§ Except by the consent of the chargeable person and of the relevant creditor (if any) defined in subsection (2) of section 46 below, section 39 and Schedule 7 below shall have no effect unless and until the Board have issued a notice that the material disposal does not give rise to any liability for development land tax or a notice of assessment to development land tax in respect of that disposal; nor shall the acquiring body have any right of entry (by virtue of a compulsory purchase order or otherwise) to enter on or take possession of the land the subject of the disposal'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Speaker
With the new clause we may also take the following amendments: No. 92, in Clause 39, page 62, line 21 at beginning insert—'(1) This section applies to a disposal in respect of which— 1726No. 93, in Clause 38, page 62, line 27, at end insert:
- (a) the chargeable person and the relevant creditor (if any) defined by subsection (2) of section 46 below have given their written consents that it shall apply; or
- (b) the Board have issued a notice that the disposal does not give rise to any liability for development land tax or a notice of assessment to such tax in respect of it'.'if before the disposal occurs the Board make an assessment to development land tax in respect of that disposed, then'.
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I am afraid that I have been a little lax, because I note that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has not appended his name to the new clause.
§ Mr. Graham Page
In that case, Mr. Speaker, I formally beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Budgen
The object of the new clause and the two amendments to be taken with it is to prevent local authorities from having the right to be able to deduct development land tax from the amount that they pay to those from whom they have purchased land in an arbitrary way.
The system that would obtain in the event of the Bill remaining in its unamended form would leave to exempt bodies, that is to say, local authorities and other preferred bodies, a residual right by which they, in applying what was described by the Minister as a "strict formula", could decide the amount that they could deduct from the receipts of the unhappy former landowner. This raises a constitutional issue of considerable importance. We believe that it is vital that the individual landowner should either have the opportunity to consent to the deduction that is made or, if he does not wish to consent to that deduction, should have the deduction made only after the assessment of tax has been made by the Board of Inland Revenue.
We wish to prevent a position arising in which the local authority is both the beneficiary of the amount of tax and also the assessor of the amount of tax. We believe it to be essential that tax assessment and tax collection should be carried out only by a body independent of the 1727 political process and, most of all, independent of a body that may benefit from the level of tax that it has itself fixed. I know the Minister may say that there is a strict formula. He may say that, in applying the strict formula, the exempt body will be unable to have much room for latitude, but that is not right. This tax is based upon a value judgment as to the current use value. It is not based upon any clear mathematical position as to what was paid for the land, or anything of that sort. It is to be based upon a value judgment about which honest men may reasonably disagree.
The danger of the present arrangement is that a local authority, unhappily, will have a most important interest in making sure that the assessed amount of tax is large, so as to give it a large deduction and, thus, a small purchase price. This arrangements brings into consideration the important constitutional position of local authorities and, with them, exempt bodies as defined in the Bill.
Before I go on to consider their particular position it is perhaps right to reflect why it is that this institution, in which we are so proud to serve, is becoming more and more the subject of disrespect thoughout the country. I suggest that one of the reasons is that it is believed that we have taken to ourselves too many powers, and too many pretensions, to the disavantage of the ordinary citizen.
I believe the same argument applies with even greater force to local authorities. Local authorities are now the monopoly granters of planning permission. After the passage of this legislation they will become the main purchasers of development land. They already own one-third of the housing in this country. They are already substantial and resented tax gatherers, through the rating system. If we add to this the right to assess their own tax under development land tax, after they have already decided upon a process of compulsory acquisition by taking from the land owner that which is his own, we shall do irreparable damage to exempt authorities, whether statutory undertakers or local authorities. We shall find that we bring them, first, into disrespect, then into contempt, and finally into nothing less than hatred.
1728 10.0 p.m.
If we do not adopt the new clause, we shall do serious damage to a structure of which most of us are proud. We surely all believe that it is vital that power should be disseminated away from the centre—away from Westminster. Many of us went to a magnificent and solemn ceremony this morning. It made me think of the difference between the history and culture of our country and those of France. The French Constitution is based upon centralised decision-making, with—perhaps I might be so offensive as to say—occasionally a slightly authoritarian tendency. Ours has been a different tendency, towards rugged independence and a system of provincial and region autonomy by which individuals make their own decisions and are proud, most of all, to be individuals—sometimes to be Englishmen, sometimes Welshmen, sometimes Scotsmen.
Most of all, we wish to see decision-making taken away from the centre and given to locally-elected bodies and individuals. This proposal reverses that whole trend. It gives local authorities an added and dangerous power. In a consideration whether to undertake a piece of development, the amount of tax that can be deducted will be crucial to its viability. At present, the Government are trying to impose strict cash limits on local authorities. Thus, if the borough architect or the district surveyor assesses the amount of tax inaccurately, probably someone in his office will have to be sacked, because there will not be money enough to pay the increased cost of the development and also to employ the bloke whose head is nearest the chopping block.
Important political and human considerations will be involved in deciding the amount of tax, so we say that the health of the whole structure of our local government, as well as the freedom of the individual citizen, require the House to say that any assessment for DLT should be made by an independent body—the Board of Inland Revenue—and not given to local authorities and exempt bodies who already have far too much power.
§ Mr. Sainsbury
We are dealing here with one of the fundamental issues of the Bill which some of us find particularly disturbing. My hon. Friend the Member 1729 for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has drawn attention to the extent to which the new clause tries to alleviate this problem. The clause refers tosection 39 and Schedule 7".We are all grateful for the ochre-coloured book. I am not sure of the correct description of its colour. I refer to the booklet entitled "Development Land Tax Bill Explanatory Notes" which was issued by the Board of Inland Revenue. The explanation of Clause 38 reads:Subsection (1) Where an interest in land is disposed of to certain types of local authority, or to an "exempt body" (see subsection (8)), having compulsory acquisition powers in relation to that interest, that authority or body is to make a deduction from the consideration on account of the DLT payable in respect of that disposal.Individuals who have their land acquired from them by a variety of bodies which have compulsory acquisition powers in respect of that land will have the compensation paid to them assessed by reference to a formula which allows the acquiring authority to deduct from the purchase price paid a sum of money calculated in accordance with a formula.
However clever, well-intentioned and ingenious the Board of Inland Revenue may be—I have no doubt that it satisfies most of those adjectives—its formulae will give rise to occasions when the sum paid is more, or on some occasions less, than the amount that should be properly paid. If the sum paid were to be more than the amount that should be properly paid, I suspect that I might—especially if I were a member of the Government—construct an argument as to how iniquitous, wrong and improper it would be for the acquiring authority to pay to the vendor a sum greater than that to which he should properly be entitled. I might persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to join me in complaining about gross extravagance in the use of public money in that sums were being laid out in compensation which should not be properly laid out in compensation.
However, speaking from the Opposition Benches and bearing in mind the rights of individuals rather more than those of local authorities, I shall pass over that argument. I shall leave that to the Minister, if he is minded to accept 1730 the new clause, because it would be wrong in our current economic circumstances to think of local authorities being required to pay sums significantly in excess of those they should properly pay for the acquisition of the land which they properly require for their purposes.
I am concerned with the reverse situation in which, as a result of the application of the formula in the Bill, a local or acquiring authority pays the purchase price to the vendor. We must remember that the vendor may not have placed his land on the market to all purchasers, one of whom may have negotiated a deal, with the result that a fair market price may be arrived at between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. The landowner's land is being acquired from him, on many occasions against his will. The tax that he is being required to pay, being calculated on a formula, may leave him with a lesser sum in respect of his asset—it may be his only marketable asset—than the money to which he is entitled.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
It may leave him not only with a lesser sum but with a lesser asset as well. He would have had every right to resist the deprivation of that asset, but he may be deprived of it compulsorily and still have to pay tax.
§ Mr. Sainsbury
I take my hon. and learned Friend's point entirely. The person concerned is not a willing vendor. He is being deprived of an asset which he did not want to lose in the first place and he is being left with a lesser amount of compensation than that to which he would be properly entitled under this legislation. He would have a lesser sum of money in his possession than that to which he was properly entitled. That is because the Bill, without the new clause, allows the acquiring authority to take the asset from him without there having been a proper assessment to tax.
The Minister is far more learned in the intricacies of the tax law than I am. I hope that he will therefore draw the attention of the House to the occasions when the Revenue, for other forms of tax, is entitled to make an assessment in default of the full information that it would require to make a proper assessment. I understand that the Revenue has powers to make assessments in default of the provision by the taxpayer of the 1731 necessary information that would enable it to make a fair and correct assessment. That, however, is not the situation in this legislation.
However anxious and willing the vendor might be to provide to the Revenue—the mandarins of Middlesbrough, or whatever we shall call them when the Development Land Tax Office, if it is to come into being, is fully established—or to the acquiring authority, whichever it may be, all the information and data that could possibly be required to make a proper assessment, it will be of no avail. Unless we accept the new clause, he will still have that asset acquired from him at a price calculated on the basis of a formula, not on the basis of a proper assessment of tax. It is for that reason that I hope that the new clause, which is commendably short compared with the standard of other new clauses we have discussed, will be accepted.
The clause provides:Except by the consent of the chargeable person——my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not suggest that it should never be done—and of the relevant creditor".I need not detain the House at this stage by enlarging upon the details of what, in Clause 46(2), turns out to be a "relevant creditor". Indeed, if I tried to do so I might not only stray from the bounds of order but get slightly lost in the complexities of identifying "relevant creditor".
The House should direct its attention to the chargeable person—the vendor. The clause states:Except by the consent of the chargeable person … unless and until the Board have issued a notice that the material disposal does not give rise to any liability for development land tax".If that is so, we have no problem. If the board can issue such notice, a chargeable person has nothing to worry about. But unless that condition is satisfied and the board has issued a notice that there is no liability any DLT, it must produce a notice of assessment to tax, unless the chargeable person is prepared to waive that requirement. This implies that the 1732 chargeable person shall have the right to receive the correctly-assessed sum of money, the proper compensation, the proper payment for his asset, assessed in conformity with the provisions of the Bill and with the rate of tax which is then in force—either that which is now in the Bill or any other which may be introduced in any of the numerous Finance Bills to which we appear to be subject these days.
Unless and until that assessment has been made, the transaction cannot be proceeded with and the acquiring body shall nothave any right of entry (by virtue of a compulsory purchase order or otherwise) to enter on or take possession of the land the subject of the disposal.That seems to be a concept which should commend itself to all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not suppose that the ancient tradition of an Englishman's home being his castle would entirely commend itself to the Minister, but I know that my hon. and learned Friend has a special interest in a Scotsman's home being his castle.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
I should declare an interest. This Scotsman's home is his castle, and I find offensive the concept that an Englishman's home should be his castle and a Scotsman's home should not be, particularly when Scottish castles are their homes.
§ Mr. Sainsbury
My hon. and learned Friend may recall that some Englishmen's homes were castles because of the depredations they suffered over the border from the ancestors of my hon. and learned Friend, which explains the large number of castles in the northern parts of England.
However, we are drifting a little from the point. Surely it is a proper concept that somebody who is having to pay a tax—indirectly, I agree, through the process of the acquisition of land—and who is perfectly prepared, willing and able to make available to the proper authorities all the information that they require so that that tax shall be properly assessed, should not be required to pay that tax until the assessment is made. In effect, that is what the new clause means. That is why I shall strongly support my right hon. and hon. Friends in pressing it.
§ Mr. Mayhew
I should be very glad not to have to support the clause for one reason at least, that coming to it as one who did not have to undergo the penance of sitting on the Standing Committee I find it so complex in its draftsmanship that I cannot make head or tail of it. But, having heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), it seems to me that the provisions of the Bill as drafted are so offensive to any considerations of equity, justice or fair dealing that one must be obliged to support the clause, even one drafted with such complexity, not to say obscurity, as this—no doubt necessarily, and I make no criticism of it, for it would be important to do so.
I want to make sure that I have correctly grasped the point that my hon. Friend is making. I find it difficult to believe that even a Government with the record of the present Government could seriously suppose that taxation can properly be levied, or even practicably be levied, on the principles that I think I have understood my hon. Friend to outline.
As I understand the position, of the clause is not introduced to mitigate the effects of the Bill as drafted, there will be occasions when, by the rigid application of a formula, a property owner who does not wish to sell his property but is obliged to do so by the operation of another part of the Bill, or perhaps some other legislation, will lose a larger sum than the value of the property itself. He will not be able to retain his own property, and he will be taxed by the application of this formula to a greater extent than the sum total of the compensation he is entitled to receive by virtue of the acquisition of his property.
That was what I understood my hon. Friend to be saying. If that is so, it cannot be justified in any way. If I have got it wrong I should be grateful to be corrected, but if that is, at any rate in outline, the nature of the clause in the Bill as drafted, it could not conceivably be justified.
Let us suppose that it were to be brought within the jurisdiction of international law. Let us suppose that the present Government were nationalising, for example, an asset belonging to a 1734 foreign proprietor but located within the United Kingdom. International law would pronounce unlawful a procedure which resulted in the failure to compensate to the full value of the property thus acquired, whatever the property in question might be. It is a well established principle of international law that if one is going to expropriate from a foreign owner on must compensate him properly; that is, to the full extent of the value of the property one is taking. That is only because such a result is just and fair.
We recognise that the complexities of life today are such that compulsory purchase orders are justifiable in certain circumstances. However, how can it conceivably be said to be fair that someone who is obliged to part with his property shall do so only on the terms that he is taxed upon the compensation he receives and taxed on such a scale that he is left with only a negative—and that not only is the compensation taken away but he is left with less.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I think he is putting the matter too wide. It is not that a person is obliged to part with his property; he is obliged to part with an interest in his property, under the clause in question—nothing more.
§ Mr. Mayhew
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the benefit of his closer acquaintance with the Bill, derived from membership of the Committee. That makes the matter all the worse.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that in some way or other my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and I have got it wrong and that the Government do not intend that any such result shall flow from the Bill as drafted. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that somehow this interpretation has crept in by some mistake. If, unhappily, our interpretation is correct, I hope that the Minister will explain—it will need careful explanation—how this can conceivably be justified by any considerations of equity or justice. If the Minister does that, the House will listen with great attention. If that cannot be done, however, I hope that the clause 1735 will be accepted by the House, and by a majority of a size that will indicate the disgust that the House feels for legislation which could lead to consequences twice as unjust as those that my hon. Friends have indicated.
As the Minister knows, I find this section of the Bill offensive for a variety of reasons but mainly because it offends against several principles of natural justice, which I presume still apply in England as they do in Scotland. The first is that the assessing authority is judex in sua re. It is judge in its own cause, it makes its own assesment, it makes its own principles, it decides upon the interpretation of its own act in its own interest. If it admits that it gets it wrong, although there is no appeal it will hand back the difference of its error.
Persons should not be made liable to tax on the basis of a disposal of an interest in land which might only be small. It is wrong that a person should be made liable to tax by an authority which judges what that tax shall be and the tax is then in the hands of that authority. That is authoritarianism. It is contrary to natural justice and contrary to the principles upon which the Minister, I assume, was educated in the law of England.
The clause seeks to eradicate those fundamental evils. I expect that the Minister will tell us—and I can hear his speech before he makes it—that some people might get away with it, that loopholes would be made and that terrible things would happen. Two principles of natural justice are offended, yet a party which pretends to be interested in justice allows this to occur when it could be cured by the clause. I hope that the clause will receive Government support.
§ Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)
I am concerned for the relationship involved in the Government proposal between the local authority, which will implement the obligations under the Bill, and the local community. I entirely support the terms of the clause where it says:nor shall the acquiring body have any right of entry".Under the Land Compensation Act a significant payment was required before a right of entry was given. But under 1736 the Bill there is no obligation to make any payment. It is almost confiscatory in its significance for someone who has a substantial interest in land. The local authority will be hesitant and reluctant to implement an obligation which means that it can enter a property without any payment.
Many hon. Members have served in local government, and one can envisage a situation where a local authority, in furtherance of its obligations under the Bill and of its local policies—particularly in planning—wishes to acquire an area of land or a property in an area which is right for development and yet the Government are not prepared to require that the local authority shall make a significant payment on account of the cost of acquisition. If they would accept the terms of the clause the acquiring body would not have a right of entry. If it were tied up with the Land Compensation Act, it would be a much more reasonable proposition.
I am concerned about the relationship between the elected members of the local authorities which will be responsible for the administration and the owners of property and the local community generally. The effect on that relationship is a dangerous feature of the Bill.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies
I should like to explain briefly, because some hon. Members did not have the privilege and joy of serving on the Committee, how the net-of-tax arrangements work. The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) did not seem to understand the formula deduction, and I make no criticism of him for that. It is a provisional deduction of tax, not the final payment. That is determined between the individual and the Inland Revenue. The final liability may be different: the formula deduction is merely a convenient way of deducting an amount of tax. There is a limit of 50 per cent. of the consideration in any case.
§ Mr. Mayhew
Must not the tax be paid in the meantime on the basis of the application of the formula? Is not one kept out of one's money for a significant time?
§ Mr. Davies
Yes, but that happens to other people; for example, those who suffer deductions from their income for 1737 income tax purposes. My point was that it was not the final assessment, which is determined between the Inland Revenue and the individual.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
There is a slight distinction. One can appeal against an income tax or surtax assessment. There is no appeal formula here.
§ Mr. Davies
There is. I shall come to the point about appeal in a moment. There is an appeal against PAYE, but not before the tax is deducted. Very often with PAYE the final payment is not different, but sometimes it might be.
The main point which has been made is that the local authority might impose on the individual a formula deduction and will not give him the opportunity of challenging it. But there are some voluntary sales to local authorities by individuals. Before the sale, the individual can obtain from the Inland Revenue a provisional assessment of tax. The Inland Revenue communicates that provisional assessment, based on the details of the proposed sale, to the local authority, which must deduct tax equivalent to that provisional assessment. That is not determined by the local authority and is not within its discretion. An alternative would be for the individual to agree with the local authority to a deduction.
It is only when neither of those procedures is followed that the formula deduction come into being. The protection for the individual is that before any conclusion is reached he can agree with the Inland Revenue a provisional assessment which will be imposed on the local authority. It will have to deduct tax according to that assessment. Final liability will be determined later, and the figures may be different.
The question of compulsory purchase was raised in Committee, especially by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). He was concerned that the compulsory purchase procedures might not be of a kind that would enable the taxpayer to obtain from the Inland Revenue a provisional assessment. The fear expressed in Committee was that the local authority, instead of allowing the vendor sufficient time to agree a specific deduction with the DLT office, would enter on the land and acquire it compulsorily, thus 1738 forcing his hand. If the local authority were to do that—this takes up the point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones)—it would be faced with having to make a 90 per cent. advance payment of compensation under Section 32 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 with interest from the date of entry. There is that sanction on local authorities.
I accepted in Committee, and I accept now, that it would be serious if local authorities were to abuse the compulsory purchase powers so as to deny to the individual the opportunity to agree a deduction with the Inland Revenue. I do not believe that will happen, but if it appears that authorities are trying to use the compulsory purchase procedures for that purpose, we shall consider it to be a serious matter.
We could amend the compulsory purchase procedures to prevent abuse by the authorities if there were evidence of abuse. They could be amended, although that would cause greater delay. If the authorities were to abuse the procedures by preventing a taxpayer from going to the Inland Revenue and obtaining a provisional assessment, we should consider amending the procedures to prevent that happening. That would be the right way of dealing with the matter, not as is suggested in the clause.
§ Mr. Graham Page
This is not the right way to treat the House. Surely it is not right to say, "Some danger could arise from the clause. If it does, we shall introduce new legislation." The clause would avoid any such danger, and I ask the House to accept it.
The clause accepts that there may be net-of-tax purchases. There may be, but they will not take place unless there has been a proper assessment by the Inland Revenue, not an assessment by the local authority. The formula in Schedule 7 leaves the local authority to assess that formula, which is based on an estimate by the local authority of the current use value of the property.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
The Minister said that he would deal with the fact that there is a system of appeal, but I did not hear him deal with it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will emphasise that there is no system of appeal.
§ Mr. Page
There is no system of appeal against the provisional assessment or against the formula deduction. Eventually there is an appeal against final assessment on the chargeable person. But that person is put in an extremely difficult position if the formula is applied and deduction is made, assessment being made by the local authority even on the basis of the formula, because the formula is based on an estimate made by the local authority.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies
I thought I made it clear that as regards voluntary sales the individual is protected because he can agree a provisional assessment with the Inland Revenue. There is no question of a formula deduction being imposed upon him. I accepted that local authorities might seek to abuse the compulsory purchase procedures, but I do not think that will happen. If that were to be the case, we should bring in amending legislation.
§ Mr. Page
If the hon. Gentleman would accept the clause, there would be no danger of abuse by the local authorities. The simple formula that the clause provides is that deduction is made either by the consent of the person who has to pay or by assessment on him of the amount he has to pay. The Minister said that as regards voluntary sales the chargeable person can—I quote his words—go along to the Inland Revenue. I hesitate to repeat what I said in Committee, but I criticised the Minister for saying that the chargeable person could go along to the mandarins in Middlesbrough and obtain an immediate provisional assessment. Of course that cannot happen. That is why we framed the clause as it appears before the House.
§ Mr. Page
The clause provides that if a person selling to the local authority wants a quick completion of his purchase, he can consent to the local authority making a deduction. This is the right way to deal with it. He can do that now. The clause recognises it. But it says that the local authority is not to take any steps to prevent such an agreement or to prevent a proper assessment of the chargeable person.
§ Mr. Budgen
Will my right hon. Friend take up with the Minister the point that many injustices occur when there are voluntary sales? This is an extremely complex, and, therefore, very expensive, procedure for the small landowner, whose land is often taken voluntarily but with the threat of compulsory acquisition as a back-up. Therefore, there will be injustices, because many small landowners will not wish to avail themselves of their full right.
§ Mr. Page
In a voluntary sale, where the purchaser has compulsory purchase powers, the purchaser always has the upper hand, and those powers can be used. The Minister says that he does not think local authorities will abuse the powers. Although I have criticised this net-of-tax purchase procedure throughout, I have recognised it in the clause and merely put in the precaution that it shall not be used unless the chargeable person agrees, or unless he has been properly assessed.
I am surprised that the Minister did not rise at once and say that he would accept the clause. Since he has not done so, I hope that we can force him to accept it.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 281.1745
|Division No. 194.]||AYES||[10.43 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Blaker, Peter||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Body, Richard||Burden, F. A.|
|Alison, Michael||Boscawen, Hon Robert||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Bottomley, Peter||Carlisle, Mark|
|Arnold, Tom||Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Carson, John|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Chalker, Mrs Lynda|
|Awdry, Daniel||Bradford, Rev Robert||Churchill, W. S.|
|Baker, Kenneth||Braine, Sir Bernard||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Banks, Robert||Brittan, Leon||Clark, William (Croydon S)|
|Beith, A. J.||Brocklebank-Fowler, C.||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Bell, Ronald||Brotherton, Michael||Clegg, Walter|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Cockcroft, John|
|Benyon, W.||Bryan, Sir Paul||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Cope, John|
|Biffen, John||Buck, Antony||Cordle, John H.|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Budgen, Nick||Cormack, Patrick|
|Corrie, John||Jopling, Michael||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Critchley, Julian||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Raison, Timothy|
|Crouch, David||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rathbone, Tim|
|Crowder, F. P.||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)||Kershaw, Anthony||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Kimball, Marcus||Reid, George|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Knight, Mrs Jill||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Dunlop, John||Knox, David||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Durant, Tony||Lamont, Norman||Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lane, David||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Elliott, Sir William||Lawrence, Ivan||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Emery, Peter||Lawson, Nigel||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)||Le Marchant, Spencer||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Lloyd, Ian||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Farr, John||Loveridge, John||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Fell, Anthony||Luce, Richard||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||McCrindle Robert||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McCusker, H.||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Forman, Nigel||Macfarlane, Neil||Shepherd, Colin|
|Fox, Marcus||MacGregor, John||Shersby, Michael|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Silvester, Fred|
|Freud, Clement||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Sims, Roger|
|Fry, Peter||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Madel, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Marten, Neil||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Mates, Michael||Spence, John|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Maude, Angus||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Sproat, Iain|
|Goodhew, Victor||Mayhew, Patrick||Stainton, Keith|
|Gorst, John||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Stanley, John|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Mills, Peter||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Miscampbell, Norman||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Gray, Hamish||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Stokes, John|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Moate, Roger||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Molyneaux, James||Tapsell, Peter|
|Grist, Ian||Monro, Hector||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Grylls, Michael||Montgomery, Fergus||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Hall, Sir John||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Morgan, Geraint||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Hannam, John||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Trotter, Neville|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Hastings, Stephen||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mudd, David||Viggers, Peter|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Neave, Airey||Wakeham, John|
|Heseltine, Michael||Nelson, Anthony||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Hicks, Robert||Neubert, Michael||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Newton, Tony||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Holland, Philip||Normanton, Tom||Wall, Patrick|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Nott, John||Walters, Dennis|
|Hordern, Peter||Onslow, Cranley||Watt, Hamish|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Osborn, John||Wells, John|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Page, John (Harrow West)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Hunt, David (Wirral)||Parkinson, Cecil||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Hunt, John||Pattie, Geoffrey||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Hurd, Douglas||Penhaligon, David||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Percival, Ian||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Peyton, Rt Hon John||Younger, Hon George|
|James, David||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Jessel, Toby||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Mr. Michael Roberts and|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Prior, Rt Hon James||Mr. Carol Mather.|
|Jones, Arthur (Daventry)|
|Abse, Leo||Ashton, Joe||Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)|
|Allaun, Frank||Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Bates, Alf|
|Anderson, Donald||Atkinson, Norman||Bean, R. E.|
|Archer, Peter||Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hardy, Peter||Noble, Mike|
|Bishop, E. S.||Harper, Joseph||Oakes, Gordon|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Ogden, Eric|
|Boardman, H.||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Orbach, Maurice|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Hatton, Frank||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Hayman, Mrs Helene||Ovenden, John|
|Bradley, Tom||Heffer, Eric S.||Owen, Dr David|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hooley, Frank||Palmer, Arthur|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Howell, Rt Hon Denis||Park, George|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Parker, John|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Huckfield, Les||Parry, Robert|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Buchanan, Richard||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Peart, Rt Hon Fred|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Pendry, Tom|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Perry, Ernest|
|Campbell, Ian||Hunter, Adam||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Canavan, Dennis||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Cant, R. B.||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Prescott, John|
|Carmichael, Neil||Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Carter, Ray||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Janner, Greville||Radice, Giles|
|Cartwright, John||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Cohen, Stanley||John, Brynmor||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Corbett, Robin||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Judd, Frank||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Kaufman, Gerald||Rooker, J. W.|
|Cronin, John||Kelley, Richard||Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Cryer, Bob||Kerr, Russell||Rowlands, Ted|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Sandelson, Neville|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Kinnock, Neil||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lambie, David||Selby, Harry|
|Davidson, Arthur||Lamborn, Harry||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Lamond, James||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Leadbitter, Ted||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lee, John||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Sillars, James|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Lipton, Marcus||Silverman, Julius|
|Dempsey, James||Litterick, Tom||Skinner, Dennis|
|Doig, Peter||Lomas, Kenneth||Small, William|
|Dormand, J. D.||Loyden, Eddie||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Luard, Evan||Snape, Peter|
|Dunn, James A.||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Dunnett, Jack||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Stallard, A. W.|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||McCartney, Hugh||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Eadie, Alex||McElhone, Frank||Stoddart, David|
|Edge, Geoff||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Strang, Gavin|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Mackintosh, John P.||Swain, Thomas|
|English, Michael||Maclennan, Robert||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Ennals, David||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||McNamara, Kevin||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Madden, Max||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Magee, Bryan||Tierney, Sydney|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mahon, Simon||Tinn, James|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Mallalleu, J. P. W.||Tomlinson, John|
|Flannery, Martin||Marks, Kenneth||Tomney, Frank|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Marquand, David||Torney, Tom|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Ford, Ben||Maynard, Miss Joan||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Forrester, John||Meacher, Michael||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dvw'd)|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Mendelson, John||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mikardo, Ian||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Millan, Bruce||Ward, Michael|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Watkins, David|
|George, Bruce||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Watkinson, John|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Molloy, William||Weetch, Ken|
|Ginsburg, David||Moonman, Eric||Weitzman, David|
|Golding, John||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Gould, Bryan||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||White, James (Pollok)|
|Graham, Ted||Moyle, Roland||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Whitlock, William|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Grocott, Bruce||Newens, Stanley||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Williams, Sir Thomas||Woodall, Alec||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)||Woof, Robert||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)||Wrigglesworth, Ian||Mr. Donald Coleman.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.