HC Deb 17 July 1969 vol 787 cc944-61
Sir J. Foster

I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 32, line 34, at end insert: Where the income mentioned in subsection (1) of that section is the income of the trustee or trustees of a settlement, the said subsection (1) shall not apply to any individual by reference to that income unless the individual was a party to and acquiesced in the transfer of assets or any relevant associated operation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Amendment the House can discuss also the following Amendments: No. 121 in page 32, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) If, by virtue or in consequence of provisions contained in any legislation forming part of the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom or of any action taken under such provisions, the nature or content of the legal relationship between the relevant person or any other person and an individual ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom is different from what it would have been if the relationship had been governed by the corresponding United Kingdom law, then in determining whether, under subsection (1) of that section, any income of the relevant person is deemed for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts to be the income of such an individual, the said provisions and the effect thereof may be disregarded and it may be assumed that the nature and content of the legal relationship in question is in every or any particular respect governed by the corresponding United Kingdom law.

In this subsection—

  1. (a) 'relevant person' means a person resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom to whom income has become payable as 945 mentioned in the preamble to that section, and
  2. (b) 'corresponding United Kingdom law' means such part of the law of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland (whichever may be most appropriate to the individual concerned in any particular matter) as would, on a true and fair view of the legal relationship in question, be applicable to the nearest equivalent relationship recognised by and subsisting under the law of England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as the case may be.

No. 123, in line 34, at end insert:

(4) At the end of that section insert the following subsection— (9) This section shall not apply more than once to any one amount forming part of the income of a person resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom'.

No. 124, in line 42, leave out from 'in' to except' in page 33, line 3, and insert: 'that section, the individual shall be chargeable to income tax by virtue of that section for the year of assessment in which the benefit is received on such part of the amount or value of the benefit as is justly referable to the income of the person resident or domiciled out of the United. Kingdom (but subject always to subsection (1) of this section)'.

No. 125, in page 33, line 5, after 'he' insert 'or any other person'.

No. 127, in line 34, at end insert: Where the income mentioned in subsection (1) of that section is the income of the trustee or trustees of a settlement, no individual (other than an individual who was a party to and acquiesced in the transfer of assets or any relevant associated operation) shall be deemed to have power to enjoy that income unless he is or will or may at some future date be able by any lawful means to secure that the income or assets representing it will, whether in the form of income or not, be paid or applied to him or for his benefit; and the amount of income which may, under the said subsection (1), be deemed to be the income of such an individual shall not be greater than the amount or value of the income or assets the payment of which to him or application of which for his benefit he is or will or may be so able to secure: Provided that where, in the year of assessment in which the income becomes payable to the person resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom, the individual does not have such an ability as is referred to in this subsection, but will or may have such an ability in the future, the income shall not be deemed to be the income of the individual until the year of assessment (if any), in which he comes to have such an ability, and it shall not then be any objection to the making of an assessment for that year of assessment that it was in an earlier year that the income became payable to the person resident and domiciled out of the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Foster

The Amendments are designed to clear up what may be called the mess by the Clause in its Amendment of Section 412 of the Income Tax Act, and 1952, which sought to catch settlements abroad and sought to catch only settlors in this country who attempted by foreign settlements to put their income out of reach of the Inland Revenue here.

I will put it in layman's fashion. The spokesman for the Conservative Government of the time said that it was intended to catch only settlors in Britain, but the Revenue sought to establish a different principle. What the politicians had stated in the House of Commons could not be adduced in evidence in the courts. What the politicians had said went by the board and Section 412 was extended because of its wording. The Government spokesman at that time had assured Parliament that it had applied only to settlors in this country. A reading of those debates set against after events shows of what little worth are the assurances of politicians.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever)

Conservative politicians.

Sir J. Foster

It applies all the way round. These were Conservative politicians. We legislate in this tortuous fashion; and what we legislate is usually not understood by Ministers, much less so by back benches. The legislation goes through. The Revenue then says, "This is provision means so and so". The Revenue is held to be right; so, despite what the politicians had said, the tax-payer is caught.

An interesting result of the Clause is that a beneficiary in a foreign settlement, even if he does not know about the settlement and does not get a penny, can be assessed on the income of the settlement. Whether or not he knew of the settlement, he is assessable. It is no defence for him to say that others had been assessed on the same income. That is why it is now common practice always to put in settlements the names of the Financial Secretary, the Chief Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They do not know that they are beneficiaries under the settlement; they are entitled to the money, and, if the Revenue does not assess them, I imagine that it can be mandamused.

The Chancellor may find himself liable on an income of £100,000 of which he will never get a penny and of which settlement he has never heard; but he is liable if the Revenue chooses to assess him. It is a nice question whether the Revenue can be mandamused to assess the Chancellor, but it is a ridiculous way of governing a country to have legislation which provides that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can find yourself liable to tax on a Bahamian settlement of which you have never heard, made by somebody whom you do not know, and of which you will not get a penny; and in addition, the amount on which you will be assessed will be assessed also to the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor, although they have never heard of it.

I appeal to the Government to bring a little order into this ridiculous conception.

It means that the Revenue will choose between A and B, and whom they will catch. It may say, "We like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we work under him, and we shall not assess him at any time. He did not know about it, but that does not make any difference in the way we assess people. On the other hand, we do not like A and B so much and we shall assess them. True, they did not know about the settlement either, but that is no defence. True, also, we shall assess some real people who did know about it and who have a bit of money. They will be assessed as well, everyone will have to pay, and a good time will be enjoyed by all".

I do not suppose that many people are interested in Section 412 of the 1952 Act, but, if that state of affairs were made known in the world and people realised that we drafted our tax laws in that way, providing that every person in this country could be liable under a settlement—if one had a schedule long enough to put 60 million names in—all being charged with reference to the same amount of income, we should be regarded as a very backward and inefficient nation.

This series of Amendments is designed to bring some order into the matter and, so to speak, catch the right people. There was in the Financial Times an encomium to me, an undeserved encomium, giving me credit for drafting these Amendments so well, or something to that effect. I do not deserve that credit. The only credit I deserve, perhaps, is for understanding the Amendments and understanding how Section 412 works, though I doubt that I am right about a lot of the details since Section 412 has been, so to speak, a pain in the neck to everyone because of its wide implications. I admit any criticism which the Financial Secretary will advance against it. Admittedly, Section 412 was brought in by a Conservative Government, and the right hon. Gentleman may well bring in all the tu quoque arguments which are introduced in the House from time to time but which are of no logical significance.

I come now to the Amendments themselves. Amendment No. 121 is rather long and I can summarise its effect in this way, illustrating it by reference to the peculiar legal relationship introduced in the Cayman Islands. It gets rid of that peculiar legal concept by treating the relationship as though it subsisted under the law of England. Thus, this is a pure anti-Cayman legislation Amendment. I think that it achieves what the Government want to do. In Committee, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that people who, on the face of it, would have rights under English law do not have those rights in the Cayman Islands because such rights are concentrated in the Commissioner for Companies, or whatever he is called.

We believe that Amendment No. 121 does what the Government want, and we assume that they are not so foolish as to want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be liable under all settlements which contain his name. That practice has spread widely as what I call a tease. It is a bit of a tease because all right hon. and hon. Members opposite could appear as beneficiaries under Cayman settlements and all be assessed by the Revenue. It is an absurd state of affairs. I do not imagine that the Financial Secretary will deny that that is the effect of Section 412 as amended by Clause 37.

Now, Amendment No. 126. This provides that, if one is not a party to the settlement, one cannot be assessed on the accumulated income of the trustees of the settlement. That seems reasonable enough. One did not know about the settlement, yet as matters stand one could be liable on the accumulated income. That is why I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary could find themselves assessed not on any benefit which they receive—they would not receive a penny—but because that they are in the settlement and could, therefore, be liable on the whole of the income accumulated by the trustees. The Amendment would remove the wider abuse in that direction.

6.15 p.m.

Now, Amendment 127. Any beneficiary who was not concerned with the settlement, who did not acquiesce or know about it, can be taxed only to the extent that he received income or the equivalent assets. That stops him being assessed on income which other people receive, income on which other people are assessed, income which he has never heard of, perhaps, because he does not know anything about the details of the settlement. That goes to another of the mischiefs under Section 412.

Amendment No. 122 is intended to cure another result of Section 412. The present position in this respect is so laughable that I am sure the House will excuse me if I smile about it. If a beneficiary under a foreign settlement—it could be made in Ruritania—is resident in England and if he receives a single advance of capital, he is assessable to income tax and surtax on the whole of the income for six years back, and probably, though this is not absolutely certain, the income for the rest of the time until the settlement is wound up. I was sure that the Financial Secretary would be amused by that. But, again, what a way to run a country. I commend Amendment No. 122 to remove that anomaly.

Amendment No. 124 is designed to stop income tax being assessable twice, on the non-resident by deduction, if it is available for deduction—this does not apply to many cases but theoretically it can apply—and again on the resident when he receives the benefit from the non-resident. Under Section 413(1) a non-resident can be taxed by deduction on the income, and then, when it comes to the resident, tax can be levied again.

Amendment No. 125 is easy to understand. It provides that: if X has already paid tax on the income, Y should not be taxed on it again. That seems only just. As matters stand at present, this crazy Section 412 plus Clause 27 mean that everyone who is a beneficiary can be taxed on the whole of the income as well as everyone else. If all members of the Labour Party were beneficiaries named in a settlement, they could all be taxed, each one on the same income.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree with my statement of the law. If he does, he will be in some difficulty. No doubt, he will say—it is always an interesting exercise to guess at what he will say—"Those are rather ridiculous points. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been too subtle in pointing out the absurdities of the law. We know that the Revenue is sensible and it does not tax people in that way. We can leave it to the good sense of the Revenue only to tax the people who are responsible for making these tax-avoidance settlements and those who will benefit".

There are signs under Section 412 and in the questions asked under Section 414 that the Revenue is ranging further afield. I know one case where a person was asked this question with regard to foreign settlements, "Have you ever made a transfer of assets to any partnership or individual abroad?" The person who was asked this question happened to have been abroad, so he has begun by describing how, when he was five or six, he used to buy an ice from a partnership. It was a transfer of assets from himself to the person who sold him the ice. He has now got as far as the age of 10 and as he is in his seventies and has lived abroad for several years, travelling a great deal, he has a good way ahead of him to answer all these questions.

I use that example to counter the right hon. Gentleman if he says that the Revenue is always sensible. It cannot be sensible to ask somebody if he has ever made any transactions of that kind. That is the danger of Section 412, because people with enthusiasm who suspect that something has gone wrong can abuse the position.

The Amendments are designed to achieve what I conceive to be the object of Section 412 and the Government, which is to meet the device of the Cayman Islands, by changing the legal relationship in the Cayman Islands so that it does not fit into English law. I have done that in the first Amendment in, I hope, a much more efficient and succinct way than the Clause. The Amendments then exclude people from being taxed twice and people who did not know about the settlement, and prevent people who have one advance of capital being taxed on the future income of the settlement for ever and on the past six years.

Mr. Harold Lever

The House is indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) for making this complex matter appear rather simple. It is true that because of our legal system we labour under the difficulty that the Legislature is told one thing by half-comprehending Conservative politicians as the meaning of the tax legislation and then the Inland Revenue is free to argue something wholly different from the basis on which the tax law was carried through Parliament.

That is because of the principle of English tax law, with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is very familiar, that Parliament's intention must be construed from the legislation and not from any words used when it came before the House. It is difficult to know how one could sensibly abrogate that rule, because otherwise the courts would have to endure interminable sessions of HANSARD reading, especially Finance Bill Committee and Report stages, which might not be altogether desirable.

In the end, I think that we must fall back on the sound principle of English law, caveat Legislature—the Legislature must beware that it does not pass anything that it does not understand or on which it is not satisfied, and perhaps it should be more cautious when a Conservative Chancellor and Financial Secretary tell them the meaning of legislation. We had the same problem under Section 28 of the 1960 Act. More than one point of view exists as to the meaning which Parliament was assured was the meaning before it was passed. It is a problem.

Although I know that you, Mr. Speaker, would follow every particle of the complexities of Section 412 and the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments, I am not sure that the House is well constituted to act as a sort of Chancery court of appeal from the interpret- tation which I might give of the Section in contrast with the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation. Very complex legislation is passed by the House. Hon. Members cannot understand it, and there may be a case for a Select Committee to look at very complex Clauses, consisting of small groups of Members who would understand what the Clauses were about and would spend time dealing with the intricacies.

A group of Members not chosen from a party political point of view, would recommend them or otherwise to the House, or summarise the meaning of what Ministers were commending to it. Otherwise, it is just too easy for a Treasury Minister. He has all the briefs on the complexities, and his followers have no reason to doubt his word when he says that the legislation is innocent. When a protesting learned counsel, however much trusted, and with a smile on his face like the hon. and learned Gentleman, tells us that the legislation is full of dire possibilities and grievous oppressive consequences, Hon. Members are, naturally, not in a position to judge and they take the Government's word. We should look at this. But until we have some means of subjecting Section 412 and the later Sections to that sort of procedure we shall have to work on the basis we have adopted so far.

I think that I am right in saying that the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment No. 126 is really to improve Section 412 and not Clause 27. He is really taking the opportunity of the Clause to seek to improve Section 412. It looks very innocent and logical that we should say that if a man is not party to, or did not acquiesce in, the transfer of assets, albeit those assets were transferred to avoid tax abroad, he should in no circumstances be made liable for tax.

That will not do. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be undoing the effect of the interesting Bembridge case, where Rudyard Kipling, to preserve the fruits of his poetic endeavours from the rapacious grasp of the Inland Revenue, sought to make just such a settlement abroad for the benefit of his daughter, who neither acquiesced in it, nor was a party to it, but later she was to become the beneficiary. It was right that she should be taxed.

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's wording is satisfactory. He asserts that the words go too wide at present, but it is certain that the words he uses would destroy the impact of the Section. It would not take him long, if the House accepted his Amendment, and it certainly would not take me long, to nullify the effect of Section 412, if all one had to do to escape liability was to show that one was not a party to, and did not acquiesce in, the transfer of assets.

Sir J. Foster

The Amendment is not to exempt such people altogether. It is only to exempt them if they do not receive any money. If they receive some, they are liable. Therefore, I am exempting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not Rudyard Kipling's daughter.

Mr. Lever

There is also the question of when they receive the money. A man may be going to get it in five or 10 years' time. Is he to be given protection by the Clause until 10 years have elapsed, to have a 10-year relief from the inconvenience of paying English tax and surtax on his income?

The Clause comes into operation only if avoidance is involved. A person can take himself out of Section 412 by showing that the arrangement is nothing to do with tax avoidance. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman's drafting will do. It may be that Section 412 should be looked at again to see whether there are any of the anomalies he fears. But they are exceedingly hypothetical ones at present. The hon. and learned Gentleman asserts that this is the law, and I shall not pose as a comparable authority to him and advise what is or is not the law on this. But it is an assertion only of the hon. and learned Gentleman, unsupported so far by a single case.

There has not been a single case where somebody like the Chancellor, or you, Mr. Speaker, an innocent, unknowing beneficiary of a discretionary trust abroad, has been ruined, or sought to be ruined, by the Inland Revenue because he could notionally become the possessor of some of this transferred income. When the hon. and learned Gentleman is in a position to say to the House, "This is the law because the courts have said that it is", there will be more force in the fears he seeks to arouse. This provision has been in force for many years and he is unable to say that what he claims is the law in the sense that the courts have so found it.

6.30 p.m.

Of course, it does not follow that, because the courts have not yet so ruled, the law is not as the hon. and learned Gentleman states, but it is interesting to note that the courts have not ruled because we have not given them a chance to do so. The Inland Revenue has never attempted to use Section 412 in the way he fears. I agree that this would not be enough if it were crystal clear that this was the law and that we could at will or discretion set machinery into action to make the change whereby a person was made liable for tax on an income with which he had no connection and no hope of enjoying and which was settled abroad. The situation would then not be satisfactory. But I do not accept that the law could be so used.

I am not myself in a position to consider this provision in a challenge to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but one cannot merely say that, because one possible interpretation of the words is such and-such, it has the inevitable consequence of the Inland Revenue choosing to act in a repressive and, indeed, ludicrous way. The House can be reasonably satisfied that, first, we have never attempted to do it, and, secondly, if we ever attempted to produce such an extraordinary thing as to assess all those concerned in such a transaction as he has mentioned, the courts would find an interpretation of the Section possible which would exclude those malign consequences which he fears.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is pleading for greater clarity, then I agree that, in a general sense, this is desirable. But it is a demand more easily stated than achieved when dealing with a transfer of assets abroad for the avoidance purposes of income tax. I hope that this general answer suffices. I have dealt with Amendment 126, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would exempt anyone who was not a party or who did not acquiesce. That would be going far too wide.

Amendment No. 127 is a good deal more complex. I understand that it would protect from the provisions of Section 412 any beneficiary not concerned with the actual transfer of the assets until he had the ability to cause money to be paid out or used for his benefit. Here again, this would allow all kinds of avoidance devices which would defer for 15, 20, or 30 years the impact of Section 412 on the fortunate beneficiary. The drafting is again too wide. It may be that the provision as it stands needs a new look. There is certainly plenty to look at and there are plenty of legal authorities of a complex kind on it. I must reject these Amendments because they are clearly too wide.

Amendment No. 121 raises rather different considerations. What the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes is to replace subsection (2) of Clause 27 by a subsection of his own devising. It seemed to me that this was not a bad drafting attempt. I hope that it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's own effort, because it is quite creditable. But we think that our own drafting is more effective because it is more direct and the difficulty of his drafting is that he has not covered the Herdman case.

The Herdman decision in the House of Lords was to the effect that Section 412 did not apply in cases where a change of circumstances enabled arrangements which were originally innocent of the purpose of avoiding tax to be used later on for the purpose of tax avoidance. If anyone had the good fortune to find himself connected with a settlement abroad originally of the most innocent intent he was free, without the impact of Section 412, to exploit it without limit because Section 412 would not bite on it, according to the Herdman decision.

It therefore became necessary to put back the teeth in Section 412 which had been knocked out by the Herdman case, If we are to have a Section 412, it has to bite on all settlements abroad which at any time are used for avoidance of tax even though originally started for innocent purpose. Supposing a man has transferred money to set-up a Bible society in Bulawayo and his heir being more sophisticated and perhaps more materialistic, finds himself connected with a settlement set up for unimpeachable purposes and decides that it would make a useful vehicle for the avoidance of all income tax and surtax. The Herdman decision meant that Section 412 would not prevent this. Clause 27 therefore knocks out the Herdman decision and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be fair enough to say that that is reasonable.

However, the hon. and learned Gentleman made a satisfactory effort. On balance, we just think that our own drafting is a little better than his. I would not like to say that there is anything wrong with his drafting for dealing with the Cayman Islands problem, except that he misses out the Herdman problem.

Amendment No. 123 would write into the legislation provisions laying it down that it would not operate more than once on any separate item of income. I must say again that at no point has the Inland Revenue taken the view that Section 412 gives it the power to tax income twice. There are certain fundamental obstacles in our tax law to any such attempt. Therefore, Amendment 123 is unnecessary. I would be interested to hear of any attempt made by the Inland Revenue to tax income twice over in the manner apprehended by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know of none and there is no reason for the Amendment.

Amendment No. 124 is intended to give more precision to the charge of taxation under Section 412. It would provide that the individual would be taxed by virtue of Section 412: …on such part of the amount or value of the benefit as is justly referable to the income of the person resident or domiciled out of the United Kingdom…". It is possible that this Amendment could be construed by the courts as saying that the burden of proof was on the Revenue to establish if the amount of assessment was correct.

For this reason the Amendment is not acceptable. The facts are always at the disposal of the taxpayer and the foreign person associated with him in the transfer and they can bring the facts to the Inland Revenue and the appeal tribunals. The onus of proof in these matters is rather lighter on the Inland Revenue than normally which is fair and reasonable.

The Inland Revenue can raise presumptions of enjoyment on income and the amount of the income enjoyed, and if the taxpayer feels that these are false and can prove that this is so, he is in a position to prove the facts. We are not. He is in a position to persuade the trustees or give the necessary evidence of the real income, and we do not tax income more than once. Nor do we seek to tax people on an amount unrelated to the benefits which they have or which they potentially are in a position to receive.

Amendment No. 125 sounds fairly innocuous, but it has the effect of exempting from the operation of Section 412 any benefit which could be shown to be derived directly or indirectly from any income on which any other person had been taxed. Thus if a foreign trust contained shares in a United Kingdom company, any benefits from those dividends would be excluded as a result from the provisions of Section 412 because the foreign trustees would have borne United Kingdom tax at the standard rate on the dividend. I do not know whether that was the intent. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to prevent double income tax, but, as the Amendment is drawn, the beneficiary would pay no surtax on the income, and that is a result which we could not accept and which, I know, the hon. and learned Gentleman would not want us to accept.

But, here again, his anxieties about our collecting double tax are over-estimated. Indeed, it is an open secret that the Revenue would be happy just to collect the right amount of income tax and surtax from all overseas settlements and I can offer this open invitation to guide any of the hon. and learned Gentleman's clients who are troubled. They need not have the smallest anxiety about any of the dire consequences which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged. All they have to do if they have any problem in this matter is to go to the Inland Revenue which, with the greatest of delight and the least difficulty, will accept from them normal taxation, income tax and surtax, on any income appropriately covered by the Section. Nobody will be anxious to tax them on more than that, or twice on the same income either for surtax or income tax.

For those reasons, the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments would have the effect of so damaging and weakening Section 412 as to render it practically useless. That does not mean that he has not raised a case, which I shall certainly reflect upon, for looking into the wording and clarification of the wording and of the operation of Section 412. I shall certainly see that that is done.

I hope that I have set at rest the fears raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and any fears which you may have had Mr. Speaker, for you were involved in the possible dangers, and, although the Chancellor is not here, I hope that he, too, will feel reassured, as I am certainly reassured, that no such dangers as were envisaged exist. Nor is protection needed against the Section and nor is the protection of the Amendment appropriate.

Sir J. Foster

I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment, because the situation is unsatisfactory and it has been made more unsatisfactory by Clause 27.

While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was going through the exercise of considering that perhaps one could get the question raised without the Revenue trying to assess anybody by a declaratory judgment or construction summons where one made the possibility of tax dependent on the settlement. I hope that a public-spirited person will do that so as to get a ruling from the courts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is liable to tax on such a settlement.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will come furnished with such a ruling, he will find an immediate response from me in terms of possible legislative action.

Sir J. Foster

A construction summons would be an expensive way, but I should like a public-spirited millionaire to take it, involving a settlement where the liability to tax of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a material factor.

More seriously, as I apprehend it, the Financial Secretary says that nobody has done it and so there is no proof that the law is as I have said. But I think that he will find that the position is that people can be taxed twice and can be taxed on income which they have never had and never will have. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman could have said that, having considered Amendment No. 123, he agreed that it was possible to tax someone twice and that, although the Revenue had not done so, that was not a reason for saying that the Amendment was unnecessary. The Amendment proposes to change the law, not to leave it as it is, dependent on the whim and good sense of the Inland Revenue, which in 99 cases out of 100, it uses in its operation of Section 412.

In the circumstances, I hope that we shall maintain our position and divide the House on Amendment No. 126.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 211.

Division No. 337.] AYES [6.43 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Goodhart, Philip Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Goodhew, Victor Nott, John
Awdry, Daniel Grant, Anthony Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Gresham Cooke, R. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Balniel, Lord Grieve, Percy Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bell, Ronald Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Peel, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Percival, Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gurden, Harold Peyton, John
Bessell, peter Hall, John (Wycombe) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Biffen, John Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Pink, R. Bonner
Biggs-Davison, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hawkins, Paul Prior, J. M. L.
Black, Sir Cyril Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Pym, Francis
Body, Richard Higgins, Terence L. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hiley, Joseph Rees-Davies, W. R.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hill, J. E. B. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Ridsdale, Julian
Bullus, Sir Eric Holland, Philip Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Burden, F. A. Hordern, Peter Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Hornby, Richard Royle, Anthony
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Howell, David (Guildford) Russell, Sir Ronald
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Scott, Nicholas
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Channon, H. P. G. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Silvester, Frederick
Chichester-Clark, R. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, Henry Kerby, Capt. Henry Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Clegg, Walter Kershaw, Anthony Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert Kimball, Marcus Stainton, Keith
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Costain, A. P. Kirk, Peter Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Knight, Mrs. Jill Temple, John M.
Crouch, David Lawler, Wallace Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Crowder, F. P. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Dance, James Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Vickers, Dame Joan
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Longden, Gilbert Waddington, David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Lubbock, Eric Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Digby, Simon Wingfield McAdden, Sir Stephen Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Dodds-Parker, Douglas MacArthur, Ian Walters, Dennis
Doughty, Charles Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain Ward, Dame Irene
Drayson, G. B. McMaster, Stanley Wells, John (Maidstone)
Eden, Sir John McNair-Wilson, Michael Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Wiggin, A. W.
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maddan, Martin Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Emery, Peter Marten, Neil Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Errington, Sir Eric Maude, Angus Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Worsley, Marcus
Foster, Sir John More, Jasper Wright, Esmond
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Younger, Hn. George
Gibson-Watt, David Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Murton, Oscar Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Hector Monro.
Glover, Sir Douglas Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Neave, Airey
NOES
Abse, Leo Blenkinsop, Arthur Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Albu, Austen Booth, Albert Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Archer, Peter Boston, Terence Cant, R. B.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Boyden, James Carmichael, Neil
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Bradley, Tom Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bray, Dr. Jeremy Concannon, J. D.
Barnes, Michael Brooks, Edwin Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Beaney, Alan Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Bidwell, Sydney Buchan, Norman Dalyell, Tam
Binns, John Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Bishop, E. S. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Palmer, Arthur
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek) Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parker, John (Dagenham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Defargy, Hugh Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dewar, Donald Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Pentland, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Dickens, James Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Dobson, Ray Jones, Dan (Burnley) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Dunnett, Jack Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Price, William (Rugby)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Kelley, Richard Probert, Arthur
Eadie, Alex Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Randall, Harry
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Rankin, John
Ellis, John Lawson, George Rees, Merlyn
English, Michael Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Richard, Ivor
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Faulds, Andrew Lipton, Marcus Roebuck, Roy
Fernyhough, E. Lomas, Kenneth Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Finch, Harold Loughlin, Charles Rose, Paul
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Luard, Evan Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Rowlands, E.
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.) McBride, Neil Ryan, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McCann, John Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Foley, Maurice MacColl, James Sheldon, Robert
Ford, Ben MacDermot, Niall Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Forrester, John Macdonald, A. H. Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Fowler, Gerry McGuire, Michael Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Freeson, Reginald Mackie, John Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptord)
Ginsburg, David Mackintosh, John P. Silverman, Julius
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McNamara, J. Kevin Skeffington, Arthur
Gregory, Arnold Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Slater, Joseph
Grey, Charles (Durham) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Manuel, Archie Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Marks, Kenneth Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Taverne, Dick
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mayhew, Christopher Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Tuck, Raphael
Hamling, William Mendelson, John Varley, Eric G.
Hannan, William Mikardo, Ian Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Harper, Joseph Millan, Bruce Watkins, David (Consett)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Miller, Dr. M. S. Weitzman, David
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wellbeloved, James
Hazell, Bert Mitchell, R. C. (S' th' pton, Test) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Moonman, Eric Whitaker, Ben
Heffer, Eric S. Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Herbison Rt. Hn. Margaret Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hilton, W. S. Morris, John (Aberavon) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hobden, Dennis Moyle, Roland Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Hooley, Frank Murray, Albert Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Newens, Stan Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Ogden, Eric Winnick, David
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) O'Malley, Brian Wyatt, Woodrow
Howie, W. Oram, Albert E.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Orme, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hunter, Adam Owen, Will (Morpeth) Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.
Hynd, John Padley, Walter
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Mr. Speaker

It might help the House if I reminded it that according to my calculations we have 14 debates ahead of us.

Forward to