HC Deb 11 July 1978 vol 953 cc1333-51

—(1) Section 84 of the Finance Act 1976 (Maintenance Funds for Historic Buildings) shall he amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (3)(a) substitute the following—

  1. "(i) for the maintenance, repair or preservation of, or making provision for public access to, property which is for the time being qualifying property as defined in subsection (5) below; or".

(3) For subsection (5) substitute the following subsection— (5) Property is qualifying property for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above if it is

  1. (a) land designated under—
    1. (i) section 34(1)(a) of the Finance Act 1975; or
    2. (ii) section 77(1)(b) above;
    which comprises a garden or arboretum of historic, architectural or scientific interest with respect to which the requisite undertaking has been given under the said section 34 or section 76, 78(5) (b) or 82(3) above; or
  2. (b) a building, land adjacent to it or an object historically associated with such a building designated under—
    1. (i) the said section 34(1)(b), (c) or (d); or
    2. (ii) section 77(1Xc), (d) or (e) above;
    with respect to which the dequisite undertaking has been given under the said section 34 or section 76, 78(5)(b) or 82(3) above; and
  3. (c) tax has not (since the last occasion on which such an undertaking 1334 was given) become chargeable with respect to it under the said section 34 or under section 78 or 82(3) above".
  4. (4) In subsection (6) after the words "mentioned in subsection" leave out"(1)(c) or (d) of section 77" and insert "(5)".
  5. (5) This section shall have effect with respect to any settlement to which the Treasury give a direction under subsection (1) of the said section 84 after the passing of his Act.'.—[Mr. Robert Cooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. It provides for the income from a maintenance fund to be applied to the upkeep of gardens, arboreta and chattels associated with historic buildings. It will not of itself achieve anything at all, because it pre-supposes that an owner of a heritage property has set up a so-called maintenance fund with his own money. Only recently, in reply from the Treasury, we were told that nobody had so far done so. I suspect that this is because the provisions for so doing are so unattractive since they involve saying goodbye irrevocably to what could well be the owner's last remaining capital asset.

However, if the Government, in their wisdom, are to make the so-called maintenance funds workable the new clause is an essential extension of the application of private resources to the public purpose of preserving an ever more accessible heritage. That is a philosophy that we on this side have for long embraced. Indeed, it is embraced in many other parts of the House.

I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. I hope that they will also bear in mind that more needs to be done to extricate the heritage from the strangling coils of capital transfer tax. The Government might reflect that there are 16 other new clauses on the Notice Paper which are deliberately starred so that they do not obscure this limited debate: they prove what a mess we are in.

The heritage, provided that it is accessible—and that is an absolute requirement for my proposition—should not be crippled by taxes. It is a solemn thought that the flood of sales of works of art and of buildings, the fates of which hang in the balance, will grow month by month unless effective action is taken soon.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). The case is unanswerable. I hope that the Government will accept this all-party clause. We are not asking the Government to reverse or change their policies. We ask them to accept their own precedent and to proceed in a way which could help to save many important parts of our national heritage.

Two matters particularly are at issue. First, we seek to safeguard the treasures within historic houses and heritage properties. Secondly, we seek to safeguard the beautiful gardens and grounds that often surround them. The Government have always accepted that these are worth fighting for and saving. They have conceded that in previous Finance Acts. We do not believe that the maintenance funds, as they are established, are sufficiently attractive. But we welcome the precedent that has been set. We hope that the Government will do something to make maintenance funds workable.

I should like to underline what has been said repeatedly by Ministers in the last couple of years both here and in the other place. They said it at the time of the Mentmore debate, during the recent battle over the Canalettos, which we are so delighted have been saved, and during the great debates over the Stubbs pictures last year. They have said that the cheapest and most economic and attractive way of preserving our historic houses is to encourage the owners to remain within them. Baroness Birk has expressed that view more than once in the other place and her comments have been echoed by Lord Donaldson. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said the same.

In our modest proposal we are saying simply that we applaud the Government's acceptance of this self-evident truth, and we ask them to do something to make maintenance funds more workable. We ask the Government to enable these funds to embrace those particular matters about which Governmental concern has been repeatedly expressed in recent years.

Mr. Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

I should like to endorse what has been said. I represent a part of the country in the heart of England which contains a large number of historic buildings, ranging from one that has acquired a certain notoriety recently—Warwick Castle—down to the small and worthwhile stately home called Baddesley Clinton, which lies north of Warwick, off the 13irmingham road. The owner has experienced considerable difficulties and the future of this beautiful property is now in doubt.

Although quite a lot has been done to assist those who try to maintain these stately homes and other historic buildings. I am sure that much more needs to be done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) said, we need to be able to encourage more and more people to remain in these buildings where possible and to make the buildings accessible to the public. There is a great fund of good will among the general public. Regardless of political beliefs, the vast majority of people support the preservation of historic homes as part of our heritage and believe that there should be ample opportunities for the public to visit them. They regard them as an integral part of the country.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) said, this is a modest gesture which deserves support. I hope that the Government will find a IA ay of accepting it.

Mr. Giles Radice (Chester-le-Street)

I have some sympathy with the clause. Clearly the contents of a great historic home can be a major part of the heritage. Probably, however, before we move forward on that front, we need to look rather more carefully at how we define "contents".

The part of the clause with which I am most sympathetic concerns gardens and arboreta because clearly gardens are a major part of our national heritage. There are many beautiful gardens in this country and they are a major tourist attraction. In many case, the money paid by the visiting public does not cover costs.

Mr. Cormack

Does the hon. Member agree that the member of the public who flock to these places—there were 15 million separate visits last year—are attracted as much by the contents of the houses as by the grounds? Is it not, therefore, important to try to preserve what we have rather than follow the example of those French chateaux which are empty shells?

Mr. Radice

I said that I had some sympathy with the clause, but that before we supported it we should be clearer as to what we meant by "contents". The case for gardens and arboreta is much stronger in the sense that some gardens already qualify if they are attached to an historic building, whereas I understand that there are 60 outstanding gardens and arboreta which do not qualify because they are not associated with an historic building. In a sense, therefore, we are seeking to correct an anomaly by extending maintenance funds to these gardens.

I hope that the Government can accept, if not the clause at it stands, the spirit behind it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

I, too, support the clause. I remember the night of the Committee stage of the 1975 Act when the Government first put down the principle that certain parts of the heritage could be reserved and preserved provided they were not sold and were in trust on behalf of the owner. I remember the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), who is not here at the moment, who played an important part in those debates, saying that he hoped that the inmates of the historic house would be able to continue to live in modesty and comfort. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the experience of most of these people is of immodesty and discomfort.

I welcome this step, small though it is, and I hope that we may take it for this reason. I commend to the Labour Party that if a man inherits a Rembrandt worth £1 million, or Mentmore, worth more than £1 million, it is possible to say that he is a very rich man with possessions in excess of £1 million. He would appear under Lord Diamond's classification and the statistics that he trots out as owning a certain percentage of the wealth. If a man inherited a Rembrandt and passed it on when he died he would not enjoy or spend one penny of the money. That is the correct principle for us to follow in order to achieve some sort of common ground in the matter of capital taxation.

The same is true of a man who inherits shares in a family business, or who inherits agricultural land or forestry. We have made concessions for these three categories in respect of capital transfer tax by way of easements for those who take up these estates and pass them on unimpaired or even improved. Surely the principle this House should seek to achieve is to move towards a disinvestment tax. Those who sell their patrimony, be it heritage, artistic, industrial, financial or whatever, should be taxed heavily upon cashing in. Those who improve and pass on these assets to future generations should be exempt from this sort of taxation.

I believe that is common ground between the two sides of the House, which is why the hon. Member for Chester-le-street (Mr. Radice) expressed some sympathy with the small step that is now proposed. The maintenance fund which is used to keep up a good garden or to keep good chattels, pictures or possessions inside a house is of no benefit to any individual who might have owned the chattels. It is of benefit only to the millions who will see and enjoy them, and that is a better way of preserving them even if it means turning the erstwhile owner into a sort of museum keeper, whether modest or immodest, in comfort or discomfort.

That is the best way forward and therefore I hope that the House will accept this modest clause.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies)

This new clause seeks to extend the benefits which apply at the moment under the maintenance fund provisions. Perhaps I can remind the House. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who moved the clause did not go into detail and he seemed to think that maintenance funds were not very beneficial, so perhaps I should remind the House of the considerable benefits that accrue as a result of setting up a maintenance fund. There are benefits from capital transfer tax and capital gains tax, and there are income tax benefits once a maintenance fund is set up.

The maintenance fund provision was introduced only in the Finance Act 1976, and last year the income tax reliefs were extended. It is true to say that it has taken a bit of time, but not a very long time, for advantage to be taken of it. We know now that at least two cases are coming to fruition. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) may laugh, but it takes a long time to set up a maintenance fund and do the documentation. There are two cases at the moment about to be completed and only waiting for legal formalities. There are many other cases in the pipeline of people wanting to take advantage of these maintenance fund provisions, and I think that we shall see more over the next few years.

It is no good hon. Members opposite belittling the maintenance fund. It is an important provision of great benefit to the owners of historic houses. They are coming to recognise that benefit, which is, as I have said, the capital transfer tax benefit, the capital tax gains benefit, and the income tax benefit.

The income tax benefit is particularly apposite to the new clause. The income tax benefit at the moment covers repairs and maintenance of historic buildings. Any repairs or maintenance get the benefit of the income tax reliefs under the maintenance fund provisions.

The new clause has two purposes: first to extend the benefits to the contents of the house and, second, to extend the benefits to gardens and arboreta. I have great reservations about the proposed extension to contents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) pointed out, there is no tight definition here of contents. Presumably, any provision on the part of the owner to maintain the contents, such as turning up the central heating to keep the Chippendale at the right temperature, would come within the category of expenses which would be allowable for the income tax reliefs in the maintenance fund provision. That may or may not be desirable, but that is a benefit which, I think, would accrue. There are other cases as well which one could mention.

Since it is very difficult to restrict of limit the benefit in relation to contents, I should be very reluctant to go along with that part of the new clause.

As regards gardens and arboreta, again as my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street pointed out, the case is stronger. If they are adjacent, as I understand it, gardens are exempt under the existing provisions anyway. We are talking here about gardens and arboreta which perhaps are not adjacent but are some way distant or standing on their own not in relation directly to the historic house. That is the area of exemption which the new clause seeks to incorporate in the legislation.

I am prepared to look sympathetically at the question of gardens and arboreta with a view to bringing forward legislation in next year's Finance Bill to meet the spirit of the point made, but I must make quite clear as regards contents that I do not think that the case has been made out.

I should add, although there is considerable scepticism on the Opposition Front Bench when Treasury Ministers say that drafting is defective, that the advice I have from the Inland Revenue is that there is a technical defect in the clause. The existing provision in section 84 which gives the exemption allows people to get property designated as being of heritage quality—which is the basic requirement—even if it has not been the subject of a claim for additional exemption from capital transfer tax. There is an attempt in the new clause to keep that concession. In fact, the wording of the clause in relation to subsection (6) of section 84 would mean that that facility would not be available in future, although it is available at the moment, for buildings, land, contents and, indeed, arboreta. So through an error of drafting—I am not making a point about it but I must tell the House —the clause restricts the present benefit in relation to buildings and lands as regards conditional exemption. If the House were to accept the clause as it stands, there would in that respect be a restriction on the present law.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I agree strongly with what my right hon. Friend said, but if there is a certain sympathy as regards gardens and arboreta, is it not better to proceed through the mechanism of the Historic Buildings Council and direct grant instead of trying to do it somewhat imprecisely and with great difficulty through the tax system?

Mr. Davies

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. There are arguments on both sides. It could be argued that one should not go along the road of tax concession, as he has suggested. However, it would be inconsistent of the Government now, having accepted that we should give some tax relief and having agreed on the question of a maintenance fund, to say that they cannot include gardens in the exemption. As I have said, gardens which are adjacent are already included.

Mr. Ridley

As the Minister has virtually accepted the point in relation to gardens and arboreta, will the clause that he will prepare for next year's Finance Bill to cover the point be retrospective to the present date, since he has accepted the principle today? Obviously, that will make a great deal of difference to those who are affected in the ensuing financial year.

Mr. Davies

That point will be taken into account, but I cannot say anything about it now. As I have said, we are prepared to look at the provisions for gardens are arboreta sympathetically, with a view to legislation next year, but not in respect to contents. I reiterate also that the clause is defective in that it would tighten the restrictions.

Mr. Cormack

If the Minister is sympathetic at least to part of the case —and we welcome that—why did the Government not produce their own variation of the clause in time for today's debate? Surely, the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has received must have been received some little time ago.

Mr. Davies

The Government have to consider many pressures and suggestions for changing the tax system. A vast number of new clauses are put down. I suggest to the hon. Gentlemen, especially with the powerful lobby behind them and the expert advice available to them, that they could have made sure they got their new clause right. It is no good complaining now and saying that the Government should have done the drafting for them.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

We have had an extremely useful debate on an important subject, and we should congratulate, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) and for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who have laboured so assiduously in this matter.

This is not the moment to debate the merits of capital transfer tax. That would be going too wide. We may take it as a sign of grace that in 1976 the Government for the first time recognised what we had long warned them to be the risks which they were generating for the national heritage. As a result, we coaxed out of the Government a very modest relief in the form of maintenance fund provision. Again, this is perhaps not the time to debate the limitations and difficulties inseparable from the relief as it has been introduced. I hope there will he other occasions to do so.

I detected some diffidence in the Minister of State, who, we know, approaches these problems, when he can, with an open mind. He recognises that not very many people have so far sought to take advantage of these provisions. I must tell him candidly that the reason is that the relief is too tightly drawn. I hope there will be other occasions when we can return to that.

Today, we are concerned merely with the scope of national heritage assets to which the maintenance fund relief, such as it is, should be extended. There seems to be a delightful degree of unanimity in the House this evening that gardens and arboreta deserve some kind of relief. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) has shown that same interest, and I believe that he indicated it in Committee, too.

7.30 p.m.

It is not necessary to instance the kind of case that we have in mind, but I would cite only the garden at Westbury which the National Trust has recognised, or that at Sissinghurst or the arboretum at Bedgebury or that at Westonbirk. I take at random some in the ownership of the National Trust, some of the Forestry Commission and some in private hands. The Minister has recognised the difficulties of those who are still concerned in the private sector with the management and care of gardens and arboreta. They demand considerable attention and money. To use a horrible phrase, they are labour intensive.

Therefore, it is important that they should be preserved. I like to think that the Government have recognised what an appalling burden they would have to take on if all these gardens and arboreta—there must be at least 25 or 35 of a transcendent quality—

Mr. Radice


Mr. Rees

I am happy to take that figure, but there is some imprecision here. I doubt whether any Government would want to take on the responsibility of running and caring for these properties. Some will always fall into public hands because there will not be families with the resources, the application or the interest to preserve what they have inherited. Therefore, as a last resort, the Government may have to take control, passing them on in certain cases to the National Trust or the Forestry Commission.

We are happy that the Minister has recognised this strong case. We need not trouble ourselves with his criticisms of any technical defects. It seems that he will not willingly accept the clause. The technical defects cannot be overwhelming because they can relate only to gardens and arboreta which cannot at the moment take advantage of the maintenance fund relief.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The defects would in fact then relate to the items—the house itself—which at the moment get this exemption. It would make the position worse for those objects which at present get benefit.

Mr. Rees

I should hate to bandy words with the right hon. Gentleman on the technicalities of this provision, but he suggests that such defects as there may be would extend to cases in which gardens or arboreta are attached to a house. But the new clause is designed to relate to gardens and arboreta on their own.

Mr. Denzil Davies

But the way in which it is drafted and the way in which it seeks to amend the original section 84 would restrict relief to what gets relict at the moment—the repairs and maintenance of the house. That is unintentional, but that is what it does.

Mr. Rees

As I said I will not take up time on that, but I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman has entirely focused on the point, that the new clause as drafted is aimed at gardens and arboreta which stand on their own. There is obviously a technical point here which perhaps we should thrash out. No doubt my hon. Friend has taken the best possible advice—

Mr. Denzil Davies

It was not good enough.

Mr. Rees

So the Minister says, but the charge was thrown across the Committee floor so often that amendments were technically defective that I am bound to say that we look warily at those objections. But let me leave the question of gardens and arboreta with the technical defects that the Minister affects to detect.

Let me come to the question of objects which are historically associated with buildings. Here the argument was not one of technical detail but one of principle. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was a little concerned that the clause was not sufficiently tightly drawn there and the Minister was disposed to say that there was some imprecision.

I think that the clause is quite precise. It is aimed at giving relief to objects which are historically associated with buildings which would qualify for relief under maintenance funds. Of course, it must be a question of fact in any given case whether an object is historically associated, but there must be some clear examples—for instance, the relics of the Duke of Wellington at Stratfield Saye, the tapestries at Blenheim designed to commemorate the victories of the first Duke of Marlborough, perhaps the manuscripts of the first Lord Burghley at Hatfield. There must be many examples about which there could be no serious dispute. I wonder whether the Minister has addressed his mind to that problem.

The Minister said that all this could have been ventilated earlier and that it is now too late for the Government to accept the new clause, but that something will be done in the next Finance Bill. I do not want to introduce a partisan note into a debate which has been notable for its bipartisan nature, but the Minister cannot assure us that he will be able to put down a new clause of any kind in the next Finance Bill. However, I do not want to open the debate.

A new clause in precisely these terms, and several others, were on the Amendment Paper in Committee. It was the bounden duty of the Minister, if he felt that there was any merit in that new clause, to have directed his mind to it at that stage. I have no doubt, such are the friendly relations which obtain between my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West and the Minister, that he could have privately pointed out the defects to my hon. Friend.

Therefore, I am not particularly impressed by those arguments. I recognise that the Minister has moved a little way down the path that we have been coaxing him down since 1976, but he will have to go a little further. I am sorry that he cannot meet us at this stage. I do not think that we are ever deterred by the technical defects that he affects to see, and I hope that my hon. Friend, to demonstrate the importance of the principle, will press the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Dalyell

I am a member of the Council of the National Trust for Scotland, but I speak in a personal capacity and very much on the Government side of the argument. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) spoke for example of Sissinghurst. He must know as well as the rest of us that it is expensive to keep such a garden. The impression that I got from Nigel Nicolson is that it is extremely expensive. There is a limited amount in this kitty.

Are we to have some kind of "watering can" effect through the tax system, or is it better, through the mechanism of the Historic Buildings Council, to choose certain gardens which in the public interest should be maintained at a high standard? From Scottish experience, I know that it is certainly within recent recollection that when it was wished to preserve the gardens at Crathes that was perfectly well done through the HBC. The Minister of State's attitude is surely right and he is right also about the mechanism. I shall be the first into the Government Lobby to support him.

Mr. Pardoe

Having last year moved a clause which extended the maintenance funds to take account of income tax, having had some part in wringing that concession out of the Government, I agreed with everything said by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) until his last sentence. He seemed to go completely berserk at the last minute.

The Minister has advised us that it is the Inland Revenue's view that the clause as drafted, for a technical reason, will undo some of the good that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I did in 1976 and 1977 for maintenance funds. Does he really want to do that? The very idea of voting for a clause which sabotages what we did in the last two Finance Bills is utterly crazy. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) will not take the advice which his hon. and learned Friend has given him.

Mr. Robert Cooke

I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). I will indeed take the advice given by my Front Bench on the matter of principle. It is a matter of principle that what we intend to do in our new clause should be done. The Government have introduced a capital transfer tax in such a manner that it has attacked the heritage in every possible aspect. We now seek to unravel the knot.

For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, on this matter of principle—even if on Report the detail is wrong—and whoever got a new clause right on Report except the Government—to support me in the Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Division No. 257] AYES [7.47 p.m.
Adley, Robert Grieve, Percy Nott, John
Aitken, Jonathan Grylls, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Alison, Michael Hall-Davis, A. G. F Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Arnold, Tom Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell) Page, John (Harrow West)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Atkinson, David (B' mouth, East) Hampson, Dr Keith Page, Richard (Workington)
Banks, Robert Hannam, John Parkinson, Cecil
Bell, Ronald Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Pattie, Geoffrey
Bendall, Vivian Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Percival, Ian
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Haselhurst, Alan Pink, R. Bonner
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Hawkins, Paul Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Benyon, W. Hayhoe, Barney Price, David (Eastleigh)
Biffen, John Hicks, Robert Prior, Rt Hon James
Biggs-Davison, John Hodgson, Robin Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Blaker, Peter Holland, Philip Raison, Timothy
Body, Richard Hordern, Peter Rathbone, Tim
Boscawen, Hon Robert Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Bottomley, Peter Howell, David (Guildford) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Rhodes James, R.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Hunt, David (Wirral) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Braine, Sir Bernard Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Ridsdale, Julian
Brittan, Leon Hurd, Douglas Rifkind, Malcolm
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hutchison, Michael Clark Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Brooke, Hon Peter Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Brotherton, Michael James, David Royle, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Sainsbury, Tim
Buck, Antony Jessel, Toby St. John-Stevas, Norman
Budgen, Nick Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Scott, Nicholas
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Jopling, Michael Scott-Hopkins, James
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Channon, Paul Kaberry, Sir Donald Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Churchill, W. S. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Shelton, William (Streatham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Kershaw, Anthony Shepherd, Colin
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kimball, Marcus Shersby, Michael
Cockcroft, John King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Silvester, Fred
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Knox, David Sims, Roger
Cope, John Lamont, Norman Sinclair, Sir George
Cormack, Patrick Langford-Holt, Sir John Skeet, T. H. H.
Corrie, John Latham, Michael (Melton) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
costain, A. P. Lawson, Nigel Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Le Marchant, Spencer Speed, Keith
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Spence, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Lloyd, Ian Sproat, Iain
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Loveridoe John Stainton, Keith
Drayson, Burnaby Luce, Richard Stanbrook, Ivor
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward McCrindle, Robert Stanley, John
Durant, Tony MacGregor, John Steen, Anthony(Wavertree)
Dykes, Hugh MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Stokes, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Stradling Thomas, J.
Elliott, Sir William McNair-Wilson, P. {New Forest) Tapsell, Peter
Emery, Peter Madel, David Taylor, R. (croydon NW)
Eyre, Reginald Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Tebbit, Norman
Fairbairn, Nicholas Marten, Neil Temple-Morris, Peter
Fairgrieve, Russell Mather, Carol Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Farr, John Maude, Angus Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Fell, Anthony Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Townsend, Cyril D.
Finsberg, Geoffrey Mayhew, Patrick Trotter, Neville
Fisher, Sir Nigel Meyer, Sir Anthony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Mills, Peter Viggers, Peter
Forman, Nigel Miscampbell, Norman Wakeham, John
Fox, Marcus Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Moate, Roger walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Galbraith Hon T. G. D. Monro, Hector Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Montgomery, Fergus Warren, Kenneth
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Moore, John (Croydon C) Weatherill, Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Morgan, Geraint Wells, John
Glyn, Dr Alan Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Wiggln, Jerry
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Goodiad, Alastair Neave, Airey Younger, Hon George
Gorst, John Nelson, Anthony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Neubert, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Newton, Tony TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Normanton, Tom Sir George Young and
Gray, Hamish Mr. Anthony Berry.

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 256.

Abse, Leo Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Abse, Leo Allaun, Frank George, Bruce Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Anderson, Donald Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Armstrong, Ernest Ginsburg, David Newens, Stanley
Achley, Jack Golding, John Noble, Mike
Ashton, Joe Gould, Bryan Oakes, Gordon
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Gourlay, Harry Ogden, Eric
Atkinson Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) Graham, Ted O'Halloran, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grant, John (Islington C) Orbach, Maurice
Barnett Guy (Greenwich) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Ovenden, John
Bates, Alf Hardy, Peter Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Bean, R. E. Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Palmer, Arthur
Beith, A. J. Hart, Rt Hon Judith Pardoe, John
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Park, George
Bidwell, Sydney Hayman, Mrs Helene Parker, John
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Healey, Rt Hon Denis Parry, Robert
Blenkinsop, Arthur Heffer, Eric S. Pavitt, Laurie
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Hooley, Frank Pendry, Tom
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Horam, John Penhaligon, David
Bradley, Tom Howell. Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Phipps, Dr Colin
Bray, Dr Jeremy Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Prescott, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcactle W) Huckfield, Les Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Radice, Giles
Buchan, Norman Hughes, Roy (Newport) Richardson, Miss Jo
Buchanan, Richard Hunter, Adam Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Campbell, Ian Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Robinson, Geoffrey
Canavan, Dennis Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Roderick, Caerwyn
Carmichael, Neil Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Carter, Ray Janner, Greville Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Rooker, J. W.
Cartwright, John Jeger, Mrs Lena Roper, John
Clemitson, Ivor Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rose, Paul B.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) John Brynmor Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rowlands, Ted
Corbett, Robin Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Ryman,John
Cowans, Harry Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sandelson, Neville
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Judd, Frank Sedgemore, Brian
Crawshaw, Richard Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Selby, Harry
Cronin, John Kerr, Russell Sever, John
Crowther Stan (Rotherham) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Kinnock, Neil Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Lambie, David Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam Lamond, James Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Davidson, Arthur Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lee, John Silverman, Julius
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Lestor, Miss John (Eton & Slough] Skinner, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lever, Rt Hon Harold Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Deakins, Eric Litterick, Tom Snape, Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Loyden, Eddie Spriggs, Leslie
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Lyon, Alexander (York) Stallard, A. W.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Stott, Roger
Dempsey, James McCartney, Hugh Strang, Gavin
Dewar, Donald McDonald, Dr Oonagh Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Doig, Peter McElhone, Frank Swain, Thomas
Dormand, J. D. MacFarquhar, Roderick Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce McGuire, Michael (Ince) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Dunnett, Jack MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth McNamara, Kevin Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Eadie, Alex Madden, Max Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Edge, Geoff Thorpe, Ft Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Magee, Bryan Mallalieu, J. P. W. Tierney, Sydney
English, Michael Marks, Kenneth Tilley, John
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Tinn, James
Evans, Gwynfer (Carmarthen) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Tomlinson, John
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Mason, Rt Hon Roy Tomney, Frank
Evans, John (Newton) Maynard, Miss Joan Torney, Tom
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Meacher, Michael Urwin, T. W.
Fernhough, Rt Hon E. Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Flannery, Martin Mikardo,Ian Watkinson, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Weetch, Ken
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Weitzman, David
Ford, Ben Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen) White. James (Pollok)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Mollcy, William Whitehead. Phillip
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Moonman, Eric Whitlock, William
Freud Clement Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) Woodall, Alec
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington) Woof, Robert TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilson, William (Coventry SE) Wrigglesworth, Ian Mr. Thomas Cox and
Wise, Mrs Audrey Young, David (Bolton E) Mr. Ann Taylor

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

New clause no. 12—not moved.

Mr. Newton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to move the new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Only a Member who is a signatory to the new clause.

Mr. Newton

Is it in order for me to sign the new clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker