§ `(1) For the purposes of Schedule 14 to the Finance Act 1981 (capital transfer tax: relief for agricultural property) the breeding and rearing of horses on a stud farm and the grazing of horses in connection with those activities shall be taken to be agriculture and any buildings used in connection with those activities to be farm buildings.
§
(2) In paragraph 12 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 1975 (farm cottages) the existing provisions shall become sub-paragraph (1) and at the end there shall be inserted—
(2) Expressions used in sub-paragraphs (1) above and in Schedule 14 to the Finance Act 1981 have the same meaning in that sub-paragraph as in that Schedule.
§
(3) In section 97 of the Finance Act 1981 (grant of tenancies of agricultural property) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted—
(2) Expressions used in subsection (1) above and in Schedule 14 to this Act have the same meaning in that subsection as in that Schedule.
§ (4) This section has effect in relation to transfers of value and other events occurring on or after 10th March 1981.'.—[Mr. Moore.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
4.46 pm§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Government have decided to table the new clause in the light of representations received from a wide range of equestrian interests. Discussions have taken place in recent months with the Joint Horse and Pony Taxation Committee, which represents many of those interests. The discussions followed talks held last year with the all-party racing committee—[interruption.] Later I shall cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) from a sedentary position.
The object of the new clause is to remove any doubt that capital transfer tax agricultural relief is available to stud farmers. It will remove uncertainties and allay concern in the bloodstock industry. Action is being taken for the following reasons. The bloodstock industry is a long-established and important part of the nation's heritage as well as a valuable part of our economy. It is estimated that export sales of equine livestock — I stress the words 1058 "export sales"—thoroughbreds and other show jumpers exceed £100 million per annum. It is therefore important to ensure that the industry continues to thrive. In turn, a healthy breeding industry helps to ensure a thriving racing industry that gives pleasure and enjoyment to millions as well as providing jobs — I am sure that this is of relevance to hon. Members on both sides of the House —for an estimated 150,000—
§ Mr. MooreI shall not give way until I have completed more than one or two sentences. We are no longer in Committee.
An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people are currently employed in equestrian industries. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with this point. We should not overlook the sizeable sum contributed to the Exchequer by the racing industry in the form of betting levy.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursDoes the Minister accept that in putting this matter to the House he must justify an additional concession being given to this industry as against other industries? He must prove that it deserves more of a concession than, for example, a manufacturer of nuts and bolts in Manchester. That is what the Minister must argue. Will he address himself to that matter?
§ Mr. MooreIf the hon. Gentleman, with his usual tolerant patience, gives me the opportunity, I shall seek to do precisely that.
As I started to say, and as my hon. Friends will have already noticed, the new clause seeks to remove any doubt. There is no concession. The clause represents the removal of doubt and the creation of certainty. My hon. Friends will have heard what I said about jobs and the revenue that the Exchequer receives from this important part of industry in Britain.
Bloodstock breeding is an extremely competitive international activity. Many of this country's competitors receive direct assistance from central Government, for example, low and nil rates of VAT in France and Ireland respectively, while stud farmers in Ireland are also entitled to agricultural relief from capital acquisitions tax, which is Ireland's equivalent of our capital transfer tax.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that our industry is not placed at a serious competitive disadvantage. Stud farming enterprises qualify for agricultural relief under the estate duty rules that preceded CTT.
The rules for capital transfer tax are different from those for estate duty and lay greater stress on the purpose for which agricultural property is occupied. The significance of this for stud farmers was not debated by Parliament in 1975 when capital transfer tax was introduced. Had the matter been appreciated then, relief might have been expressly provided at that time.
Agricultural relief is already given for some stud farming activities—for example, when the activities are ancillary to general farming. Inland Revenue practice is generally to look at the operation as a whole, with the result that relief is given, but there is no satisfactory reason why relief should be excluded if the enterprise is engaged solely in stud farming activities. Until recently—this is the key point—it was widely assumed that stud farmers were entitled to the relief, but the matter has not been 1059 tested to any great extent because stud farmers can usually claim business relief, which is broadly comparable with agricultural relief.
Although business relief is generally available as an alternative, usually at the same rate of 50 per cent., it will not always be available as a fallback because it is available only on the disposal of a business or an interest in a business but not the individual assets of a business. Agricultural relief, by contrast, is more flexible and is available on the disposal of part of a farm. If the owner of land uses it for a stud business in partnership with others, business relief at 30 per cent. would be available in respect of that land, but agricultural relief might be 50 per cent., depending on the terms of the arrangement.
People in the industry argue that there is less certainty about the availability of business relief because, unlike agricultural relief, there is a qualifying condition that the activity must be carried on for gain. Although the Inland Revenue recognises the long-term nature of stud farming activities and does not interpret this to mean that a stud farm must be profitable from the outset, stud farmers may experience anxiety and uncertainty as to whether the condition could be invoked in certain cases. That uncertainty can restrict investment and development in the industry. The object of the new clause is to provide relief for proper stud farming establishments. It includes the words "stud farm" as a means of excluding hobby owners whose horse breeding is incidental to their ownership of the animals or who keep or graze horses on just a few acres of land around their houses.
The significance of the change in the law in 1975 was fully recognised comparatively recently and for the past 12 months or so there have been discussions with representatives of the industry on the need for remedial legislation.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursIt is not an industry. The Minister should not misuse the word.
§ Mr. MooreI appreciate that some Opposition Members have difficulty in reconciling themselves with the diversity of industry in this country, but however much some of them despise this industry they should appreciate that 150,000 or 200,000 citizens are employed in activities related to it. I am sure that most Opposition Members appreciate that.
Stud farmers' entitlement to relief has not been tested in the courts and it is possible that relief would be held to be available in any event. The central problem, however, is the uncertainty of the present law, which would remain for as long as it took to complete the legal process, which might be a considerable time if the matter was taken further by whichever party was, unsuccessful at the court of first hearing. In the circumstances, therefore, the Government consider it appropriate to act now to ensure the continued stability of the industry.
The cost should be neglible because, notwithstanding the uncertainties expressed by the bloodstock industry, the majority of stud farming enterprises should qualify for business relief at the same 50 per cent. as agricultural relief.
The new clause is a modest measure to remove uncertainty in an industry of considerable importance to large parts of the country. I commend it to the House.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)In the light of events outside and as the Government now face their biggest financial crisis since 1979, the fact that the first item in the Report stage of the Finance Bill relates to a capital transfer tax concession for stud farmers is likely to be grossly misunderstood outside the House. I accept that there are procedural reasons for this which are not entirely of the Government's making, but people outside are liable to take a dim view of our priorities.
The Minister says that the cost will be negligible. In Treasury parlance, that means less than £1 million. That is peanuts compared with the turnover of the industry, so why bother with the new clause at all? As for the argument about the 150,000 or 200,000 jobs, if the Treasury cannot be accurate to within one third of the number of jobs in the industry, I see no need for the provision.
The Minister said that discussions had gone on for a year. If that is so, one wonders why the provision was not included in the Bill in the first place. He said that there had been many representations. That is news to me. He mentioned only one organisation, the Joint Horse and Pony Taxation Committee—of what organisation, I do not know.
§ Mr. RookerIf that body is behind this, I am certainly suspicious about it. Did any other organisation press for such a concession?
§ Mr. MooreThe Joint Horse and Pony Taxation Committee represents the Thoroughbred Breeders Association, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers Union, the Horse Racing Advisory Council and the National Light Breeders Society.
§ Mr. RookerI am grateful to the Minister for putting that on record. I wonder whether the parties seeking the concession raised the subject of advances in breeding technology. We understand that thoroughbreds may soon be cloned, so the industry may not be in its present form much longer. That has been a matter of public comment in recent weeks, so we may not be passing our time very usefully on this.
In view of the Minister's comments, I am astonished that the skilled eagle eye of the present Chief Secretary did not spot this when he was trying to wreck the introduction of capital transfer tax in 1975. I have gone back over those debates in recent weeks. The issue was never raised. I am surprised that the skill of the Chief Secretary was found wanting in those days.
I also wonder whether the tax has actually been paid. The Minister says that the matter has not been tested in the courts. Is that because stud farm owners have been paying what they regard as their lawful taxes?
§ Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)The hon. Gentleman cast aspersions on the behaviour of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary in 1975. He should be aware that the issue did not arise until 1981 as a result of a change of practice by the Capital Taxes Office. Until 1981 the situation was as it had been since 1933.
§ Mr. RookerThat is fair enough. If there was a carryover from estate duty to capital transfer tax I am amazed that this matter was not raised by the present Chief 1061 Secretary when he was casting his skilled eagle eye over the legislation in 1975 and trying to wreck the introduction of a proper capital tax transfer regime.
5 Pm
This matter was not raised in Committee. It is new to the House. We need to know more about why we are being asked to make this further concession— a concession which, we are told, is not worth very much. The sum involved is less than £1 million. I cannot see what the industry is complaining about.
I am not attacking the jobs in the industry. If, every time we argued for or against a certain tax, someone said that the industry concerned employed 10,000 or 1 million people, we would find it hard to form a proper taxation policy. The effect of capital transfer tax on the jobs, if it is levied, might be questioned. The Minister did not say that if it was levied in a certain way, so many jobs would be lost. He only said that there are 150,000 or 200,000 jobs in the industry.
Before I ask my hon. Friends to support the new clause, the Financial Secretary must give a more substantive reason for using the time of the House to ask for a concession for this stratum of society.
§ Sir John Farr (Harborough)I fully support the new clause. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) says that people will misunderstand the new clause. That is an argument that we often hear. It generally means that the hon. Member who uses it has no good reason for opposing the clause.
If the new clause were not introduced, our action would certainly be misunderstood in the country because, in addition to the fact that the bloodstock industry employs nearly 200,000 people, there is an additional advantage to the nation which my hon. Friend did not mention. The industry is a massive overseas export earner, and that is good for Britain. British bloodstock and blood lines are continually sought overseas. We must keep our bloodstock farms competitive and not put them at a disadvantage to others overseas. My hon. Friend has said that they are at a disadvantage compared with Ireland, for instance, where the competing bloodstock farms enjoy tax rights similar to those proposed.
I cannot imagine that the Opposition Front Bench will oppose this simple new clause. We are seeking only to put our own industry on a par with foreign competitors.
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we have an adequate definition of the term "stud farm"? Stud fanning is an activity concerned with breeding horses, but a stud farm in Britain can be viable and commercial without the presence of a stallion at the stud. Many of the commercial stud farms send their mares to visit stallions around the country. Can my hon. Friend confirm that professional stud farms which are engaged in breeding horses but do not have resident stallions will benefit from the concession?
§ Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)I, too should like to refer to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I am surprised that the new clause is brought in on Report, when it is less than two weeks since we were talking about new clauses in Committee. if discussions have been in progress for the past few weeks or months, why could the Government not bring the measure before the Committee? We could then have given it due consideration and, if necessary, reconsidered it on Report.
1062 I hope that the Government will not make any excuses for this, because there are two or three more similar new clauses that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is not present—or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will move in due course. It must be more conducive to good government if new clauses—this is not just, an amendment; it is a new clause to a major Bill—are tabled in Committee rather than at this late stage.
The Minister says that the industry is important and valuable and that he wishes it to remain competitive and to continue to be one of our major industries. I wish that he had said the same thing about some other groups which we discussed in Committee, such as the seafarers, who are to lose their concession. Seafaring used to he a very important industry, but the concession there has been cut. What is the difference? Why has the hon. Gentleman refused to allow that concession to remain, when in the case of stud farms, as soon as he realises that there is some doubt about the existence of a concession, he falls over backwards to ensure that it shall be retained?
I hope that merchant seamen will realise what has happened here today and will note the distinction that the Government draw between them and the owners of stud farms. I do not know of any stud farm owners who are impoverished or who are looking for the next shilling to enable them to keep their businesses going.
What has happened to the Treasury's view of the desirability of a simple, straightforward taxation system without any concessions for special cases? Time and again in Committee Ministers told us that they wanted a simple, straightforward taxation system, without exceptions for particular areas. Yet the Treasury is now creating another exception. Stud farms are not a form of agriculture, but they are to benefit from a concession as if they were. If the Treasury were consistent, it would have refused to grant the concession. We are told that is only a very small concession. The Treasury should have said that it would not allow ever a chink to appear in its grand strategy—with which basically I agree — of ensuring that our taxation system is straightforward and contains as few exceptions as possible.
The representatives of organisations who have written to the Minister have not written to me, and I do not think that they wrote to any of my hon. Friends either. Why not? There has been some form of back-door consultation with the Government. Some hon. Members have been favoured with representations from interested bodies, but others have not. I should have liked to hear from some of those organisations. They might have persuaded me that they had a case. At the moment, in the absence of information and from what I know of the industry, I am not persuaded.
It is no use saying that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs in the industry. They are among the worst paid jobs in the country. If one wants to find a badly paid job, one should look at the stud farms and associated areas. The more profit that industry makes, the less, in real terms, it pays its employees.
I wish to be brief. Yet again, the Government are giving a concession to the rich, who do not need it, and taking away a tax concession from people, like seafarers, who can ill afford to lose it. They are imposing burdens on those who cannot afford them, such as those who buy fish and chips to take away. I intend to vote against the new clause.
§ Mr.charles MorrisonI am sorry that the Opposition Members who have spoken should be more concerned about scoring petty political points than dealing with the facts. It might be said that, as new clause 19 is concerned to a considerable extent, though not entirely, with the future of the sport and the industry of racing, they are demonstrating the attitude of killjoys towards the sport and, in regard to the industry, they are demonstrating the not unusual attitude of the Labour party that there should be equality of misery. Just because the Government are unable to give a concession to every industry does not mean that they should not give it to some. However, this is nothing to do with a concession — it is merely confirmation. As I have already said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), new clause 19 confirms what appertained in regard to capital taxation on studs from 1973 to 1981.
I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for introducing new clause 19. He was kind enough to mention the work of the Joint Horse and Pony Taxation Committee and that of the all-party racing committee, on which several Labour Members and some Liberal Members serve and who demonstrate far more good sense than has come from Labour Members today.
What appertained prior to new clause 19 being tabled is a perfect example of government working at its best. I might go so far as to say that what has happened is a lesson for other Departments. First, the Government, via the Capital Taxes Office, took a view about the application of capital transfer tax to studs. That view, which was expressed in 1981, was challenged by a variety of interested parties. Initially, the Government stuck to their line, but agreed to meet those who objected. Meetings then took place and the Government recognised the strength of the arguments of the objectors. As a result, new clause 19 is on the Amendment Paper.
New clause 19 is not a concession as it no more than confirms the interpretation of legislation, which was confirmed by the courts in 1933, that was accepted until 1981. That interpretation of the law has helped to maintain a reasonable level of horse breeding of all types in Britain.
Two points should be borne in mind in regard to thoroughbred horses. First, and contrary to some popular assumptions, thoroughbred breeding is not generally a very profitable occupation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I might have guessed such a response. We occasionally read in the newspapers of a yearling achieving an incredible price. Such yearlings are not run-of-the-mill; they are exceptions. It now costs about £8,000 to rear and keep a horse until it reaches the yearling sales, when it is probably about 18 months old. Huge numbers of horses at the yearling sales do not reach anything like that price.
Opposition Members should not forget that racing and breeding are international. If the tax environment in Britain is not comparable to that in other countries, such as Ireland, France and the United States, breeders will move their businesses to those countries. If that happens, there will be a major and adverse effect on the level of bloodstock exports from Britain. Moreover, the quality of British racing and the level of employment, which I imagine is of greatest importance to Opposition Members, will be seriously affected.
5.15 pm
My hon. Friend said that new clause 19 has been tabled because he recognises the strength of those points. I repeat 1064 my thanks and those of people who rear and breed horses —employers and employees—to my hon. Friend and the Government for introducing the new clause.
§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)I remember, when I was first elected to the House in 1979, listening in my first Finance Bill debate to almost exactly the same speech as that which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has just made. There was a substantial lobby which wanted its new Government to give VAT relief to the racehorse industry, as is the case in Ireland and France. If I remember rightly, no concessions were made. As far as I am aware, there has been no dramatic drop in the activity of the racing industry as a result of the Government's failure to give VAT relief. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is either nodding or shaking his head. If he is trying to indicate that the industry has been harmed, perhaps he will be able to tell us about it later.
If the Government are introducing new clause 19 merely to tidy things up, why did they not do that when the Bill was first drafted or in Committee? We could have had a lengthy debate in Committee and have had an opportunity to make further points on Report and to table amendments, if necessary. If new clause 19 were a tidying up measure, one would have assumed that it would have followed court decisions. I gather that that is not the case. I am surprised that the Minister has not suggested that the matter be left for the courts to interpret so that we can see what interpretation is made with a view to introducing legislation if necessary.
I do not understand why this leisure industry should have been selected for relief when other leisure industries receive no such benefit. I agree that we are discussing an international business that employs many people but it is still a leisure industry. It is designed to give people pleasure, whether from watching racing or from betting. Nobody disapproves of that. The idea that the Opposition disapprove is wrong, but we do not think it right that such an industry should get the same relief as the vital industry of farming which provides a basic necessity—food. I ask the Minister whether the same relief will extend to those who breed greyhounds and who keep and breed pedigree dogs. Will greyhound breeders be exempt, will breeders of pedigree dogs get relief, because they have kennels to maintain? This is an important industry. It may not employ people in large numbers, but it is an international business that sells high-quality animals abroad.
What about the racing car industry, which also uses the term "stables"? This, too, is an important international industry. The racing car industry would claim that it is the testing ground for the motor car industry. Many improvements have taken place in the motor car industry as the result of experimentation in the racing car industry. Indeed, this industry is normally in greater financial difficulty than the horse racing business. I agree that it does not have the same gambling element, but it provides the same leisure activity in that spectators watch people racing against each other just as they do in the horse racing industry. Why is relief not given to this industry, to the tourist industry, to bingo halls and to all leisure industries?
§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)And to pigeons.
§ Mr. MaxtonMy hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) keeps saying pigeons, but I am not convinced that a commercial pigeon industry exists.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonIt does.
§ Mr. MaxtonMy hon. Friend can make his speech on that matter and prove his point. I maintain that there is a large number of leisure industry activities, some of which are of an international nature, and many of which are large employers of labour, yet they do not receive these benefits. The clause appears to grant this benefit to one specific industry for one reason only. I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Devizes in which I am sure there is a fairly large number of racing stables. The Government have been subjected to a great deal of pressure by people who are well-heeled in the rural areas, yet they are not prepared to give the same benefits to other areas and industries, and this includes not only leisure industries but manufacturing industries. I therefore have grave reservations about the new clause.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)I will not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) down the road to the pigeons.
With regard to greyhound racing, I was at White City last night—which, sadly, is to close—and was delighted to be informed that two Opposition Members are members of a syndicate running a greyhound. Unfortunately, the poor beast fell on its face, broke its groin and came in nowhere. Perhaps the Opposition can draw some moral from this.
To deal first with the point of the hon. Member about racing cars, if this is a business, it gets business relief. In the case of stud farming, all that is at issue is whether the doubt about agricultural relief that arose as a result of a decision by the Capital Taxes Office is a valid one. That is all that the new clause deals with.
I support it first because, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), I represent the Newmarket area, where there are probably more racehorses, and certainly more studs, than anywhere else in the country. And I support it for the reasons put forward by the Minister when he introduced the new clause: jobs, exports, investment and revenue.
The jobs speak for themselves. Well over 100,000 people in one 'way or another are employed in the racing industry. If the studs are ruined, there will be no racehorses. It is as elementary as that. There was a risk that as a result of the capital tax decision confusion would arise, confidence would be impaired and the studs of this country would suffer. That would have an inevitable effect on a large number of jobs. I am surprised that the Opposition do not recognise that the jobs of a stable lad or of an apprentice or a person who manufactures the bits, bridles, blankets and leatherwork that go on to a horse are just an important to them as are the jobs of those who make goods for other industries. The new clause makes sense for jobs.
§ Mr. MaxtonDoes the hon. Gentleman suggest that, if the new clause were not included in the Bill, all those jobs would be put at risk?
§ Mr. GriffithsI am saying that doubt arose because of the interpretation that the Capital Taxes Office had placed upon the matter. As a result, the investment that is critical 1066 for the future of studs in this country was placed in doubt. It is important that the Government remove that doubt so that investment will continue and the jobs that depend upon it will not be put at risk.
With regard to exports, my hon. Friend made the position clear. I invite the hon. Member for Cathcart, and, indeed, all Opposition Members, to come to the Newmarket sales and see how many people come from abroad each year and purchase bloodstock in this country, which assists our balance of payments and generates purchasing power, thus helping British jobs and sales abroad. The Opposition take a narrow view in suggesting that firms involved in producing food and manufacturing equipment for the racing industry are less important than those who manufacture goods in other industries.
There is also a notion abroad that anybody who has anything to do with the racing industry by definition is rich. I have a good deal to do with the racing industry in the sense that I have tried to represent it in Parliament for many years, but I am certainly not rich, any more than the vast majority of my constituents who are involved in the racing industry are rich.
The hon. Member for Cathcart fairly raised the point about the effect of VAT over the past seven or eight years. I do not blame this entirely for the fact that British bloodstock has been winning fewer of our British classics, although that is one factor. But bloodstock animals bred in this country have been fetching generally lower prices than those which are bred elsewhere. British-bred horses are earning less prize money, and many of our studs have gone out of business. This is not a rich man's industry.
§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)Does my hon. Friend suggest that that has anything to do with the tax position under discussion? Is it not entirely dependent upon the fact that American blood is now fashionable?
§ Mr. GriffithsI hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to reply to the points that have been made by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) argued that the new clause is a concession to the rich and that, at the same time, racing is the most poorly paid of industries. He cannot have it both ways. Nor can my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).
This is a sensible new clause that does nothing more than remove a doubt. It is astonishing that Opposition Members should oppose it. I am sure that the official Opposition will not go into the Division lobby, whatever their mavericks do, because if Labour officially opposes this it will simply make my majority in Newmarket even larger.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savours (Workington)The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in his justification for the new clause points to jobs. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the movement of the pound on the London markets in the last two weeks will do far more for the export price of horses than the incentive arrangements that he believes attach themselves to the new clause will ever do. This tax concession will do nothing for the industry. All it will do is make a few people a lot richer.
I have no objection to the industry. I do not take any exception to it, as Conservative Members have suggested. On the contrary, I positively support it. But when Ministers come to the House and tell us of the need for tax 1067 concessions to be granted, it is their job to prove to us that, as a result of that concession, there will be benefit to an industry that will be passed on as a greater benefit to the national economy. That case has not been put and it cannot be, because there is no case.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) says that this concession shows the Government working at their best. They may be working at their best in the interests of a few, but in the interests of the overwhelming majority, who make up 99.99 recurring per cent. of the British population, this is the British Government working at their very worst. Half an hour before we began our debate, the House heard a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science on the youth service. In an intervention permitted to me by Mr. Speaker, I was able to put it to the Minister that this new clause is an indicator of the Government's priorities. They believe that they have a duty to secure the interests of those who do not need this money, while at the same time refusing additional resources for the youth service.
I have done a quick calculation, based on the figures that the Financial Secretary gave. If the concession in the new clause were to be allocated around every constituency, each one could have an additional £2,000, made available in the current financial year for youth clubs. In my constituency, £2,000 a year going into the local youth service would have a marked effect on the provision of equipment that could be used in the interests of young people. Instead, that money will be given to a few who happen to own stud farms.
I remember the debates that took place on the Finance Act 1981. I was sitting on the Committee with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) when we discussed the amendments on grass letting. We were concerned about the abuses that would arise in the event that the capital transfer tax concessions on farming went through. My right hon. and hon. Friends predicted that if we granted these concessions, every year groups of interests would surface to claim that their activity was simply a variation on the word "farming", and would demand equal tax treatment with farmers.
Ministers justified their decision to introduce this tax concession on the basis that the farming industry is important because it is a food-producing industry and therefore central to the national economy. If that is the case, perhaps they can now explain how it is that the breeding of horses suddenly falls within the definition of a food-producing industry. Perhaps the Minister's intention is to convert the British to the French diet and arrange for us to eat horses. However, the Government have not produced an adequate definition to justify the introduction of this measure.
The small print in the new clause says that the concession is to be backdated to the introduction of the capital transfer tax concession in 1981. In other words, at that time it was not seen that this group would claim, but now that there is the potential anomaly the Government are ensuring that this group has the right to make a claim. It might be interesting to examine the accounts of some of these organisations. It may be that they have not settled their capital transfer tax liabilities from 1981 until today. I bet that, in the great majority of cases, these things are 1068 still the subject of negotiations with the Inland Revenue. The delays and the arguments with the Inland Revenue, and perhaps even appeals, have led to the introduction of this tax concession today. Never, in the three years since the introduction of this concession, has one parliamentary question been tabled about the need for this tax concession for stud farms. That is a measure of the interest in it.
If the Government cannot point to clear and public representations being made on this concession, they have no right to introduce it. Let us not forget that this concession was not included in the original Finance Bill but has been introduced at a later stage, when the Bill has been through most of its proceedings in the House. It has been brought in only weeks before the Bill requires a signature to ensure its passage to the statute book.
The Government have not told us how many beneficiaries there will be. There may be only a couple of hundred individuals or organisations. These people are consuming a considerable amount of our parliamentary time, as well as national resources. I hope that the Minister addresses himself to that point and tells us how many will benefit from the concession.
I shall examine the consistency of the concession. Why is it that breeders of horses should be made a special case as against the interests of those who breed pheasants for the annual shoot, cat breeders, fish farmers—they may already have concessions—greyhound breeders, skunk and python breeders — we export those as well — and pigeon breeders? The whole thing is nonsense. We all know of examples of people who do not have access, as the hon. Member for Devizes has, to the privileged areas of the Treasury and Whitehall to make their case. I suspect, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Devizes will correct me if I am wrong, that he may have been at the heart of this new clause. He may have made repeated representations over the years to the Treasury. Perhaps if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and is called later in our debate, he will be more forthcoming as to why he has sought to raise this matter on Report.
What we may do through the new clause is wrong. We cannot afford £1 million. There are far more deserving people and organisations within the United Kingdom requiring any money that the Treasury has available. The Minister has not made a case for the concession, and unless he can I earnestly hope that my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby on a point of principle—not against the industry, but to register our objection to the fact that money is being thrown away to organisations that simply do not need it.
§ Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)When the relief on capital transfer tax for agricultural land was introduced three reasons were given. One was the high rate of capital transfer tax at the time, the second was the high and unstable rate of inflation and the third was that it was, perhaps, the only way to allow family farms to pass from one generation to another. I have always found it difficult to see why farms should be treated differently from other assets for capital transfer tax purposes, and I find it difficult to see why stud farms should be treated differently.
I can see that if those conditions—the high rates of CTT and of inflation, and considerations of family farms — exist together, there would be some argument in favour of the exception, although its effect has been to 1069 drive up the price of land, and not to relieve farmers from the effect of capital transfer tax. That is often the impact of tax concessions.
However, two of those conditions have gone or are on the way out. We have relatively low rates of inflation, and it seems that they will remain low for some time. Rates of capital transfer tax have been decreasing substantially.
The only remaining reason concerns family farms and how they should pass from one generation to the next. The tax penalty on that is relatively low. It is difficult to believe that the additional CTT relief granted by the new clause will preserve jobs, as some hon. Members have suggested. I cannot see how jobs will be destroyed when land is sold by one person's executors to another person.
Farming is in any case a highly privileged sector of the economy. As someone who has no horses or cows in his constituency, I am one of the few hon. Members who can say that. If we are looking for savings in the tax system we should examine the cost of those privileges.
I understand that the new clause simply restores the law to what everyone understood it to be before 1981. It seems reasonable to remove doubt. Does my hon. Friend think that it is reasonable for us to examine this sort of exemption? In other areas the Minister, beyond all others, has made it. Clear—I entirely agree with him—that the Government's policy is to remove exemptions and reduce rates of taxation. We have done that in corporation tax. I support that, as the theory is right.
Perhaps we are moving in the same direction in relation to income tax, with the removal of life assurance premium relief. That will enable the Treasury to reduce rates of tax. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why we seem to be going the other way in this case. If not, perhaps he will examine the exemptions from capital transfer tax before next year to see whether their removal would have the same effect as in the case of corporation tax, and reduce the rates of capital transfer tax.
§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)Much of the debate has centred on the racing industry. I wish not to join in that discussion, but to draw attention to the fact that without CTT there is a real possibility that show horses, especially Cleveland bays from my constituency, might be lost to the nation and to people in generations to come.
A capital transfer tax of this nature impinges not just upon the rich, but upon those farmers who enjoy and delight in breeding horses, and like to win against other farmers with the animals and produce that are exhibited at agricultural shows throughout the country.
Many people get great enjoyment from seeing young horses, such as Cleveland bays, being bred and shown, and going on to produce their own young horses for years to come. It is not a rich man's sport to own such animals. Often it is a poor man's sport. If farmers could not share grazing with others, they would not breed horses in the first place.
It is important that some Opposition Members should learn that there are people in this country who enjoy going racing and watching show horses. People will very much resent it if the new clause is lost. Many children today — and I hope many thousands in future — enjoy the excellent outdoor activity of pony riding. I do not find much vandalism and hooliganism among people who enjoy that sport.
§ Mr. MaxtonThe hon. Gentleman is implying—luckily the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) is putting it right—that it is wrong to claim that large numbers of jobs in this industry will be wiped out if the new clause is not passed. At least three Conservative Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have implied that, if the new clause is not passed, the entire stud industry in Britain will collapse and many thousands of jobs will be lost. That is nonsense.
§ Mr. HoltI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it shows that he will fail to convince the House of the value of his argument. I did not mention jobs. I suggested that thousands of children enjoy the pleasure of pony riding weekend in, weekend out. They do not cause trouble to anyone. Many schemes exist to promote riding for the disabled. All of that would be put at risk if the CTT concession before us were lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Opposition Members may shout "Rubbish", but none of them is involved in or enjoys the sport. They are not interested in young people doing nice things, only nasty things.
It is important that the House should not take seriously the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He has no argument against this modest measure. The fanning community throughout the country, as well as those who enjoy going racing or popping into betting shops, will resent the implication in the words of Opposition Members.
§ Mr. MooreWe have had a longer debate than some thought possible on this issue, which is of significance to the outside world. I know that I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) more accurately reflect his constituency interest, as he wisely said, and the interests of the young throughout the country than the attitude expressed by some outside the House, and the rather bitter language used earlier in the debate. It would be worthwhile to make known the attitude of Opposition Members to those who know more about the rural community than I do. I represent an urban seat.
I imagine that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) would say that there are some on the Opposition Benches who, by their silence, have signified their support for the new clause. I apologise for my presumption in suggesting that the alliance might have been excluded from that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has, to a significant degree, been representing the views of all parties to this issue by his leadership of the campaign to ensure that uncertainty is removed. We are talking not about a concession, but the removal of uncertainty from what is a complex area, as everyone knows who works on the CTT regime. To that extent, my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and for Devizes were right about the uncertainty in this large and important industry being significant. The new clause will remove that uncertainty and help an important sector of our economy.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked me specifically if there had been any cases so far. To the best of the Revenue's knowledge, no tax relief has yet been paid by a stud farm, as that has been covered by business relief at 50 per cent. It does not apply automatically to the cases that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider. The clause is needed to avoid uncertainty.
1071 The hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Perry Barr asked why the new clause was not introduced in Committee. I shall not bore the House with details of the new clauses that have been introduced at this stage in a Finance Bill in the past five or six years.
As I said earlier, the new clause was the subject of much discussion between myself, officials and the industry. We made sure that the clause was drafted to cover precisely the intended area. There is great difficulty in defining agricultural land use. Inevitably, our discussions took some time. That is why we were not able to introduce the new clause in Committee. That was unfortunate. I apologise, as it is better to discuss new clauses in Standing Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) asked whether the definition of a stud farm was adequate. I shall consider that point. There is no limited definition of a stud farm in the Bill. A farm in the circumstances that my hon. Friend described would qualify for agricultural relief, subject to what I have said about the restraints on hobby activities.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked whether greyhound breeders would be exempt. They would not be exempt but, where they were carrying on a business, they would qualify for business relief. That applies to commercial greyhound breeders, who would not qualify for the agricultural relief. There was some difficulty about interpretation of the definition of agriculture, as a result of the 1975 Act, which has created these difficulties. Greyhound breeders do not occupy land in the same way as stud farms.
Some Opposition Members have suggested that essentially the new clause seeks to help the wealthy. I stress that it does not.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savoursrose—
§ Mr. MooreI shall give way in a moment.
It seemed to me that some Opposition Members were suggesting that the intention behind the new clause was to succour only the wealthy. I am seeking to answer that supposition.
The industry, like many others, undoubtedly includes some very wealthy individuals, but its bedrock comprises the many small breeders countrywide with a few acres and a handful of mares. The 1984 Directory of the Turf lists 700 thoroughbred studs in the United Kingdom and indicates the number of mares retained in about 400. Of that number, 77 per cent. have a dozen or fewer mares permanently on site, while 49 per cent. have six or fewer. That indicates the wide spread of the industry.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) mentioned the list of breeders. I shall in correspondence address myself to each one, but, so far as I can see, they would qualify for business relief if they are carrying on a business. However, they do not generally occupy agricultural land for an agricultural purpose, and that is what relates to agricultural relief.
The hon. Member for Workington asked whether there had been any parliamentary pressure, and adduced from answers to parliamentary questions that there had not. I have received probably as many letters from Members on both sides of the House on this subject as on many other issues in the last year. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman 1072 confirming the number of Members of Parliament who have written to me. In addition, the press which covers the industry has drawn to my attention that in the wider community this is a major issue. As an urban Member of Parliament, I was not familiar with it, but I am aware that it is an important issue for many people outside the House.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Minister has repeatedly said that the better off will not benefit. While this may not be a lot of money to hon. Members, it is certainly a lot of money to my constituents. Will he confirm that to benefit by way of this concession the value of the estate need be only £130,000?
§ Mr. MooreAs I have tried to explain, this is not a concession. It is confirmation of the pattern of taxation. However, in so far as it is a different interpretation from what people were led to believe, and given that some people may have been disadvantaged, there might be some negligible cost.
Business relief, at rates of up to 50 per cent., is available to all businesses, including the leisure industries to which the hon. Member for Cathcart referred. However, stock farming is in this special category and involves the occupation of agricultural land. That introduces the question of agricultural relief. The new clause overcomes the uncertainty about agricultural relief. That uncertainty will be removed by the new clause. I trust that the House will welcome it on that basis.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 172.
1075| Division No. 400] | [5.54 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Budgen, Nick |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Bulmer, Esmond |
| Alexander, Richard | Burt, Alistair |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Butcher, John |
| Ancram, Michael | Butterfill, John |
| Arnold, Tom | Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y) |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Carlisle, John (N Luton) |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) | Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S) |
| Atkinson, David (B'm'th E) | Carttiss, Michael |
| Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) | Cartwright, John |
| Baldry, Anthony | Cash, William |
| Batiste, Spencer | Chalker, Mrs Lynda |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Chope, Christopher |
| Beith, A. J. | Churchill, W. S. |
| Bellingham, Henry | Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) |
| Benyon, William | Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) |
| Best, Keith | Clegg, Sir Walter |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Cockeram, Eric |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Colvin, Michael |
| Biggs-Davison, Sir John | Cope, John |
| Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Cormack, Patrick |
| Body, Richard | Corrie, John |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Couchman, James |
| Bottomley, Peter | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Bottomley, Mrs Virginia | Critchley, Julian |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n) | Crouch, David |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes | Currie, Mrs Edwina |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Dickens, Geoffrey |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Dicks, Terry |
| Bright, Graham | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Brinton, Tim | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Dover, Den |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Dunn, Robert |
| Browne, John | Durant, Tony |
| Bruinvels, Peter | Dykes, Hugh |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) |
| Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A. | Eggar, Tim |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Evennett, David |
| Eyre, Sir Reginald | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Fairbairn, Nicholas | Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith |
| Fallon, Michael | Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine |
| Farr, Sir John | Kennedy, Charles |
| Favell, Anthony | Kershaw, Sir Anthony |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Key, Robert |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | King, Roger (B'ham N'field) |
| Fletcher, Alexander | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Forman, Nigel | Knight, Gregory (Derby N) |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Forth, Eric | Knowles, Michael |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Knox, David |
| Fox, Marcus | Lang, Ian |
| Franks, Cecil | Latham, Michael |
| Freeman, Roger | Lawler, Geoffrey |
| Freud, Clement | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Fry, Peter | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Gale, Roger | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Galley, Roy | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde) | Lester, Jim |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd) |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Lightbown, David |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Lilley, Peter |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Lloyd, Ian (Havant) |
| Gorst, John | Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham) |
| Gow, Ian | Lord, Michael |
| Gower, Sir Raymond | McCurley, Mrs Anna |
| Grant, Sir Anthony | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Greenway, Harry | MacGregor, John |
| Gregory, Conal | MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire) |
| Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds) | MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N) | Maclean, David John |
| Grist, Ian | Maclennan, Robert |
| Ground, Patrick | McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st) |
| Gummer, John Selwyn | McQuarrie, Albert |
| Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) | Madel, David |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Major, John |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Malins, Humfrey |
| Hannam, John | Malone, Gerald |
| Hargreaves, Kenneth | Maples, John |
| Harris, David | Marland, Paul |
| Harvey, Robert | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Mates, Michael |
| Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Hawkins, C. (High Peak) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk) | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Hawksley, Warren | Meadowcroft, Michael |
| Hayes, J. | Mellor, David |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Merchant, Piers |
| Hayward, Robert | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Miller, Hal (B'grove) |
| Heddle, John | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Henderson, Barry | Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon) |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Hickmet, Richard | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Hicks, Robert | Moore, John |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Morris, M. (N'hampton, S) |
| Hirst, Michael | Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) |
| Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling) | Moynihan, Hon C. |
| Holt, Richard | Mudd, David |
| Hooson, Tom | Murphy, Christopher |
| Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A) | Neale, Gerrard |
| Howarth, Gerald (Cannock) | Needham, Richard |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Nelson, Anthony |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford) | Neubert, Michael |
| Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk) | Newton, Tony |
| Hubbard-Miles, Peter | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Norris, Steven |
| Hunt, David (Wirral) | Onslow, Cranley |
| Hunter, Andrew | Oppenheim, Philip |
| Irving, Charles | Ottaway, Richard |
| Jackson, Robert | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd) | Page, Sir John (Harrow W) |
| Jessel, Toby | Parris, Matthew |
| Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Patten, Christopher (Bath) |
| Johnston, Russell | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Pattie, Geoffrey |
| Jones, Robert (W Herts) | Pawsey, James |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood) |
| Pollock, Alexander | Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire) |
| Porter, Barry | Stokes, John |
| Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down, | Sumberg, David |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Tapsell, Peter |
| Powley, John | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Prentice, Rt Hon Reg | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Price, Sir David | Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman |
| Prior, Rt Hon James | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Proctor, K. Harvey | Terlezki, Stefan |
| Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M. |
| Raffan, Keith | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter |
| Rathbone, Tim | Thompson, Donald (Calder V) |
| Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) | Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) |
| Renton, Tim | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Tracey, Richard |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Trippier, David |
| Rifkind, Malcolm | Trotter, Neville |
| Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Robinson, Mark (N'port W) | Viggers, Peter |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Waddington, David |
| Ross, Stephen (isle of Wight) | Wainwright, R. |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Rost, Peter | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Rowe, Andrew | Walden, George |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Walker, Bill (T'side N) |
| Ryder, Richard | Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) |
| Sackville, Hon Thomas | Wall, Sir Patrick |
| Sainsbury, Hon Timothy | Waller, Gary |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Walters, Dennis |
| Scott, Nicholas | Ward, John |
| Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Wardle, C. (Bexhill) |
| Shelton, William (Streatham) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Watson, John |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Watts, John |
| Silvester, Fred | Wells, Bowen (Hertford) |
| Sims, Roger | Wells, Sir John (Maidstone) |
| Skeet, T. H. H. | Wheeler, John |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Whitfield, John |
| Soames, Hon Nicholas | Whitney, Raymond |
| Speller, Tony | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Spence, John | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Spencer, Derek | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wood, Timothy |
| Squire, Robin | Woodcock, Michael |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Stanley, John | Yeo, Tim |
| Steel, Rt Hon David | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Steen, Anthony | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Stern, Michael | |
| Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stevens, Martin (Fulham) | Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen |
| Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| NOES | |
| Abse, Leo | Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N) |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Buchan, Norman |
| Anderson, Donald | Caborn, Richard |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Callaghan, Rt Hon J. |
| Ashton, Joe | Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M) |
| Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) | Campbell-Savours, Dale |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Canavan, Dennis |
| Barnett, Guy | Carter-Jones, Lewis |
| Barron, Kevin | Clark, Dr David (S Shields) |
| Beckett, Mrs Margaret | Clarke, Thomas |
| Bell, Stuart | Clay, Robert |
| Benn, Tony | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Cohen, Harry |
| Blair, Anthony | Coleman, Donald |
| Boothroyd, Miss Betty | Conlan, Bernard |
| Boyes, Roland | Cook, Robin F. (Livingston) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Corbett, Robin |
| Brown, Gordon (D''fmline E) | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Cowans, Harry |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E) | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) |
| Craigen, J. M. | McWilliam, John |
| Crowther, Stan | Madden, Max |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Marek, Dr John |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Marshall, David (Shettleston) |
| Dalyell, Tam | Martin, Michael |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli) | Mason, Rt Hon Roy |
| Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly) | Maxton, John |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) | Meacher, Michael |
| Deakins, Eric | Michie, William |
| Dewar, Donald | Mikardo, Ian |
| Dixon, Donald | Millan, Rt Hon Bruce |
| Dobson, Frank | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Dormand, Jack | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Dubs, Alfred | Nellist, David |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G. | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Eastham, Ken | O'Brien, William |
| Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE) | ) Park, George |
| Evans, John (St. Helens N) | Patchett, Terry |
| Ewing, Harry | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Fatchett, Derek | Pendry, Tom |
| Faulds, Andrew | Pike, Peter |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) |
| Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn) | Prescott, John |
| Fisher, Mark | Radice, Giles |
| Flannery, Martin | Randall, Stuart |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Redmond, M. |
| Foster, Derek | Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S) |
| Foulkes, George | Richardson, Ms Jo |
| Fraser, J. (Norwood) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald | Robertson, George |
| George, Bruce | Robinson, G. (Coventry NW) |
| Godman, Dr Norman | Rogers, Allan |
| Gould, Bryan | Rooker, J. W. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Rowlands, Ted |
| Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Hardy, Peter | Sheerman, Barry |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Sheldon, Rt Hon R. |
| Harrison, Rt Hon Walter | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood) |
| Haynes, Frank | Short, Mrs K(W'hampt'n NE) |
| Heffer, Eric S. | Silkin, Rt Hon J. |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall) | Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury) |
| Home Robertson, John | Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E) |
| Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) | Soley, Clive |
| Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Stott, Roger |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport East) | Straw, Jack |
| Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Janner, Hon Greville | Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen) |
| John, Brynmor | Thompson, J. (Wansbeck) |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) | Thorne, Stan (Preston) |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Tinn, James |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Torney, Tom |
| Lambie, David | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Leighton, Ronald | Wareing, Robert |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Weetch, Ken |
| Litherland, Robert | Welsh, Michael |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Williams, Rt Hon A. |
| McCartney, Hugh | Wilson, Gordon |
| McDonald, Dr Oonagh | Winnick, David |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| McKelvey, William | |
| Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor | Tellers for the Noes: |
| McNamara, Kevin | Mr. Austin Mitchell and Mr. James Hamilton. |
| McTaggart, Robert |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.