HC Deb 10 June 1974 vol 874 cc1332-49
Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Farnham)

I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 43, and insert:— ' (a) section 78 of the Finance Act 1972 (approved share option schemes) except:

  1. (i) in its application to cases where a right obtained as mentioned therein was exercised before 27th March 1974, and
    2. 1333
  2. (ii) in relation to schemes to which Part III of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1973 applies; and
(b) subsections (2)(a) and (3X«) of section 79 of that Act (which excludes the application of subsections (4) and (7) of that section in cases of acquisitions made under approved share incentive schemes) except:
  1. (i) in their application to cases where the acquisition was made before 27th March 1974, and
  2. (ii) in relation to schemes to which Part II of Schedule 8 to the Finance Act 1973 applies; and'.
 I should declare a very long-term interest. For many years I have been concerned with an organisation known as the Wider Share Ownership Movement. After a great effort, denied by administrations of both parties, it finally succeeded in getting accepted a concept of a property-owning democracy that extended beyond that of home ownership. That effort was supported by my right hon. and hon. Friends, by right hon. and hon. Members on the Liberal benches here and in another place, and by right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour benches, and it had a lot of help from individuals within the trade union movement.

9.15 p.m.

The object of the movement was to turn "earners into owners". It was to extend the whole concept of a property-owning democracy. The idea had a great deal of support but it also came up against a lot of opposition from the Inland Revenue and to some extent the Treasury. I remember some time ago being told at some meeting, or reading in a paper, that although there might be a case for encouraging personal savings through the tax system, this was possible only if the personal saving was for socially acceptable reasons, such as saving against a rainy day, for the education of one's children, home ownership and old age. It was not to be encouraged, however, if the purpose of the savings was to increase the wealth of the saver.

That was a long time ago. I thought it was a silly argument even then. It is even sillier now with the advances we have made through save-as-you-earn and, until this clause came into the Finance Bill, own-as-you-earn. It is clear that in putting this clause in the Bill the Treasury has accepted the spirit of that strange doctrine that saving must not be encouraged through the tax system if it benefits the saver. Because of what has been done recently by the last Conservative administration, of share schemes, both selective and those applying to all employees, have become firmly established.

Over the last few years 700 companies have developed schemes for their executives and managements following the Finance Act 1972. In the past six months employee schemes, own-as-you-earn schemes, have been announced or instituted by such companies as ICI, Allied Breweries, National Westminster Bank, Cadbury-Schweppes, P and O, Legal and General Assurance and so on.

The own-as-you-earn scheme came into being with the 1973 Budget of my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrin-cham and Sale (Mr. Barber). The scheme was released from the pay freeze on 1st December 1973. Since then it has developed and covers 13 companies and about 500,000 workers. It has been estimated that a further 150 schemes are in the pipeline involving 1½million employees. This is considerable evidence and shows the great demand by companies and those who work for them for such a scheme. It is this that the Chancellor has chosen to discourage in the Budget.

Clause 13 is directed at preventing selective schemes, whether employee share incentive schemes or executive stock option schemes. It also prevents the operation of the own-as-you-earn scheme. My amendment seeks to deal with that. We are seeking to restore that scheme to the statute book, whatever else may happen to the clause. The system introduced by the Bill not only damages the selective scheme but is unfair in its double taxation impact on the employer.

I need not go in detail into the operations of the own-as-you-earn scheme; they are part of the save-as-you-earn scheme. An employee in the scheme contributes through the save-as-you-earn contract for five or seven years and at the same time acquires the opportunity to use the proceeds of the save-as-you-earn contract to purchase ordinary shares in his company.

Some of the criticisms of the scheme are not well founded. It is argued that it is not in the best interests of employees to risk both their livelihoods and their savings in the future of one company. There would be much in that argument if it were not for the own-as-you-earn link with the save-as-you-earn scheme. The argument that the employee's savings are at risk under the own-as-you-earn scheme ignores the fact that during the savings period the employee is protected from loss and at the end of that period he must, under the legislation, be free to sell his shares if he wishes to do so.

Employees who go in for these schemes will normally have a series of overlapping savings contracts. They will, therefore, constantly have a stake in their company, and even if they realise their gains at the earliest opportunity they will have a stake which is protected by part of it always being in the save-as-you-earn element of the total scheme. It is this element of protection which has done a great deal to counter the arguments put forward on earlier ideas which others and I have had rejected by successive Governments.

A second argument put forward against the own-as-you-earn plan is that it is restricted to employees in the private sector. It is worth noting that several schemes, some of which have been submitted to the Treasury for consideration, have been developed to provide similar benefits for those employed in the public sector. I admit that they would require the enactment of legislation, but it is apparent that the more widespread the adoption of own-as-you-earn schemes in private industry the greater will be the incentive to adopt them in the public sector. My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself would very much welcome this extension of public ownership in the public sector.

Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have frequently expressed views about employee participation, but they seem to me to lack concern about employee participation in ownership. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he was not opposed to share schemes, but he did not see why they should be assisted by the tax system. I hope to show when we deal with the next amendment that the tax system as altered by the clause discriminates against those schemes. If the Government's argument is seriously that this objective should not be en- couraged, they must think again about their priorities, unless they wish the Opposition to believe that their objections to employee shareholding are purely political.

We have tax incentives through life insurance premium relief, through tax exemption on pension funds, through capital allowances on investment in plant and machinery and through grants to companies in development areas, and we have, even under the Chancellor's present proposals, some forms of relief on mortgages for home ownership. The tax system is used as an incentive for many objectives, and I suggest that the spread of ownership among the workpeople through participation, protected under the own-as-you-earn scheme, in the ownership of their companies is as socially acceptable and desirable an objective as any of the others for which the tax system is used to provide an incentive.

I hope, therefore, whatever the Government's view on the rest of our amendments, that they will accept this amendment which specifically excludes from Clause 13 the own-as-you-earn scheme, and enables and encourages companies and individuals through the tax system to operate the scheme to the advantage of the country, the company and the employee.

Mr. MacGregor

I warmly support my right hon. Friend on this amendment. I should, perhaps, declare a dual interest. First, I am a supporter and member of the Wider Share Ownership Council. Secondly, the company for which I work has a subsidiary in another part of the group which is concerned with schemes of the own-as-you-earn type and, indeed, was partly responsible for the conception of the scheme. I have no interest in that other company beyond my general belief in own-as-you-earn schemes.

The amendment rightly concentrates on own-as-you-earn schemes, but I am also concerned about share option and share incentive schemes, which have many advantages. However, we are discussing only the own-as-you-earn schemes.

It is right to put forward an amendment to restore the present position of own-as-you-earn schemes not only because of their attractiveness but because, whereas prior to the Finance Bill share option and share incentive schemes were not able to be put into operation, own-as-you-earn schemes were, and they were proving to be extremely popular. In the four short months from 1st December 1973 in which they could operate there was clear evidence that more than 150 schemes were being prepared, involving 1½million employees.

Those schemes have been hit by the Finance Bill. Whereas under the Bill own-as-you-earn schemes will be subject to income tax and, therefore, to a rate of 33 per cent., previously, when only capital gains tax applied and it was likely that many schemes would produce returns which could be released at £500 charges at a time, no tax would accrue to the employees on the share element.

The second reason why own-as-you-earn schemes are now difficult to introduce is that many institutional investors have taken the view that while the schemes are subject to income tax they will vote against them in the companies concerned. I regret this attitude of the institutional investors, and if the amendment were carried that objection would be removed.

9.30 p.m.

It is worth briefly recording why these schemes are so attractive. They are attractive to the employee because they give him an opportunity to build up capital and savings in ways other than simply through ownership of his own house. In my judgment that is one of the most desirable things which we should try to achieve among groups of employees who can benefit from the scheme. Secondly, they guarantee a minimum benefit through tax in respect of the SAYE element so that there is not the same risk for employees as for the higher income groups who might have taken part in share option or share incentive schemes. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that these schemes give a sense of participation in a company which is more attractive than is the theoretical argument about worker participation or a 49 per cent. participation on supervisory boards.

Furthermore, these schemes actively encourage savings. If the own-as-you-earn scheme had been built up, it was calculated that the inflow to the building societies through SAYE would have amounted to £60 million per annum and would have risen to a higher figure in later years. This would have provided a steady flow of savings into the building society movement, which would have been given greater assistance in facing its present and future difficulties. The scheme would also help to encourage an employee to build up a sum of money in a building society which he could use either to buy his own house or in other ways. The employee would do so with the active encouragement of his employer. It would provide an extra advantage from the savings point of view in that there would be an additional incentive, and the employer would be the person who would encourage the employee to save.

From the employer's point of view the scheme would add to the range of benefits to be offered to employees and would be related to results without affecting profit and loss in the short term. It also gave a man greater identification with his company, and in many cases it would have helped in the reduction of labour turnover.

I do not wish to overestimate the benefits of the scheme, but I believe that, although perhaps not very large in the economy as a whole, there would have been benefits in terms of a person's identification with a company since the company's success would be linked with the outcome for the employee. It would also add an extra area of benefit since it would be less inflationary than would additional wage demands.

My right hon. Friend referred to two criticisms, and I share his views on both matters. The first criticism was that such a scheme would tend to put all the eggs in one basket. I believe that the employee would be protected because he need not necessarily take up the shares at the end of the save-as-you-earn period. We could have developed other schemes to deal with the eggs-in-one-basket argument.

The second criticism is that the scheme applied only to the private sector and was not available to employees in the public sector. There is strong merit in that criticism, but again it would have been possible—and still is—to evolve a scheme to overcome this criticism. What we can at least do in meeting these two criticisms is to restore the position of the own-as-you-earn scheme to the point at which it rested before the Finance Bill came along. For these reasons I warmly support the amendment.

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

It seems to me that in discussing this amendment—and I wish to reserve most of my remarks on this subject for a later discussion—we are at the heart of the argument whether one is on the side of popular ownership or public ownership. I hope that we shall have some idea on which side the Government stand in this argument. I had originally supposed that the Government were not totally sold on the idea of monopoly public ownership and still had lingerings of some Liberal attitudes towards the spread of ownership. However, in Clause 13 they finally dispense with all such lingerings.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some broad and brief reasons why he was opposed to these schemes, and I know that this amendment is very limited. In his Budget Statement the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no antipathy to share schemes as such but felt that employees should not get special tax privileges because they received their remuneration in one form rather than in another. He went on to say that any respectable share incentive scheme should be able to stand on its own feet without relying on the crutches of tax.

Precisely the same argument applies to pension schemes. I have just negotiated a very generous scheme for my company, and the Government are handsomely making the company and the employees —on both sides' contributions—a tax-free present. I think that they should go further. In the past the Liberal Party has urged that all share incentive and share option schemes and own-as-you-earn schemes should receive from the Government 110 per cent. of the tax.

I think that the Government can and do use the tax system to encourage schemes which are not strictly within the terms of the Inland Revenue—in other words, not strictly a method of getting revenue in the most efficient way. The Government simply encourage schemes which they think desirable. It is for that reason that all Governments have encouraged pension schemes by tax remissions. They consider pensions desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he has no antipathy to share schemes. If the Government think that popular ownership is desirable, why do not they use the tax system to encourage such schemes?

Although this is a limited amendment and although I support it, I am opposed to Clause 13 as it stands. I hope that the Committee will not only pass this amendment but, at a later stage, throw out Clause 13.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert)

We have had a short but very interesting debate on this amendment, the purpose of which is to exempt so-called own-as-you-earn schemes from the provisions of Clause 13 which seeks to bring profits under stock option and share incentive schemes generally into charge under Schedule E for income tax rather than, as at present, allowing them merely to attract capital gains tax treatment.

The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) will agree, I am sure, that these matters were discussed at length in the proceedings on the 1973 Finance Bill and that there is a fairly clear division of opinion, if not of philosophy, between the two sides with respect to the generality of these schemes. For that reason I shall not weary the Committee with tedious repetition of the arguments which we rehearsed at the time of the 1973 Bill.

I take issue with the right hon. Member for Farnham when he suggests that the present Government are in no way seeking to encourage savings. Many steps were announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget Statement to improve the return on various types of savings instruments which were available to the general public, and that will continue to be our policy. The difference largely is in the incentives available for the discretionary use of taxed income going into savings, and by and large we have kept the arrangements which we inherited from the previous administration.

The right hon. Member for Farnham advanced a great many arguments in favour of the principle of own-as-you-earn schemes, and they were all perfectly proper arguments. I do not seek to refute them in detail, though I have some reservations about certain of them, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), in what I thought was an extremely candid and reasonable speech, referred to various weaknesses in our present schemes. What the right hon. Member for Farnham signally failed to do, however, in all his eulogies about the desirability of these schemes was to advance any argument as to why they should receive preferential tax treatment. That is the nub of the difference between the two sides of the Committee.

We have made it clear time and again that there is no intention on the part of the Government to try to attack incentive schemes of any sort or even employees' share purchase schemes. As has been pointed out, many companies are still going ahead with them. But I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in his Budget Statement. It is our view that these schemes, if they are worth saving, should be able to stand on their own feet without the support of tax concessions. The general rule as we see it still applies and should apply. Any employee should be taxable under Schedule E on all taxed emoluments from office or from employment.

I remind the Committee that where employees acquire shares under genuine profit-sharing arrangements—the sort which arc of interest to members of the Liberal Party—in other words, where the value of the shares that an employee receives is taxed as part of remuneration, those schemes are not affected by the provisions of the clause. Any growth in the value of the shares after they have been acquired by the employee will continue to be exempt from income tax and will be treated for capital gains tax as before.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South mentioned certain advantages to these schemes. He said that they gave an employee an opportunity to build up his savings. If the employee is fortunate, that is true. I am talking about the element in the schemes which is related to changes in the price of shares. If the employee it not fortunate, this is not true to any extent over and above the amount that he has paid in by regular instalment. There is, therefore, an enormous element of arbitrariness about the reward that the employee would get in this way.

Much more interesting, however, was the fact that the hon. Gentleman, in his very candid speech, adduced as being attractive to the employer the introduction of these schemes. He said that they added to the benefits that the employer could offer his employee without affecting his profit and loss account. That is true. What these schemes amount to is that they produce, or will have produced before the provisions of the clause take effect, a reward to the employee if he is fortunate in regard to the price of the shares of the company for which he works, a benefit which costs the employer absolutely nothing, although the cost is borne by the generality of taxpayers. That is a matter to which we shall return.

Mr. Peter Rees

The hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the advantages, so called, to the employer. Does he recognise that many employers have incurred considerable expense and undergone considerable trouble to set up these schemes, which are to be completely stultified by the provision which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have now introduced? Will he concentrate a little on the disadvantages likely to flow from this ill-thought-out provision rather than the somewhat hypothetical advantages on which he is enlarging?

Dr. Gilbert

I shall come to that point shortly. I was still addressing myself to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South.

One of the objections that we take to the principle of these schemes is that they enable the employer to produce additional net remuneration to the employee, if the price of the shares goes up. without any cost to the employer. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that they amount to a very cheap way in which the employer can reward a lucky employee rather at the expense of the general body of taxpayers.

9.45 p.m.

In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), yes, of course I am aware that many companies have incurred expense in introducing these schemes since the 1973 Finance Act. But any such company was put on notice during the passage of that Act that my party found many elements of those schemes obnoxious and that we intended to legislate as early as possible against any preferential tax treatment that they received. Therefore, anyone who has invested time and money in preparing such schemes cannot complain of retrospection. He has been clearly at risk since the proceedings on the 1973 Act, in which the hon. and learned Gentleman played a distinguished part. Our position has remained unchanged since then. I invite my hon. Friends to resist the amendment.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

I advise the Committee to support the amendment. The Minister did not give a satisfactory answer. He said that the employer benefited from the concessions in operating the own-as-you-earn scheme. But precisely the same situation applies to pensioners. We regard it as equally desirable to help the employer who helps his employees to save in this way as it is to help those who contribute towards their pensions. There is no logical distinction.

The position is quite different in the case of profit sharing, because there the profit is partly remuneration and the

employee is taxed as if it were earned income; it is the gain that is tax free. In this case we are talking about an option which requires a saving by the employee out of his earnings rather than an addition by the employer to them.

I can only agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who said that the Labour Party is against what he calls popular ownership, and with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who on the first day of the Budget debate described the Chancellor's discouragement of these schemes as purely doctrinal. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 249.

Division No. 34.] AYES 19.47 p.m.
Adley, Robert Durant, Tony Hurd, Douglas
Aitken, Jonathan Dykes, Hugh Hutchison, Michael Clark
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) James, David
Ancram, M. Elliott, Sir William Jenkin, Rt.Hn.P. (R'dgeW'std&W'td)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Eyre, Reginald Jessel, Toby
Atkins, Rt.Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne) Falrgrleve, Russell Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Awdry, Daniel Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Banks, R. G. Finsberg, Geoffrey Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Fisher, Sir Nigel Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Belth, A. J. Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.) Kershaw, Anthony
Bell, Ronald Fletcher-Cooke, Charles King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham) Fookes, Miss Janet King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Benyon, W. Fox, Marcus Kitson, Sir Timothy
Berry, Hon. Anthony Fraser.Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford&Stone) Knight, Mrs. Jill
Bitten, John Freud, Clement Knox, David
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.) Fry, Peter Lamont, Norman
Boscawen, Hon Robert Gardiner, George (Relgate&Banstead) Lane, David
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.) Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Braine, Sir Bernard Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lawrence, Ivan
Bray, Ronald Glyn, Dr. Alan Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Brittan, Leon Gcdber, Rt. Hn. Joseph Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland & Stmford)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Goodhew, Victor Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Goodlad, A. Loveridge, John
Buchanan Smith, Alick Gorst, John Luce, Richard
Budgen, Nick Gow, I. R. E. (Eastbourne) McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bulmer, Esmond Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) MacArthur, Ian
Burden, F. A. Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) McCrindle, R. A.
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gray, Hamish Macfariane, Neil
Carlisle, Mark Grieve, Percy MacGregor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. McLaren, Martin
Chataway, R;. Hn. Christopher Grist, Ian Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Churchill, W. S. Hall, Sir John Madel, David
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Marshall, R. M. (Arundel)
Clark, William (Croydon, S.) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Marten, Nell
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitfe) Hampson, Dr. Keith Mather, Carol
Clegg, Walter Hannam,John Maude, Angus
Cockcroft, John Hastings, Stephen Mawby, Ray
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.) Havers, Sir Michael Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cope,John Hawkins, Paul Mayhew, P. (Royal T'brldge Wells)
Cormack, Patrick Hayhoe, Barney Meyer, Sir Anthony
Corrie, John Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.) Miller, Hal (B'grove & R'ditch)
Costain, A. P. Higgins, Terence Mills, Peter
Crowder, F. P. Holland, Philip Miscampbell, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hooson, Emlyn Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Hordern, Peter Moate, Roger
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey,E.) Money, Ernie
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North) Monro, Hector
Drayson, Burnaby Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Morgan, Geraint Rifkind, Malcolm Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net.H'dn S.)
Morgan Giles. Rear-Adm. Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Townsend, C. D.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Trotter, Neville
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Tugendhat, Christopher
Mudd, David Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.) Tyler, Paul
Neave, Alrey Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) van Straubenzee, W. R
Neubert, Michael Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Newton, Tony (Braintree) Shelton, William (L'mb'th.Strealh'm) Viggers, Peter
Onslow, Cranley Shersby Michael Waddington, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Silvester, Fred Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Sims, Roger Wakeham, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Sinclair, Sir George Walder, David (Clilheroe)
Pardoe, John Skeet, T. H. H. Walters, Dennis
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.) Smllh, Dudley (W'wick&L'm'ngton) Weatherill, Bernard
Pattie, Geoffrey Spence. John Wells, John
Perclval, Ian Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.) Winstanley, Dr. Michael
Pink, R. Bonner Sproat, lain Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, David (Eastlelgh) Stanbrook, Ivor Worsley, Sir Marcus
Quennell, Miss J. M. Stanley, John Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)
Raison, Timothy Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree) Younger, Hn. George
Redmond, Robert Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Stokes, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Renton.Rt. Hn. SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're) Stradling Thomas, J. Mr. Michael Jopling and
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Tapsell, Peter Mr. Spencer Le Marchant
NOES
Abse, Leo Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, Norlh)
Allaun, Frank Dempsey, James Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Archer, Peter (Warley, West) Doig, Peter Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'I.EdgeHill)
Ashton, Joe Dormand, J. D. Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Jackson, Colin
Atkinson, Norman Duffy, A. E. P. Janner, Greville
Bagler, Gordon, A. T. Dunn, James A. Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Dunnett, Jack Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Barnett, Joel (Heywood & Roylon) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth John, Brynmor
Bates, Alf Edelman, Maurice Johnson,James(K'ston upon Hull.W)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Edge, Geoff Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.) Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bishop, E. S. Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Blenkinsop, Arthur English, Michael Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Ennals, David Judd, Frank
Booth, Albert Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Kaufman, Gerald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Evans, 1. L. (Aberdare) Kelley, Richard
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Ewing, Harry (St'ling.F'klrk&G'm'th) Kerr, Russell
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Faulds, Andrew Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Bradley, Tom Fernyhough. Rt. Hn. E Kinnock, Neil
Broughton, Sir Alfred Fitch, Alan (Wlgan) Lamble, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan) Flannery, Martin Lamborn, Harry
Buchan, Nornvin Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Latham, Arthur(Cityo(W'minsterP'toi-)
Buchanan, Richaif (G'gow.Springbrn) Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wlshaw)
butler,Mrs.Joyci'H gev.WoodGreen) Ford, Ben Leadbltter, Ted
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wlch) Forrester, John Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Campbell, Ian Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekln) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Cant, R. B. Freeson, Reginald Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Carmlchael, Neil Garrett, John (Norwich, S.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Carter, Ray Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Loughlin, Charles
Carter-Jones, Lewis George, B. T. Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Gilbert, Dr. John Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Clemitson, Ivor Ginsburg, David McCartney, Hugh
Cocks, Michael Gourlay, Harry McElhone, Frank
Cohen, Stanley Graham, Ted MacFarquhar. Roderick
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N. Grant, George (Morpeth) McGuire, Michael
Concannon, J. D. Grant, John (Islington, C.) Mackenzie, Gregor
Conlan, Bernard Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brighlrfde) Maclennan, Robert
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Cox, Thomas Hamilton, William (Fife, C.) Magee, Bryan
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill) Hamling, William Mahon, Simon
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hardy, Peter Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Cryer, G. R. Harper, Joseph Marks, Kenneth
Cunningham,G.(isl'ngt'n,S&F'sb'ry) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Marquand, David
Cunningham, D r. John A. (Whiteh'v'n) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Davidson, Arthur Hattersley, Roy Mayhew,Christopher (G'wh.W'wch.E)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.) Hatton, Frank Meacher, Michael
Davies, Denzll (Llanelli) Heffer, Eric S. Melllsh, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hooley, Frank Mikardo, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Horam, John Millan, Bruce
Deakins, Eric Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath) Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.) Huckfleld, Leslie Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Molloy, William
Delargy, H. J. Hughes, Mark (Durham) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Rose, Paul B. Tinn, James
Moyle, Roland Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Torney, Tom
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Rowlands, Edward Tuck, Raphael
Murray, Ronald King Sandelson, Neville Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
Newens, Stanley (Harlow) Sedgemore, Bryan Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Oakes, Gordon Selby, Harry Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Ogden, Eric Shaw, Arnold (Redbrldge, llford, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
O'Malley, Brian Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Orbach, Maurice Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne) Watkins, David
Ovenden John Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford) Weitzman, David
Owen, Dr. David Silkin,Rt.Hn.S.C.(S'hwark,Dulwlch) Wellbeloved, James
Padley, Walter Sillars, James White, James
Palmer, Arthur Silverman, Julius Whitehead, Phillip
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.) Skinner. Dennis Whitlock, William
Parker, John (Dagenham) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Parry, Robert Snape, P. C. Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pavitt, Laurie Spearing, Nigel Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Spriggs, Leslie Williams,Rt.Hn. Shirley(M'f'd&St'ge)
Phipps, Dr. Colin Stallard, A. W. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.) Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm) Wilson, William (Coventry. S.E.)
Price, William (Rugby) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Radice, Giles Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Woodall, Alec
Richardson, Miss Jo Strang, Gavin Woof, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Wrigglesworth, Ian
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Young, David (Bolton, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley) Swain, Thomas
Roderick, Caerwyn E. Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rodgers, George (Chorley) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery) Mr. Ernest G. Perry and
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton) Tierney, Sydney Mr. Donald Coleman.
Rooker, J. W.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.