§ Sir William ClarkI beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 148, line 38, leave out from 'is' to the end of line 40 and insert:
'negligible in comparison with their scale for previous periods of account beginning not more than six years before the first mentioned period and continues to be so negligible during subsequent periods of account beginning not more than six years after the first mentioned period.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 50.
No. 51, in page 155, line 2, leave out from 'is' to end of line 4 and insert
'negligible in comparison with their scale for previous periods of account beginning not more than six years before the first mentioned period and continues to be so negligible during subsequent periods of account beginning not more than six years after the first mentioned period.'.Government amendment No. 52.
§ Sir William ClarkI am sorry to bore the House with another amendment. This is a small point in relation to stock relief. In fact, my amendment No. 49 is covered by Government amendment No. 50 and my amendment No. 51 is covered by Government amendment No. 52. As the Government have agreed with both the points that I sought to cover, there is no need for me to say more.
§ Mr. LawsonAs my hon. Friend has said, the valid points that he raised have been met in Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52. If he wishes to ask any questions, I shall, with the leave of the House, be happy to do my best to answer them. If he is satisfied, however, he may care to withdraw his amendment and yield to the Government amendments.
§ Sir William ClarkAs the Government and I seem to be in unison on both matters, there is no point in my asking questions. Knowing that the Government amendments cover both points, I shall be delighted to seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
§ Mr. LawsonThere is one question which I thought that my hon. Friend might ask me. As he has not asked it, with the leave of the House, I shall answer it anyway.
As I indicated earlier, the Revenue will issue a statement of practice as to how it proposes to interpret these provisions. Broadly, it will adopt the approach that a recovery charge will not normally arise unless turnover has fallen to 2½ per cent. or less of its level during the period of account in which it was at its highest during the previous six years. Reductions in turnover due to temporary factors will be ignored. I hope that the statement of practice, which will be issued very soon, in conjunction with the Government amendments will remove any remaining fears about the threat of clawback for the normal continuing business.
§ Sir William ClarkI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendments made: No. 50, in page 148, line 38, leave out 'small' arid insert 'negligible'.
§ No. 52, in page 155, line 2, leave out 'small' and insert 'negligible'.—[Mr. Lawson.]
§ Mr. LawsonI beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 159, line 3, leave out 'referred to in' and insert:
'of his trading stock at the end of that period, as reduced in accordance with'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 58.
§ Mr. LawsonThe purposes of these amendments is to increase the amount of relief for new businesses in the first year of trading, while at the same time simplifying the calculation of relief for the same period.
Under the old scheme, relief was based on the difference between the opening and closing stocks of the year, that is to say, ignoring the profit restriction. The Act provides that in the case of new business the figure for opening stocks is deemed to be such value as is reasonable and just in the circumstances, and the legislation contains some guidance as to how that value is to be arrived at. In practice, it proved to be a rather contentious area and there were a number of requests for the provisions to be made more precise.
In framing the rules for the new scheme, therefore, we decided to try to meet that point. The Bill provides that relief is to be based, broadly speaking, on the average value of the business's trading stock over the first year. On reflection, although the point was not made when we discussed the matter in the Standing Committee, we feel that we can go further and at the same time increase the amount of relief to help a new business to become established.
In many cases there will be no figure for monthly stock levels and so we have decided that, exceptionally in these cases, the relief for the first year will be based on the value of closing stocks at the end of the year discounted by the increase in the all stocks index over that period. Perhaps that is sufficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) appears to be a little bemused by this. However, an Inland Revenue press notice on this subject was issued last week. As a result of a busy July, my hon. Friend will not have had time to look at it. However, those who have a deep interest in such matters will have read the press release. I notice that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is nodding his head. Clearly he has read it.
Therefore, I hope that the House is satisfied that the amendments represent modest but important improvements in the stock relief scheme as regards new businesses. They conform with the spirit of the Bill, which is designed to help new businesses in many ways.
§ Mr. Richard WainwrightI am sure that all hon. Members will agree that Inland Revenue press notices are no substitute for advocacy from the Treasury Bench. It will be a poor day if, in an atmosphere of levity, we reach the pitch when hon. Members are referred to an Inland Revenue press notice. I have not read it. I am the Liberal spokesman on the economy, for what that is worth, but I do not wish to overemphasise that. I have tried in vain to get a regular supply of those press notices. Even if a 1278 Minister has been eclipsed by a large photograph in The Times Business Supplement showing one of his Treasury colleagues standing against the background of the door of No. 11 Downing Street, I do not expect to be asked to swallow Inland Revenue press notices. I have not read the Inland Revenue press notice, and I am damned if I see why I should.
Whatever the easy appetite of other hon. Members, Liberal Members cannot swallow amendment No. 54.
§ Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)Where are they?
§ Mr. WainwrightLiberal Members will come into the Chamber in time. We are as well drilled in our voluntary way as any of the parties that are under the lash of the Whip. Further evidence of that will arrive with every moment that passes. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) is not the Chief Whip. He will arrive later.
We are not prepared to swallow amendment No. 54 and we intend to divide the House unless the Financial Secretary sees sense in his reply. The amendment refers to the "all stocks index". A few lines further on there is reference to "that index". That is the term that I should apply to it. I shall rely not on my rather out-of-date judgment as a former practising accountant but on the up-to-date information of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. That committee consists of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland—I promised that Liberal Members would appear at the right moment, and I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)—the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland—[Interruption]—and the Association of Certified Accountants—[Interruption.]. I hope that no hon. Member will suggest that this levity has been induced by my remarks.
The committee also consists of the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Those separate financial bodies—all of whose examinations are known to be rigorous and which require experience before membership is granted—united in the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, wrote to me on 13 July. I quote one sentence but I am happy to make the letter available to anyone who wants further particulars. It states:
The Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies believes that the application of a general stock index is fundamentally wrong.This is why we oppose the amendment.10.45 pm
There is available a more scientific, fair and equitable alternative, which is that instead of the all stocks index, which, in certain cases, will lose revenue for the Government, there should be applied the stocks index for that trade. If a highly diversified company or group of companies is occupied in a variety of trades, each of its separate subsidiaries, divisions or sections must apply the index for that trade. Those are available from the Department of Industry and there is no obstacle to their regular appearance.
As I argued in Committee, the effect of applying the all stocks index is that in a number of trades, such as the hoot and shoe trade, the Government will lose revenue. A Government who go to the length of taxing widows' pensions and single women's pensions, the pensions of 1279 people who have no other income corning in to their pockets, are deliberately losing revenue from companies by insisting on an all stocks index that would enable companies in some trades to deflate their profits far more than is necessary. Such professional bodies are performing a strictly professional duty—not one that will be popular with some of their members—pointing out that an unscientific alliance on an all stocks index, which I suggest is purely for ease of administration, in aid of this absurd business of playing the numbers game in the Civil Service and taking a sadistic delight in reducing the number of tax inspectors, will lose revenue for the Government, who go to the most appalling lengths to try to scrape up money from widows and single retired people.
There is a sensible alternative, namely, that the appropriate stocks index of inflation in each trade should be applied. I was glad that in Committee I had the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook)—who, as we all know applies himself meticulously to these matters—and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
I quoted one compelling sentence from the observations of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, but I hope that I shall not bore the House intolerably if I expand a little on that damning sentence. In its submission to the Government the committee suggested that in terms of current cost accounting, which has now been adopted by the profession, it did not agree that any one prescribed method of calculating the effect of price changes on the current replacement cost of stock could be capable of universal application. That is the principle at which it has arrived after, admittedly, too many years of professional deliberation. I wish that it had got on with it more quickly, but it cannot be accused of rushing the matter.
The various accountancy bodies have taken an enormous amount of care, trouble and time in arriving at the view that there is no single index that can be capable of universal application. The submission to the Government goes on to show how the application of a single index would be very appropriate in the case of many businesses. The conclusion is arrived at after arguing the case, and the Government have had seven months in which to consider it. The submission states:
We are, however, in no doubt that the application of a general stock index is fundamentally wrong".Can it be proper that the House should pass an amendment that contains the use of an all stocks index that all the leading accountancy bodies, without exception, told the Government seven months ago was fundamentally wrong?I hope that this will not be regarded as some arcane technical matter, that hon. Members not versed in accountancy cannot be expected to follow, because that is not so. The all stocks index—I say this to those hon. Members who may be tempted to opt out because they did not serve articles in an accountant's office, which shows how very wise they were in their choice of a career—is based on a basket of goods.
The all stocks index is meant for the convenience of shoppers and housewives. The basket of goods is a very appropriate concept for a housewife wanting to measure the effect of inflation or to claim an increased pension because her shopping bill week by week has increased as a result of inflation.
1280 That is a splendid concept for the consumer, but of what use is a basket of goods to people whose sole occupation is making clogs in Hebden Bridge, universal joints in Coventry, or aeroplane parts in Weybridge? They do not trade in a basket of goods. They do not instruct their purchasing officers to go out into the commercial world and come back with a basket of goods. Each of them in his own specialist way buys in specialist supplies for the making of specialist goods, be they clogs, universal joints for vehicles, parts for aircraft, or any other specialist product that any hon. Member cares to conjure up in his mind.
I make the simple submission that to judge trading profits—especially for a small and new business that is very vulnerable to taxation and has not a lot of fat on its back—on the basis of the increase in price of a basket of goods that is meant to apply to consumers is wholly inappropriate when so many small businesses thrive on the basis of a specialist product.
There is an alternative available, because the Department of Industry—God bless it—produces and is perfectly able to produce stock indices for various trades. The Liberal alternative—I hope that it is not just the Liberal alternative—is that instead of referring to the all stocks index the Government should refer to the index for the appropriate trade. We had no adequate answer to this point in Committee, and in the absence of any answer this evening it will be our intention to divide the House.
§ Mr. CookThe Opposition Front Bench has considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). There is substance in his argument.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of the bodies that have condemned the idea of an all stocks index and called for a plural index system. One could go further and say that no reputable body in the accountancy profession, or in industry, commerce or the academic world, has defended the concept of a single all stocks index. The reason is simple: an all stocks index will be perfectly satisfactory for those companies that trade in a basket of goods—and for nobody else. Since the great majority of commercial companies engage in business trade not in a basket of goods but in particular commodities and products, it follows that most of them will find them, to varying degrees, out of line with the all stocks index.
They irony is that the matter cuts both ways. Some companies will be disadvantaged by the index, finding that the commodities that they hold in stock rise in value faster than the index. They therefore suffer a tax penalty, because they cannot claim the full amount of stock relief to which they would be entitled under the present arrangements, the full rise in the value of their commodities being reflected in the amount of relief that they can claim. But other companies will find that their commodities do not rise in value with inflation to the same degree as the index, and therefore, without their doing anything to achieve that result, they will be entitled to more relief than is reflected in the rise in value of the commodity that they stock, giving them a windfall tax gain.
That is why we find it particularly perverse that the Treasury should have resisted our attempts to get it to see the folly of its ways and accept a plural number of indices, which would not necessarily be more expensive. If a number of indices resulted in more tax being recouped 1281 from those whose commodities rose by less than the all stocks index, as well as giving additional benefits to those whose commodities rose faster in value, the broad effect on the Treasury's revenue would be neutral. Therefore, it is not because of the cost that the Treasury resisted this proposal. It was resisted on the old ground of administrative simplicity. This is a classic instance of administrative simplicity triumphing over common sense.
In Committee we took the line that there should be a plural number of indices and that the all stocks index was an unfortunate idea that the Treasury, if it is misguided enough to insist upon it, will live to regret in the very near future as industry starts to complain about the unjust anomalies that will flow from having a single all-purpose index across the board of commercial and industrial activity. Therefore, in Committee we tabled our amendments and the hon. Member for Colne Valley tabled his, and we bad a joint vote in favour of them.
Were there such amendments before the House tonight, we would vole for them. If there were a proposal for the first time to create an all stocks index, we would vote against it. But I must tell the hon. Gentleman, in all fairness and candour, that we do not see what purpose would be served by dividing on amendment No. 54, as it seeks to make a modest improvement in an all stocks index that is already in the Bill. By voting against it we should not strike at the heart of the all stocks index, nor vote for a plural number of indices. In effect, we should be seeking to prevent a modest improvement to a concept that we accept is faulty. Therefore, we shall not join the hon. Gentleman in the Lobby, although we appreciate that his opposition and that of many others to the all stocks index—opposition that we share—might well impel him to vote against that amendment as a gesture.
I wish that the Treasury had listened to the views that we expressed in Committee. That would have prevented the unfortunate fact that for the next few years British industry will have to wrestle with an all stocks index that may bear not the slightest relation to its experience of inflation and what it does to the value of the stocks held.
§ Mr. LawsonThe hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) said that he wished that the Treasury had listened to what was said in Committee. The reason why I introduced the amendments rather perfunctorily was that I was under the misapprehension that Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), had listened to what was said in Committee. However, the contribution of the hon. Member for Colne Valley showed that nothing had penetrated his skull.
The hon. Gentleman said that the all stocks index was a consumer index. It is not. He also seemed to have no concept between changes in the general price level—inflation which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central also mentioned; and we would not be discussing the schedule if it were not for the effect of inflation on companies and the way that it ravages their liability for taxation if nothing is done through stock relief—and changes in relative prices.
11 pm
We propose the new index on grounds of principle and not simply for administrative convenience, though there is some such convenience for the Inland Revenue and for individual companies. It is significant that the complaints that the hon. Gentleman voiced and that come from certain 1282 accountancy and other bodies are not echoed by individual companies. It is on grounds of principle that the clause and the schedule are framed in this way.
We are anxious to find a means of dealing with the consequences of inflation increasing the value of stocks and, therefore, increasing the tax liability. We are not concerned with changes in relative prices. The all stocks index will give a general indication of the rise in prices for stocks as a whole.
If we were to make a change for relative prices, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley suggests, a company that made substantial dealing profits because it had the wit to, say, buy a metal when it was rising in price would be held to have made no taxable profit, because its index would have gone up by the same amount. That would be a palpable absurdity.
What may be right for accounting purposes may not be right for taxation purposes, and we are talking about taxation and adjusting taxation for the effects of inflation. That is why we have the all stocks index.
The hon. Gentleman may, by all means, vote against the amendment. In conformity with the rest of the schedule, it is based on the all stocks index. It is a relief for new businesses and if the hon. Gentleman votes against the amendment he will be voting against relief for new businesses. That would be consistent with the Alice-in-Wonderland logic with which he has plagued the House on this matter, upstairs and down.
§ Mr. Richard WainwrightBy leave of the House, I should like to make a brief comment on the Financial Secretary's remarks. The House will have observed that he addressed his abuse to me personally. I do not complain about that, but it is not my judgment that I am asking the House to accept. It is the judgment not of certain accountancy bodies, as the right hon. Gentleman described them, but of the whole collection of the accepted, reputable, long-established accountancy bodies in private practice and in public finance in all parts of the United Kingdom.
It was a parody for the right hon. Gentleman to describe those organisations as "certain accountancy bodies", as though I had selected a particular group of accountancy bodies and ignored representations from others. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to mention a single reputable accountancy body admitting people by examination that accepts his view rather than the one that I have tried to put.
The right hon. Gentleman tries to defend the basket of goods. I was endeavouring to give an illustration when I used the concept of a shopping expedition. I was not suggesting that this is literally a housewife's basket of goods. I should like to explain the basket of goods represented by this mistaken all stocks index. It contains stone and slate quarrying goods for sale, mineral oil, refining goods for sale, tractors for sale, footwear goods for sale, the building materials industry and the electricity industry's non-fuel stocks. What kind of a basket is that to be applied to those making clogs, universal joints for motor vehicles, or parts for aircraft? It is a basket concept. None of the right hon. Gentleman's levity enables him to get away from the fact that the Government are applying to all kinds of specialised industries an all-purpose index that is widely inappropriate and will lose them revenue.
It is notable that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the fact that the Treasury, through the concept of the all 1283 stocks index, is voluntarily, deliberately and wilfully giving away revenue at the same time as it is scraping it up from every poor household in the country. We are driven to vote against the Government to express our view. There are occasions when, in order to get across a point, it is necessary to cause some temporary deprivation.
It is often stated by what I am glad to say is only a small minority in the House that nothing must be done to upset trade with South Africa in case temporary hardship is caused to some of the indigenous South African people. It has never been an argument that the bulk of hon. Members have been willing to accept. In order to establish a principle it is sometimes necessary to cause temporary hardship.
So great is the Government's concern for small businesses that if they were defeated Ministers would quickly return to the House with a reputable way of dealing with inflation in profits in place of the easy, sloppy and slipshod proposal that they are now attempting to pass.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 159, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
'(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a) above the value of the person's trading stock at the end of the period of account in respect of which the relief is given shall be reduced by multiplying it by the fraction of which—
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 12.
1285| Division No. 278] | [11.10 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Butcher, John |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Butler, Hon Adam |
| Alexander, Richard | Cadbury, Jocelyn |
| Alison, Michael | Carlisle, John (Luton West) |
| Ancram, Michael | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Arnold, Tom | Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Chalker, Mrs. Lynda |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) | Chapman, Sydney |
| Atkins, Robert (Preston N) | Churchill, W. S. |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E) | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone) | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Banks, Robert | Cockeram, Eric |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Colvin, Michael |
| Bendall, Vivian | Cope, John |
| Benyon, W. (Buckingham) | Corrie, John |
| Best, Keith | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Critchley, Julian |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Crouch, David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Blackburn, John | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward |
| Blaker, Peter | Dunn, Robert (Dartford) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Durant, Tony |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bowden, Andrew | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Bright, Graham | Eggar, Tim |
| Brinton, Tim | Emery, Peter |
| Brittan, Leon | Eyre, Reginald |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Fairbairn, Nicholas |
| Brotherton, Michael | Fairgrieve, Russell |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n) | Faith, Mrs Sheila |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Fenner, Mrs Peggy |
| Bruce-Gardyne, John | Fisher, Sir Nigel |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N) |
| Buck, Antony | Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Forman, Nigel | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Moate, Roger |
| Fox, Marcus | Monro, Hector |
| Fraser, Peter (South Angus) | Morris, M. (N'hampton S) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Mudd, David |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Murphy, Christopher |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Myles, David |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gorst, John | Needham, Richard |
| Gow, Ian | Neubert, Michael |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | Newton, Tony |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Normanton, Tom |
| Gray, Hamish | Onslow, Cranley |
| Greenway, Harry | Osborn, John |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N) | Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby) |
| Grist, Ian | Page, Richard (SW Herts) |
| Grylls, Michael | Parris, Matthew |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Hamilton, Hon A. | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Pawsey, James |
| Hannam, John | Percival, Sir Ian |
| Hastings, Stephen | Pollock, Alexander |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down) |
| Hawksley, Warren | Price, Sir David (Eastleigh) |
| Henderson, Barry | Prior, Rt Hon James |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Proctor, K. Harvey |
| Hicks, Robert | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Raison, Timothy |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Holland, Philip (Carlton) | Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal) |
| Hooson, Tom | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Renton, Tim |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Ridley, Hon Nicholas |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick | Rifkind, Malcolm |
| Jessel, Toby | Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW) |
| Johnson Smith, Geoffrey | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Rossi, Hugh |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Royle, Sir Anthony |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine | St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. |
| King, Rt Hon Tom | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Knox, David | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Lamont, Norman | Shepherd, Richard |
| Lang, Ian | Shersby, Michael |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Silvester, Fred |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Sims, Roger |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Speed, Keith |
| Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Speller, Tony |
| Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo) | Spence, John |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Spicer, Jim (West Dorset) |
| Loveridge, John | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Luce, Richard | Squire, Robin |
| Lyell, Nicholas | Stainton, Keith |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| MacKay, John (Argyll) | Stanley, John |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. | Stevens, Martin |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) | Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire) |
| McQuarrie, Albert | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Madel, David | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Major, John | Tebbit, Norman |
| Marland, Paul | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Marlow, Tony | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Thompson, Donald |
| Marten, Neil (Banbury) | Thorne, Neil (Word South) |
| Mates, Michael | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Mawby, Ray | Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Trippier, David |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Trotter, Neville |
| Mayhew, Patrick | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Mellor, David | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Mills, Iain (Meriden) | Viggers, Peter |
| Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Wakeham, John |
| Waldegrave, Hon William | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Walker, B. (Perth ) | Williams, D. (Montgomery) |
| Wall, Patrick | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Ward, John | Wolfson, Mark |
| Warren, Kenneth | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Watson, John | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Wells, John (Maidstone) | |
| Wells, Bowen | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wheeler, John | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Whitney, Raymond | Mr. Carol Mather. |
| Wickenden, Keith |
| NOES | |
| Alton, David | Penhaligon, David |
| Bennett, Andrew ('St'kp't N) | Roper, John |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Cryer, Bob | Steel, Rt Hon David |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | |
| Horam, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Howells, Geraint | Mr. A. J. Beith and |
| Paisley, Rev Ian | Mr. Richard Wainwright |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Amendment made: No. 55, in page 159, line 16, after '(3)', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Lawson.]
§ Mr. LawsonI beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 162, line 22, leave out 'the Board may direct that'.
§ Mr. LawsonFor the benefit of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), I shall take this amendment with due deliberation. When we discussed stock relief in Committee questions were asked about long periods of account and how they were to be dealt with. Schedule 9 provides that if a period of account exceeds 18 months the Revenue may direct—and I repeat "may direct"—that it be split into different parts of not less than 12 months plus any remainder.
As I said in Committee, the Revenue will interpret that as requiring it to split long periods into periods of 12 months plus any balance. However, during our discussions in Committee my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) questioned the wording and proposed an amendment to make the split explicitly mandatory. I undertook to consider what he said. I have met his point in these amendments, which I hope he will agree achieve the result which he desired.
§ Sir Graham Page (Crosby)The amendments meet the point which I raised.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 57, in page 162, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
'(2) Each of the separate parts of the period shall (so far as length of the period permits) consist of twelve months, any remaining months being used to form the last part.'.No. 58, in page 162, line 30, leave out 'other than paragraph 19 above.'.—[Mr. Lawson.]