§ 3.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)
I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 20, line 13 leave out 'ending' and insert 'commencing'.
§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 27, in page 21, line 7, leave out 'ends' and insert 'commences'.
§ Mr. Barnett
The Amendment seeks to remove the retrospective element in the Clause. Hon. Members who served on the Committee upstairs will recall what the Clause does when I refer to the retrospective element. What we are debating here is retrospective assistance of £500,000 to 30 close companies, in other words, family companies.
In Committee upstairs we eventually elicited from the Minister of State that 30 small companies were being given £500,000 relief, going back to 1966. In other words, accounts had been submitted from as far back as that year. As far as one can understand, under the law as it stood £500,000 of lax would have been payable but the Government, by this Clause, are giving the companies that amount of relief.
In Committee I moved a similar Amendment with a view to seeing just what this was all about. But it was only after the Minister of State had been asked three or four times that we eventually found out that just 30 companies were involved, that accounts had been submitted from as long ago as 1966 and that about £500,000 was involved. There may be a case for giving these 30 companies relief on accounts which have been submitted and not yet agreed, but the case was certainly not made by the Minister of State in Committee.
1350 I should have thought that, at the very least, the House is owed an explanation when these sort of sums are being given. I know that we frequently talk about much bigger figures, but this is no small matter. No one reading the report of our debates in Committee can be under any illusion that the Minister of State gave anything other than a totally inadequate reason—indeed, he gave no reason at all—why that relief was being given.
This is a dangerous but very interesting precedent. For example, there is a case going through the courts at present which concerns a journalist's entertainment expenses, which at one time were held to be allowable as buying information. This decision was subsequently overturned and it is possible—we do not yet know: perhaps it has already been decided—that it will go to the House of Lords for a final appeal.
There may be a case for preventing, through the courts, both the Revenue and the taxpayer from spending substantial sums of money if the Government's interpretation of a particular Clause of a Finance Bill is or appears to be different from what others imagine, because for a taxpayer it is particularly onerous. When he takes a case to court and the Revenue contests it right through, from the General Commissioners to the House of Lords, not only is it very expensive but it is not even an allowable charge on his expenses.
Therefore, if the Government are now arguing that, where accounts have been submitted and there is some disagreement on interpretation, it should be a principle to bring in a new Clause in order to correctly interpret what the Government think should be the law, even if the local inspectors or anyone else—the General Commissioners or the Special Commissioners—think differently, then the Government are introducing a very interesting precedent. I would not necessarily say that I altogether disagree with it.
This is an interesting situation. I am not one of those who like the idea of taking a particular Clause of the Finance Bill and pursuing a taxpayer year after year at considerable expense, when almost literally the taxpayer cannot win, because he has to go all the way through to the House of Lords if the Revenue insists. If the taxpayer eventually wins, it is always 1351 open to the Government to bring in a Clause to overthrow the position anyway.
We saw in another part of the Bill what happens when the Government's interpretation of a part of it—on child tax allowances—was different from the decision of the courts. An individual court had found in favour of the taxpayer, and the Government then decided to bring in a Clause. No one has disputed that the Government have that right, but it is most interesting, because from now on it could mean that no taxpayer would bring a case of this kind.
Indeed, it has always been very difficult for a taxpayer to bring a case knowing that the Revenue, if it is treated as a matter of principle, will take it right through to the House of Lords. But if it is now thought by a taxpayer that the Revenue has a particular point of view—in this case, the Government have decided in favour of the taxpayers; on another occasion they might decide the other way—all that will happen is that a Clause will be brought in so that the matter shall be interpreted precisely as the Government intended, and not as the courts decided.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister of State will at least make it clear whether there is any change in the whole system, and especially in what way they propose to pursue the general cases of the type that I have described. This case is not the same as a normal case of the sort that I have described, where a taxpayer is in dispute with the Revenue and the matter is taken through the General Commissioners right to the House of Lords.
In this case—again, we had totally inadequate information from the Minister in Committee—I understand that these accounts from these 30 companies were simply in the hands of the local inspectors of taxes and were in dispute. Cases sometimes drag on, but from 1966 to 1971 is certainly a very long time. Now, quietly, they write into the Bill this particular retrospective relief to settle the whole matter.
If we had not queried the matter in Committee that would have been the end of it. Even when we did raise it, if we had simply left it to the Minister's reply, we still would not have known. It is only because my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I 1352 pursued the Minister of State at great length time after time that we eventually elicited not the reason why they had done it but at least what they had done.
This whole matter is totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us a better reply today than the non-reply that he gave us in Committee.
§ The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins)
I certainly welcome this opportunity to clarify the position. After our discussion in Committee, which seemed to me to give rise to some misunderstandings, I considered writing to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) about it, but it seemed better that this matter should be raised on the Floor of the House, so that we could go into it in more detail.
I should explain that Amendments Nos. 27 and 85 do not implement the point which the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. They raise other and rather narrower issues. Of course, if he wants me to pursue the Amendments in the strict terms in which they are drafted, I should be glad to do so, but I think that the House would prefer that I should instead take up his basic point.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) quite rightly wished to probe the particular situation. It was in no sense of reluctance that I gave any of the information that I gave, but I may not have spelled out the position as clearly as I might have done. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, some of the events at issue here date back to 1966, and thus cover the period of the previous Government—the hon. Member's Government—as well as that of the present Government. It might be as well, therefore, if I were to recount the position as clearly as I can.
There was one respect in which I may have inadvertently misled the Committee; in suggesting that these accounts had been kept open since 1966 as if this were a deliberate action from that date. That, as I shall explain, has not been the position. They have been open and were open in the initial period because of the normal mechanics of the Clause with which we are concerned.
As the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton pointed out, a considerable time 1353 has elapsed since 1966. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask why there has been such a considerable lapse of time before any action has been taken on this and why, as I sought to explain in Committee, we believe this change should be made.
I wish to make it clear that the retrospection applies to companies whose liability has not yet been finally determined. Whether or not they have submitted their accounts is immaterial, and I mention this because in Committee the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton seemed to make the point turn on the submission of the accounts rather than on whether the assessment had been determined.
We are concerned here with the position of shortfall appertaining to financial concerns whose stock in trade, so to speak, is money. I will recount the history of the case as far as possible, because it covers a considerable period. Formal representations on the treatment for shortfall of income which financial concerns derive from their investments were first made by the British Insurance Association on 25th April, 1969. The gist of the Association's complaint was that the approach to the treatment of insurance companies for shortfall varied from one inspector to another. The Association urged that all income from investments received by insurance companies should be treated as trading income, and it took the view that this could be done within existing legislation.
At the time when the representations were made, only one of the British Insurance Association's members on whose behalf they were made had suffered shortfall assessments for the years 1967–68 and 1968–69. This was a relatively small concern. In July, 1969, after a meeting with the B.I.A. at which the representations were discussed, instructions were issued to inspectors to submit to head office all cases of close companies carrying on a bona fide insurance business or the business of a bank or financial concern where, first, there was income from investments of the sort which would now qualify under Clause 22(3), and, secondly, where the required standard exceeded 60 per cent. of distributable income. These cases were to include any in which shortfall assessments had already been made.
As a result of these instructions, in addition to the 17 B.I.A. members on 1354 whose behalf representations had been made, there were submitted three cases of insurance companies, six of banks and 10 of other financial concerns, a total of 36.
Shortfall assessments had been made in only one case and the remainder were still open—open in the sense that accounts had not yet been submitted or that the inspector was questioning the extent of the requirements of the business. In 14 of them it looked as though the required standard would be above 60 per cent.—that there would be benefit from remedial legislation of the kind now contained in Clause 22.
It follows that since April 1969 members of the B.I.A. will have been aware that action over shortfall has been suspended pending review of the treatment of investment income.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian) rose—
§ Mr. Higgins
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later. This is a somewhat complex point and I wish to complete my remarks on this aspect.
As I was saying, they will have been aware that action over shortfall has been suspended pending this review. Before then, however, there was no question of holding up assessment or collection of shortfall while the treatment of investment income was reviewed. I repeat what I said in my opening remarks, that I may inadvertently have misled the Committee upstairs inasmuch as I suggested that the position had been deliberately kept open since 1966. That was not the case. It so happens that the position was open.
The reasons for the failure to settle shortfall for any financial concern before 1969 were various. In some cases there were delays in submitting accounts. In others it was proving difficult to reach agreement on the quantum of business requirements. I fully understand the point made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton about there seeming to have been a considerable delay. However, on reflection he may feel that such a point is open to a good deal of argument because, among other things, the law allows companies 18 months in which to pay dividends to avoid shortfall, and there was only a limited period, from the coming into force of the shortfall legislation in April, 1966, to about the end of 1967, in respect of which assessments 1355 to shortfall could have been made before progress was suspended in July, 1969.
If the position of these companies had not been held in suspense since 1969, it is possible that some of these cases would have been settled by now and that others might have gone to appeal. I understand, however, that the treatment of the investment income of financial concerns has been formally under consideration only since 1969. The House will appreciate that I am in some difficulty here because, as I say, it falls within the period of the Labour Government. However, for other reasons, shortfall had not been finally determined in any of these cases before the 1969 standstill was imposed.
In response to the question which the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton asked in Committee, about not only whether the provisions were retrospective and excessive but also discriminatory in the sense that some final decision had been made for some companies and not for others, as I understand the position, and to the best of my knowledge—one would expect the Revenue to have heard of any such cases if any had arisen—there is no discrimination in the sense that the companies which fall into this category are in the situation where the shortfall liability had not been finally determined. Thus, on the question of discrimination, as far as I am aware it does not arise. I hope that my remarks have clarified the position, at least from the point of view of the chronology of the circumstances.
§ Mr. Higgins
We are in some difficulty because we are not in Committee and it is, therefore, not possible to jog back and forth making and answering points. The hon. Member for Heywood and Roy ton says from a sedentary position that there has been one case. I think he has in mind the case to which I referred earlier, and I do not believe that it would be affected by the change which we are discussing. I repeat that to the best of the Revenue's knowledge no discrimination is involved because all the companies in this group are in the same position.
§ Mr. Dalyell
What sort of reasons were given to the inspector by these companies for the delay, which seems to have been inordinate?
§ Mr. Higgins
That was my reaction initially. I, too, thought there had been a very long delay. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that there was some delay before the provisions came into effect. There was a further delay, to which I referred, in relation to the period within which action may be taken by a company which would alter the position from the shortfall point of view. There was then the whole question of the necessary needs of the business, a point which must affect the final determination. For, say, a substantial insurance company, the question of what the actual needs of the business will be can be difficult to determine and may take a considerable time to determine. I shared the hon. Gentleman's initial reaction. However, in view of the various factors I have enumerated I am sure that he will understand that in this respect there was a very considerable delay. I am sorry that I did not in Standing Committee give the whole history, but I hope that I have now satisfied the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, on the question of retrospection.
There was also some confusion about the precise position of the companies with which we are concerned. Basically, there are two categories of companies—the trading company and the investment company, and we must quite clearly distinguish between them. The investment company may be a straight money box, and in that sense there may be a case for more stringent shortfall conditions. That will be common ground between us.
The group with which we are concerned comprises companies which are trading companies, but it so happens that their stock in trade is, so to speak, money, investments, and the like. Again, I think that it will be common ground between us that those companies should be treated as trading companies rather than investment companies to which more stringent shortfall conditions would apply. If that is so, it seems to us wrong to assess them on the basis of the years which remain open.
There is here no element of discrimination. It is a question, effectively, 1357 of treating a trading company as a trading company, rather than as an investment company merely because its stock in trade happens to be money or investments. So what we get, in effect, is a company whose position needs redefining in a way that I think has always been common ground between us in regard to the operation of this part of the law.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify these points. We have here a complicated and in some ways unusual tale, so I thought it right to give the House a full explanation.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton asked in Standing Committee whether there was not some other element of retrospection, so to speak, either side of Budget day, and why we have chosen a particular date in the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wishes it, I will gladly pursue the exact wording of his present Amendment and the comparatively minor point about why we have chosen this date. The provision to which the Amendments relate does not contain an element of retrospection. Unlike the Amendment, it seeks to give a fair measure of relief in periods of an accounting period that fall either side of Budget day. However, that was not the hon. Gentleman's main point in Committee, and I hope that I have been able to satisfy him on the substance of the point he has now made.
§ Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)
Before the Minister of State sits down, one point rather puzzles me. We are here dealing with a rather minute question of fiscal administration giving 30 companies only some preferential treatment. Would it not have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to have dealt with this administratively in his Department, instead of inserting a Clause in the Bill and having this rather complicated discussion?
§ Mr. Higgins
These companies are not being given any preferential treatment. Further, I hope that the House will agree, particularly given the Public Accounts Committee's interest in such matters, that if such a change as this is to be made at all it is right and proper that it should be put in the Finance Bill, when it can be probed, as it has been rightly probed by hon. Members opposite. I fully appreciate what the hon. 1358 Member for Heywood and Royton felt about the precise content. These are quite complex matters, and I hope that my answer will help the House.
§ Mr. Dalyell
I was perhaps a little churlish yesterday on the subject of L.P.G., but today I should like to express appreciation for the great trouble to which the Minister of State has gone. I am a great deal clearer now, at 4.30 in the afternoon, than I was in the Standing Committee some hours after midnight. Until the hon. Gentleman explained the position, I had imagined that the accounts had been kept open since 1966.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) that although to someone coming now into our debates this may seem a minor point, and that dealing with it is perhaps a bit of an abuse of our time, it did not look quite so minor a point in Committee. It is the purpose of the Finance Bill to enable the Government to be explicit on just this kind of matter.
That being so, I feel justified in asking two questions. First, what has the Treasury learned about this whole problem of retrospection in such matters? Is anything to be done differently as a result of our discussion? Secondly, the Minister of State referred to variations in treatment between one inspector and another. This is a potential problem, because one appreciates that inspectors in one office can come to a different though equally legitimate conclusion from that reached by inspectors in another office. Has the Treasury any policy of creating a certain uniformity in these matters? This is of some consequence.
§ Mr. Barnett
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation. He has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to inform himself on the subject. I do not wish to be in any way churlish, but one of the purposes in sending part of the Bill to a Standing Committee is to discuss these technical matters. I know that the subject came up rather late then, and one of the problems in Committee, despite the length of that stage, is the difficulty of pursuing such technical aspects at one o'clock or two o'clock in the morning. Nevertheless it seems rather 1359 a pity that, lacking a satisfactory explanation we should now have to return to the subject on the Floor of the House.
I entirely accept the Minister of State's remarks on the general question of interpretation and on treating these companies as trading companies. I am clear now that as a result of the Clause, the Government's interpretation of what should be classed as trading income and what should be classed as investment income will go rather wider in future.
The hon. Gentleman said that there is no discrimination. I accept that there is none as between companies. But there clearly has been discrimination as between companies and partnerships. In a similar sort of matter, it was found against the companies in the case of Bucks v. Bowers. The hon. Gentleman says that this is a different matter, but that was not a terribly dissimilar case. It was a case of treating trading income as investment income, I should have thought. I hope that on some other occasion the Minister of State will tell us the Government's approach and general attitude towards allowing cases to go through the courts at great length and at great expense both to the taxpayer and to the Inland Revenue. Clearly, it would be of enormous interest.
One should declare an interest here, and I am interested because it would help many of my colleagues outside the House, in advising clients, to know whether or not the Government intend to introduce legislation in other matters where there is any misunderstanding. Where the Inland Revenue goes through the normal procedure of making assessment but a misunderstanding arises will the Government decide to save everyone expense and trouble by introducing a Clause to settle the matter? I am sure that most taxpayers and their advisers, particularly if the matter worked out as happily as this one, would like to know if the Government intended to legislate to clarify such situations. Of course, that clarification might be in the opposite sense of what they might have liked it to be, but at least they would get certainty. It is very expensive for a taxpayer to take a case against the Inland Revenue to the House of Lords. Most taxpayers cannot do it and have to accept the assessment. I 1360 would like the hon. Gentleman to reply to this point. Not only I but many people outside would like to know if there is a change of policy by the Government in this regard.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's efforts, but they are extending beyond the scope of this Amendment. I hope that he will not extend them any further.
§ Mr. Barnett
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that I am extending it. An important point of principle is involved. The cases we are talking about are cases that could have been settled, without this Clause, by normal procedure. It was decided, for reasons we have been given, not to do so. Surely that is relevant—probably more relevant in general principle than it is in the narrow case affecting a small number of companies. However, I leave the matter there. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten us as to any change of policy.
§ Mr. Higgins
I am clearly somewhat inhibited by your intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). There is nothing new in legislating to give relief retrospectively. There are a number of precedents. I would be going wider than the Amendment if I did more than mention this in general terms.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked me to go very wide indeed and to discourse on what, if anything, the Treasury had learned in this matter. Only on the point of the inspectorate should I say anything. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was involved and his memory is better than mine and he recalls our raising this point on a Finance Bill, when the provision we are seeking to amend was first introduced. It is a position we took up then.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton for his kind remarks. I did not take unkindly to the way he pursued the matter in Committee. It is right for the Opposition, if they detect a point worth pursuing, to do so with enthusiasm. That is their function. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is doing no less than his duty in pursuing this matter. I am equally 1361 glad to have had this opportunity—perhaps this is the case for having both Committee and Report stages—to clarify the situation. I hope, therefore, that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment. I will write to him on the more detailed points I have not covered.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Barnett I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 20, line 24 leave out subsection (2).
§ This, of course, goes back again to our discussions in Committee and again concerns a matter on which we had a totally inadequate reply—perhaps for different reasons because, clearly, there is a point of principle between us here. We were not able to persuade the Minister of State, despite our strong feelings. As the Clause stands, we believe that opportunities are opened up that are not open to the ordinary taxpayers. One could use the phrase which the hon. Gentleman himself has used—the opportunity to use companies as a sort of moneybox, the idea of allowing dealing companies, as they are culled, to have their investment income treated as trading income and therefore assessed as earned income for tax purposes. Clearly, this is of considerable benefit to a comparatively small number of individuals who have formed themselves into close dealing companies and take advantage of this Clause, thus creating an unfairness as between one taxpayer and another.
§ I do not think that we are going to be able to persuade the hon. Gentleman, since we were not able to do so when we discussed this matter at length in Committee, but I repeat that this is a quite separate point from the argument pursued a few moments ago. Then we referred to insurance companies and banks which have incidental investment income which is not their whole income or mainly their income but is only part of their normal income. Therefore, it is not unfair that it should be treated as income. Here we are talking of a different thing altogether.
§ The provision as it stands would create a loophole for some taxpayers to take unfair advantage and obtain considerable tax relief by setting themselves up as 1362 a dealing company. It is for this reason that I was not satisfied with the replies in Committee, and that I wish to press the Amendment—unless, as I hope, with my blind faith in human nature and the good sense of the hon. Gentleman, he has last recognised the massive case we presented and that he was wrong not to accept our Amendment in Committee upstairs. If he accepts this Amendment, I think that we can probably leave it at that. Otherwise I must advise my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the Amendment.
§ Mr. Higgins
We have been discussing the philosophy of Oppositions. I suppose that for an Opposition any answer from the Government is unsatisfactory when it is short of outright acceptance of an Amendment, and even then there is sometimes a danger that accepting the Amendment will produce a situation more unsatisfactory than might have seemed likely.
As the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) rightly said, this issue is different from that which we were discussing a moment or two ago. In Standing Committee, a number of hon. Members, certainly the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and, in a narrower sense, the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), suggested that an individual might seek to form himself into a company in such a way that there might be tax avoidance. This is clearly a matter of legitimate concern to both sides of the House.
§ The Amendment would exclude from the provision companies whose trade consisted wholly or mainly of dealing in securities—and this issue was raised at column 401 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee. It was argued that a company which turned over a few shares could convince the Revenue that is was a dealing company and could thereby avoid the 100 per cent. maximum required standard appropriate to investment income. Dealing companies would require rather more than to turn over a few shares to convince the Revenue that their activities consisted wholly or mainly of carrying on a trade—this is covered by subsection (2)(a)—and that the trade consisted wholly or mainly of dealing 1363 in securities, which is covered by subsection (2)(b).
§ There are certain statutory requirements which a dealer must satisfy if he is to be accepted as such for the purposes of the Prevention of Fraud (Investment) Act, and the Revenue would be guided by them. Moreover, the object of the subsections is to treat as trading income the income which a trading company whose stock in trade is money derives from the use of that money. Therefore, a company which deals in securities is essentially a company whose stock in trade is money and it would therefore be entitled to the benefits of these provisions.
§ We believe that there are adequate safeguards and certainly the Revenue feels that the matters which I mentioned a few moments ago provide adequate safeguard against avoidance of the kind which the hon. Gentleman envisages. Nothing said in Standing Committee or today would lead us to alter that view. But, as in all matters, if any hon. Member has in mind a particular device—and there is scarcely any limit to the ingenuity of those who look for new devices in these matters—no doubt he will let us know. Accountants may be better qualified in this respect than those of us who are economists and less able to become1364
§ involved in such highly complex matters in a professional capacity.
§ As I have given the hon. Gentleman a reasonable assurance, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. Barnett
By leave of the House; I am sure that I do not need to tell the Inland Revenue the devices which it is possible to use to form a dealing company for an individual. It would be almost impossible for the Revenue to do anything about it if an individual, or two individuals together, put their shares into a small company and bought and sold those shares during the course of the year. That is a dealing company; what else is it?
Admittedly, if it turned over only one share, or two shares, in a year, the Revenue would be able to argue that it was not a dealing company. But either the hon. Gentleman is very naïve, which I do not believe, or he is prepared to accept a situation which we are certainly not prepared to accept, and for those reasons I advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 209.1367
|Division No. 412.]||AYES||[4.44 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Cronin, John||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.|
|Albu, Austen||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Gourlay, Harry|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Ashton, Joe||Dalyell, Tam||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Hardy, Peter|
|Barnett, Joel||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Beaney, Alan||Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Deakins, Eric||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Bidweill, Sydney||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Dempsey, James||Horam, John|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Doig, Peter||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Booth, Albert||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Bradley, Tom||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch amp; F'bury)||Driberg, Tom||Hunter, Adam|
|Buchan, Norman||Duffy, A. E. P.||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dunn, James A.||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Dunnett, Jack||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n amp; St. P'cras, S.)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Eadie, Alex||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Cant, R. B.||Evans, Fred||John, Brynmor|
|Carmichael, Neil||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Johnson Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Foley, Maurice||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Ford, Ben||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Forrester, John||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Coleman, Donald||Freeson, Reginald||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Concannon, J. D.||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Gilbert, Dr. John||Kelley, Richard|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Ginsburg, David||Kinnock, Neil|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Golding, John||Latham, Arthur|
|Lawson, George||Moyle, Roland||Silverman, Julius|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederich||Murray, Ronal King||Skinner, Dennis|
|Leonard, Dick||O'Halloran, Michael||Small, William|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||O'Malley, Brian||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Oram, Bert||Stallard, A. W.|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Orme, Stanley||Steel, David|
|Loughlin, Charles||Oswald, Thomas||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Paget, R. T.||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|McBride, Neil||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Strang, Gavin|
|McCann, John||Pardoe, John||Taverne, Dick|
|McCartney, Hugh||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Pavitt, Laurie||Tinn, James|
|Maclennan, Robert||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Tomney, Frank|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Pendry, Tom||Torney, Tom|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Pentland, Norman||Tuck, Raphael|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Price, William (Rugby)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Probert, Arthur||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Rankin, John||Watkins, David|
|Marks, Kenneth||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Weitzman, David|
|Marquand, David||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Marsden, F.||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Rose, Paul B.||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Millan, Bruce||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Sandelson, Neville||Woof, Robert|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Mr. William Hamling.|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Adley, Robert||Dixon, Piers||Kimball, Marcus|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Kinsey, J. R.|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Knight, Mrs. Jin|
|Astor, John||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Knox, David|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Lane, David|
|Awdry, Daniel||Eyre, Reginald||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Balniel, Lord||Fell, Anthony||Le Marchant, Spencer|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Batsford, Brian||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Loveridge, John|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Fookes, Miss Janet||Luce, R. N.|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Fortescue, Tim||McAdden, Sir Stephen|
|Biffen, John||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford amp; Stone)||MacArthur, Ian|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||McCrindle, R. A.|
|Blaker, Peter||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Glyn, Dr. Alan||McMaster, Stanley|
|Body, Richard||Goodhart, Philip||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Boscawen, Robert||Goodhew, Victor||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Gorst, John||Maddan, Martin|
|Bowden, Andrew||Gower, Raymond||Madel, David|
|Braine, Bernard||Gray, Hamish||Maginnis, John E.|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Green, Alan||Marten, Neil|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Grieve, Percy||Mather, Carol|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Gummer, Selwyn||Maude, Angus|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N amp; M)||Hall, Miss John (Keighley)||Mawby, Ray|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Burden, F. A.||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray amp; Nairn)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Haselhurst, Alan||Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)|
|Channon, Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Havers, Michael||Moate, Roger|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hayhoe, Barney||Monks, Mrs. Connie|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hicks, Robert||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Higgins, Terence L.||More, Jasper|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Clegg, Walter||Halt, Miss Mary||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.|
|Cooke, Robert||Hordern, Peter||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Coombs, Derek||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Murton, Oscar|
|Cooper, A. E.||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Cordle, John||Howell, David (Guildford)||Normanton, Tom|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Nott, John|
|Cormack, Patrick||Hunt, John||Oppenheim, Mr. Sally|
|Costain, A. P.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Crouch, David||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Curran, Charles||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kershaw, Anthony||Percival, Ian|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Kilfedder, James||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Pounder, Rafton||Speed, Keith||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Price, David (Eastleigh)||Spence, John||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Sproat, Iain||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Raison, Timothy||Stainton, Keith||Waddington, David|
|Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Stanbrook, Ivor||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Redmond, Robert||Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)||Wall, Patrick|
|Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)||Walters, Dennis|
|Rees, Peter (Dover)||Stokes, John||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Rees-Davies, W. R.||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom||Warren, Kenneth|
|Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Tapsell, Peter||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Ridsdale, Julian||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)||Wilkinson, John|
|Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Russell, Sir Ronald||Tebbit, Norman||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Scott-Hopkins, James||Tilney, John||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Sharples, Richard||Traftord, Dr. Anthony|
|Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh amp; Whitby)||Trew, Peter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Shelton, William (Clapham)||Tugendhat, Christopher||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|Skeet, T. H H.||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin||Mr. Bernard Weatherill.|