he should have some relief on the earlier property. If, for example, the rule is laid down in paragraph 6 of Part II of the Schedule that 30 per cent. of the property subject to such a trust is charged on the first death and 40 per cent. of the second, one could say that 40 per cent. of the earlier 30 per cent. is the same property for quick succession relief.
On the other hand, one would normally take the case where both are receiving their share of the income, or have received for a period of seven years shares of the income, which means that if they die a fixed proportion of the capital would be subject to a charge, and at that point the trust ceases to subsist. One would say that there could be no question of quick succession relief, because there would be no question of the same property later, after the trust had ceased to exist, bearing duty, because when the trust ceased to exist different parts of that property would give rise to a charge.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has put forward the idea that in certain cases there could be some overlapping and possibly a charge of more than 100 per cent. I would like to consider the case. At first sight, it is a somewhat startling proposition, but I would not like to rule out on first impression something that he says he 997 has not only carefully considered himself—and he is no mean expert on estate duty—but has discussed with members of the Chancery Bar. In the circumstances, I would like to look at that point to see whether a change must be made subsequently. But the point does not appear very clearly from Amendments Nos. 302 and 303. I was not clear what kind of case was in mind. I wondered whether perhaps it was a case such as one of the parties ceasing to be eligible to benefit under a trust before the settlement ended, and both dying after it ended.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman would concede, it would be unwise to incorporate in the law at this stage, when we have no further chance to look at it, something which may be uncertain in its effect and may go rather wider to the benefit and advantage of the taxpayer. In the circumstances, I hope that he will accept that we want to have a further look at the problem and perhaps come back on the subject next year, if necessary.
I mean no disrespect to Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 when I say that the more important part of the hon. Gentleman's observations was directed to Amendments Nos. 258, 259 and 260, and Government Amendment No. 175. There are two disadvantages about the way in which it was proposed to deal with the problem in Amendments Nos. 258, 259 and 260. One is that there is not sufficient protection for the Revenue. I think that the hon. Gentleman conceded this. It is obviously a case where estate duty could be avoided where income arising before the beginning of the seven-year period is accumulated and distributed as capital within the seven years. It is not only the Revenue and the body of taxpayers as a whole that must be protected. The position of trustees must also be protected, and that is something which Amendment No. 258 fails to do.
§ The second and third Amendments affect the rule determining whether a particular payment is to be treated as income or capital, and they say that regard must be had to the income which arose within seven years before the deceased's death. But the trustees cannot look subsequently at a payment and retrospectively decide in the light of what happens later whether a particular payment was capital or income.
§ That difficulty is not met by the Amendment. They must know which is which, because the charge on a discretionary trust is on two main parts—on the fund in existence at the death of the beneficiary, based on the income benefits he has had up to the date of the death, and on advances of capital. Therefore, they must know at the time which is capital and which is income, and they cannot decide retrospectively as they would have to do under Amendment No. 258.
§ It is not only anti-avoidance with which we are concerned. The provision is at present the only feasible way in which we can see the new estate duty code, with its charge on discretionary trusts, working where the distinction between capital and income must be made.
§ Although I recognise that there is still a considerable burden imposed on trustees in some cases, I think that the hon. Gentleman under-stated the burden previously imposed on them, of which they have been relieved. At present we can see no way round the problem within the code, though we shall see whether between ourselves, the professions and anyone else who can help we can perhaps find a more suitable way round it in the future.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 134.
999| Division No. 338.] | AYES | [8.35 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Bishop, E. S. | Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James |
| Albu, Austen | Blenkinsop, Arthur | Cant, R. B. |
| Archer, Peter | Booth, Albert | Carmichael, Neil |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Boston, Terence | Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara |
| Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw) | Boyden, James | Concannon, J. D. |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Bradley, Tom | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Brown, Bob (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) | Dalyell, Tam |
| Barnes, Michael | Buchan, Norman | Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) |
| Beaney, Alan | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Davies, Ifor (Gower) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey |
| Binns, John | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Delargy, Hugh |
| Dewar, Donald | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Padley, Walter |
| Diamond, Rt. Hn. John | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Dickens, James | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Driberg, Tom | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Dunnett, Jack | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Kelley, Richard | Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) |
| Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Kenyon, Clifford | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Eadie, Alex | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Pentland, Norman |
| Edelman, Maurice | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lawson, George | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Ellis, John | Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| English, Michael | Lee, John (Reading) | Probert, Arthur |
| Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) | Randall, Harry |
| Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Rees, Merlyn |
| Faulds, Andrew | Lomas, Kenneth | Richard, Ivor |
| Fernyhough, E. | Loughlin, Charles | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) |
| Finch, Harold | Luard, Evan | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Roebuck, Roy |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McBride, Neil | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Foley, Maurice | McCann, John | Rose, Paul |
| Ford, Ben | MacColl, James | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Forrester, John | MacDermot, Niall | Rowlands, E. |
| Fowler, Gerry | Macdonald, A. H. | Ryan, John |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | McGuire, Michael | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.) |
| Freeson, Reginald | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Sheldon, Robert |
| Ginsburg, David | Mackie, John | Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Mackintosh, John P. | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Gregory, Arnold | McNamara, J. Kevin | Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.) |
| Grey, Charles (Durham) | Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) | Silverman, Julius |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Manuel, Archie | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Marks, Kenneth | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. | Marquand, David | Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Hamling, William | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Taverne, Dick |
| Hannan, William | Mayhew, Christopher | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| Harper, Joseph | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Thomson, Rt. Hn. George |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Mendelson, John | Varley, Eric G. |
| Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith | Mikardo, Ian | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Hattersley, Roy | Millian, Bruce | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Hazell, Bert | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Weitzman, David |
| Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Molloy, William | Whitaker, Ben |
| Hilton, W. S. | Moonman, Eric | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Hobden, Dennis | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Hooley, Frank | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Morris, John (Aberavon) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Howie, W. | Moyle, Roland | Winnick, David |
| Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Murray, Albert | |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Newens, Stan | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hunter, Adam | O'Malley, Brian | Mr. Ioan L. Evans and |
| Hynd, John | Oram, Albert E. | Mr. Ernest G. Perry. |
| Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Orme, Stanley | |
| Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) | |
| NOES | ||
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Crouch, David | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Balniel, Lord | Crowder, F. P. | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. |
| Bell, Ronald | Dance, James | Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere |
| Bessell, Peter | Dean, Paul | Hastings, Stephen |
| Biffen, John | Digby, Simon Wingfield | Heseltine, Michael |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Doughty, Charles | Hiley, Joseph |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Drayson, G. B. | Hill, J. E. B. |
| Body, Richard | Eden, Sir John | Holland, Philip |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Hordern, Peter |
| Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward | Emery, Peter | Hornby, Richard |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Errington, Sir Eric | Hunt, John |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Eyre, Reglnald | Iremonger, T. L. |
| Burden, F. A. | Foster, Sir John | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Glover, Sir Douglas | Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith |
| Carlisle, Mark | Goodhart, Philip | Kershaw, Anthony |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Goodhew, Victor | Kimball, Marcus |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Grant, Anthony | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) |
| Clark, Henry | Gresham Cooke, R. | Kirk, Peter |
| Cooke, Robert | Grieve, Percy | Knight, Mrs. Jill |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St, Edmunds) | Lawler, Wallace |
| Costain, A. P. | Gurden, Harold | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Peel, John | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Lubbock, Eric | Percival, Ian | van Straubenree, W. R. |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| MacArthur, Ian | Pink, R. Bonner | Waddington, David |
| Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| McMaster, Stanley | Prior, J. M. L. | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| McNair-Wilson, Michael | Pym, Francis | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Quennell, Miss J. M, | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Maddan, Martin | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Maude, Angus | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | Wells, John (Maidstone) |
| Mawby, Ray | Ridsdale, Julian | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey | Wiggin, A. W. |
| Monro, Hector | Russell, Sir Ronald | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| More, Jasper | Scott, Nicholas | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Murton, Oscar | Silvester, Frederick | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard |
| Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Sinclair, Sir George | Wright, Esmond |
| Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Smith, John (London & W'minster) | Younger, Hn. George |
| Nott, John | Speed, Keith | |
| Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian | Steel, David (Roxburgh) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) | Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Humphrey Atkins. |
| Page, Graham (Crosby) | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
§ Further Amendments made: No. 176, in page 43, line 28, leave out 'the property in question' and insert 'any of that property'.
§
No. 177, in page 43, line 37, leave out 'received by the trustees in their capacity as such' and insert
'of the settled property in which the property in question was comprised arising'.
§ No. 178, in page 43, line 41, after 'property', insert 'in question'.
§ No. 179, in page 43, line 42, after 'property', insert 'in question'.
§ No. 180, in page 43, line 44, leave out 'paragraph (a)' and insert 'paragraphs (b) and (c)'.
§ No. 181, in page 43, line 47, leave out 'paragraphs (b) to (d)' and insert 'paragraph (e)'.—[Mr. Taverne.]