§ ' A rating authority may by resolution operate within its area such financial schemes other than the levying of taxes which may be approved by the Secretary of State and in particular may derive revenue from the purchase, sale, letting and management of property for any purpose.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.)
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Speaker
With this clause it will be convenient to discuss new Clause 4—Charging scheme for Hotels in Greater London:' (1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Greater London Council may submit to the Secretary of State a scheme permitting the levying of charges by that Council in respect of hotel bedroom accommodation in Greater London so as to enable that Council to raise additional revenue.(2) On the submission to him of a scheme under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall consider all the circumstances of the case and shall consult with any other local authorities, bodies or persons who shall appear to him to be concerned, and if he is satisfied that the scheme should be implemented either with or without modifications, he may by Order make regulations to that effect.(3) Every Order made under subsection (2) above shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament and shall not have effect until approved by a resolution of that House '.
§ Mr. Howell
New Clause 7 deals with alternative ways of raising finance for local authorities. All who study the continuing difficulties of local authorities and the continual frustration of ratepayers realise that the almost total reliance upon rates as the sole means of raising revenue for local authorities is more and more being held in question by ratepayers.
I do not need to rehearse all the arguments. They are well known. The rating system is totally unfair. It bears unfairly between one family and another and between one house and another. I confess that it has so far been found impossible by most judges to produce a system which improves upon it.
I do not believe that we have tackled the question as energetically as we should have done. Soon we shall have 1588 to move at least in the direction of relating local taxes to incomes. That is not the situation now.
The present system of property tax—that is what rating is—is more and more being held in contempt by our citizens. Therefore, we shall have to move in the direction that I have indicated. I hope that the Department will put in hand studies on that subject. I am sure that if it proved possible to relate incomes to the finance required for the running of local services, there would be a large measure of agreement right across the parties. I do not think it would become a party situation at all. But that is not a situation with which we can deal tonight.
We must confine ourselves to a clause, operated only with the approval of the Secretary of State, which would enable local authorities to consider other ways than the traditional method of rating for raising revenue. It is time that local authorities went into the property business themselves. Many of them are already in it and increasingly they are having to do it by establishing companies and attracting money from private sources as well as using their own money. There is no reason why local authorities should not operate property companies as of right as part of their normal function. The increasing value of sites on which property developers make large fortunes is almost entirely due to the community building up services which enhance the value. It seems to the Opposition that it is totally wrong that property development should be almost exclusively in private hands. The comunity creates the value and it should get a far bigger share of it than at present. An adventurous programme by local government in this direction would be very welcome.
There should be much more opportunity for local authorities to go in for municipal trading, and the clause provides for that. Yet none of these things is new. They have all been pioneered in earlier days and I pay tribute to the Conservatives and Liberals in this respect. In my city they were pioneered by Joseph Chamberlain, in his halcyon days as a Liberal, and then as a Conservative. Corporation industry developed in Birmingham was probably the first example of the sort of thing I have in mind of a 1589 local authority getting hold of the land and developing it. The commercial interest and the value of that to the citizens of Birmingham is now enormous.
I am sorry that we do not hear more about this side of the work of Joseph Chamberlain. It did not stop with the development of property and assets. He went on to develop some of the finest examples of municipal socialism one can find. I refer particularly to the water, electricity and gas services in the city and to the Municipal Bank. It is possible to enumerate all this pioneering work. There must be plenty of opportunities for new forms of municipal trading to emerge. As I explained, I almost made my debut in local government circles in 1946 by becoming shortly afterwards chairman of the civic restaurants department in Birmingham. That department was handicapped as were all municipal restaurants by an Act which said that restaurants could not make a loss for three years running—they could not take one year with another for this purpose. One of the aims of the Bill is to remove that restriction. Many local authorities were required during the war to provide municipal restaurants because they were essential and because private enterprise could not provide them. However, they were forced to close down their municipal trading departments afterwards. In view of the private restaurants in this country there surely must be a place for municipal trading there.
We do not wish any of these municipal trading undertakings to be subsidised unfairly by the ratepayers. We want them to trade fairly with private enterprise. If that happens no one could have an ideological objection. New Clause 4 will help London and other local authorities, particularly Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick. This clause promotes the idea of a tourist or bedroom tax. There is much to be said for this. The services provided for tourists are expensive. The demand for water and drainage facilities can increase enormously in the summer. It is reasonable to suggest that tourists should make a modest contribution towards this expense.
We cannot allow the system of local government in London to be bogged down, as it has been for generations, by a single type of tax. We have to be 1590 adventurous in our thinking and new Clauses 4 and 7 will help us to be just that. I hope that the Minister will find those clauses reasonable, and, if he cannot accept them tonight, will welcome them in principle. It may be that the terminology needs to be improved, and we would accept that. I hope he realises that in putting these clauses forward we are providing him and his successors with safeguards for the future.
§ Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)
I regret that it has been necessary to frame new Clause 7 so as to include the words:other than the levying of taxes.I have been trying to get the Government to think in terms of re-casting the whole of the rating system for some time. At present valuation is based upon a notional rent. In recent revaluations the ludicrous nature of this notional rent has been underlined. It is an archaic system and we ought to reconsider it seriously, irrespective of party.
I estimate that there are 9 million adults who do not pay any rates. We frequently come across the anomalous situation whereby two retired adults living in a house on a pension have to pay full rates because they do not qualify for rate relief while next door, in an identical propety, there can be four adults in full-time employment, only two of whom pay rates. Any one of the four people living in the second house could be substantially better off than the two retired people.
§ Mr. Loughlin
Conservative Members should listen. I am not scoring party political points. I am trying to illustrate the fallacy of the present system.
§ Mr. Idris Owen
I was not being facetious, but merely commenting that that is just the reasoning which we applied to the rent rebate scheme.
§ Mr. Loughlin
The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that there could be a situation in which two retired people, by virtue of their incomes, could be just outside the scope of the rate rebate. Of course, there are many bachelors, for example, who are using all the services for which rates are levied such as lighting, sewerage and the emptying 1591 of dustbins. People in that category may not pay any rates. The whole system of notional rent payments is ludicrous in the extreme. I am sorry that the Bill does not deal with that. Taxes of a local character would be far more equitable than the present system.
This is a loosely worded clause. It refers to:schemes other than the levying of taxesand then says:and in particular may derive revenue from the purchase…".The preceding words give a rather wider remit to local authorities for the operation of financial schemes, subject to the overriding authority of the Secretary of State. If the latter part of the clause is ignored, which might stimulate the adrenalin of some Conservative Members, the first part of the clause would be extremely useful to many local authorities.
Local authorities could enter into property management. It would be possible for them to build houses for sale. One of the most remarkable features of the past six months—and this applies in my constituency and to an increasing number of other constituencies—is that builders who have built houses as a speculation have been trying to sell them to local authorities. In many cases authorities have had to turn them down because the standard of building was not sufficiently high to meet their standard, which is based on the Parker Morris standard.
If that is true, if speculative builders can build houses of a lower quality and at a higher price than the local authorities, it would be doubly valuable for the community if local authorities could build houses for sale. They could legitimately earn a reasonable surplus on the houses they were building for sale and yet at the same time provide a higher standard house to the purchasers in the locality.
Therefore, even the latter part of the clause would be of tremendous value in two ways. It would enable local authorities to obtain revenue to offset the massive increases in rates that have taken place in the past three years and are bound to take place this year. All local authorities, even though there is a White 1592 Paper due in which the Government propose to increase the domestic element of relief, will this year face substantial increases in rates. If a local authority could build houses of the right quality it would doubly benefit in that it could obtain income to offset some of those increases and at the same time build houses to the standard required.
Local authorities are having to turn down houses built by speculators who cannot sell them in the market, who need a cash flow which they cannot obtain and therefore offer the houses to the authorities. If the authorities have to turn them down on the ground that the quality of building is too low, it is about time they were allowed to build houses for the double purpose to which I have referred.
I believe that many local authorities could produce schemes in keeping with the clause. In the final analysis the Minister has the right to veto or approve such schemes. Serious consideration must be given to the enormous problems facing the local authorities, which have to find a substantial amount of money for the services that are increasingly being demanded by the ratepayers. There is inequity in meeting the additional costs from the rates, because they apply to some people and not others. About 9 million people escape paying rates. We must get down to the problem of devising ways and means of ensuring that the local authorities have sufficient revenue in one way or another to maintain the kind of standards to which people have become accustomed in the services for which rates are used.
§ Mr. Harry Lamborn (Southwark)
As one who was a member of the Greater London Council for many years, I know that members on both sides of the council have examined many alternative methods of raising revenue. During the Green Paper consultations on the Bill, officers of the GLC put forward for consideration various methods of raising additional revenue. The council came to the conclusion that, in a city like London, with vast resources for the visitor, a hotel levy on bedroom accommodation was an ideal method, and that the revenue so raised could be spent on providing more facilities for visitors. The GLC estimated that an average charge of £100 a year, 1593 with the more expensive hotels paying more and the less expensive paying less, would yield about £6 million a year.
Anyone examining our rating system would certainly agree that additional ways of raising revenue are certainly desirable. New Clause 4 would enable the GLC to submit a scheme for levying charges on these lines. This avenue should be explored, and the ideal place for an experiment would be Greater London.
§ Mr. Graham Page
I must agree with much of the criticism of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) of the way in which we raise the money for local government expenditure. No Minister can disregard the criticism that in many cases the rating system falls unfairly on one household as compared with another. We put forward in a Green Paper two or three years ago the pros and cons of various different forms of raising this revenue. The arguments for and against each appeared in the Green Paper, and the comments we had upon each, along with the study made of the subject, convinced us that at that time the difficulties of the system were such that we should not impose such a change on local authorities at the time of reorganisation.
In a consultation paper issued fairly recently, preparatory to this Bill, it was pointed out that the Government believed that the public would not welcome, at the present time of price and pay restrictions, the imposition of new taxes locally. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading:No one should be surprised that the Bill contains no new taxes to replace the rates, because we made quite clear in the consultation paper published last June why we did not propose to allow local authorities to introduce any new local taxes at this time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1973 ; Vol. 864, c. 36.]My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that it was, firstly, at the time of price restraint and, second, at the time of reorganisation, when local authorities would not have been anxious for further upheaval in local administration. But I added to that point in Committee. On 22nd November last I said:I have said on many occasions that although we are retaining the rating system this is not necesarily the end of the story and if 1594 there are further sources of revenue, which are particularly appropriate to London"—I was dealing then with an amendment relating to London—it may be that it would be proper to introduce them by a private Bill, but certainly our minds are open on that subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd November 1973 ; c. 54.]Indeed, our minds are open on all methods of raising additional revenue for local government purposes.
To introduce any new system of revenue at this moment, however, would run counter to those Government statements which I have quoted and would throw local authorities into some confusion, especially if, as in these new clauses, the system were dependent upon the approval of the Secretary of State. There would at once be queries as to what sort of scheme a Secretary of State would approve should the local authorities bring this into their budgets right away, that is, if we introduced it into the Bill at this stage. Again, I am very sympathetic towards any remedies for the unfairness in many cases of the present rating system.
§ New Clause 7 takes the matter only a little way, as the hon. Member for Small Heath made clear in his advocacy of the new clause. If I read it correctly and if I understand his argument correctly, he wanted to give the local authorities, first, the power to enter into the property business further than they do at present, and, second, to increase their power of municipal trading.
§ Concerning the property business, I should have thought that local authorities are well in it at present, and many local authorities are using their powers very effectively not only in housing developments but in comprehensive developments of town centres, both on their own and in conjunction with private enterprise.
§ When further opportunity arises in legislation we shall certainly look to see whether the powers of local authorities are sufficient, and particularly when joining with private enterprise on a company basis, or co-operating in partnership, and so on, we shall look to see whether their powers are sufficient to enable them to do that without too much hindrance.
§ There is no general power under legislation at present for municipal trading, but there are many specific powers in 1595 both public Acts and local Acts. One would have to go very carefully in giving a general power to trade in everything and anything. If we want to expand the powers in this respect, it would be preferable to be very specific about them and to say exactly in what direction we want them to expand.
§ The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) went beyond new Clause 7, very rightly, in his criticism of the rating system, in saying that local authorities should be enabled to raise revenue not just through property transactions or municipal trading, as suggested in the new clause, but particularly by relating their collection of revenue to the income of the ratepayer or the income of the contributor to a local authority's fund. That matter was considered in the Green Paper, from the point of view both of a local income tax and a surcharge on earning householders who were not the direct ratepayers. In both cases the administration is extremely difficult. I do not say that it is impossible. We may still be able to work out a system at least to supplement rates, but it would impose considerable administrative difficulties on local authorities.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ The new authorities will be taking over on 1st April, with new boundaries and new functions and they will be reduced in number from 1,400 to 400. When those new authorities settle down, I am sure that the House will wish to look again at the system of providing them with funds. In trying this year to apply fairly the rate support grant—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced this afternoon the formula for distribution, the amount of the grant and how the relevant expenditure should be calculated—I almost despaired of getting a fair system. The number of times the calculations went in and out of the computer was astonishing. I now have no faith at all in computers. I am certain that if the House would let me have a helicopter in which to fly round and throw out the money to the local authorities—£10 million here and £20 million there—I should do much better than the computer. I should know who deserved the money.1596
§ Mr. Denis Howell
I am sure that we all have sympathy with the Minister in his predicament, but does not one get out of the computer only the answer to the intelligent information that is put into it?
§ Mr. Page
Yes, I am sure that is so. I think that eventually we got a very intelligent result. I was complaining about the extraordinary formulae that one has to feed into the computer to get the right result. If one needs to make all these calculations in order to get fairness as between one local authority and another and between one ratepayer and another, something in the system itself needs to be remedied. I hope that we shall be able to reconsider this to see how we can improve the law when the new local authorities have settled down.
The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lamborn) mentioned a hotel tax for London. I understand that the Greater London Council proposes to bring forward certain legislation. In March 1971 the GLC issued a discussion paper on the subject. The yield from such a tax would be fairly small and uneven and of virtually no benefit to local authorities away from the main tourist areas. If we intended to make this a general tax, which would be the only way to deal with it in a Bill of this sort, I do not think it would bring benefit throughout the country. If it would benefit Greater London, it might well be appropriate for a Private Bill introduced by the GLC. I cannot give an undertaking that the Government would give it a blessing without first seeing the proposal. If a local authority which is in the same position as London over the tourist trade feels that a tax of this sort might be beneficial and that it would not be administratively too difficult, I hope that it will bring the proposal before the House in a private Bill. The usual Greater London Council Bill comes before the House every year. Our minds are not closed to this, neither in respect of local authorities which face particular difficulties, such as tourist areas, nor from the point of view of a general amendment of the rating system.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Small Heath would expect me to accept the clause as it stands, but I hope 1597 that I have made enough sympathetic noises for him to withdraw the motion and for him not to press it at this stage.
§ Mr. Oakes
We are disappointed that the Government have not accepted the principle of new Clause 7. The Minister referred to the Green Paper. In that document many imaginative suggestions were put forward for alternatives to the rating system—a system which, as both sides agree, is archaic and unfair. We have made these criticisms time and again.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in considering alternatives, for they are difficulties that we share. Perhaps I may explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that one of the reasons for our excluding a local form of taxation from the clause was that it was doubtful that such a proposal would have been in order under the Bill. Furthermore, my colleagues and I have searched the various taxation methods—petrol tax, local sales test and all the rest—and have found them to be regressive or difficult in one way or another.
We have endeavoured in the clause to give power to local authorities to exercise local initiative and local freedom, but subject to the Secretary of State's approval. This would not impose a duty—for we are not seeking to place upon them such a duty—on local authorities, now in the turmoil of reorganisation, to bring forward such a scheme by 1st April 1974. This House is not legislating for 1st April this year or for next year. This Bill will have fundamental
|Division No. 34.]||AYES||[10.55 p.m.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dalyell, Tarn||Gourlay, Harry|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davidson, Arthur||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Austick, David||Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Deakins, Eric||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Beith, A. J.||Dempsey, James||Hardy, Peter|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dormand, J. D.||Harper, Joseph|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Booth, Albert||Dunn, James A.||Horam, John|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Dunnett, Jack||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Eadie, Alex||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)||Edelman, Maurice||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Ellis, Tom||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Evans, Fred||Janner, Greville|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Faulds, Andrew||John, Brynmor|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Clark, David (Coins Valley)||Forrester, John||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Concannon, J. D.||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Kerr, Russell|
|Conlan, Bernard||Golding, John||Lamborn, Harry|
§ importance for local goverment finances for a considerable time to come. The clause gives to local authorities some local options on municipal trading and in particular on property development, because such development within a local authority area is by and large a profit to the community—and that should be so in view of what that community has put into the area.
§ There are many different forms of scheme, other than taxation, of which a local authority could take advantage, not only in respect of trading, but in acquiring property, using it, letting it for commercial reasons, and indeed in acquiring property for many purposes which the present law does not allow them to do. We are saying that local authorities would have the power to do this in the clause, subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
§ The clause now before the House is a most modest one. We must remember that local authorities face severe financial difficulties. Even to carry on their statutory duties they will need alternative sources of finance. The clause gives local initiative a chance to provide those alternative sources of finance. I am sorry that the Government will not accept the principle of this clause, and I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 137.
|Lamond, James||Oswald, Thomas||Strang, Gavin|
|Loughlin, Charles||Palmer, Arthur||Swain, Thomas|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Price, William (Rugby)||Tope, Graham|
|McBride, Neil||Radice, Giles||Torney, Tom|
|McCartney, Hugh||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Varley, Eric G.|
|McGuire, Michael||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Machin, George||Rose, Paul B.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Marks, Kenneth||Rowlands, Ted||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Marquand, David||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Whitlock, William|
|Marsden, F.||Sillars, James||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Silverman, Julius||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Mellish, Fit, Hn. Robert||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Millan, Bruce||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)||Woof, Robert|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Mitchell, Ft. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Spriggs, Leslie||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Oakes, Gordon||Stallard, A. W.||Mr. Michael Cocks and|
|Oram, Bert||Steel, David||Mr. Donald Coleman.|
|Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Adley, Robert||Havers, Sir Michael||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Hawkins, Paul||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Heyhoe, Barney||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Astor, John||Hicks, Robert||Percival, Ian|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Hiley, Joseph||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Awdry, Daniel||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Holland, Philip||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Benyon, W.||Holt, Miss Mary||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Bitten, John||Hornby, Richard||Redmond, Robert|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Howell, David (Guildford)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Boscawen, Hn. Robert||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Bowden, Andrew||Iremonger, T. L.||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Bray, Ronald||James, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Sainsbury, Timothy|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Kinsey, J. R.||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Burden, F. A.||Kirk, Peter||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Shersby, Michael|
|Channon, Paul||Knox, David||Simeons, Charles|
|Chapman, Sydney||Lamont, Norman||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Clegg, Walter||Lane, David||Spence, John|
|Cockeram, Eric||Le Marchant, Spencer||Sproat, lain|
|Cooke, Robert||Loveridge, John||Stainton, Keith|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick||Luce, R. N.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Cormack, Patrick||MacArthur, Ian||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||McCrindle, R. A.||Sutcliffe, John|
|Dykes, Hugh||McLaren, Martin||Tebbit, Norman|
|Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Madel, David||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Mather, Carol||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Fidler, Michael||Mawby, Ray||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)||Miscampbell, Norman||Waddington, David|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Fowler, Norman||Moate, Roger||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Fox, Marcus||Money, Ernle||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Gower, Raymond||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Gray, Hamish||Monro, Hector||Worsley, Marcus|
|Green, Alan||Montgomery, Fergus||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Younger, Hn. George|
|Gummer, J. Selwyn||Mudd, David||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Neave, Airey||Mr. Adam Butler and|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Normanton, Tom||Mr. Michael Jopling.|
|Hastings, Stephen||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
§ Question accordingly negatived.