Skip to main content

Relief For Successive Charges

Volume 887: debated on Wednesday 5 March 1975

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

5'.—(1) Where the value of a person's estate was increased by a chargeable transfer (in this section referred to as the previous transfer) made not more than four years before his death, the tax chargeable on his death under section 22 of this Act shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be reduced by the following percentage of the tax charged on so much of the value transferred by the previous transfer as is attributable to the increase, that is to say—
10(a) by 80 per cent. if the period between the previous transfer and the death was one year or less;
(b) by 60 per cent. if that period was more than one year but not more than two years;
(c) by 40 per cent. if that period was more than two years but not more than three years; and
(d) by 20 per cent. if that period was more than three years.
15(2) No reduction shall be made under this section with respect to an increase attributable to property which, at the time of the death, was settled property, if, under paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 to this Act, tax is chargeable on the death as if the value of that property were reduced.
20(3) Where the value of a person's estate was increased on a death on which estate duty was payable, the preceding provisions of this section shall apply with the necessary modifications and, in particular, as if on that death there had been a chargeable transfer and the estate duty had been tax on the value transferred thereby.'—[Mr. Healey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.48 p.m.

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

It will probably be for the convenience of the House if there is a general debate on this, which will include the amendments which will have to be moved later.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to the selection of amendments today. This is in no way related to your discretion in the selection of amendments. This is merely an inquiry that arises from the operation of the timetable procedure. The amendments grouped as selected for debate today appear to relate entirely to the new clauses, although there are matters and amendments relating, for example, to the schedules, which are printed on the Order Paper later and which relate to those same matters.

Would you be prepared to indicate to us whether it is your decision that these amendments should be selected and, therefore, presumably debated on a later day, or whether you would look favourably upon hon. Members whose names are to these later amendments to the schedules taking part in today's debate, even though their amendments to the schedules cannot in the nature of things be either selected or not selected?

My instinct is one of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. However, I should be unwise to express that sympathy too firmly, too quickly. Perhaps I might consider that point and give the right hon. Gentleman my reply later.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, your suggestion is that we have a general debate covering the amendments and the whole ambit of the new clause. Does that mean that you have in mind separate debates afterwards on the two groups of amendments, or merely separate Divisions?

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Official Opposition visualised having one debate on each new clause embracing the debate on the groups of amendments and then proceeding to separate Divisions at the end of that single debate.

I can see why the Chair should have some sympathy with the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). On the other hand, it might be worth bearing in mind that if we had a debate on new Clauses 8 and 3, that would be the only opportunity for a significant debate on agriculture, whereas if we were able to reach the schedule attached to new Clause 8, that would give a further opportunity for a debate on that schedule, which relates to forestry. We were about to suggest that we might, therefore, try to concentrate the debate on new Clauses 8 and 3 on agriculture rather than on forestry. In making that suggestion, of course, we appreciate that we cannot bind the House, let alone yourself, Mr. Speaker.

I point out that the new Clause 8 is only a paving clause for the schedule relating to forestry. It was my hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would be able to help us by allowing that schedule to be debated together with new Clause 8, otherwise it will be nonsense to debate a paving clause.

As the House knows, new Clause 4 is the first of a number of new clauses and amendments affecting the capital transfer tax which the Government are introducing to fulfil the undertaking that I gave on 6th August when I first published the White Paper on the tax. I repeated that undertaking on 21st January when we considered the Bill in Committee on the Floor of the House. My undertaking was to consider any reasonable representations made either inside or outside the House and to seek to meet them if I was satisfied that otherwise an injustice might be done.

After so many hours, days and nights of discussion in detail, it is easy to lose sight of the central fact, which is that the Government are now replacing a tax which was ineffective and unfair—ineffective because it was avoided on a colossal scale and unfair because it was avoided by only a minority of those affected and observed by the rest—by a tax that we believe to be fair and effective.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I had assumed that estate duty was avoided on a massive scale. However, some of the evidence that has come to light recently will tend to make us both believe that the avoidance was nothing like as great as had been supposed. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a figure of the revenue lost by avoidance? Capital transfer tax will bring in less revenue than did estate duty, which would seem to argue that avoidance was not that massive.

No, Sir. No Government can ever estimate the tax lost by avoidance. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to understand these matters. He will, on reflection, understand that that is so. Equally, it is impossible to estimate tax forgone by evasion, never mind avoidance. But I shall seek to show that avoidance was more widespread than many people suspected, and some of the amendments that we shall introduce in the next few days will take account of that fact.

No one, certainly not the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), will deny that estate duty was an avoidable tax. The volume and intensity of the protests against the attempts that the Government are now making to close the loopholes for avoidance is proof of the scale and range of the avoidance of estate duty. But we must also admit that avoidance was carried out by only a small section of those affected and a miniscule section of the population as a whole. If that is what the hon. Gentleman was seeking to suggest, I agree with him.

Unfortunately, this tiny section of the population—a tiny minority of the minority affected by the tax—is that section which the Conservative Opposition have sought to represent in our debates over recent weeks. I refer to some remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition when she spoke on the Bill in Committee upstairs. They are people for whom a gift of £1,000 a year is too small for many ordinary circumstances. They are people for whom a wedding present of £2,500 is totally inadequate. Those are the views that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) expressed in Committee.

The Government are not prepared to make amendments to benefit this tiny minority of avoiders. As a result, we have been accused by the Conservative Opposition during our Committee discussions of destroying the sanctity of family life, of replacing the sanctity of family life by the drab orthodoxies of Eastern dictatorships, of operating against natural justice, and of handing over British business to the Arabs and the Americans.

This hyperbole bears very little relation to the facts, which are that the Bill allows any man or woman in this country to make a gift of £1,000 every year completely free of tax. The taxable gift starts at the same level as estate duty, namely, £15,000, but it is levied at rates that are substantially below the rates of estate duty, and those in respect of lifetime gifts are now very much lower still. Moreover—and this is a provision that initially was welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—for the first time since estate duty came into existence the Bill totally exempts gifts as between man and wife and thereby relieves widows and widowers of a burden which, on reflection, the Opposition would now regard as totally unfair, although they did nothing to relieve it when they had the power to do so.

4.0 p.m.

Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves family life and the widows, and perhaps orphans, will he consider the point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) during our debates about a person who allows his widowed mother or any relation the use of a house? The right hon. Gentleman was disposed to say then that only if there were a formal agreement would it be caught. Will he tell us about that aspect of family life before passing on to other matters?

I shall be glad to do so, even though I might be trespassing on your patience, Mr. Speaker, in answering a question so far removed from the clause. The answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was on advice that I received. I have read with interest the points made by the hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs. It is true that the precise juridical meaning of the word "use" in the clause is open to argument. For that reason, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) knows, we have put down an amendment, which will be considered in the next few days, which will prevent the clause applying until April 1976. By that time we hope to have a completely satisfactory juridical formula.

This is not required. It will not be effective until about a year from now. During that time we shall seek to resolve the juridical point so fairly made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know what point the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks he made when he intervened, but I see that he is quite satisfied with the answer that I have given.

Most of the men and women who make up the tiny minority of the total population in this country who are subject to estate duty now and will be subject to capital transfer tax in future have uncomplainingly paid higher rates than are now proposed. They will be much better off under the new legislation than under the old legislation. But the Government are able to help those who have paid tax over the last 80 years only because they are closing loopholes which existed for that tiny minority within the minority who were rich enough to hire lawyers and tax consultants to exploit the opportunities for dodging estate duty under the previous legislation.

When the White Paper which contained indications of all the provisions in the Bill was first published, it was universally recognised to be a fair and long overdue reform in our tax system. Indeed, The Times at that date stated:
"The Government have shown reason and moderation in formulating its proposed gifts tax. … Indeed, it is the practical inadequacies of estate duty which make the proposed gifts tax … so acceptable."
It went on, in words so complimentary that I blush to repeat them, to point out that the gifts tax, capital transfer tax as we now call it, was a fair, just, long overdue reform which would close totally unacceptable loopholes in the existing tax system.

However, as we all know, when the Government finally published the Bill containing the measures to implement the White Paper they faced a massive and orchestrated campaign not to improve but to destroy the Bill. That campaign is now being led by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe). I must remind him of what he said on Monday morning on a radio programme just before we were about to consider the Bill and long before any guillotine had been proposed. He said:
"It is not a question of extra time for debate in the House. We shall be using our time in the House to use every legitimate parliamentary means to secure the withdrawal of this tax, and that is the object of our debate this week."
There was no question of improving the tax. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was seeking, as he has every right to seek—I am not complaining—to use every legitimate parliamentary means to prevent it reaching the statute book in any form whatever. We are using such legitimate parliamentary means as we think are appropriate to ensure that it does reach the statute book and shows that we are capable of implementing an undertaking on which we fought and won the General Election.

As we are always being told that such-and-such is bringing Parliament into disrepute, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) certainly did his share in that broadcast to bring Parliament into disrepute?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have sought to do that, but the disrepute was brought on himself rather than on the institution to which we all belong and to which the rest of us, at any rate, pay respect.

The interesting point is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not concerned with widows, small shopkeepers and small traders who benefit from the Bill. For the first time for 80 years the ordinary small shopkeeper or business man will now be able to pass on his business free of tax to his wife and to his children at a lower rate than in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was concerned exclusively with the tiny minority of our population who are having the opportunity of avoiding tax withdrawn from them altogether. Indeed, he was representing not those who vote for him but those who pay him.

The fact is—[Interruption.] We are delighted to see the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on the Front Bench again after the unbridled attacks that he has recently been launching on the policies of the previous Government of which he was a member. We hope that he will show the same exuberance in castigating his right hon. Friends now that he is on the Opposition Front Bench as he did when fighting his way there from the back benches.

The Conservative leadership has revealed itself in its true colours as the defender of the rights of birth against the rights of ability and as representing those who believe that status, influence and wealth should depend on who one's father was, not what one is and has done.

There is a fundamental division on the Opposition Front Bench in this regard. It is one of the most fundamental divisions in British politics, and nothing reveals more clearly how fundamental it is than the hysterical excitement of hon. Gentlemen in debating this Bill which closes tax loopholes.

One point of interest has emerged from the debates. I revert here to the question asked by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. The scale of avoidance was a good deal wider than most of us—I include the Government—imagined when the Bill was first introduced. More important than the scale of avoidance is the fact that after two generations of increasing avoidance of estate duty, whole sectors of our national life have come to depend on their ability to avoid a tax which Parliament introduced 80 years ago believing that it would and should be effective.

The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) put it fairly and clearly when, discussing this matter on the Floor of the House some weeks ago, he told us that there was indeed an element of truth in the argument that many family businesses survive only because of the loopholes in estate duty.

Will the Chancellor substantiate his statement about avoidance by reference to the Finance Act 1894? Will he demonstrate that Mr. Harcourt, when he introduced the Bill, meant it to apply to lifetime gifts? This is a fundamental point. So far the right hon. Gentleman has misstated the facts.

As so often, the hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to change the argument completely. When Mr. Harcourt introduced the Bill, he did so in words which I only wish were true—"We are all Socialists now"—but he was introducing a Bill which sought to introduce a duty on legacies. We are closing loopholes which existed in the legislation introduced by Mr. Harcourt by introducing taxes on lifetime gifts. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not without a certain understanding of these matters, and I suspect he understands what I am saying now in that regard.

I think that we should get clear what the right hon. Gentleman means by avoidance and loopholes. I gather that he includes in that all lifetime gifts to the family. Does he call that avoidance, and is that a loophole?

It is not evasion. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the difference between evasion, which is breaking the law, and avoidance, which is using defects in the law to avoid paying taxation. There is nothing illegal about avoidance, but there is nothing terribly attractive about it, either, from our point of view. What we are seeking to do is to close loopholes through which so many people have avoided taxation in the past.

The fact that sectors of our national life have come to depend upon their ability to avoid a tax is a fact that we cannot and should not ignore. Therefore, in the new clauses and amendments that we shall introduce over the next few days we are seeking to temper the wind to the shorn lamb and we shall be discussing over the next three days, in the main, detailed concessions which the Gov- ernment have made to protect important sectors of our national life where a strict application of a fair and effective law would have produced results which were damaging to the national interest or were unfair.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, by a decision of Parliament, unemployment pay is not subject to income tax. Does he call that avoidance and a loophole? It is the same point as he is making. What Parliament has not sought to do is not a loophole. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the rightness of that.

Parliament took a conscious decision not to make unemployment pay subject to income tax, although the Conservative Party proposed to make it so subject under its tax credit system. In both cases Parliament was being invited to take a decision in full knowledge of its consequences. What I am arguing—and nobody can deny this—is that it was not the intention of Harcourt, or those who have increased or changed the form of estate duty since, to make it possible for it to be avoided on the massive scale on which it has been subject to avoidance in recent years. If Conservative Members are claiming that loopholes should continue to exist and that estate duty should remain an avoidable tax, let them have the guts to say so and defend that position in the country, because they will find that not one out of 10,000 of their supporters will follow them in that view.

We were discussing the hon. Gentleman earlier on in a friendly way. I should like to proceed with my speech, and I think the House will agree that I have been generous about giving way.

Not now; perhaps a little later. We are always pleased to see the combative and friendly face of the hon. Gentleman and metaphorically to dust his pants in as determined and friendly a fashion as he is prepared to do physically on occasions when he disagrees with someone on the Government benches.

During the next three days we shall discuss detailed concessions that the Government are making to fulfil the objectives that I have stated. The most important concessions, and those of most interest to the House and the country, are those which I said I intended to make when we started the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House about a month ago, namely, on agriculture, small businesses, forestry, the national heritage and charities. I point out to the House that we are putting charities in a far more favourable position than they were under the previous régime. These are all concessions which I volunteered to make before Conservative Members went into the Long March and which were welcomed by them when I stated this intention.

The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal is getting into a little lather about Marxism. Will he tell us what he is saying?

As the right hon. Gentleman challenges me, I can tell him that these Marxist analogies come readily to his lips because his views are redolent with Marxist thinking.

4.15 p.m.

The House regards the moth-eaten McCarthyism of the hon. and learned Gentleman with more sympathy and tolerance than disgust, though I dare say some people outside the House would not be quite so tolerant.

The concessions that the Government are making were forecast at the beginning of our Committee discussions and I am now implementing the undertakings I then gave.

New Clause 4 is of less general interest. We are introducing it not because it affects an important sector of our national life, but because, on reflection, and after listening to the arguments put to us, particularly in Standing Committee, by Conservative Members, we came to the conclusion that it would be fair to do so. As the House knows, the essential purport of the new clause is to relieve unsettled property of excessive taxation when the donee dies very soon after the initial transfer was made. As the House knows, Schedule 5 already provides for quick succession relief for settled property, and the new clause extends the provision to unsettled property.

As we are to take with the new clause the amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have selected, perhaps I may explain why we do not find it possible to accept them and why we have put down the clause as it stands.

I deal first with the question of rates. The rates that we have chosen are those proposed by the official Opposition in Standing Committee in their Amendment No. 52. I find it a little astonishing that they now come along and propose a completely different set of rates. They are a little greedy, and their behaviour in this respect gives some colour to the statement of objective by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East on the radio on Monday. These are not serious amendments. This is an attempt merely to delay and prolong discussion. The rates are the same as those proposed by the official Opposition and, except for the reduction from five years to four years, the percentage reductions are more generous than those under estate duty, despite the fact that the CTT scale of rates is lower than that under estate duty. That deals with one group of amendments.

There is another group of amendments asking us to give relief in the case of the second transfer not only on death but on lifetime gifts. To do so would be to go against the whole sense of quick succesion relief. We are giving relief on death, and death only, because death is the only event that gives rise to unforeseeable transfers and unforeseeable liability to CTT. A man has no reason whatsoever to make a lifetime gift within four years of a previous transfer unless he is willing to accept a liability to CTT.

The provision in our new clause is precisely the same as the provision under estate duty, which has stood on the statute book for many years and which the Conservative Party when it was in office never sought to change. Again, I suggest that the amendments they are proposing here are essentially filibustering amendments intended to prolong discussion and not intended to elicit serious consideration.

There is, however, one important variant—I concede this—to the régime under estate duty. That is the use of a tax credit instead of reduction of value as the basis on which the liability to tax is calculated.

As the House will know—although I do not insist that all hon. Members should accept this argument—that the reason for that is that it is very difficult indeed to trace unsettled property after the first transfer and to distinguish it from the rest of the property which belongs to the donee—impossible, in fact, to do so—without a degree of administrative vexation and juridical complication, which I think it would be contrary to the general interests to accept.

For that reason we have instead taken a percentage of the first tax as the basis for calculating the relief rather than a percentage of the value at the time of the second transfer.

For all these reasons. I commend the new clause to the House.

As the House knows only too well, we are working under a very strict timetable motion for these proceedings and I wish to speak as briefly as I can, not only to the new clause but to the amendments which are being discussed with it, in the hope that we may proceed with the other 15 debates in all that may be possible during the less than eight hours which are available to us—even if we do not vote at all against any of the Government's proposals or in support of any of our proposals.

I shall get on with it, indeed. I wish to get on with it, first, by dealing with the astonishingly unctuous and patronising observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and shared in quasi-choric fashion by his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about what I said on radio on Monday. I said, with justification, that the Opposition would use every legitimate parliamentary means to prevent this tax reaching the statute book in this way and in this form. To hear the right hon. and hon. Members opposite talking about bringing Parliament into disrepute is to raise astonishment inside and outside the House.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor said that I had been following with interest the accumulation in every newspaper day after day of criticisms of what the Government are doing—the Financial Times on Saturday and The Guardian yesterday; and today I glance only at the headlines of three newspapers.

No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Daily Mail, under the headline

"Making a mockery of Parliament",
"But the way this Labour Government is trying to force its ill-prepared and inadequately debated measure through Parliament is utterly to be deplored."
Who is standing on the side of parliamentary reputation now? The Opposition are, and not the Labour Party.

The Daily Express, under the headline "Misgovernment", states—[Interruption.] I should be happy to harken to the Chancellor's laughter if he could identify a single newspaper of repute that sided with him in this matter, but he cannot do SO. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Morning Star."] I dare say that the Morning Star naturally might be one, but there are not many others.

The Daily Express has stated
"What makes this particular blade so obnoxious is that the Capital Transfer Tax (part of the Finance Bill) is, for Britain, a whole new concept in taxation which could produce many unforeseen and possibly disastrous consequences for small businesses, farms, family relationships and, ultimately, even for our way of life. To rush through such legislation is an abuse of the parliamentary system."
Finally, The Times, under the headline "Legislative Chaos", states precisely the point that I have made throughout our debates:
"The right thing to do with those clauses of the present Finance Bill concerned with the Capital Transfer Tax is to separate them and to reintroduce them later, after more mature consideration."
That is the strength of the case I have been making and am making here again today.

The new clause, so far as it goes, is welcome. But why on earth was it left out in the first place? We have had the answer in statements made throughout our proceedings, most notably and most candidly by the Chief Secretary in the debate on Second Reading, when he said:
"Preparation of the capital transfer tax legislation has been a mammoth task involving the framing of a complete new code."
He also said:
"As a result of the difficulties we have had in framing the tax, there are certain matters with which there was insufficient time to deal in the Bill as published".—[Official Report, 17th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 1379–80.]
He can say that again!

Again, we find that even today the Chancellor, in another piece of euphemistic newspeak in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) has decided to postpone altogether the operation of Clause 39 for 12 months, with the bland statement "It will take us at least that time to find a really satisfactory juridical answer." If that is true of the one clause which he thinks he can afford to postpone for 12 months, is it not true of every other clause?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a great deal of the fact that the Government, on this important tax which seeks to limit tax avoidance, have listened to serious argument and sought to meet it by amendment. Would he not agree that this was a more responsive attitude than that which he adopted when he introduced a Bill not so long ago, under the threat of a guillotine, the purpose of which was not to close tax loopholes but to limit liberty? When that Bill was actually enacted it was found totally inoperable and required the use of a squalid device, the use of the Tipstaff, to permit its operation at all? The Conservative Party finally had to decide, if it ever had opportunity, never to introduce it again. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that that is a better precedent?

If the Chancellor is driven to such irrelevance in order to justify his monstrous tax, we are indeed in a sad plight. Let me remind him that in the debate on that previous Bill—if I may follow him out of order for a second—we were willing to introduce dozens of amendments to meet representations made by the Labour Party, but the Labour Party, so dedicated was it to the preservation of parliamentary respect, was determined to vote against even those amendments that were made to meet its representation. Lunacy can go no further than that.

Order. This is a Second Reading debate on this new clause. I think that although the debate can go fairly wide, it can go fairly wide only on the new clause.

I am tempted, Mr. Speaker, to answer the desperate interventions by the Chancellor, but I shall remain within order.

The extent to which the Government have been responding to these things is demonstrated again on this clause by what my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) pointed out in Committee, that after putting down seven amendments to the clause the Opposition secured four concessions and the Chief Secretary said that he would look at two other matters. That was six out of seven, and still the concessions come forward. Other major concessions, apart from those made in this clause, are being made even at this eleventh hour. Many of them are inadequate. All of them are necessary. All of them recognise the overwhelming legitimacy of the case we have been making. To hear the right hon. Gentleman saying, as though it was a disreputable argument, that some of my hon. Friends have been saying that some of these provisions offended against natural justice is odd. How can that possibly be cited as a disreputable argument? The Chancellor knows full well that the way in which this legislation is being handled is doing, has been doing and will continue to do injustice to the rights of people to make representations about it.

Let me take another example of an amendment which we shall be considering later, in relation to political parties. The original provisions in the Bill, which sought to do, and would have done, great damage to every political party other than the Labour Party, supported as it is by trade union subscriptions, were not there as a result of some error. The Chief Secretary, in discussing these provisions on Second Reading, said that the provisions had been considered. Yet today at last we see some concessions being made over political parties—not by error or a careless mistake but by a deliberate error after careful consideration.

The Chancellor, even so, seeks to take credit for the other concessions he was making in favour of charities. So far, so good. But what about the public bodies which fall outside the definition of charities or outside the definition of political parties? What about organisations such as the United Nations Association, the Disablement Income Group, many other well-deserving bodies, and the National Council for Civil Liberties? All of them enjoy relief under existing legislation, and for them the Chancellor has done nothing. It is another illlustration of the inadequacy of the concessions.

4.30 p.m.

The original Bill, wilfully or recklessly, was doing damage in many other directions—damage to the national heritage, damage to the farming industry, damage to forestry, and, perhaps above all, damage to small firms upon which millions of jobs depend.

The Chancellor sought to tell us that he was replacing an unfair and ineffective tax, if that is what it was. If he is replacing it by anything, he is replacing it by an unfair and destructive tax. It is deeply destructive, not of a minority of people whom he alleges we on this side seek to represent but of the foundations of many aspects of our way of life and destructive of the foundations of the employment of many people.

On all those matters the original proposals were profoundly wrong. The changes now proposed to be made are frank admissions of gross error, and in most, if not in all, cases they do not go far enough. This has happened because the Government, in introducing the legislation, have set out in pursuit of the wrong objectives and are proceeding from the wrong premises.

We on this side have made it amply clear, as did the previous Chancellor—Mr. Anthony Barber—that we have no quarrel with some form and some degree of capital taxation. Indeed, the same was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Government are wrong to proceed on any other footing. However, the Chancellor has a positive obsession with what he is pleased to call "avoidance" in some newspeak use of language, setting out at all times in pursuit of the mere fact that the existing law does not suit his misguided social objectives.

How can it be avoidance, for example, to take advantage of provisions which were deliberately left in the law by generations of Socialist Chancellors, by such wicked capitalist characters as Sir Stafford Cripps, and which were designed to promote the use of life assurance? Is it avoidance to take advantage of the relief given on life assurance premiums? Of course it is not. The Chancellor does little credit to his cause by using the word in that way.

We have no quarrel with capital taxation of the right kind, but the Chancellor ignores the fact that in the United Kingdom already capital taxation is higher than in most other Western European countries. We are not concerned simply with estate duty. We have an accumulation of taxes on capital—capital gains tax, estate duty up to the present date, and stamp duty. The Government seek to add to that list not just capital transfer tax but the wealth tax as well.

The capital transfer tax that is proposed, so far from being designed to distribute or redistribute wealth, will have the effect of destruction and confiscation. It will have the effect of centralising not just wealth but power and initiative in the hands of the State and giant corporations.

The Chancellor chose to tease my hon. Friends for referring to the prospect of companies passing into the hands of the Arabs or the Americans. There will be little prospect of small thriving business enterprises remaining in the hands of anybody else if the Chancellor has his way under this legislation.

Clearly, the Chancellor's objectives are wrong. He will not be helping the weak by destroying the strong. He will only be penalising thrift and enterprise and threatening the jobs of millions of people throughout the country who depend upon small firms, small farms and such enterprises.

To hear the Chancellor seeking to defend the small shopkeeper is like listening to some absurd chorus by the wolf in praise of Little Red Riding Hood.

The only purpose of the higher rates which are proposed is to achieve the destruction which the Chancellor intends. With the high rates proposed in this legislation, it was folly in the first place to exclude the quick succession relief which we welcome in the new clause. Because of the high rates, we are pressing the first group of amendments to give some relief for transfers except on death. Without such further relief, small businesses will face the risk of extinction within a generation, and many jobs will go with them.

All the changes proposed in our amendments are made necessary by the high effective rates proposed. The rates set out in the original White Paper, even though amended, are made all the higher by the Revenue's right to exact tax from the donor at its option, by the bizarre right to gross up the figure upon which tax is payable so that the tax can be payable even upon tax, with the consequence that rates of tax upon capital will in some cases exceed 100 per cent.

No economic justification for the tax in this form has been suggested. There can be none. Nor can there be any social justification for confiscation on this scale. The Chancellor and his right hon. and hon. Friends have brought before Parliament what amounts in the end to a prescription for a peasant society. That is why, although we welcome the new clause, I am happy to press the amendments standing in my name.

The intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) contained about five relevant words. Those words were that the Tories welcomed the new clause.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why the clause was left out in the first place. Today the right hon. and learned Gentleman displayed a degree of churlishness which those of us who have hitherto respected him as a great libertarian and upholder of parliamentary procedures found surprising in him. It was churlish of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ask why the clause had not been put in in the first place and then to say that the Government had brought it forward in response to pressure by the Opposition. One would think from listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that was a sign of weakness on the Government's part rather than that they had acted responsibly after being persuaded by reasoned argument.

We have in the capital transfer tax not the kind of bizarre picture painted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but a long overdue fundamental tax reform. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was guilty of a travesty of the truth in referring to the areas in which he said that the Opposition had been pressing for change—agriculture, small businesses, charities, forestry, the national heritage. In every major area of change the commitment to change the original proposal in the Bill was made by the Governmnt before we spent the 165 hours in Committee.

The hon. Gentleman did not say a word in Committee. He was such a distinguished member of the Committee that I regret I failed to notice him. Will he say when the proposal for a lower rate on lifetime gifts was brought in? If he does not remember that being introduced halfway through the Committee stage, he cannot have been listening.

Government Members who were members of the Standing Committee could not help noticing the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) because of his constant interruptions and the filibustering in which he was a leading participant. I am sure that if he wants to participate in this debate and put his point of view once again, he will succeed in catching your eye before midnight, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I was saying that on all the major issues—agriculture, small businesses, charities, forestry, and the national heritage—the commitment, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, was made by the Government before we had the marathon 165 hours in Committee.

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. Anyone who gave way a second time having just received such a mouthful of abuse would not deserve to be a Member of the House. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman with interest if he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair.

In all the major areas, as I was saying and as I shall continue to say, even if hon. Members want to continue to filibuster at this stage of the argument, the Government had made their commitment long before the matter came under discussion upstairs. The present arrangements under the capital transfer tax leave many of the areas much more favourably treated than they were under the old estate duty.

We hear a lot about the small shopkeeper and the small businessman. When I hear about these busy entrepreneurial activists, I am at a loss to understand why we are in such a desperate economic plight today. Many of them are much more favourably treated by capital transfer tax than they were under the old estate duty.

This is certainly the case with many charities. It is nonsensical for the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East to complain about charities such as Shelter and the National Council for Civil Liberties when he knows that even under the Conservative Government none of those organisations received charitable status. For those bodies which have charitable status, the present arrangement under capital transfer tax is much more favourable. I believe that what we have to do as a totally separate issue is to look much more widely at the definition of a charity.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. The definition of a charity in the context of estate duty was that it had a public and charitable purpose, which is a wider definition than the definition used in the Bill, either originally or under the proposed new clause. Those charities to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred received concessions under estate duty but will not get them under capital transfer tax.

That is not my understanding at the moment, but I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I am sick and tired of hearing about what the BBC said on Monday morning. We have had it quoted five times so far. Instead of having this long, wide-ranging debate, hon. Members should say to the Government "Thank you for the constructive arguments. We welcome new Clause 4 unreservedly." We should not have the kind of grudging attitude adopted by Opposition Members. If they have any real desire for progress in our proceedings, they should say that they welcome the new clause. Instead of advancing their arguments over and over again, they should get on with the other topics which they allege they have not had time to discuss.

I wish to refer to the first amendment in the second group selected for discussion with this new clause.

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the new clause in general terms. Should he wish to move his amendment in detail, an opportunity to do so will arise at a later stage. At the moment, discussion is on the new clause.

My understanding of the decision made by Mr. Speaker earlier was that that was rather an open question, but that he would wait to hear the nature of the debate before giving a decision. I understand also that it was the view of the Opposition—and certainly we support them in this—that they would prefer to take the amendments in the general debate on the clause and vote on them later.

My understanding accords with the recollection of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)—that we should have a general debate covering all the amendments and that there would be separate votes as appropriate. Mr. Speaker left the matter open as to whether there would be separate debates, but it would be left to your wisdom, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to his whether we should do so when we had concluded the main comprehensive debate.

I was trying to address my remarks not to the generality of the clause, but to the first amendment in the second group selected for discussion with this new clause. I refer to Amendment (n), in line 6, at end insert:

  • (a) by 100 per cent. if the period between the previous transfer and the death was two months or less;
  • (b) by 90 per cent. if that period was more than two months but not more than six months'.
  • The Chancellor referred to the two groups of amendments, in my view, wrongly. He was quite correct in saying that the first group of amendments sought to change the rates which the Opposition suggested in Committee, and I understand his reasons for discarding that argument. He then went on to say that the second group was designed to extend the concession in the new clause to lifetime gifts. That is not the case—I hope the Financial Secretary will accept this—because that is not the purpose of Amendment (n).

    4.45 p.m.

    The purpose of the new clause is excellent. It is to deal with the problem of quick succession. We accept that the Government have met the arguments in Committee at least partly if not to the extent that some of us wish. But the Government are being less than generous in the choice of the period to which the concession refers. In other words, they propose a figure of 80 per cent. for the first 12 months or less.

    We feel—and I think this will have the support of both sides of the House—that a very different situation can arise. There can be a situation in which a person who receives a gift dies in the same car crash as the person who makes the gift. That is an obvious example. A father and son might be involved in the same car crash. One might die before the other, although their deaths might be almost instantaneous, or one might die instantaneously and the other perhaps a month later of injuries received in that crash.

    That case is very different from those that the Government are covering in this clause. Therefore, we are seeking to subdivide the first 12 months. We say that if this disaster should strike in the first two months, there should be no tax payable at all on that transfer. We say, further, that after the two months but within six months a figure of 90 per cent. should apply, and beyond that the Government's figures seem to us to be reasonably fair.

    There is not only the case of two people killed in the same accident. One can think of other examples. There is the possibility of a gift being made to a person when, in view of the nature of the circumstances, he should not have accepted it. One can call various circumstances to mind. A man might be on his death-bed but not know that he is dying. Somebody might make a gift to him and he might accept it. Nobody would say to him "You are dying of cancer and you must not take this gift" because there is clearly a family conspiracy to shelter him from the knowledge that he is dying. He might accept the gift in good faith and then die a few days later. That situation should be covered, as it would be if our amendment were accepted.

    I therefore hope that the Financial Secretary will not simply rely on the words of the Chancellor in turning down this amendment. It is not an attempt to extend this concession of the new clause to gifts during lifetime. It is an attempt to make a distinction between the situation covered by the Government's new clause, where two deaths occur within a period of 12 months, which seems to be perfectly reasonable, and the situation where the deaths occur in a much shorter span.

    I hope that the Financial Secretary will recognise that the situation covered by the amendment is rather different, and that the amendment does not seek to drive a wedge into the principle of the tax or into the principle of the proposed new clause.

    I shall be brief, because the House has a lot of work to get through today. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer began—it is noteworthy that he has left early—he assumed a mantle of generosity as convincing as vows of chastity by Casanova on his deathbed. He tried to persuade us that his beneficent tax had been modified by the Government in such a way as to bring great benefit to many people. Throughout our debates on these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has used his hatchet men, appearing himself at the last minute, then disappearing.

    Throughout the wholly admirable and entirely justifiable strictures applied to his proposals by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the Shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman guffawed his way along—

    Where is the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He is such a "shadow" that he has disappeared.

    No doubt, he is looking for the Chancellor, and it would be a good thing if he found him.

    The Chancellor accused my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) of being a motheaten McCarthyite. Anyone who knows about moths realises very well that during his short stay at the Treasury the Chancellor has brought forth more moths to break through, corrupt and the rest than any other Chancellor in living memory. The right hon. Gentleman combines all the least endearing characteristics of the two Cromwells.

    The two great Cromwells, Thomas and Oliver, who had, one might say, varying characteristics, and the right hon. Gentleman combines the least endearing of them both.

    The truth is that in this tax the Chancellor has taken on the wrong people at the wrong time and for the wrong reason. We must come back to the fundamental point, that the Chancellor's aim should be to raise revenue through taxation and not to clobber people or undermine the whole fabric of our society. The right hon. Gentleman will be remembered as the most Draconian figure in the Treasury for many a long year. He will be thought of by future generations with the same degree of revulsion and horror as was the squanderbug figure which haunted the childhood of many of us at the end of the war—squandering the best resources of the nation through the ill-thought-out and ill-considered schemes which he has put before the House.

    Nothing could more clearly show the justice of what I say than the way in which the Government are forcing this tax through without adequate time for debate. We ought to be able to debate the capital transfer tax at length—

    When the Chancellor talks—we are, of course, thankful for small mercies—of certain concessions for agriculture, forestry and the national heritage, everyone knows that those most closely involved with these matters understand that the concessions do not go far enough and do not meet the legitimate cases which have been advanced, yet the House is not to have time adequately to deploy the argument.

    It is essential that we have at least a brief debate on some of the vital matters of concern to agriculture, small businesses and the rest. The way that we now have to work is a damning indictment of the Government's handling of this whole business, and there has been a splendid endorsement of that indictment in today's leading article in The Times, which talks about the way in which the Government are mismanaging the nation's financial affairs.

    I have some difficulty in addressing myself to most of the amendments to the new clause, which I expected to be my task at this stage, because, with the exception of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), no member of the Opposition has directed a word to any of the amendments. I take it that hon. Members consider them of trivial importance and they propose, therefore, not to divide on them. They have certainly given no attention to them.

    We had not a word from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the ephemeral Shadow Chancellor, as to the rate of relief, as to the changed basis of relief, or as to the extent of the relief for lifetime transfers by the donee. It is not surprising that he did not address himself to the rate of relief, because our new clause adopts in toto the proposals pressed upon us in Standing Committee. Why the Opposition should suddenly have a change of mind in the space of about eight or nine days I do not know, but I am happy to see them flexible in these matters. It is, however, a little churlish of them to accuse us of excessive flexibility whenever we change our minds to meet points pressed upon us by them.

    Be that as it may, I come now to the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am searching to find parts of his speech to take hold of and to address myself to—when he said something about public bodies being disadvantaged under the new proposals. I accept that there may be some difficulties there, but most public bodies will benefit either by the £100 a year relief to donees or by the £1,000 a year tax-free transfer available to them under the tax or by out-of-income transfers. If there are further problems which are not covered by those tax-free reliefs, we shall be prepared to look at them.

    The hon. Gentleman has referred to the £1,000 a year exemption. Can he assure the House—this is an important matter—that the new Government amendment to Schedule 6, which we are likely to reach, dealing with the £1,000 a year exemption, is not intended to signify, as it seems to us to do, that the £1,000 exemption shall no longer be over and above the other exemptions under the Bill?

    Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to come in here? This is an extremely important matter, and it has, we know, caused a lot of confusion outside the House over and above all the confusion to which we have been subjected by the Government's various amendments. We shall have to look at this matter very carefully, and I ask the Financial Secretary to address his mind to it. Obviously, he cannot answer fully at this stage, but will he come back to the matter at some stage in the next few days while we are debating the tax?

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 92 of the Bill, Schedule 6, paragraph 2, where there is a Government amendment down to delete words in line 17. This is puzzling us, and we want clarification since it is a most important matter.

    I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the moderate way in which he puts the matter. I shall look at it. It is certainly not the Government's intention in any way to diminish the reliefs available by amendments put down in this sense to Schedule 6. We shall have an opportunity to debate the matter if the Opposition choose so to use the time available to them.

    I was saying that most public bodies will face no difficulties under the tax. If there are difficulties, my right hon. Friend will review them most sympathetically, just as we intend in due course to review the charity laws, which, as hon. Members opposite will acknowledge, I am sure, at present contain many anomalous and unsatisfactory features.

    We were able to extract one nugget from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech—to be fair, I never doubted it—and that was a renewed commitment, on his part at least, to the principle of a tax on lifetime transfers. We are extremely grateful to have that established yet again from the Opposition Front Bench. I am the first to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) also has been quite candid with his hon. Friends in accepting the case in principle for a tax on lifetime transfers. I notice that he was berated for his pains in the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph the following day, but I am sure that his shoulders are broad enough to bear abuse of that sort even in the Conservatives' tribal journal. I have no doubt that he will experience difficulties with some of his back benchers. We heard rumblings only today from the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), who, regrettably, is not with us at the moment, and who dissented vigorously in principle from the proposal for a lifetime transfer tax when my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary mentioned it but was strangely muted when the hon. Member for Guildford accepted it.

    5.0 p.m.

    Those of us who were in Standing Committee heard the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) say how much he regretted the passing of estate duty and how nostalgic he was going to be about it. His reason was simply that estate duty was—and this was its great merit in his eyes—an avoidable tax. That is why we believe that it should have been swept from the statute book long ago, and my hon. and right hon. Friends and I are delighted to be the agents of its disappearance.

    Perhaps I may now deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, who made the only pertinent comment on the clause or the amendments.—[Interruption.]

    I was directing my comment only to speeches from the Opposition side of the House. I shall come to my hon. Friend's contribution in due course. This is the sort of meal in which we save the caviare for the end.

    The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was attempting to create a new segment of relief within the one-year relief that we are proposing. There is no difference in principle between us in what he is seeking to achieve. However, his amendment, as drafted, has certain technical defects. He will be the first to recognise that their effect will be to enable both the 100 per cent. and the 80 per cent. relief to be claimed within the first two months and for both the 90 per cent. and the 80 per cent. reduction to apply if death occurs within the six-month period. I am sure that is not his intention.

    This is essentially a question of a dividing line. I do not claim perfection for my right hon. Friend's proposals, but the 80 per cent. relief that we are proposing for death within one year is greater than that available under the estate duty provisions, although by the nature of things we cannot make precise comparisons. The situation is considerably eased in a great many of these "quick succession" cases because of the relief my right hon. Friend has introduced for estates passing to widows. This is one of the aspects of the tax of which we are extremely proud. For the first time it will mean that a widow or a widower—but usually a widow—who suffers bereavement will not shortly afterwards suffer severe economic loss and be forced to sell her or his home to pay the estate duty in addition to suffering the economic loss resulting from the loss of the breadwinner.

    I am sure that hon. Members will welcome this enormous reform of out estate duty legislation, a reform which has been long overdue and which will cover a great multitude of cases which were the cause of concern to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North.

    My right hon. Friend's proposals in the new clause give only rough justice, and we accept that. We are clear in our minds that it is an improvement to the estate duty provisions, however, and I have no difficulty in commending it to the House.

    I concede that there have been moments in the past when my hon. Friends and I have been a little critical of the Financial Secretary. We have pointed to the somewhat prolonged and sometimes difficult speeches he had to make in Committee with apparently inadequate briefing. I concede that we were at times even a little too critical. Having heard the ignorant rumblings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we realise how grateful we must be for small mercies.

    This is not the time for long speeches. The Government have put the strong arm on all these amendments and we have little time to discuss them. There is no reason to be defensive about putting down amendments to the new clause, particularly since we did not know in Committee, and we still do not know in detail, how the Government will be treating capital gains tax on death. This will make an additional burden and therefore we have every right to oppose the totting up of these burdens.

    However this tax is levied, even with these concessions, it will lead to astronomical rates through grossing up, accumulation and capital gains tax. It will be far higher than anything under estate duty and will cover many areas that estate duty never touched. That is justification enough for putting down the amendments.

    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) argued that Amendments (a) and (b) had great validity in relation to the the quick succession relief which should be extended to transfers on life. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) made an excellent case, and a case demanding some compassion, for extension in other areas as well, and I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to press both amendments to Divisions.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Division No. 124.]


    [5.07 p.m.

    Adley, RobertGardner, Edward (S Fylde)McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
    Aitken, JonathanGilmour, Sir John (East Fife)McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
    Alison, MichaelGlyn, Dr AlanMadel, David
    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Goodhart, PhilipMarshall, Michael (Arundel)
    Awdry, DanielGoodhew, VictorMarten, Neil
    Baker, KennethGoodlad, AlastairMates, Michael
    Banks, RobertGow, Ian (Eastbourne)Mather, Carol
    Beith, A. J.Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)Maude, Angus
    Bell, RonaldGrant, Anthony (Harrow C)Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Gray, HamishMawby, Ray
    Benyon, W.Grieve, PercyMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
    Biffen, JohnGriffiths, EldonMayhew, Patrick
    Biggs-Davison, JohnGrimond, Rt Hon J.Meyer, Sir Anthony
    Blaker, PeterGrist, IanMills, Peter
    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Grylls, MichaelMiscampbell, Norman
    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)Hall, Sir JohnMitchell, David (Basingstoke)
    Bradford, Rev RobertHall-Davis, A. G. F.Moate, Roger
    Braine, Sir BernardHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Molyneaux, James
    Brittan, LeonHampson, Dr KeithMonro, Hector
    Brotherton, MichaelHannam, JohnMontgomery, Fergus
    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye,Moore, John (Croydon C)
    Bryan, Sir PaulHarvie Anderson, Rt Hon MissMore, Jasper (Ludlow)
    Buchanan-Smith, AlickHastings, StephenMorgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
    Buck, AntonyHavers, Sir MichaelMorrison, Charles (Devizes)
    Bulmer, EsmondHayhoe, BarneyMorrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
    Burden, F. A.Heseltine, MichaelMudd, David
    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Hicks, RobertNeave, Airey
    Carr, Rt Hon RobertHolland, PhilipNelson, Anthony
    Chalker, Mrs LyndaHooson, EmlynNeubert, Michael
    Churchill, W. S.Hordern, PeterNewton, Tony
    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Howe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyNormanton, Tom
    Clark, William (Croydon S)Howell, David (Guildford)Nott, John
    Clegg, WalterHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)Onslow, Cranley
    Cockcroft, JohnHowells, Geraint (Cardigan)Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)Hunt, JohnOsborn, John
    Cope, JohnIrving, Charles (Cheltenham)Page, John (Harrow West)
    Cormack, PatrickJames, DavidPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
    Corrie, JohnJenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)Paisley, Rev Ian
    Costain, A. P.Jessel, TobyPardoe, John
    Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)Parkinson, Cecil
    Crouch, DavidJones, Arthur (Daventry)Pattie, Geoffrey
    Crowder, F. P.Jopling, MichaelPenhaligon, David
    Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithPercival, Ian
    Dodsworth, GeoffreyKaberry, Sir DonaldPeyton, Rt Hon John
    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesKellett-Bowman, Mrs ElainePink, R. Bonner
    Durant, TonyKershaw, AnthonyPowell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
    Dykes, HughKimball, MarcusPrior, Rt Hon James
    Eden, Rt Hon Sir JohnKing, Evelyn (South Dorset)Pym, Rt Hon Francis
    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)King, Tom (Bridgwater)Raison, Timothy
    Elliott, Sir WilliamKitson, Sir TimothyRathbone, Tim
    Emery, PeterLamont, NormanRawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
    Eyre, ReginaldLane, DavidRees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
    Fairbairn, NicholasLangford-Holt, Sir JohnRees-Davies, W. R.
    Fairgrieve, RussellLatham, Michael (Melton)Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
    Farr, JohnLawrence, IvanRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
    Fell, AnthonyLawson, NigelRidley, Hon Nicholas
    Finsberg, GeoffreyLester, Jim (Beeston)Ridsdale, Julian
    Fisher, Sir NigelLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Rifkind, Malcolm
    Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)Lloyd, IanRippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
    Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesLoveridge, JohnRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
    Fookes, Miss JanetLuce, RichardRoberts, Wyn (Conway)
    Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)McCrindle, RobertRoss, William (Londonderry)
    Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)McCusker, H.Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
    Fry, PeterMacfarlane, NeilRost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.MacGregor, JohnSainsbury, Tim
    Gardiner, George (Reigate)Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Clause read a Second time.

    Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause: ( a), in line 3, leave out the first 'his death' and insert 'the transfer'.—[ Mr David Howell.]

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 284.

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)Wakeham, John
    Shelton, William (Streatham)Stokes, JohnWalker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
    Shepherd, ColinStradling Thomas, J.Walters, Dennis
    Silvester, FredTapsell, PeterWarren, Kenneth
    Sims, RogerTaylor, R. (Croydon NW)Weatherill, Bernard
    Sinclair, Sir GeorgeTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)Wells, John
    Skeet, T. H. H.Tebbit, NormanWhitelaw, Rt Hon William
    Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)Temple-Morris, PeterWiggin, Jerry
    Smith, Dudley (Warwick)Thatcher, Rt Hon MargaretWinterton, Nicholas
    Speed, KeithThorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)Wood, Rt Hon Richard
    Spence, JohnTownsend, Cyril D.Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
    Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)Trotter, NevilleYounger, Hon George
    Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)Tugendhat, Christopher
    Sproat, Iainvan Straubenzee, W. R.TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
    Stanbrook, IvorVaughan, Dr GerardMr. Spencer Le Marchant and
    Stanley, JohnViggers, PeterMr. Anthony Berry.
    Steel, David (Roxburgh)


    Abse, LeoDormand, J. D.John, Brynmor
    Allaun, FrankDouglas-Mann, BruceJohnson, James (Hull West)
    Archer, PeterDuffy, A. E. P.Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
    Armstrong, ErnestDunn, James A.Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
    Ashley, JackDunnett, JackJones, Barry (East Flint)
    Ashton, JoeDunwoody, Mrs GwynethJones, Dan (Burnley)
    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Eadie, AlexJudd, Frank
    Atkinson, NormanEdelman, MauriceKaufman, Gerald
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Edge, GeoffKelley, Richard
    Bain, Mrs MargaretEdwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Kerr, Russell
    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)Kilroy-Silk, Robert
    Barnett, Rt Hon JoelEllis, Tom (Wrexham)Kinnock, Neil
    Bates, AlfEnglish, MichaelLambie, David
    Bean, R. E.Ennals, DavidLamborn, Harry
    Benn, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodEvans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)Lamond, James
    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
    Bidwell, SydneyEvans, John (Newton)Leadbitter, Ted
    Blenkinsop, ArthurEwing, Harry (Stirling)Lever, Rt Hon Harold
    Boardman, H.Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
    Booth, AlbertFernyhough, Rt Hon E.Lipton, Marcus
    Boothroyd, Miss BettyFitt, Gerard (Belfast W)Loyden, Eddie
    Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurFlannery, MartinLuard, Evan
    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)Lyon, Alexander (York)
    Bradley, TomFoot, Rt Hon MichaelLyons, Edward (Bradford W)
    Bray, Dr JeremyFord, BenMcCartney, Hugh
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Forrester, JohnMacCormick, Iain
    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)McElhone, Frank
    Buchan, NormanFraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)MacFarquhar, Roderick
    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)Garrett, John (Norwich S)Mackenzie, Gregor
    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)Mackintosh, John P.
    Campbell, IanGilbert, Dr JohnMaclennan, Robert
    Canavan, DennisGinsburg, DavidMcMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
    Carmichael, NeilGolding, JohnMcNamara, Kevin
    Carter, RayGould, BryanMadden, Max
    Carter-Jones, LewisGourlay, HarryMagee, Bryan
    Castle, Rt Hon BarbaraGraham, TedMahon, Simon
    Clemitson, IvorGrocott, BruceMarks, Kenneth
    Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Marquand, David
    Cohen, StanleyHamling, WilliamMarshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
    Coleman, DonaldHardy, PeterMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)
    Colquhoun, Mrs MaureenHarper, JosephMason, Rt Hon Roy
    Concannon, J. D.Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)Meacher, Michael
    Conlan, BernardHatton, FrankMellish, Rt Hon Robert
    Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Hayman, Mrs HeleneMikardo, Ian
    Corbett, RobinHealey, Rt Hon DenisMillan, Bruce
    Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Heffer, Eric S.Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
    Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Henderson, DouglasMiller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
    Crawford, DouglasHooley, FrankMitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
    Crosland, Rt Hon AnthonyHoram, JohnMolloy, William
    Cunningham, G. (Islington S)Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)Moonman, Eric
    Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
    Dalyell, TamHughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
    Davidson, ArthurHughes, Mark (Durham)Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
    Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Hughes, Roy (Newport)Newens, Stanley
    Davies, Ifor (Gower)Hunter, AdamNoble, Mike
    Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)Oakes, Gordon
    Deakins, EricJackson, Colin (Brighouse)Ogden, Eric
    Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)O'Halloran, Michael
    de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyJanner, GrevilleOrbach, Maurice
    Delargy, HughJay, Rt Hon DouglasOvenden, John
    Dempsey, JamesJeger, Mrs LenaOwen, Dr David
    Doig, PeterJenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)Padley, Walter

    Palmer, ArthurShore, Rt Hon PeterVarley, Rt Hon Eric G.
    Park, GeorgeShort, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
    Parker, JohnShort, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
    Parry, RobertSilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
    Peart, Rt Hon FredSilkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
    Pendry, TomSillars, JamesWard, Michael
    Perry, ErnestSilverman, JuliusWatkins, David
    Phipps, Dr ColinSkinner, DennisWatkinson, John
    Prentice, Rt Hon RegSmall, WilliamWatt, Hamish
    Prescott, JohnSmith, John (N Lanarkshire)Weitzman, David
    Price, C. (Lewisham W)Snape, PeterWellbeloved, James
    Price, William (Rugby)Spearing, NigelWelsh, Andrew
    Radice, GilesSpriggs, LeslieWhite, Frank R. (Bury)
    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)Stallard, A. W.White, James (Pollok)
    Reid, GeorgeStewart, Donald (Western Isles)Whitehead, Phillip
    Richardson, Miss JoStewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)Whitlock, William
    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)Stoddart, DavidWigley, Dafydd
    Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)Strang, GavinWilley, Rt Hon Frederick
    Robertson, John (Paisley)Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
    Roderick, CaerwynSummerskill, Hon Dr ShirleyWilliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
    Rodgers, George (Chorley)Swain, ThomasWilliams, W. T. (Warringon)
    Rodgers, William (Stockton)Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
    Rooker, J. W.Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
    Roper, JohnThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
    Rose, Paul B.Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
    Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)Wise, Mrs Audrey
    Rowlands, TedThompson, GeorgeWoodall, Alec
    Ryman, JohnThorne, Stan (Preston South)Wrigglesworth, Ian
    Sandelson, NevilleTierney, SydneyYoung, David (Bolton E)
    Sedgemore, BrianTinn, James
    Selby, HarryTomlinson, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
    Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)Torney, TomMr. James Hamilton and
    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)Urwin, T. W.Mr. Laurie Pavitt.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause ( n), in line 6, at end insert:

    ( a) by 100 per cent. if the period between the previous transfer and the death was two months or less;

    Division No. 125.]


    [5.20 p.m

    Adley, RobertCope, JohnGoodhart, Philip
    Aitken, JonathanCormack, PatrickGoodhew, Victor
    Alison, MichaelCorrie, JohnGoodlad, Alastair
    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Costain, A. P.Gorst, John
    Awdry, DanielCraig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
    Bain, Mrs MargaretCrawford, DouglasGower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
    Baker, KennethCrouch, DavidGrant, Anthony (Harrow C)
    Banks, RobertCrowder, F. P.Gray, Hamish
    Beith, A. J.Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)Grieve, Percy
    Bell, RonaldDodsworth, GeoffreyGriffiths, Eldon
    Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesGrimond, Rt Hon J.
    Benyon, W.Durant, TonyGrist, Ian
    Berry, Hon AnthonyDykes, HughGrylls, Michael
    Biffen, JohnEden, Rt Hon Sir JohnHall, Sir John
    Biggs-Davison, JohnEdwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
    Blaker, PeterElliott, Sir WilliamHamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
    Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)Emery, PeterHampson, Dr Keith
    Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)Hannam, John
    Bradford, Rev RobertEwing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
    Braine, Sir BernardEyre, ReginaldHarvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
    Brittan, LeonFairbairn, NicholasHastings, Stephen
    Brotherton, MichaelFairgrieve, RussellHavers, Sir Michael
    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Farr, JohnHayhoe, Barney
    Bryan, Sir PaulFell, AnthonyHenderson, Douglas
    Buchanan-Smith, AlickFinsberg, GeoffreyHeseltine, Michael
    Buck, AntonyFisher, Sir NigelHicks, Robert
    Bulmer, EsmondFletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)Holland, Philip
    Burden, F. A.Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesHooson, Emlyn
    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Fookes, Miss JanetHordern, Peter
    Carr, Rt Hon RobertFowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
    Chalker, Mrs LyndaFraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)Howell, David (Guildford)
    Churchill, W. S.Fry, PeterHowell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
    Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
    Clark, William (Croydon S)Gardiner, George (Reigate)Hunt, John
    Clegg, WalterGardner, Edward (S Fylde)Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
    Cockcroft, JohnGilmour, Sir John (East Fife)James, David
    Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)Glyn, Dr AlanJenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

    ( b) by 90 per cent. if that period was more than two months but not more than six months'—[ Mr. Pardoe.]

    Question put, That the amendment be made:—

    The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 272.

    Jessel, TobyMoore, John (Croydon C)Sims, Roger
    Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)More, Jasper (Ludlow)Sinclair, Sir George
    Jones, Arthur (Daventry)Morgan-Giles, Rear-AdmiralSkeet, T. H. H.
    Jopling, MichaelMorrison, Charles (Devizes)Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithMorrison, Hon Peter (Chester)Speed, Keith
    Kaberry, Sir DonaldMudd, DavidSpence, John
    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineNeave, AireySpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
    Kershaw, AnthonyNelson, AnthonySpicer, Michael (S Worcester)
    Kilfedder, JamesNeubert, MichaelSproat, Iain
    Kimball, MarcusNewton, TonyStanbrook, Ivor
    King, Evelyn (South Dorset)Normanton, TomStanley, John
    King, Tom (Bridgwater)Nott, JohnSteel, David (Roxburgh)
    Kitson, Sir TimothyOnslow, CranleySteen, Anthony (Wavertree)
    Knight, Mrs JillOppenheim, Mrs SallyStewart, Donald (Western Isles)
    Lamont, NormanOsborn, JohnStewart, Ian (Hitchin)
    Lane, DavidPage, John (Harrow West)Stokes, John
    Langford-Holt, Sir JohnPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)Stradling Thomas, J.
    Latham, Michael (Melton)Paisley, Rev IanTapsell, Peter
    Lawrence, IvanPardoe, JohnTaylor, R. (Croydon NW)
    Lawson, NigelParkinson, CecilTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
    Le Marchant, SpencerPattie, GeoffreyTebbit, Norman
    Lester, Jim (Beeston)Penhaligon, DavidTemple-Morris, Peter
    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Percival, IanThatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
    Lloyd, IanPeyton, Rt Hon JohnThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
    Loveridge, JohnPink, R. BonnerThompson, George
    Luce, RichardPowell, Rt Hon J. EnochThorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
    MacCormick, IainPrior, Rt Hon JamesTownsend, Cyril D.
    McCrindle, RobertPym, Rt Hon FrancisTrotter, Neville
    McCusker, H.Raison, TimothyTugendhat, Christopher
    Macfarlane, NeilRathbone, Timvan Straubenzee, W. R.
    MacGregor, JohnRawlinson, Rt Hon Sir PeterVaughan, Dr. Gerard
    Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)Viggers, Peter
    McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Rees-Davies, W. R.Wakeham, John
    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Reid, GeorgeWalker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
    Madel, DavidRenton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)Walters, Dennis
    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWarren, Kenneth
    Marten, NeilRidley, Hon NicholasWatt, Hamish
    Mates, MichaelRidsdale, JulianWeatherill, Bernard
    Mather, CarolRifkind, MalcolmWells, John
    Maude, AngusRippon, Rt Hon GeoffreyWelsh, Andrew
    Maudling, Rt Hon ReginaldRoberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
    Mawby, RayRoberts, Wyn (Conway)Wiggin, Jerry
    Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinRoss, William (Londonderry)Wigley, Dafydd
    Mayhew, PatrickRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
    Meyer, Sir AnthonyRost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)Winterton, Nicholas
    Mills, PeterSainsbury, TimWood, Rt Hon Richard
    Miscampbell, NormanSt. John-Stevas, NormanYoung, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton
    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)Younger, Hon George
    Moate, RogerShaw, Michael (Scarborough)
    Molyneaux, JamesShelton, William (Streatham)TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
    Monro, HectorShepherd, ColinMr. Cyril Smith and
    Montgomery, FergusSilvester, FredMr. Richard Wainwright.


    Abse, LeoCampbell, IanDelargy, Hugh
    Allaun, FrankCanavan, DennisDempsey, James
    Archer, PeterCarmichael, NeilDoig, Peter
    Armstrong, ErnestCarter, RayDormand, J. D.
    Ashley, JackCarter-Jones, LewisDouglas-Mann, Bruce
    Ashton, JoeCastle, Rt Hon BarbaraDuffy, A. E. P.
    Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Clemitson, IvorDunn, James A.
    Atkinson, NormanCocks, Michael (Bristol S)Dunnett, Jack
    Bagier, Gordon A. T.Cohen, StanleyDunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Coleman, DonaldEadie, Alex
    Barnett, Rt Hon JoelColquhoun, Mrs MaureenEdelman, Maurice
    Bates, AlfConcannon, J. D.Edge, Geoff
    Bean, R. E.Conlan, BernardEdwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
    Bern, Rt Hon Anthony WedgwoodCook, Robin F. (Edin C)Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
    Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)Corbett, RobinEnglish, Michael
    Bidwell, SydneyCox, Thomas (Tooting)Ennals, David
    Blenkinsop, ArthurCraigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
    Boardman, H.Crosland, Rt Hon AnthonyEvans, John (Newton)
    Booth, AlbertCunningham, G. (Islington S)Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
    Boothroyd, Miss BettyCunningham, Dr J. (Witeh)Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
    Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurDalyell, TamFitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
    Boyden, James (Bish Auck)Davidson, ArthurFlannery, Martin
    Bradley, TomDavies, Bryan (Enfield N)Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
    Bray, Dr JeremyDavies, Denzil (Llanelli)Foot, Rt Hon Michael
    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Davies, Ifor (Gower)Ford, Ben
    Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)Forrester, John
    Buchan, NormanDeakins, EricFowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
    Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Fraser John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
    Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyGarrett, John (Norwich S)

    Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)McElhone, FrankRowlands, Ted
    Gilbert, Dr JohnMacFarquhar, RoderickRyman, John
    Ginsburg, DavidMackenzie, GregorSandelson, Neville
    Golding, JohnMackintosh, John P.Sedgemore, Brian
    Gould, BryanMaclennan, RobertSelby, Harry
    Gourlay, HarryMcMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
    Graham, TedMcNamara, KevinSheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
    Grant, John (Islington C)Madden, MaxShore, Rt Hon Peter
    Grocott, BruceMagee, BryanShort, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)Mahon, SimonShort, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
    Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Marks, KennethSilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
    Hamling, WilliamMarquand, DavidSilkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
    Hardy, PeterMarshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Sillars, James
    Harper, JosephMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)Silverman, Julius
    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)Mason, Rt Hon RoySkinner, Dennis
    Hart, Rt Hon JudithMeacher, MichaelSmall, William
    Hatton, FrankMellish, Rt Hon RobertSmith, John (N Lanarkshire)
    Hayman, Mrs HeleneMikardo, IanSnape, Peter
    Healey, Rt Hon DenisMillan, BruceSpearing, Nigel
    Heffer, Eric S.Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)Spriggs, Leslie
    Hooley, FrankMiller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)Stallard, A. W.
    Horam, JohnMitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
    Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)Molloy, WilliamStrang, Gavin
    Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)Moonman, EricStrauss, Rt Hon G. R.
    Huckfield, LesMorris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
    Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Swain, Thomas
    Hughes, Mark (Durham)Mulley, Rt Hon FrederickTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Murray, Rt Hon Ronald KingThomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
    Hughes, Roy (Newport)Newens, StanleyThomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
    Hunter, AdamNoble, MikeThomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
    Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)Oakes, GordonThorne, Stan (Preston South)
    Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)Ogden, EricTierney, Sydney
    Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)O'Halloran, MichaelTinn, James
    Janner, GrevilleOrbach, MauriceTomlinson, John
    Jay, Rt Hon DouglasOvenden, JohnTorney, Tom
    Jeger, Mrs LenaOwen, Dr DavidUrwin, T. W.
    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)Padley, WalterWainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)Palmer, ArthurWalden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
    John, BrynmorPark, GeorgeWalker, Harold (Doncaster)
    Johnson, James (Hull West)Parker, JohnWalker, Terry (Kingswood)
    Johnson, Walter (Derby S)Parry, RobertWard, Michael
    Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Pavitt, LaurieWatkins, David
    Jones, Barry (East Flint)Peart, Rt Hon FredWatkinson, John
    Jones, Dan (Burnley)Pendry, TomWeitzman, David
    Judd, FrankPerry, ErnestWellbeloved, James
    Kaufman, GeraldPhipps, Dr ColinWhite, Frank R. (Bury)
    Kelley, RichardPrentice, Rt Hon RegWhite, James (Pollok)
    Kerr, RussellPrescott, JohnWhitehead, Phillip
    Kilroy-Silk, RobertPrice, C. (Lewisham W)Whitlock, William
    Kinnock, NeilPrice, William (Rugby)Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
    Lambie, DavidRadice, GilesWilliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
    Lamborn, HarryRees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)Williams, W. T. (Warringon)
    Lamond, JamesRichardson, Miss JoWilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
    Latham, Arthur (Paddington)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
    Leadbitter, TedRoberts, Gwilym (Cannock)Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
    Lever, Rt Hon HaroldRobertson, John (Paisley)Wise, Mrs Audrey
    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Roderick, CaerwynWoodall, Alec
    Lipton, MarcusRodgers, George (Chorley)Wrigglesworth, Ian
    Loyden, EddieRodgers, William (Stockton)Young, David (Bolton E)
    Luard, EvanRooker, J. W.
    Lyon, Alexander (York)Roper, JohnTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
    Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)Rose, Paul B.Mr. David Stoddart and
    McCartney, HughRoss, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)Mr. John Ellis.

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause added to the Bill.