§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)I beg to move Amendment No. 176, in line 24, leave out subsection (3).
§ No. 112, in page 27, line 26, leave out from 'section' to 'he' in line 28.
§ No. 113, in line 29, after 'or', insert 'if greater'.
§ Mr. StanbrookI shall be a little time. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I hope that hon. Members will stay and listen to the discussion on an important matter.
I am grateful for this opportunity of raising a matter which was discussed in Standing Committee, because I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends have not given sufficient consideration to this matter and to the arguments which were advanced against the subsection in Committee. The subsection violates a principle of English law, that a man is entitled to have reasonable particulars of any charge made against him. The subsection has encountered the united opposition of the Bar Council and the Law Society.
The Clause raises three elements. Subsection (1) deals with the offence of fraudulent evasion of tax. Subsection (2) deals with the furnishing of false documents or false information with intent to deceive. These two offences have respectable precedents in English criminal law, are well understood and do not in 1728 any way derogate from the general principles of the criminal law as we understand them.
But the effect of subsection (3) is that a defendant will be guilty of either of the two preceding offences not merely if he must have committed them—because that, after all, is the inherent meaning of subsections (1) and (2)—but if he must have committed them whether or not the particulars of the offence are known. Therefore, a strange and repulsive idea, foreign to all English law, creeps into our jurisprudence under cover of an apparently innocuous Bill dealing only with public finance. [Hon. Members: "Innocuous?"] The Bill has many merits. So I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that the subsection is viciously objectionable.
It is a proud tradition of English law that every defendant at every criminal trial is entitled—andthe trial cannot otherwise proceed—to know, first, the offence alleged against him and, secondly, the facts upon which that alleged offence is based. Every indictment must contain thost two elements or it is invalid and will be struck out, or particulars amending it will be ordered. The subsection abrogates that principle by making it unnecessary, if it is inconvenient, because the prosecution does not happen to have the particulars of the offence, to give the particulars upon which the alleged offence is based.
I understand that in Standing Committee my hon. Friend said, in effect that in some cases it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the offences embodied in Clause 38, but this is the common complaint on the part of the prosecution where there is insufficient evidence to convict. It is a complaint commonly heard where there have been acquittals. But this is how we run our trials at the moment, requiring sufficient evidence to prove an offence, and there is no excuse for depriving British citizens of what has been hitherto an inalienable right.
If there is evidence, it should be possible, and indeed necessary, to supply it, and to proceed against the alleged offender under subsection (1) or (2), but if there is so little evidence that the particulars are not known it would be wholly wrong to ask the court to convict on a logical probability unsupported by facts. 1729 If my hon. Friend is not convinced by that argument, perhaps I may put to him another, practical, argument. If the subsection is passed, the first court which has to apply it in relation to an offence alleged to have been committed under it may have to entertain an application for particulars. If that court relies upon the fundamental principle of the British constitution rather than on this Statute, that court may order particulars to be given. We may then find for the first time in centuries, perhaps, that the courts and Parliament are at loggerheads, and all this at the behest of Treasury mandarins who know not Dicey.
I hope that my hon. Friend will think again about this matter and act to avoid what may be a dreadful prospect.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. HealeyI strongly support the Amendment, not least because I moved the same Amendment in Standing Committee and I am glad that it has been possible to raise the matter on Report.
This Clause puts hon. Members on this side of the House in somewhat of a difficulty because none of us wishes to see any criminal escape justice, least of all a man who willingly, knowingly, and illegally evades tax due, but at the same time we find it impossible to justify a total breach of all the legal traditions on which this democracy has rested for many centuries.
The question one has to ask oneself, therefore, is how is it that the Government have felt it necessary to introduce what they frankly admitted in Committee is a total reversal of our legal traditions and an inovation, as the Financial Secretary rather moderately put it, which has no precedent in any other law, as he frankly confessed upstairs.
The way in which the Government propose to enforce value added tax is impossible to understand, unless one recognises some of the monstrous fortuity of the tax as a means of raising no more money than is raised by the taxes it replaces—purchase tax and selective employment tax. We have to recognise that this tax affects 2 million people as against purchase tax, which it replaces in the main, which affects only 65,000 people.
1730 In this Clause the Government are seeking power to inflict a penalty of at least £1,000 without establishing when the offence was committed, where it was committed or even—and I quote the Financial Secretary in Standing Committee—"what precisely the offence was".
§ Mr. HigginsWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly give the column reference?
§ Mr. HealeyIf the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I undertake to do so in a moment.
§ Mr. HigginsThe right hon. Gentleman said that he quoted me and gave a precise expression and I should like to know the column reference.
§ Mr. HealeyAt column 851 of Standing Committee E of the Official Report for 14th June, the hon. Gentleman said that difficulties would often arise
such as the place where the offence was committed, the precise amount, and so onand he referred several times to the question of time.
§ Mr. HigginsWith great respect, that is not what the right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that I said, and he should withdraw it.
§ Mr. HealeyAll right. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that what I said he said was inconsistent with what he said, I withdraw it, but the House should know precisely what he said, because it is at least as shocking as what I quoted. He said that difficulties could relate to times.
Similar difficulties can arise, although not as frequently, with regard to other considerations, such as the place where the offence was committed, the precise amount, and so on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14th June, 1972; c. 851.]In other words, he is claiming the right and inflicting on our courts the duty to sentence people to what are moderately Draconian fines without knowing where the offence was committed, when it was committed or the amount concerned in the offence.The House will recognise that these are monstrous changes in our legal tradition. It is very important that one should try to understand why they take place. I hope that I shall not be out of order in saying that it has been well pointed out 1731 in a letter in The Times today that in many cases a man will be tried for this unspecified offence, committed at an unknown place and time, by computer because a certificate provided by the Inland Revenue will be presented as evidence and will have to be accepted as evidence unless it is disproved by the man who is in the dock, even if a representative of Customs and Excise is not present at the trial.
It is truly an astonishing situation. This value added tax will make compulsive and compulsory form-fillers out of 2 million people, most of whom have never had to fill in a form of this type in their life, in order to give Customs and Excise details of thousands of millions of transactions every year. Secondly, in another part of the Bill the Government seek unprecedented powers to violate the privacy of these individuals in order to find out whether the information they have given is accurate and complete.
The Government are planning to spend at least £16 million on employing up to 8,000 additional civil servants to administer the Act. Yet the Government have so little confidence that this mass of additional civil servants can handle evasion on the scale on which it is likely to take place that they have decided to extend the limits of the law and reverse some of the most fundamental traditions by which our courts have been guided since the Middle Ages.
I shall not weary the House by quoting again what has been said of this provision by the Chairman of the Bar Council and by other distinguished lawyers, both in the courts and in the Confederation of British Industry, and elsewhere. But none of this was necessary under the taxes which VAT replaces, purchase tax or selective employment tax, because in those cases the Government were rightly confident that if evasion took place, the courts could either convict a man with provision of full details of the nature of the offence, when and where it was committed and the amount concerned, or, if there were difficulty in establishing precise details in this way, they could convict a man on charges of conspiracy or intent to defraud.
1732 The Financial Secretary claimed that it was impossible or undesirable to limit the power of enforcement under VAT in the way in which the powers of enforcement were limited under purchase tax and SET, because, he claimed, it would save the time of the courts if they were able to convict without knowing the offence of which the man was guilty. That is what the hon. Gentleman argued. He said that the Government did not want to have to prosecute people for conspiracy because it would be so unfair to them and because the penalty might be higher than the penalty we are establishing now. He said that the Government were doing them a favour by finding them guilty of offences whose precise nature we cannot prove and do not know, because at least the penalty they will suffer when found guilty will be less than they would have received under the law of this land as it has been known until now.
This gross violation of British legal traditions has clearly been required by the Government because, with 2 million taxable persons and a tax full of anomalies, they expect evasion on such a colossal scale that it would be impossible for the courts to try all the cases and to convict all those who are likely to be guilty of offences unless they breached the law and sought short cuts by having the power to convict without detailed knowledge of the offence.
We on this side regard the tax itself as a damaging irrelevance, and particularly damaging to the Chancellor's own economic policy at this time, since at the moment when inflation is the central problem facing the economy, failure to solve which forced the Government to devalue the £ a fortnight ago, they are introducing a tax which raises no more than the tax which precedes it but which is certain to send up the cost of living when it comes in next April by at least 1 per cent., and probably by 2 or 3 per cent.
On top of that tax, which, as I say, is a damaging irrelevance, highly damaging in the inflationary situation in which we find ourselves, the Government have decided that they cannot operate and enforce the tax without overthrowing some of the jealously guarded traditions of the British law.
1733 I appeal to all hon. Members on both sides, whatever their views may be on the value added tax in general, to reflect carefully on what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said and, I hope, on what I have said, and then, when we have heard what the Financial Secretary has to say, unless it is very different from what he told us in Standing Committee, to carry their convictions into the Lobby.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopI admit that I had not come across this Clause before. Indeed, if I had not been sitting here tonight when the Amendments were called, I should have been unaware of it. I must say that it reads to me like the sort of Clause one would expect to find in current Greek legislation, not in current British legislation. I am amazed to see such a thing imported into British legislation. If one substituted 1 million drachmae for the £1,000, this could be a translation from current Greek legal practice.
I ask the House to look again at subsection (3):
Where a person's conduct during any specified period…That could be 20 years before the Clause is passed; it could be entirely retrospective. It could read:Where a person's conduct during any specified period must have involved the commission by him of one or more offences under the preceding provisions of this section, then, whether or not the particulars of that offence or those offences are known, he shall, by virtue of this subsection, be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty of 1 million drachmae, or three times the amount of any tax that was or was intended to be evaded by his conduct, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.What are the offences covered by subsection (1)?:If any person is knowingly concerned in…and so on.Next, subsection (2):
If any person with intent to deceive…and so on.How on earth is the court to know whether there was an intent, not just whether certain events happened but whether an evil intent was present, if so little is known about it by the prosecution that it cannot even draw up specific charges under Clause 38(1) or (2)?
1734 It is utterly repugnant to me, and I hope that all hon. Members present will go into the Division Lobby to make sure that this sort of Clause does not find its way into legislation which the House of Commons is minded to pass.
§ Mr. HigginsMay I refer first to Amendment No. 113, which is being taken in this group? This is a technical drafting Amendment produced in response to the undertaking given in Committee to look at the penalty specified in subsection (3) and to consider whether it might be clarified.
Throughout the Clause there is an unqualified mandatory penalty provided as an alternative to the variable mandatory penalty based on the tax evaded with the multiplier. The intention is that the applicable maximum penalty shall be the greater of the two in any particular case and this is clearly expressed in subsections (1), (4) and (5) but was, by an oversight, ommitted from subsection (3). It is expedient that the penalty under subsection (3) should be in line with the other penalty provisions of the Clause and therefore the Amendment should be made. If the House wishes I shall go into it in greater detail.
§ 11.15 p.m.
§ Mr. HealeyI am glad that all parts of the Clause will be brought into line. The Financial Secretary will recall that we argued for about half an hour in Standing Committee that the meaning of the Clause was that £1,000 would be the maximum penalty and it might be possible to inflict less. The Amendment which he has just introduced makes it crystal clear that it is a minimum penalty and that a man can be fined more if three times the tax evaded is more than £1,000. I hope that the Financial Secretary will admit that he was innocently mistaken in the meaning which he attached to the Clause in Standing Committee.
§ Mr. HigginsI readily admit that there was a deal of detailed discussion in Standing Committee in which there were two points. One was the question whether there should be one penalty or the other and this is the point which is covered by the Amendment. The other question, which was separate was, whether the figures specified in the Clause-were or were not a maximum penalty. 1735 The Amendment is concerned with the first question. It is a drafting point. I saw at the time that I was unhappy about the way in which it was drafted and as a result of our Standing Committee discussion I undertook to look at it. The Amendment is the result of the consideration we gave to the matter.
There was also the question whether the figures specified in the Bill were or were not maximum penalties. The matter arose again in the Committee when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) had left the Committee. I then referred at a later stage to the fact that although it was normal in legislation to specify a specific figure under the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, the courts had discretion—I am not a lawyer but I think this is the technical expression—to mitigate the penalty as they saw fit. Therefore the figure which was specified effectively became a maximum.
That is the position. It is not a point covered by the Amendment, which is a technical drafting Amendment made in response to the first point the hon. Member made in Standing Committee. His second point was not a matter for concern, but one could understand that the right hon. Gentleman thought it right to press it on that occasion. The point is covered by the other legislation which is referred to in the Bill. I hope that that makes the position crystal clear and I hope that the House will think it right to accept Amendment No. 113.
I turn to the broader issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. In considering the overall position of the value added tax my right hon. Friends and my other Treasury colleagues were naturally concerned that the tax should be effectively collected. But we were also extremely concerned that the enforcement provisions should not be more onerous than necessary.
In that respect the proposals which originally came before us were considerably modified as a result of the deliberations that my right hon. Gentleman and other Treasury Ministers gave to them. We then published the Clauses of the Bill immediately after the Budget, and further discussions have taken place with various interested parties, including legal 1736 authorities, hon. Members and so on. As a result of those discussions, and of the scrutiny which the Committee gave to the Bill, we have made a number of Amendments. We made substantial alterations in the original enforcement provisions, and in a later Amendment to Clause 40 we make a major change.
It would be wrong to suppose that we had entered into the provisions without giving them the most careful scrutiny and the deepest thought. The right hon. Gentleman is at times inclined to engage in irresponsible hyperbole. He grossly overstated his case in some respects tonight. I do not wish to take up the political points he made in passing, on the cost of living and so on. There is genuine concern about the changes made in the Clause, and I should be the first to agree that it is right that they should have been carefully scrutinised, both upstairs and now.
As reported from column 849 onwards of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, I sought on 14th June to set out the broad provisions of the Clause and the reasons why we believed it right to include it in the Bill. In the earlier stages of the debate upstairs we had given considerable attention to the fact that it includes words saying that an offence must have been committed. It is within that context that we should look at the provisions in the Clause.
In that respect we need to get the provision into perspective. The only persons affected will be those whose conduct
must have involved the commission…of one or more offences".The result of inadequate enforcement powers must be tax evasion, and loop-holes for the unscruplous or wilfully negligent trader to secure competitive advantages over the honest and conscientious. I do not think that that is something the House would wish to encourage. The provision is, in brief, designed to cover the case where it can be proved that an offence has been committed but it is not clear to what extent it was committed in any particular accounting period within the total period concerned.We gave considerable attention to these provisions upstairs, where we took as the prime example the difficulty which has been known to arise in purchase tax cases, in which an offence is known 1737 to have been committed over a period but it might have covered a number of different accounting periods.
The subsection is not aimed at relatively minor offences by small taxpayers. Its need has been demonstrated in purchase tax cases, where, over the years, frauds have increased in scale and complexity. The lack of such a provision has meant that certain purchase tax prosecutions have cost more in time and money, and have been tried in a higher court, than either the defence or the prosecution would have wished.
The provision is designed to offer benefits to both prosecution and defence in relatively serious cases of tax evasion, and to say the time of the courts. We went at some length into the purchase tax position upstairs. The provision will save a great deal of unnecessary cost, but it will in no way prejudice the right to contest a case before judge and jury if that were the wish of the defence.
I am anxious not to weary the House by rehearsing the discussions in Committee upstairs, but it should be borne in mind that anyone against whom proceedings under this subsection could be taken would be prosecutable for something else, probably conspiracy or a multiplicity of offences. That is what has tended to happen in purchase tax cases. Generally speaking, these prosecutions have been based either on conspiracy or on a multitude of offences.
Prosecution for conspiracy often causes concern—I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) nodding his head—because, even though prosecution and defence might prefer a summary trial, conspiracy cases are triable only on indictment, which again involves additional costs for both sides and consumes a great deal of the court's time. Further, since it is a common law offence, conspiracy carries a theoretically unlimited penalty. Further, the prosecution can, I am advised, adduce evidence which would be inadmissible in proceedings for an ordinary offence.
All this being so, it seems to us that to recapitulate the position that has existed on purchase tax cases would not be preferable to the course we have put forward in the Clause. The new approach provided by the subsection 1738 should lead to considerable savings in the courts' time without eroding any legitimate rights which the defence would have under alternative methods of proceedings. The defence will be able to elect for trial on indictment, if it so wishes, and will know from the outset the maximum penalties on each charge.
I dealt with the matter at considerable length upstairs, and I am not sure to what extent the House would wish me again to go over that ground. That is the broad position. We believe that the provision is necessary for the enforcement of the tax. It has been given considerable thought and a great deal of examination, and in the light of that we think it would be right to reject the Amendment and to leave the Clause as it stands.
§ Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)I had understood that the Report stage was to enable those hon. Members who did not have the privilege of serving in Committee upstairs to acquaint themselves with some of the difficulties that have arisen. If in the course of my brief remarks I show my ignorance of what has happened in Committee upstairs I hope that I shall be forgiven. Report stage should be more than a mere formality, particularly when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), who moved the Amendment with such eloquence, said, fundamental principles are at stake.
Much as I appreciate the brilliance on the Treasury Bench of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, whom I have admired for many years, my mind goes back to the days when on a matter like this it was common form for the Solicitor-General to reply. If it was not Lord Stow Hill, it was Lord Dilhorne; if it was not Lord Simon of Glaisdale, it was Sir Harry Hylton-Foster. We are concerned with a serious departure from the criminal law, something which, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said in a rasping manner, was not fundamentally necessary for purchase tax but is now apparently found necessary for the tax that replaces it, namely, that particulars of offences are not merely not to be given; they are not to be known. It is simply that over a period it is thought that an offence must have been com- 1739 mitted, but particulars cannot be given because they are not known. That is very strange.
My misgivings are not altogether allayed when my hon. Friend, no doubt with the best of motives, says that to give particulars would involve unnecessary costs. Whenever one hears that as a reason given by the bureaucracy one's hackles rise.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. HigginsWith respect, I do not think that I said that to give particulars would create unnecessary costs. I was seeking to show that the procedures adopted for purchase tax—particularly if the case is brought on grounds of conspiracy—have often led to a situation in which the case has been pursued to a higher level than otherwise would have been necessary or than either party would have wished and that, as a result, overall costs were higher.
§ Mr. Fletcher-CookeThat raises the point about conspiracy. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that I nodded in the course of his speech. So I did; but it was not in agreement with what he said. I was nodding agreement at the well-known rule of law that it is no good charging a conspiracy when what one means to do is to charge the substantive offence. That is the easy way out, and a great deal of dicta from the Bench have disapproved of that.
The executive are now saying, "Because we are not allowed to charge the conspiracy when we should charge the substantive offence, because it is easier to charge the conspiracy we shall alter the rules relating to the substantive offence." That is flouting the dicta of the judges in a big way. They say, "You must charge the conspiracy because the machinery of conspiracy is much easier to prove. You must prove the details of a particular offence if you suspect that it has been committed." But now the rules are to be changed to equate the offence with the conspiracy. That is the burden of my hon. Friend's Amendment.
If it would not be necessary in the case of purchase tax I do not see why 1740 it is necessary for VAT. I am a supporter of VAT. Much of what my hon. Friend said—and it was out of order on a technical Amendment—is neither here nor there. Nevertheless, it does not encourage those who support VAT to find that the rules relating to enforcement are being changed.
Therefore, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend has met a great number of objections, relating to the form of the indictment, the form of the prosecution and the form of the appeals, the words stick in my gullet—
whether or not the particulars of that offence or those offences are knownand therefore perhaps cannot be supplied. There being no stages of a Finance Bill in another House, my appeal to my hon. Friend is a theoretical one. I put down no more than a marker to show that although we shall allow the executive this far, we shall allow them no further.
§ Mr. HealeyAs the hour is late, I shall be brief. I accept Amendment No. 113. I recognise that it is in response to some points which we raised in Standing Committee. On the major matter, however—Amendment No. 176—the Financial Secretary added nothing to what he told us upstairs, and what he told us there was very disturbing: that is, that he is prepared to bend the processes of law to save time and expense to the courts. The reason why he has to save time and expense for the courts is that he expects value added tax to involve prosecutions on so much greater a scale than the taxes it replaces that, even with the enormous administrative expense to which he has committed himself, he does not feel it possible to enforce the tax without breaking the traditions of our law.
For these reasons I ask my hon. Friends—and, indeed, those on the Government side who have expressed concern—to vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 164.
1723| Division No. 290.] | AYES | [10.37 p.m. |
| Albu, Austen | Gourlay, Harry | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Mudd, David |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Atkinson, Norman | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Murray, Ronald King |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Ogden, Eric |
| Baxter, William | Hardy, Peter | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Orbach, Maurice |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Heffer, Eric S. | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Huckfield, Leslie | Paget, R. T. |
| Booth, Albert | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Bradley, Tom | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Pentland, Norman |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Hunter, Adam | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) | Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Prescott, John |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Janner, Greville | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Carmichael, Neil | John, Brynmor | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Judd, Frank | Roper, John |
| Coleman, Donald | Kaufman, Gerald | Rose, Paul B. |
| Concannon, J. D. | Rowlands, Ted | |
| Kelley, Richard | Sandelson, Neville | |
| Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Lamond, James | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Latham, Arthur | Short, Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Lawson, George | Sillars, James |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Skinner, Dennis |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Leonard, Dick | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Deakins, Eric | Lipton, Marcus | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Loughlin, Charles | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
| Dempsey, James | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Dormand, J. D. | McBride, Neil | Strang, Gavin |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | McCartney, Hugh | Taverne, Dick |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Mackenzie, Gregor | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) |
| Dunnett, Jack | Mackie, John | Urwin, T. W. |
| Eadie, Alex | Mackintosh, John P. | Varley, Eric G. |
| Edelman, Maurice | Maclennan, Robert | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Marks, Kenneth | Watkins, David |
| English, Michael | Marquand, David | Wellbeloved, James |
| Evans, Fred | Marsden, F. | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Ewing, Harry | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Whitlock, William |
| Farr, John | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Faulds, Andrew | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) | Mayhew, Christopher | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Meacher, Michael | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Forrester, John | Mendelson, John | Woof, Robert |
| Garrett, W. E. | Millan, Bruce | |
| Gilbert, Dr. John | Miller, Dr. M. S. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Golding, John | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Mr. Ernest Armstrong. |
| Gorst, John | ||
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Fowler, Norman | Neave, Airey |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Fox, Marcus | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Fry, Peter | Normanton, Tom |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Nott, John |
| Awdry, Daniel | Glyn, Dr. Alan | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Goodhart, Philip | Osborn, John |
| Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord | Goodhew, Victor | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Gower, Raymond | Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Corby) |
| Batsford, Brian | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Gray, Hamish | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Benyon, W. | Green, Alan | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Biffen, John | Grylls, Michael | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Gummer, J. Selwyn | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Blaker, Peter | Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Raison, Timothy |
| Boscawen, Robert | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Bowden, Andrew | Havers, Michael | Redmond, Robert |
| Bray, Ronald | Hawkins, Paul | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Brewis, John | Higgins, Terence L. | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Holland, Philip | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Hordern, Peter | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Hornby, Richard | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Buck, Antony | Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Rost, Peter |
| Burden, F. A. | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Sharples, Sir Richard |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Hunt, John | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Iremonger, T. L. | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Chapman, Sydney | James, David | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Soref, Harold |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Spence, John |
| Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Kimball, Marcus | Stainton, Keith |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Clegg, Walter | King. Tom (Bridgwater) | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Cockeram, Eric | Kinsey, J. R. | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir. M. |
| Cooke, Robert | Kirk, Peter | Stokes, John |
| Cooper, A. E. | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Cordle, John | Knox, David | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick | Lambton, Lord | Tebbit, Norman |
| Cormack, Patrick | Le Marchant, Spencer | Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret |
| Costain, A. P. | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Critchley, Julian | Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) |
| Crouch, David | Luce, R. N. | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Crowder, F. P. | MacArthur, Ian | Tilney, John |
| Dean, Paul | McCrindle, R. A. | Trew, Peter |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | McLaren, Martin | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec | McNair-Wilson, Michael | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) | Waddington, David |
| Dykes, Hugh | Maddan, Martin | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Madel, David | Walters, Dennis |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Mather, Carol | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Mawby, Ray | Warren, Kenneth |
| Emery, Peter | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Eyre, Reginald | Miscampbell, Norman | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Moate, Roger | Wilkinson, John |
| Fidler, Michael | Monks, Mrs. Connie | Worsley, Marcus |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Monro, Hector | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Montgomery, Fergus | |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Mr. Oscar Murton and |
| Fortescue, Tim | Morrison, Charles | Mr. Michael Jopling. |
| Division No. 291.] | AYES | 11.36 p.m. |
| Albu, Austen | Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Murray, Ronald King |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Oakes, Gordon |
| Atkinson, Norman | Hardy, Peter | Ogden, Eric |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Harper, Joseph | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis | Oswald, Thomas |
| Bennett, James (Glasgow,Bridgeton) | Huckfield, Leslie | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Paget, R. T. |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Hughs, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Booth, Albert | Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Pentland, Norman |
| Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Hunter, Adam | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Bradley, Tom | Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill) | Prescott, John |
| Broughton, Sir Alfred | Janner, Greville | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) |
| Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | John, Brynmor | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) | Richard, Ivor |
| Clark, David (Colne Valley) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon) | ||
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) | Judd, Frank | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Cohen, Stanley | Kaufman, Gerald | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Coleman, Donald | Lamond, James | Roper, John |
| Concannon, J. D. | Latham, Arthur | Rose, Paul B. |
| Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Lawson, George | Rowlands, Ted |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Leonard, Dick | Sandelson, Neville |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Lestor, Miss Joan | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Sillars, James |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Lipton, Marcus | Skinner, Dennis |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Loughlin, Charles | Spearing, Nigel |
| Deakins, Eric | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Spriggs, Leslie |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | McBride, Neil | Stallard, A. W. |
| Dempsey, James | McCartney, Hugh | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Dormand, J. D. | Mackenzie, Gregor | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) | Mackie, John | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Mackintosh, John P. | Strang, Gavin |
| Dunnett, Jack | Maclennan, Robert | Taverne, Dick |
| Eadie, Alex | McNamara, J. Kevin | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) |
| Edelman, Maurice | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Marks, Kenneth | Varley, Eric G. |
| English, Michael | Marquand, David | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Evans, Fred | Marsden, F. | Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) |
| Ewing, Henry | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Watkins, David |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Wellbeloved, James |
| Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Mayhew, Christopher | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Meacher, Michael | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Forrester, John | Mendelson, John | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Garrett, W. E. | Millan, Bruce | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Gilbert, Dr. John | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Woof, Robert |
| Golding, John | Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) | |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Gourlay, Harry | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Mr. Ernest Armstrong and |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Chapman, Sydney | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher | Fortescue, Tim |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Chichester-Clark, R. | Fowler, Norman |
| Awdry, Daniel | Clark, William (Surrey, E.) | Fox, Marcus |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Fry, Peter |
| Balniel, Lord | Clegg, Walter | Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) |
| Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Cockeram, Eric | Goodhart, Philip |
| Batsford, Brian | Cooke, Robert | Goodhew, Victor |
| Benyon, W. | Cooper, A. E. | Gorst, John |
| Biffen, John | Cordle, John | Gower, Raymond |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) |
| Blaker, Peter | Cormack, Patrick | Gray, Hamish |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Costain, A. P. | Green, Alan |
| Boscawen, Robert | Critchley, Julian | Grylls, Michael |
| Bowden, Andrew | Crouch, David | Gummer, J. Selwyn |
| Bray, Ronald | Dean, Paul | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Brewis, John | Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. | Havers, Michael |
| Brinton, Sir Tatton | du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Hawkins, Paul |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Dykes, Hugh | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) | Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Hordern, Peter |
| Buck, Anthony | Emery, Peter | Hornby, Richard |
| Burden, F. A. | Eyre, Reginald | Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Fidler, Michael | Hunt, John |
| Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert | Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| James, David | Neave, Airey | Soref, Harold |
| Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Spence, John |
| Jessel, Toby | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Stainton, Keith |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine | Normanton, Tom | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Nott, John | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally | Stokes, John |
| Kinsey, J. R. | Osborn, John | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Kirk, Peter | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Knight, Mrs. Jill | Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Knox, David | Page, John (Harrow, W.) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Pink, R. Bonner | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Tilney, John |
| Luce, R. N. | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Trew, Peter |
| MacArthur, Ian | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| McCrindle, R. A. | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| McLaren, Martin | Raison, Timothy | Waddington, David |
| McNair-Wilson, Michael | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Redmond, Robert | Walters, Dennis |
| Maddan, Martin | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Madel, David | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David | Warren, Kenneth |
| Mather, Carol | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Mawby, Ray | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Wilkinson, John |
| Moate, Roger | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) | Worsley, Marcus |
| Monro, Hector | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Sharples, Richard | |
| Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. | Shelton, William (Clapham) | Mr. Oscar Murton and |
| Morrison, Charles | Skeet, T. H. H. | Mr. Michael Jopling. |
| Mudd, David | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Amendment made: No. 113, in page 27, line 29, after 'or' insert 'if greater'.—[Mr. Higgins.]