HC Deb 11 July 1972 vol 840 cc1468-79
Mr. Joel Barnett

I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 8, after 'description' insert 'other than food'.

Subsection (4) empowers the Government, by order, to bring into tax items that are now zero-rated. The Opposition oppose this general power. The Amendment seeks to restrict the power so that the Government could not remove zero-rating on food by order. This is little enough to ask of the Government. They have stated that they do not propose to impose a tax on food. On the other hand, when I asked the Prime Minister recently if the commitment not to tax food was a permanent commitment I received no direct answer other than that the Prime Minister was not taxing food.

We suspect that it is the Government's intention to concede rather easily the question of the taxation of food. We do not wish them to concede it. The House knows that I favour British entry into the Common Market, but I must make clear that I utterly oppose taxation on food.

I want the Chancellor to say that he will not tax food. The Amendment merely asks that the Chancellor should concede that he should not have the power to impose, by order after a debate lasting an hour and a half at the end of a day, taxation on food.

If the Chancellor resists this modest Amendment, we can only assume that he is not prepared to fight, as we want him to, and insist that he will not agree to the taxation of food. In the debate on 10th May the Financial Secretary made the general case for resisting the Amendment then under discussion to withdraw the great powers to extend the scope of the tax by bringing in items which are now zero-rated. It is fair to sum up the Financial Secretary's contribution on that occasion by saying that the powers in any case have always been available under the purchase tax regulations and that the Government need the powers because anomalies may arise.

I do not concede the general case because I think that the powers are far too great in a tax as wide in scope as this one. If this provision is not amended we shall give the Government power to bring into tax items which have not been taxed to date, and what is more they will be able to do so by means of an order at the end of the day. Surely there cannot be a case for giving the Government this power in respect of food, unless it is intended at some time to slip in a tax on food by means of an order.

We all recall the now famous remarks of the Prime Minister about the rate of increase in prices generally. We know what has happened to prices in general and to food prices in particular. We do not ask for a commitment that the Chancellor will never tax food, although I am sure that the House and the country would welcome such a firm commitment. All that we ask for is a firm commitment that he will never tax food by means of an order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Amendment, the conclusion in the country must be that, on top of everything else, the Government intend to impose a tax on food.

Mr. Barber

I believe that I can set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) ——

Mr. Barnett

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to bet?

Mr. Barber

I always live in hopes that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by cogent argument and reasoning. In passing I may say that I was surprised to hear him talk about taxing food. It was his Government which imposed SET on those who sell food, thereby putting up the price of food. However, we do not need to pursue that. It is well known in the country.

The objective of the Amendment is to remove from food the power at present contained in Clause 12(4) to vary by order the details of Schedule 4. The first point I make is that for reasons which I shall explain in a moment it is necessary for any Government to have powers to vary the details of the Schedule in order to have flexibility to deal with new developments. I might add that I think that such flexibility is especially important at the start of a new and wide-ranging tax.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Royton referred to the second point in passing. It is that there is a similar power contained in the Purchase Tax Act, 1963. That power enables the Treasury by order to make any change in the classes of goods which are chargeable goods and, secondly, to substitute either any lower rate or a higher rate at which tax is for the time being chargeable in respect of goods of another class.

That was a power which was available to the previous Government, as it has been to this Government. It has been used to make borderline alterations to the Schedules. Where a new product comes on to the market which competes with products already subject to tax but which is not covered by the description in the appropriate group, an order can be made relatively quickly to amend the scope of the group. In this way the distortion of competition is minimised.

6.45 p.m.

It is right to remind the House that both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government that power has never been used to impose purchase tax on wide categories of goods. It is essentially an instrument for making borderline adjustments or more occasionally for securing overall reductions in taxation.

Obviously no Chancellor of the Exchequer can bind future Governments. Certainly I cannot bind a future Labour Government if there should be one—[Interruption.]. We have all had experience of the enormous increase in taxation under Labour Governments. Certainly I could not give an undertaking that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton, were he ever to get to the Treasury, would not troop through the Division lobby imposing increases in direct and indirect taxation on the lines all too familiar to us under previous Labour Governments.

What I can and will do is willingly give an undertaking that there is no question of the powers contained in Clause 12(4) being used by this Government to impose a positive rate of tax generally on food. Putting it another way, this power will not be used to delete group 1 of Schedule 4. However, any Chancellor of the Exchequer must reserve the right if necessary to make marginal changes to the scope of the group. This could be necessary to remove anomalies which might arise following changes in technology, marketing techniques and so on. The point was discussed in Committee on 10th May when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained the reasons why such changes might be necessary.

Having given the assurance that I have about the limitations that this Government will put upon the use of the power to change taxation by order, I am sure that the House will accept it, and I hope that the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton will seek leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Joel Barnett

With the leave of the House, perhaps I might reply briefly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I shall read again what he said with, I hope, the same amount of care as I assume he took in drafting his words. However, I hope that he will forgive me when I say that my suspicions remain when I hear him saying that he will never use the powers that he is taking.

The right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking on behalf of his Government. Certainly I should not expect him to give an undertaking for any other Government. Indeed, I am not sure whether his undertaking on behalf of his own Government is all that good. We have seen various undertakings about other matters change. In June, 1970,we were told what would happen to the £ in two years if a Labour Government were returned, and we have seen what has happened to it in two years under a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to say that it was no this intention to use the powers which I seek to remove from the Bill. If he does not intend to use them while this Government are in office, why does he want them? If a future Government need the powers, that Government can seek to introduce them, though I repeat that to have powers as great as these for any goods, let alone for food, is a situation that I cannot accept.

The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that he needed these powers for flexibility to deal with new developments. He has just told us that one new development at least that we can accept will not arise is a development resulting in his needing to impose a tax on food. In those circumstances, I cannot see why he has resisted this Amendment, because the power to vary is not needed. He has already told us he is not going to use it, and I accept that.

Therefore I ask the House to support the Amendment to enable the Chancellor to carry out his undertaking.

Mr. Barber

May I just make this observation to the hon. Gentleman? He said that he thought that powers such as these were too great for any Government, but this power is almost identical in respect of the generality of goods with the power his Government had. His Government obviously used the power very sparingly, and for the sort of purpose I have suggested we would use it if necessary—that is, to deal with changes in technology and marketing techniques and that sort of thing. I have given an absolutely firm assurance that as far as the Government are concerned there is no question that the powers contained in Clause 12(4) of the Finance Bill will be used to impose a positive rate of tax generally on food.

As I have made that clear, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to save time and press on in order that we may make a little further progress.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

Nobody is more anxious than I to make progress tonight but the Chancellor has not cleared up an ambiguity that is still in our minds. He has given us an assurance that he has no intention of using the powers in this Clause to impose a tax on food. Why, in that case, can he not accept the Amendment? Then he will have committed himself rather more finally than he did in his words a moment ago.

If he is not prepared to accept the Amendment, the only conclusion which we and the country can draw is that, while it is not his intention at this moment to use this power, his intention may change. It changed, for example, on floating. We all recall how many times he told the House, the International Monetary Fund and his prospective partners in the Common Market that he would not float and gave us all the arguments against it. Then, within a few hours a fortnight ago, he decided to float.

I must confess that the Chancellor's intentions do not appear to most of us in the House to be a sufficient guarantee of what the Government will do. If he accepted the Amendment—and I understand him to mean that in principle he accepts the Amendment—he would set our fears at rest and rob himself of the power to change his intention. That is what we are asking for.

Mr. Barber

With the leave of the House I will reply. I appreciate that it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault that I need to reply, because he was not here when I was dealing with this matter. He was out of the Chamber, and I should have thought that he would have had sufficient confidence in his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) to leave the reply to him. However, since he raised the matter, I hope that everyone will forgive me if I repeat what I said a moment ago.

Just as with previous Governments, so with this, there may be cases in which it is necessary to use this power in order to make marginal changes and to remove anomalies. I think it wholly irresponsible for someone who, if I may say so with great respect, aspires to be Chancellor of the Exchequer at some time to say, if I understood him aright, that he would remove this power and would not in any circumstances have a power of this kind to deal with anomalies and various marketing techniques.

Is that so? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying—and I think we are entitled to know, since he is pressing this Amendment to a Division—that he will give a firm assurance that when a Labour Government are in office at any time in the future he will remove this power from the legislation?

Mr. Healey

Since the Chancellor has asked me, I must remind him of this. The situation we face today on VAT is very different from that on the purchase tax because the Government have accepted a general obligation in agreeing to join the Community on the present terms to negotiate with them for the harmonisation of rates and coverage of the value added tax.

If the Financial Secretary is embarrassed by the point I am making, perhaps he will stand on his feet and intervene, but I am making this point. The fact is that the Government have accepted a general obligation to harmonise rates and coverage of the VAT with the Community. Every other member of the Community has a positive rate of value added tax on food. This is not a question of marginal adjustments to crisps or dealing with minor administrative problems. It is a question whether we pass a positive tax of, say, 7½ per cent., which is imposed by some members of the Community, on the whole of food in this country.

If it were ever the intention of a Labour Government to impose such a tax it would not seek to do so in a hole-and-corner way by making use of a power under an Act which the Chancellor himself has told us is intended to cover only marginal adjustments here and there. If it were ever the intention of a Labour Government—and I agree with the Chancellor that one cannot give an assurance for all time on all matters—to impose such a tax, we should regard this as a matter of such immense importance as to require special action.

All I am saying is this: if it is his intention—and it is very important that he should make this clear not only to the House but to his prospective partners in the enlarged Community—to resist pressure from all the other nine members of the Community to harmonise rates and coverage so that food is given a positive rating right across the board, as is the case with other members of the Community, then he must stand up and say so, and he must withdraw the power he gives himself to make such an immense extention of the coverage as is permitted under the Clause from which we are seeking to exclude food.

It seems to me that this is a perfectly fair point to put. If the Chancellor is claiming that the only reason he wants this paragraph is to make some tiny and marginal adjustments to some foodstuff or other from time to time, then we on this side of the House would concede that there is some justice in his case. But he cannot run away from the fact that he has accepted in general an obligation to harmonise rates and coverage. We are all conscious of the fact that the rate the Government have chosen for introducing the value added tax is well below the rate adopted by any other member of the Community.

The coverage is also far less extensive, for 45 per cent. of all consumer expenditure is excluded by the present zero-rating. But the Chancellor has given himself the power to adopt the continental system and he has accepted an obligation to reach a compromise with the other members of the Community, which would undoubtedly involve including food, fares, housing—a whole variety of commodities which at present he has zero-rated.

Therefore, in view of the immense importance of this matter—and nobody is more conscious than the Chancellor, I think, of the importance to the working people of this country of keeping the cost of living down and keeping essentials outside the scope of the value added tax—I think he will find that it is in his own interest as Chancellor, embarked, as he is, on the most far-ranging talks with the CBI and the TUC about restraint on incomes and control of prices, to accept our Amendment, and I ask him so to do.

Mr. Barber

It has taken the right hon. Gentleman approximately six minutes to make it quite clear to the whole House that he is not prepared to answer my question and to give an assurance that a future Labour Government will withdraw this power. All I would say to him is this: it is a typical Labour Party gimmick in deference to those who were once fervent advocates of joining the Common Market but have now decided to put their squalid internal party manoeuvres before the principles for which they once stood.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden

On a completely different point, may I ask the Chancellor a question, because I am sure that we shall all be interested in the answer. I may be confused on this point but I am genuinely seeking knowledge. I took the Chancellor to be saying that it is not his intention—and he has therefore given us a pledge on that—to use the powers under this Clause in order to withdraw food from zero-rating. Do I take it that the Chancellor stresses "the power in this Clause" and that he has not given a pledge, as some might imagine, that it is not his intention to VAT food?

Do I understand that he has given no pledge that food will not be subject to VAT during the lifetime of this Government? Is what he has pledged that if it happens it will not happen under the powers in this Clause, which is a different proposition? Or is it not? Has the Chancellor given us a pledge that he will not negotiate VAT on food?

Mr. Barber

The hon. Gentleman will find that I dealt with that matter on 9th May, 1972, in column 1154 of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 214.

Division No. 284. AYES [7.2 p.m.
Abse, Leo Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Albu, Austen Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Roland
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grant, George (Morpeth) Murray, Ronald King
Allen, Scholefield Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Oakes, Gordon
Armstrong, Ernest Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Ogden, Eric
Ashton, Joe Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. O'Malley, Brian
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orbach, Maurice
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hamling, William Orme, Stanley
Barnes, Michael Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Oswald, Thomas
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Harper, Joseph Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Padley, Walter
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Palmer, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney Hattersley, Roy Pardoe, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Heffer, Eric S. Pavitt, Laurie
Booth, Albert Horam, John Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pentland, Norman
Broughton, Sir Aflred Huckfield, Leslie Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Mark (Durham) Probert, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Janner, Greville Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cant, R. B. Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Roper, John
Carmichael, Neil Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara John, Brynmor Rowlands, Ted
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Sandelson, Neville
Cohen, Stanley Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Silverman, Julius
Crawshaw, Richard Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Skinner, Dennis
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda. W.) Small, William
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S W.) Judd, Frank Spriggs, Leslie
Dalyell, Tam Kaufman, Gerald Stallard, A. W.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Kerr, Russell Steel, David
Davidson, Arthur Kinnock, Neil Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Davies, Ivor (Gower) Lamond, James Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Lawson, George Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Strang, Gavin
Dempsey, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Doig, peter Loughlin, Charles Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Driberg, Tom McBride, Neil Tinn, James
Duffy, A. E. P. McCartney, Hugh Tomney, Frank
Eadie, Alex McElhone, Frank Torney, Tom
Edelman, Maurice Mackenzie, Gregor Tuck, Raphael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackintosh, John P. Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, J. Kevin Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Ellis, Tom Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Evans, Fred Marshall, Dr. Edmund Wallace, George
Ewing, Henry Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Weitzman, David
Faulds, Andrew Mayhew, Christopher Wellbeloved, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Meacher, Michael Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Foley, Maurice Mendelson, John Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ford, Ben Mikardo, Ian Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Forrester, John Millan, Bruce Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Freeson, Reginald Milne, Edward
Gilbert, Dr. John Molloy, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Mr. James Hamilton and
Golding, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Donald Coleman.
NOES
Adley, Robert Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Blaker, Peter
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Batsford, Brian Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Bell, Ronald Body, Richard
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Boscawen, Robert
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Berry, Hn. Anthony Bowden, Andrew
Atkins, Humphrey Biffen, John Brinton, Sir Tatton
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Biggs-Davison, John Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hordern, Peter Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hornby, Richard Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bullus, Sir Eric Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Burden, F. A. Howell, David (Guildford) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Redmond, Robert
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Hutchison, Michael Clark Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Carlisle, Mark Iremonger, T. L. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cary, Sir Robert Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Chapman, Sydney James, David Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Chichester-Clark, R. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Churchill, W. S. Jessel, Toby Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Clegg, Walter Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Cooke, Robert Jopling, Michael Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Coombs, Derek Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Russell, Sir Ronald
Cooper, A. E. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine St. John-Stevas, Norman
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Kimball, Marcus Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Cormack, Patrick King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Scott-Hopkins, James
Costain, A. P. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Sharples, Sir Richard
Critchley, Julian Kinsey, J. R. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Dalkeith, Earl of Kirk, Peter Simeons, Charles
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kitson, Timothy Sinclair, Sir George
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Knight, Mrs. Jill Skeet, T. H. H.
Dean, Paul Knox, David Soref, Harold
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Lamont, Norman Speed, Keith
Digby, Simon Wingfield Le Marchant, Spencer Spence, John
Dixon, Piers Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sproat, Iain
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Stainton, Keith
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Loveridge, John Stanbrook, Ivor
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Luce, R. N. Stokes, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McAdden, Sir Stephen Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) MacArthur, Ian Tapsell, Peter
Emery, Peter
Eyre, Reginald McNair-Wilson, Michael Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fell, Anthony Marten, Neil Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Mather, Carol Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fidler, Michael Maude, Angus Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mawby, Ray Tebbit, Norman
Fletcher-cooke, Charles Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Temple, John M.
Fookes, Miss Janet Miscampbell, Norman Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Fortescue, Tim Mitchell, Lt. Col. C.(Aberdeenshire.W) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Foster, Sir John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Fowler, Norman Moate, Roger Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Galbraith, Hn. T. G Money, Ernle Trew, Peter
Gardner, Edward Monks, Mrs. Connie Tugendhat, Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monro, Hector Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Glyn, Dr. Alan Montgomery, Fergus Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Goodhart, Philip Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Vickers, Dame Joan
Goodhew, Victor Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gorst, John Morrison, Charles Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Gower, Raymond Mudd, David Walters, Dennis
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.) Murton, Oscar Ward, Dame Irene
Gray, Hamish Neave, Airey Weatherill, Bernard
Green, Alan Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wells, John (Maidstone)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael White, Roger (Gravesend)
Gurden, Harold Normanton, Tom Wilkinson, John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Nott, John Winterton, Nicholas
Hall, John (Wycombe) Onslow, Cranley Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Woodnutt, Mark
Hannam, John (Exeter) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham Younger, Hn. George
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Hawkins, Paul Parkinson, Cecil TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Higgins, Terence L. Percival, Ian Mr. Kenneth Clarke and
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Mr. Marcus Fox.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Holland Philip Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

Question accordingly negatived

Forward to