HC Deb 16 July 1980 vol 988 cc1533-49

Section 248 of the Taxes Act (allowances of charges on income) shall be amended as follows:—

  1. (a)at the end of subsection (3)(b) by the insertion of the words— "(c) any donation to charity".
  2. (b)in subsection (5) by the omission of the word "covenanted".
  3. (c) in subsection (8) by the omission of the word "covenanted".
  4. (d) by the substitution for subsection (9) of the following—
(9) In this section 'donation to charity' means a payment made, otherwise than for consideration in money or money's worth, by the company to a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only".—[Mr. Paul Dean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paul Dean (Somerset, North)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may discuss amendment No. 58, in clause 55, page 39, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert— '(4) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 1972 (Apportionment of amounts which have been deducted by close companies in arriving at their distributable income) there shall be inserted at the end of sub-paragraph (2) the words "or constitute covenanted donations to charity as defined in section 248(9) of the Taxes Act and which do not exceed £10,000 in the aggregate.".'.

Mr. Dean

One of the sponsors of the new clause is my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Aspinwall), and I am sure that the whole House wishes him a speedy recovery from his recent accident.

The new clause may appear to be complicated because it amends the Taxes Act. However, its purpose is very simple. It is that all donations by a company to a charity should be tax deductible. I am grateful for the expertise of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in assisting in the drafting of the new clause.

I shall be brief, because I am conscious that the House has a great deal of business to transact. However, I should like briefly to paint the background to the new clause. Over the centuries, charitable organisations have made a major contribution to the religious, cultural, educational, economic and social life of this country. One has only to look at the glories of our cathedrals, churches, schools and artistic organisations to recognise the great contribution that has been made by the charitable organisations. That contribution has been recognised by Governments of all political colours over many centuries through the tax relief which has been made available to those organisations.

I would be churlish if I said that the Government have not responded to the pleas made last year by my hon. Friends and myself. They were replied to sympathetically by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for State. Similar proposals were put forward on 10 July last year. Indeed, on that occasion, my hon. and learned Friend said: My hon. Friends have put down markers which a Conservative Administration would ignore at their peril."—[Official Report, 10 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 412.] That was a comforting phrase from my hon. and learned Friend. I marked it in my Hansard, and I have it with me today. Such is the influence of my hon. and learned Friend on my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor that in this year's Budget Statement substantial progress was made—I freely concede this—in meeting the points that were put forward last year.

All the points that were put forward last year have a respectable pedigree. They benefited from the research carried out, and recommendations put forward, by the Goodman committee on charity law and voluntary organisations, which reported in 1976, and also from the fiscal working party that was set up by what was then the National Council for Social Services and is now the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. I warmly welcome the Government's response in meeting many of the points put forward last year, particularly in relation to charitable donations made by individuals.

But, welcome as those proposals are, they do not go far enough, for two reasons, First, charities lose revenue when income tax is reduced. It is one of those unhappy ironies that a tax reducing Government, are not to the liking of charities. As a result of the reduction of income tax from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent. the income of charities has probably been reduced—I am of course talking about income through covenants—by about £3¼million to £3½ million. That is a substantial loss of revenue to charities, a factor that I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will consider relevant to the background of this debate.

The second reason, and in many respects a more significant one, is that many of the charities rely on grants from central or local government to pursue their activities. I give credit to the Government for saying that there will be no reductions of central Government grants to voluntary organisations and charities, and I believe that they have honoured that commitment. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for local authorities. There are all too many examples where county councils, district councils and other public bodies have stopped their grants to local charitable and voluntary organisations. It has been the easy way out. It is often easier to cut the grant to an outside organisation than to prune something within one's own house. But the combination of economies in public expenditure by local and central authorities, and the reduction of grants by local authorities to voluntary organisations has made it more difficult for them to fill the gaps that public expenditure can no longer meet. As a result, it is all the more important that individuals should be encouraged to make increasing contributions to charitable organisations, and that com panies should be encouraged to do so also.

The Government should now seriously consider going further. The encouragement that they have given to individuals in this Bill, welcome as it is, does not give equal encouragement to companies. I hope that some of the other recommendations made by the fiscal working party will be sympathetically considered by the Government.

As I understand it, at present a company can give donations—and get tax relief without too much difficulty—to a local charity that is connected with the business concern or with its employees, or which is closely linked with the business of the company. As a result, most of the charitable donations fall into that category. But if the company wishes to go wider than that, there are substantial complications involved, and the income tax has to be deducted at the basic rate, and then reclaimed by the charity. Further, the company deducting the income tax has to account for such tax to the inspector of taxes on a quarterly basis. That is a highly complicated matter, and deters many companies from giving on a wider basis than they would otherwise be prepared to do. For that reason, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to follow the pattern that has now been set for individuals for companies also.

My suggestion has a respectable precedent. It was a suggestion of the Goodman committee in 1976. I realise that my hon. and learned Friend may say that charities have been given a substantial concession this year and cannot expect too much. I would be sympathetic to that argument. but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will say that at least he accepts the principle of my suggestion and that he will be sympathetic to it, if not this year then next year. He may say that this is not the best way of achieving the objective, and that it would be more sensible and helpful to look at the American experience. Equally, I would be sympathetic to his arguments. I pay tribute to the substantial advances that the Government have made in encouraging individuals to give charitable contributions. I am simply asking that what has been done in this Bill for individuals should be done equally for companies, if not this year then as speedily as possible.

Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Valley)

Although I endorse much of what the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has said, my amendment No. 58 is more specific, and is deliberately intended to remedy what is regarded as a serious flaw in what the Government are doing this year for charitable objects. The amendment is related to several matters of principle, and although I feel bound to draw the attention of the House to them, I shall be as concise as possible.

In the Budget Statement and associated documents, the House was led to believe that close company covenant sums and charitable objects would not be apportioned. In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor specifically said that he was moving in accordance with the recommendations of the Goodman committee, and he made no qualification of his adherence to those recommendations. However the Inland Revenue press release, which coincided with the Budget Statement, stated that close company donations to charities would not be apportioned among the shareholders of close companies. It was therefore a considerable surprise and disappointment to note that the Finance Bill went back on that press release and provided for apportionment of covenant donations from close companies.

The second matter of principle is one that has been endorsed by a majority in the House, and certainly Conservative Members have endorsed it repeatedly in recent months. It is that the arts and other charitable objects should not be wholly dependent upon Government subsidy but that increasingly voluntary contributions should replace much of what the taxpayer has shouldered in the past. I take that to be the philosophy of most Conservative Members and also of some Opposition Members. How perverse it is, then, for the Government to go out of their way in the Bill to clobber on the head a very valuable source of financial support to charitable objects, namely, gifts from close companies.

5.30 pm

Then there is the point whether it is healthy for the arts—and perhaps some other charitable objects—to be wholly in the hands of Government financial support. The Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has expressed this view in a letter of May of this year to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It says that his organisation have always taken the view that the private sponsorship of the arts is important not only as a relief to governmental pressure but also on the vital social ground that the Government should not be the only source of support for creative activities. Yet flying in the face of that view—which I would have thought had widespread support of the House—the Government go out of their way in the Bill to handicap the support which close companies generously give to the arts and other charitable objects.

There is also the important point that the Government seem unwilling to recognise that most close companies have a life of their own, distinct from the lives of their various proprietors. It is only in the mind of the Inland Revenue that a close company is regarded as a somewhat bogus body, with no existence other than the joint existence of its proprietors.

In the real world, it is well known that many very substantial trading companies are close companies. What happens—certainly in my experience—is that very often it is the managers, the chief executives, not the shareholders, of the close company who form the view, in the course of their management of the company's affairs, that it would be right and proper, and perhaps beneficial, for the company to support various objects in the community in which it is situated. It might be thought appropriate to support arts festivals, certain local charities, and other good causes. It is the managers who put the idea to the shareholders or the board that the company—not the shareholders but the company—has a public duty to subscribe to these charitable objects.

I hope that I have made the point that all of that is a world away from the charitable motives of individual proprietors of close companies. What happens in many cases is that the individual shareholder in his own private life makes charitable convenants to Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, a church organisation, or whatever it might be, and then the company, in which he is just a shareholder, has charitable motives of its own and wishes to make covenants as a company. It is flying in the face of reality for the Government, prompted by the Inland Revenue, to pretend that close companies do not have lives and motives of their own.

In Committee, the only serious argument that the Minister of State adduced against a similar amendment was that it had no limit, so that the awful prospect loomed of close companies so milking the Revenue that the Budget would be very severely knocked about. Therefore, obedient and responsive to the Minister of State's point, we have come back now with this amendment containing an upper limit of £10,000 for any one close company in any one year.

The Minister of State professed great delicacy in Committee. He said that he could not possibly think of imposing an arbitrary limit and that he could not find some formula—such as the number of shareholders, the age of their grandmothers, or the turnover of the company—that would produce a limit. That ignores the fact that for individual taxpayers. quite rightly, the Treasury has imposed an arbitrary limit, namely, £3,000 a year. There is nothing wrong with that.

We have come back on Report, therefore, with an amendment containing this admittedly arbitrary—but I think perfectly reasonable—upper limit of £10,000 on charitable contributions by any one close company in any one year. I hope that on reflection the Treasury Ministers will agree that it is a serious flaw in their generous treatment of charities this year that they should have surrendered to bureaucratic panic and flown in the face of several important principles, which have the support of the House, in denying close companies a reasonable right to show charitable intentions.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree)

In supporting the new clause, it might be useful to the House if I were to say a word about the definition of charities, because they cover a great range of activities. Not only do we have direct service charities, giving service to people in need in the community; we also have a great deal of pioneering service which charities give in the community, not to mention the fund-raising bodies which are also charitable. In addition, there are many specialist services, such as the family service units which fill in the gaps when the local authorities can no longer carry out services themselves.

There is also the new body which has emerged over the last decade—the pressure group which is, more often than not, also a charitable organisation, and which tries to mix the service side with the campaigning and pressure group side.

In the last two years we have seen the advent of the community service concept in the courts and, more recently, for the unemployed. That is a confusion again between the charitable work, on the work hand, for the recipients, and, on the other, the organisations which are administering the charity.

All this creates a degree of confusion in the minds of hon. Members and in the minds of the public as to exactly what charities are doing at the moment. But we can say that they share one thing in common: they are non-statutory. They are not run by the Civil Service. Although some which have staff and are quangos are paid nearly as much, they are the private side of the welfare coin. They are independent of the politicians and are not caught by public constraints. The charities represent the conscience of the nation.

The party in opposition is always quick to say how important voluntary work is. When we have been in opposition, we have always traditionally supported voluntary work. The difference between the Conservative Party when in office and the Labour Party in office is that we have actually done something this time to help the voluntary organisations. We do not hold a monopoly of voluntary organisations, any more than the Labour Party holds a monopoly of care.

The confusion about why charities need money is perhaps part of the thinking behind the argument for the amendment, because in the past charities have increasingly relied on public sector support for their organisational work. The Conservative Government take an opposite view. It is that no longer shall we go on building up the public sector finance to support the work of voluntary organisations. We shall reverse that process and encourage the private sector to finance the work of independent private organisations.

Our argument goes further. We say that the people know best what they want. Instead of collecting taxes from the people and distributing money by way of central or local grants, we shall hand the money back so that the people can decide which charities and voluntary organisations they wish to support. If the Government believe that the people know best what to do with their money, and that we should encourage them to distribute it locally to voluntary and charitable groups, the important corollary is that private companies should be encouraged to support the private sector of voluntary work. That is the thinking behind the new clauses. It is merely an extension of the Government's proposals to shift taxation relief and to reduce the length of the covenanted income.

Voluntary work has continued to increase among local communities. We must recognise that there has been a shift from public to private financing. As a result of the cuts, local authorities are rightly reducing the amount of grant given to service organisations. However, one cannot reduce the income of voluntary and charitable organisations unless it is increased by another method, namely, through private sector contributions.

Given the present level of inflation and a reduction in real earnings, it is clear that the individual will not produce the necessary finance. It is therefore necessary to find another device—namely, the private company—to which the private sector can turn for increased income. The new clause deals with a new source of funding for charities. Many charities will find themselves at an important cross roads. When the cuts bite on local authorities, they will be able to turn to individuals and to private companies for money. We support that principle, and we hope that the Government will support it.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) referred to pressure groups, I could not help feeling that someone who had not been a chairman of a voluntary organisation, as I have been, would not understand the full implications of the term "pressure group". My hon. Friend was a director of such an organisation and no one was more determined than he to turn that voluntary organisation into an effective pressure group. The organisation was effective partly because voluntary contributions were made from a variety of sources, and partly because of the benign contributions that were made by the Government of the day.

5.45 pm

I support the new clause. Last year the Minister showed great sympathy when he replied to our pleas for a more generous approach to charitable institutions. This year he has followed up that sympathy with action. The action that he has taken has been most generous and has rightly earned the gratitude of the charities. The Government's record cannot be beaten by any of their predecessors.

The importance of charities cannot be over-emphasised, particularly at a time of economic difficulty, when the Government are correctly intent on cutting public expenditure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree pointed out, charities cover a range of organisations. Many of them provide full-time or part-time employment. Many are deeply involved with the social services and fill gaps that may exist or which, perforce, may have to be created in the Welfare State.

Any money spent on voluntary organisations is money well invested. Just as contributions to voluntary organisations create expenditure that is far in excess of the level of the contribution—as a result of the voluntary element—so charitable contributions can expand the work of the voluntary organisation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) that not enough has been done, even now, for charities. I support the new clause, because it will encourage companies to make greater contributions to charity. There can be no doubt that the new clause will simplify the system of taxation, or lack of taxation, for companies.

If the Minister accepts the new clause, it will encourage companies, just as other provisions in the Bill are providing greater encouragement to individuals to make charitable contributions. I also agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North when he said that he hoped that the Minister would give a sympathetic reply. It would be pleasant if he felt able to accept the new clause.

If he gives warning that he will consider the measure, with a view to accepting it next year, it will further encourage charities and companies which may be interested in the new clause.

Mr. Chris Patten (Bath)

I do not wish to interrupt the smooth and largely uncontroversial passage of the Bill for too long. I should like to make three brief points in support of the new clause, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). I support the new clause with more discretion than valour, but I should not like it to be thought that I was ungrateful to the Treasury and to the Minister of State for their actions to encourage charitable giving. I think in particular of clause 53.

For several years I worked in or around voluntary organisations. I am used to writing to the Treasury shortly before Budget day and asking it to encourage charitable giving. I am equally used to receiving circular, carefully laminated replies from the Treasury, saying that that will not be possible this year because of the dangers of creating anomalies or precedents. I have always thought that that was one of the purposes of politicians. If the Treasury did not say that, it would say that the money was not available. When I heard the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) speak about clause 53 in Committee, I thought that some of the replies that I received must have been written by him. The Treasury and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer went a good deal further than that. Indeed, they went further than we had asked them to do. It was a most disorientating experience. We hope that that will be repeated next year as regards VAT and charities.

Secondly, I wish to say a word about the principle that lies behind new clause 4. Hon. Members will recall that G. K. Chesterton, when asked what book he would take with him to a desert island, replied that he would take Thomas's "Guide to Practical Shipbuilding". Similarly, any discussion on the importance of voluntary organisations cannot take place without considering the report of the Goodman committee on charitable law and voluntary organisations which came out about four years ago.

That report pointed out that the spirit of voluntarism has been one of the hallmarks of our civilised society, and it notes that a great deal of our social progress in this country has been based on co-operation between the statutory services and voluntary organisations. It is clearly the case that central and local Government get a good deal out of the bargain with the voluntary sector. That is not the main purpose for supporting charities and voluntary organisations, but nevertheless it is true that if one tots up the State subsidies and the cost of tax concessions and puts them against the amount of effort that the voluntary sector puts in, one sees that clearly the Government get the best part of the deal.

The main reason for encouraging voluntarism is that it provides that extra dimension to our social and other services. We see that in the pioneering social work that goes on right across the country and in many of the activities in our own constituencies.

My third point about the new clause is that there has been an argument in the past about whether one can encourage charities best by the covenant system or by the tax deduction system which operates in Canada, Germany and the United States. That system works on the principle that it is not only more blessed to give than to receive but it is also tax deductible. The Goodman report came down in favour of continuing the covenant system provided that we could reduce the seven-year period to four years and do something about the higher rate taxpayers. On both those points the Government have brought home most of the bacon.

The report also suggested that we should do more to encourage charitable giving by companies. That is why I believe that the acceptance of this clause could round off what has been a most successful package in the Budget. It is just conceivable that my hon. and learned Friend may not be able to accept the new clause this year. But I hope that he will be able to tell us that he will look carefully at ways in which charitable giving by industry can be encouraged in future. That would be widely welcomed by the voluntary sector and by industry itself, even though it has brought a few murmurs of consternation from the Treasury and the Inland Revenue.

Mr.Peter Rees

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has an enviable reputation in this area, in that he has been a doughty and consistent champion of the cause of charities over the years. Today he has been supported by a galaxy of talent from my hon. Friends on the Benches behind me, all of whom have made their own contributions in this area. Of course I do not exclude Labour Members, but I am not so personally acquainted with what they have done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North reminded me of the words that I used advisedly in the debates last year. I am grateful for the acknowledgement by my hon. Friends that we have completely discharged the obligations that we then assumed. That is not to say necessarily that we cannot come back to the advantage of charities and the whole area of personal and corporate giving, but I will come back to that point in due course.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)

That is ultra vires.

Mr. Rees

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that something is ultra vires. That leads us into the area of company law and I shall come to that in a moment. The burden of my hon. Friend's case was that equal encouragement has not been given to companies in this area compared with the encouragement given to individuals in the Finance Bill. I must take issue with my hon. Friend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has pointed out, we have preferred to maintain the covenant route rather than changing to the American system of voluntary giving and direct tax relief up to certain limits.

It is open to an individual, under the measures that we propose, to covenant in favour of a charity, as it has always been. But in this instance the individual has relief from the total burden of income taxation up to a covenanted amount of £3,000 a year. By contrast, a company—leaving aside the special case of close companies—has been entitled and will continue to be entitled to make covenanted donations to charity. Under the provisions of section 248 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act companies will get relief from corporation tax without any particular limit on the amount that they have covenanted in favour of the charity. In fact, under the system that we have devised, with the amendments that we propose in this year's Finance Bill, companies or bodies corporate will be in a more favourable position than individuals.

At this point I shall deal with the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the vires of the company. We are debating the fiscal consequences of giving to charity, whether by covenant or otherwise. There is always the more general constraint on the directors of companies under company law because they must reassure themselves, and eventually reassure their shareholders, that what they are doing is, in the long term, consistent with the objectives of the company. I am sure that no one would expect us in a Finance Bill to deal with that important question of company law.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Surely, even for tax purposes any gift could be deductible only if it was for the purposes of the trade.

Mr. Rees

I hesitate to cross swords with the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a great deal of experience on this matter. That would be so if a"company were claiming the right to deduct a gift to charity in the computation of its profits for tax purposes. For all I know there may be the exceptional case where a company could say that a donation to charity constituted a proper donation for trade purposes, but I suspect that that would be very rare and I would not like to lay down any kind of general principle. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright, who has experience in this area, suggests that I am wrong. But if that test is to be applied, of course the gift would have to be wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company's trade. My more general point is that, even for a covenanted payment, members of a board of directors would have to satisfy themselves that what they were doing was broadly consistent with the objectives of the company. But that is a slightly different question.

Under the framework which we propose, companies are still in a more favourable position than individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North suggests that we should go a stage further and that a body corporate and not an individual should be entitled, subject to various restrictions, to deduct for corporation tax purposes any legitimate gift to a charity. This would be taking it even further and putting companies in an even more favourable position. Certainly we could have an interesting debate on this matter, as indeed we have. My hon. Friends have made some notable contributions, but they are moving us into a slightly different and rather more extended area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath said that surely it was the business of politicians to create anomalies and precedents. But our business is to create good anomalies and precedents. The difficulty in creating an anomaly in one field is that that anomaly will be applied, in the course of debates, to another field. Then we would be led on to adopt the American approach of a deduction for any gift to a charity. That is a quite different approach from anything that has obtained so far in English law. It would be expensive in tax terms and it would be for the House to decide whether the administrative costs would be worth while.

Since we do not have a system of self-assessment, as in the United States, the proposal would involve a considerable amount of Inland Revenue time and require additional staff. However, these are important principles and well worth canvassing. I hope that my hon. Friends will rest content, even with some reservations, with the extensions that we have introduced in the covenant field, recognising that, on analysis, companies are in a better position than individuals.

6 pm

Amendment No. 58, in the name of the hon. Member for Colne Valley, raises an interesting point, which the hon. Gentleman raised in Committee, with one notable exception. The hon. Gentleman obviously took my point that, by introducing such a relief for closed companies, an individual or group of individuals would be able to get greater relief for charitable giving than they would were they to enter into a series of deeds of covenant. The £3,000 annual restriction for individual covenanted giving, which is fair, would not have applied under his previous amendment. The hon. Gentle man has given the matter great thought, and come back with a £10,000 limit. In a curious way, the amendment is more restrictive than the existing situation. If there were four or more participators, the amendment could impose a limit lower than £3,000 on each. Under our proposals a close company can covenant in favour of charities, and, on the whole, the apportionment to the individual participators would be limited to £3,000, were they to make an individual covenant.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

The hon. and learned Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the rights of the several proprietors of the close company as individual taxpayers remain intact. If there were five of them, between them they would have £15,000 in their own individual right. I can scarcely be accused of restricting their rights.

Mr. Rees

It is difficult to construe in great detail fine technical matters in these debates, but that is not the way that I have construed the hon. Gentleman's amendment against the background of the clause that we have introduced. The hon. Gentleman may suggest that my eye is blurred, but we have received advice to the effect that that would be the consequence. I do not criticise the amendment on that ground, although the hon. Gentleman may now be aware of the unattractive consequences. I make the point to demonstrate the difficulties of relaxing the regime that we have devised for closed companies. Partly on principle, but also on practical grounds, I was compelled to advise the Committee to reject the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new amendment, however well intentioned, has resolved those problems.

Having looked at the problem in the round, I hope that at the end of the day the House will feel that the regime, relaxations, and advantages that we have built in to the fiscal system this year are generous, fair and practical. As one would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North moved his clause persuasively, moderately and lucidly. Any Government who believe in voluntarism and charitable giving, as we do, must preserve an open mind. I do not undertake to consider the precise problem again, but over the many years that I hope we shall be in office we shall consider whether we have done sufficient to encourage individual and corporate generosity. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we have had an extremely useful debate, and that the fiscal and general principles that should be canvassed have been canvassed.

Mr. Paul Dean

It would be churlish of me to go on arguing the toss in view of the substantial package of improvements for charitable giving that the Government have introduced in the Bill and in view of the sympathetic response from my hon. and learned Friend. In the confident expectation that the door is not closed and that pressure from my hon. Friends will achieve further advance in the future, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to