HC Deb 21 February 1967 vol 741 cc1478-91
Mr. MacArthur

I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 18, to leave out 'six' and to insert 'four'.

Mr. G. Campbell

On a point of order. Would it be convenient to take with this Amendment, as both refer to the same matter, Amendment No. 6, in page 4, leave out line 22 and insert: 'the following amount, that is to say—

  1. (a) if the block of flats has four storeys, ten pounds
  2. (b) if the block of flats has five storeys, sixteen pounds
  3. (c) if the block of flats has six or more storeys, thirty pounds'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Certainly, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. MacArthur

I think that it would be convenient to group the two together, since both relate to the same point.

Clause 4 provides an additional subsidy for houses in blocks of flats which reach six storeys or more. I am sure that the House would agree that this additional subsidy is right in those cases. However, there is a discrepancy between the Scottish Bill and the English one, which also provides for a special subsidy for multi-storey buildings.

There is, however, a major difference. In the English Bill, a special subsidy is payable for blocks of flats of four storeys, of five storeys or of six or more storeys, whereas the Scottish Bill restricts the additional subsidy to the last class. In other words, a Scottish block of four or five storeys receives no additional subsidy under the Bill.

It is difficult to see the reason for the difference. Why should England and Wales receive favourable treatment in subsidies for multi-storey blocks? If there is an argument—as there must be—for justifying the additional subsidy for four or five-storey blocks in England and Wales, surely it should also apply if Scotland.

I understand that, in the four major cities anyway, multi-storey building tends to be six storeys or more. Under the Bill as it stands, those local authorities would receive the additional subsidy of £30 proposed for the block of six storeys or more. But some other local authorities do not specialise in the very large multi-storey blocks. Some build to four or five storeys. It is unreasonable that they should be deterred from this desirable building by the absence of the additional subsidy which would be available to them if they built higher.

It is not possible, for many reasons, for buildings always to be as high as the hon. Gentleman might like. Experience varies from place to place in Scotland, but it is the experience of Perth—a local authority which I am happy to name—that the cost of building five-storey blocks is substantially more than that for two storeys The cost of the former is about 5s. a square foot more than the cost of the latter. I recognise that this is not the universial experience in Scotland, but it is a specific instance which I would like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind.

This means that, since a three-apartment house contains about 800 square feet, the additional cost for a five-storey block would be about £200 per house, but, under the present form of Clause 4, no additional subsidy would be payable for the five-storey block. I suggest that there is a strong argument, therefore, for providing in Clause 4 for a special subsidy for the four and five-storey block on the same lines as the English proposal.

The hon. Gentleman will see that the first Amendment, to leave out 'six' and to insert 'four', is a purely introductory adjustment and that the second Amendment, No. 6, sets out the actual rate of subsidy which we think should be paid in these cases. We have kept to the additional subsidy of £30 as proposed for a block of six or more storeys, but have introduced the two other grades—five-storey and four-storey subsidy—and we propose £16 for a five-storey block and £10 for a four-storey block.

In the English proposal, the six or more storey block would receive an additional subsidy of £26, a five-storey block £14 and a four-storey block £8 The hon. Gentleman might ask why we have aimed for higher subsidy figures. The reason is that we have scaled these down from the £30 figure proposed for the block of six or more storeys and kept them in much the same relationship to each other as the scaled-down figures in the English Bill.

Thus, if the £26 figure in the English Bill is taken as 100 per cent. the percentage for the five-storey block is 53.85 per cent., whereas we propose a proportion of 53.33 per cent., which seems reasonably close. The English Bill proposes, for a four-storey block, a subsidy of 30.77 per cent. of the maximum rate, whereas we propose a subsidy of 33.33 per cent. of the maximum rate in Scotland.

The Minister will agree that we have tried to be as tidy as possible in this scaling-down exercise. We have kept to round figures, very much in line with the scaling-down done in the English Bill. I am not suggesting that we should simply follow the English pattern in this matter. However, this is a case where the English Measure shows an advantage which the Scottish Bill lacks and which should be incorporated in this Measure by means of the Amendment.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I, too, hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the Amendment. I am not seeking to make comparisons with any sum that may be devoted to a similar purpose in the English Measure. I am simply concerned with the proposals before the House.

If there is no inducement to authorities to build four and five-storey blocks, we will be inviting them to go ahead all the time with the building of blocks of six or more storeys. They will be induced to get the £30 grant for this type of structure, since no grant will be available for the others.

The Minister is aware of my concern in this matter and of the trend of my thoughts on this subject, since in our big towns—particularly those of the size of Glasgow—where space for building is becoming very scarce indeed, authorities are being forced to build upwards. We are already discovering that multi-storey blocks over a certain height create quite serious problems, particularly for families with children. I do not wish to embark on this issue in great detail because I would find myself out of order. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will be aware of the sort of problems I have in mind. 5.45 p.m.

He may also be aware of a case in Glasgow where blocks of flats are to be built, not only six storeys high, but on a hill. The problems that arise from this sort of structure are extremely worrying. While we are aware of the need to solve the housing problem, particularly in our large conurbations, we should be careful about the positioning of high flats, particularly on high ground, for they have a tendency to shut out the sun too early from other people living in these areas and so cause a real danger to health.

The location of multi-storey blocks can also create peculiar variations in the wind. This problem is now being experienced by people living in blocks of up to 12 storeys. In many cities people are living closely packed together and in these conditions the effects of sun and wind are of great importance. The wind sweeps away the dust and grime and the sun brings invigorating health. I do not wish to pursue this matter too far at this stage. Suffice it to say that the Bill, as drafted, will act as an inducement to authorities to build higher flats where such flats ought not to exist. The Amendment, if accepted. would, on the other hand, enable them to build blocks of four and five storeys and still obtain grants. The Minister knows the background to this issue, and I hope that he will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.

Mr. Brewis

I support the Amendment which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). It is general nowadays for local authorities, even in quite small towns, to build blocks of up to four storeys high. There is no doubt that as soon as one starts building higher than that one incurs greater expense, although higher buildings have the desirable effect of saving land. Perhaps, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, blocks of six storeys are too high for the environment in which some buildings are constructed, and I agree that one must bear in mind the amenity and aesthetic aspects of the problem. I suggest that a lift should be provided in any building of more than three storeys. A great deal of effort is required to walk up four flights of stairs, particularly when accompanied by children. I should like to see a lift incorporated in any four-storey buildings in future. All this will add considerably to the expense, so I urge the Minister to accept the Amendment, and give an extra subsidy for buildings of four storeys and above.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I do not quarrel with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), even though this is a kind of "Oliver Twist" Amendment. He is asking for more on every count, but that is another matter. I want to treat the Amendment, as he did, on the lines of how it would affect certain parts of Scotland, particularly Perth and some of the more rural areas where one would not imagine that authorities would want to build six-storey structures. I do not believe that one of the reasons for authorities jumping from the building of three- four-, or five-storey buildings to providing six-storey buildings would be the larger subsidy, because they would still have to pay more, and the total cost would be greater even with the attractive subsidy of £30 for the six storeys.

What is missing in this debate is a breakdown of Scottish construction costs, which are quite different from those in England. When the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee met last year to discuss costs, I was in the fortunate position of being able to produce—as far as I know, for the first time in Scottish Office history—breakdown costs provided by the private builders. We managed to work closely with our friends in England experienced in building in England and those in the Ministry of Housing in getting a comparison of English and Scottish local government housing costs, as well as a similar comparison in the private sector.

Hon. Members will know from the publication in the last few days by the Cooperative Permanent Building Society of comparative house-building costs in the United Kingdom that Scottish building costs were about the same as or slightly below those in London and the South-East, whereas those for the rest of England were marginally lower, and in some cases substantially lower, than those in Scotland.

One would suspect that something was seriously wrong, and it was the feeling of the Advisory Committee and of the private builders that more information should be made available, and a greater study made of this subject. It is in the light of the facts emerging from these studies that we have decided to give the large—indeed, the only—subsidy on multi-storey building at the six-storey level.

Generally speaking, with both low-rise and high-rise, the large proportion of the difference, but not all of it, in construction costs between Scotland and England is taken up by the robust nature of building in Scotland. We have less jerrybuilding in Scotland. We have more need to build houses in such a way as to deal with climatic conditions that are not always reflected in the south. I would not for a moment dream of referring to the horizontal rain that is said to descend in my own constituency, but it is true that we have to take steps, particularly in industrialised and multi-storey buildings to make sure that there is a complete seal of a higher standard than one would expect in the south in the making of the building and the adjustment of the prefabricated sections. This has been dealt with by architects in the Department, in firms and in local authorities, so it is fair to make that point.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire was kind enough earlier to send us a copy of the letter he had received from the City Chamberlain of Perth, and I do not disagree with the point made in that letter. What I think is not known throughout Scotland is that four- or five-storey tenements, which cost between £250 and £300 per house more to build than do two- or three-storey tenements, are not more expensive than other common types of house construction—for example, two-storey terrace houses.

The sharp rise in building costs occurs in building structures of six or more storeys. The difference in the superstructure costs in buildings of six storeys or more and those of low rise houses is between £600 and £900 a house. In England, costs rise significantly as building height increases from four to six storeys, but in Scotland there is some increase in some types of construction but it is not an important factor until we reach six or more storeys.

Mr. MacArthur

I am sure that the Minister will pay attention to my figures, based on actual experience, where the extra costs of building in five storeys was about £200 a house more than building in two storeys. I hope that he will take that into account.

Dr. Mabon

Yes. I am not quarrelling at all with the Perth figures. They are perfectly in order and are supported by figures from elsewhere, but one has to take the complete and comprehensive view of the overall construction position. If one has to choose between an English-type subsidy structure—quite apart from the figures for the English type of four-, five-, or six-storey structure, and I do not quarrel with the ratios of 8-14-26 or 10-16-30—and a structure of six storeys, the advantage clearly lies in choosing six storeys in Scotland. The House, I know, can only take that statement from me on trust, but I assure hon. Members we have gone into this quite thoroughly. The pattern of building costs in Scotland is such that given that one can choose between a pattern for the higher subsidy for six storeys and the pattern for five storeys or four storeys, one would clearly take the six-storey option.

The hon. Member is advising us to preserve the Scottish option at £30 and at the same time to introduce what we call the English pattern. That is why I call this an Oliver Twist Amendment. It asks for the best in England to suit English building and the best in Scotland to suit Scottish building—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Before he leaves the question of differential costs, can the Minister say how comprehensive local authority cost figures are, and will there be any publication at all of the differences in costs? They are very interesting.

Dr. Mabon

I knew that the moment I said that the House would have to take me on trust the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) would not do so. I do not blame him for that—he is perfectly entitled to be doubtful of anything I say. The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee has been studying this matter quite considerably. Unfortunately my present responsibilities do not allow me to sit in there, but I hope the Committee will be able to publish the results of a good deal of the work it has done and is doing on costs. This will depend to a large extent on the willingness of private builders, because they have provided a lot of information in confidence.

We are pursuing the matter a stage further. We have in the Scottish Office a working party consisting of representatives of the private builders and of the Scottish Office. It meets once a month, and it reports back to Ministers roughly every quarter. With a full turn out of private builders I should like to see the working party embark on a real exercise to get the full facts.

As I have said, the major part of the difference between Scottish and English costs lies in the robustness of the structure of Scottish housing compared with that of England. I do not say all the difference, but the major part—there are other things such as the method quantifying of costs and the higher minimum standards of the building regulations under the 1964 Act, but that is a matter between the private builders and ourselves. We put it at a certain figure, and they put it at a much higher figure.

There are such things as the cost of land, the feudal system, conveyancing—all kinds of things are put as reasons for the costs in Scotland being marginally greater than in most parts of England, with the exception of the South-East. I would like to see the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee publish a lot of this information without, of course, identifying the firms concerned. I cannot promise that because it is not within my jurisdiction, but by the way it was going it looked as if it would reach that stage.

6.0 p.m.

I am sorry for that diversion. I turn to the point I made when I said that I hope the House will take me on trust when I say that construction costs in Scotland soar at the six-storey level. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) about lifts. I wonder whether in Scotland we should look seriously at the question of providing lifts for elderly people in three-storey houses. If we supply lifts, however, the economics of building three-storey or four-storey houses become questionable. One has to consider the cost of putting in lifts for three-storey and four-storey houses.

I respect the views of those in rural areas who do not want to see multi storey buildings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) said, but the general tendency of all authorities is to have six-storey and higher buildings. It is all very well tailoring the subsidy provision to suit the preference of one or two areas, but we have to take into account the preference of the majority. The majority are clearly of the view that they should have this kind of house.

Mr. Rankin

Surely my hon. Friend is not to encourage local authorities to build multi-storey flats even admitting the lack of ordinary building space?

Dr. Mabon

Of course I shall not encourage them to build multi-storey flats in conflict with good planning and the environment. In the Housing Advisory Committee, having discharged our functions in regard to slum houses and the allocation of houses—the results of which will be published after Easter—we are embarking on a study of multi-storey houses. We can now make an assessment of what multi-storey living is like.

This is one of the conflicts which Ministers find when meeting many local authorities. If one is urging them to build, one cannot disqualify them from building certain kinds of houses for which there is overwhelming demand, not only by councils but by prospective tenants.

In one area, which it would be out of order to discuss in detail, there is a demand by both the council and the tenants for this type of housing. Who are we to quarrel with this? If this is what the customer wants, it is what the customer must get. No hon. Member would want us to dictate to local authorities on this matter.

Mr. MacArthur

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the reasons why we advanced this group of Amendments. I accept that the majority of local authorities in Scotland are building houses of six storeys and more, but the hon. Member must also accept that a minority are building houses of five storeys and fewer. It is for those authorities that we need these Amendments to enable help to be given them by the Minister.

Dr. Mabon

I accept that. The hon. Member will realise that there are a great many hardships in Opposition. They are not entirely sad and unhappy, but mostly there are. The English have a system and we have a system. The English system is to have a subsidy for four- five- and six-storey buildings. We have chosen a system of one subsidy for six-storey buildings. I am trying to justify this. Given that all I have said is true, I think the hon. Member would agree that the subsidy for six-storey buildings is a wiser policy for Scotland. We do not know what is in store in the structure of housing and planning which lies ahead. Perth is going through a very vigorous phase of house building. They are in contact with, and indeed lead, a consortium in Scotland, but habits may change. This policy may be true of Perth at present, but not in the future.

The hon. Member is not giving us a choice of an English or a Scottish system but is proposing the best of both systems. I regret that the Government cannot accept that. The Government have the choice either of the English system or the one in the Bill. From the Scottish point of view there is a clear-cut case for a system which would give a subsidy larger than the English subsidy for the six-storey building but would not be fragmented for four storeys and five storeys, with a lower subsidy for six storeys. That would be bad business for Scotland and, therefore, we do not want to see any change.

Mr. G. Campbell

My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has lucidly explained this group of Amendments and the difference in treatment of four-storey and five-storey buildings under the English Bill and the Scottish Bill.

When we considered this Clause in Committee the English Bill had not been published and we had no opportunity to see what was proposed there. The Minister of State has done his best to make a case for keeping the Clause as it is in the Bill. He has explained that there is a £30 subsidy for six storeys, but that is a reduction. At present the subsidy is £40 for multi-storey buildings and it is being reduced to £30. Why it should be further reduced to £26, which is what the hon. Gentleman suggested we would have to accept if we had a subsidy for four-storey buildings and five-storey buildings, I cannot understand.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I thought that we had gone over that argument so often that we should not have to go over it again. In Clauses 2 and 3 we are taking a comprehensive view of the cost of building houses whether they are houses of two three, four or five storeys, quite apart from six-storey houses, which are also covered by Clauses 2 and 3. The hon. Member has to add to the unit subsidy which his Government sponsored the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 and the aggregate raises the multi-storey subsidy to a considerable figure, almost twice.

Mr. Campbell

The hon. Gentleman is talking in terms of interest at 7 per cent. In two or three years hence we hope that interest rates will not be so great. It is no use taking the subsidy calculated for this year because of the economic crisis. We hope that there will not be an economic crisis so long as the Labour Government are in office, but that apparently is what the hon. Gentleman is catering for.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

We discussed this fully. The matter was raised by the hon. Member. Comparing the £40 which he mentioned and our £30, he says that it depends on the interest rate, but the interest rate had to fall below 5 per cent. and under the Government of which he was a member it did not drop below 5 per cent. for a decade.

Mr. Campbell

It would have to be higher if we compare the drop from £40 to £30 and take that into account with the basic subsidy. It would be 5½ per cent. or more.

The Minister of State spoke only of the basic subsidy for each individual year. The one thing that is certain is that it will be different every year. None of us knows how much it will be in the future. Having suggested reductions from £40 to £30, the hon. Gentleman made a very gallant attempt, with his reference to more robust building in Scotland, and so on. If it is £30 for six storeys and above, this is not a reason for not recognising four storeys and five storeys. We are not suggesting that the subsidy should be reduced for six storeys. We are suggesting that four storeys and five storeys should be recognised, as they are in the English Bill.

The Minister of State has suggested two or three times that this is an Oliver Twist question, that we are asking for more. The main point about that was that it was a very reasonable request. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to emulate any of the Dickensian characters who kept refusing such requests. We consider that the Amendment does, as he said, achieve the advan-

Division No. 274.] AYES [6.12 p.m.
Abse, Leo Freeson, Reginald Mason, Roy
Albu, Austen Galpern, Sir Myer Mayhew, Christopher
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gardner, Tony Mellish, Robert
Allen, Scholefield Garrett, W. E. Mendelson, J. J.
Anderson, Donald Gregory, Arnold Millan, Bruce
Ashley, Jack Grey, Charles (Durham) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Neal, Harold
Barnett, Joel Hamling, William Noef-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Baxter, William Harper, Joseph Norwood, Christopher
Bence, Cyril Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Oakes, Gordon
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Haseldine, Norman Ogden, Eric
Bidwell, Sydney Hattersley, Roy O'Malley, Brian
Binns, John Hazell, Bert Orme, Stanley
Bishop, E. S. Heffer, Eric S. Oswald, Thomas
Blackburn, F. Henig, Stanley Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Booth, Albert Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Padley, Walter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hooley, Frank Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Paget, R. T.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Palmer, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Howie, W. Park, Trevor
Cant, R. B. Hoy, James Parker, John (Dagenham)
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Chapman, Donald Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pavitt, Laurence
Coleman, Donald Hunter, Adam Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Concannon, J. D. Hynd, John Pentland, Norman
Conlan, Bernard Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Crawshaw, Richard Janner, Sir Barnett Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jeger, George (Goole) Probert, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Randall, Harry
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rankin, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Reynolds, G. W.
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Rhodes, G. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, J. ldwal (Wrexham) Richard, Ivor
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Judd, Frank Robertson, Albert (Normanton)
Dempsey, James Kelley, Richard Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dewar, Donald Kenyon, Clifford Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dickens, James Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Rose, Paul
Dobson, Ray Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Doig, Peter Lawson, George Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Driberg, Tom Lee, John (Reading) Sheldon, Robert
Dunn, James A. Lewis, Arthur (w. Ham, N.) Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Dunnett, Jack Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Lipton, Marcus Short, Mrs. Renée(W.hampton,N.E.)
Eadie, Alex Lomas, Kenneth Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Luard, Evan Silverman, Julius (Ashton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Slater, Joseph
Ellis, John Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Small, William
Ensor, David McBride, Neil Snow, Julian
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) McCann, John Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, loan L.(Birm'h'm, Yardley) Macdonald, A. H. Steele,Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)
Faulds, Andrew McGuire, Michael Symonds, J. B.
Fernyhough, E. Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Thornton, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mackie, John Tinn, James
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mackintosh, John P. Urwin, T. W.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Maclennan. Robert Varley, Eric G.
Floud, Bernard McNamara, J. Kevin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) MacPherson, Malcolm Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ford, Ben Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Watkins, David (Consett)
Forrester, John Manuel, Archie Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Mapp, Charles Wellbeloved, James

tages of both the six-storey subsidy and four- and five-storey subsidies. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman said, although he made a good and rather long attempt, has changed our view on this.

Question put, That "six" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 141.

Whitaker, Ben Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Winnick, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
White, Mrs. Elrene Winterbottom, R. E. Mr. William Whitlock and
Wilkins, W. A. Woodburn, Rt. Nn. A. Mr. Charles R. Morris.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornehurch)
NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fortescue, Tim Miscampbell, Norman
Astor, John Foster, Sir John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Baker, W. H. K. Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'ttord & Stone) More, Jasper
Balniel, Lord Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Batsford, Brian Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Grant, Anthony Murton, Oscar
Biffen, John Grant-Ferris, R. Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Biggs-Davison, John Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Neave, Airey
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Gurden, Harold Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Black, Sir Cyril Hall, John (Wycombe) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Bossom, Sir Clive Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Osborn, John (Hallam)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Braine, Bernard Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Pardoe, John
Brewis, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Peel, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Heseltine, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Higgins, Terence L. Pounder, Rafton
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&M) Hiley, Joseph Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Hirst, Geoffrey Pym, Francis
Bullus, Sir Eric Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Roots, William
Campbell, Gordon Holland, Philip Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carlisle, Mark Hordern, Peter Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cary, Sir Robert Howell, David (Guildford) Sinclair, Sir George
Channon, H. P. G. Hunt, John Smith, John
Chichester-Clark, R. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Clegg, Walter Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Stodart, Anthony
Cooke, Robert Jopling, Michael Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Cordle, John Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Corfield, F. V. Kershaw, Anthony Thorpe, Jeremy
Costain, A. P. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Tilney, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Kirk, Peter Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Crawley, Aidan Knight, Mrs. Jill Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Lambton, Viscount Vickers, Dame Joan
Crouch, David Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Dalkeith, Earl of Longden, Gilbert Walters, Dennis
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.) Loveys, W. H. Ward, Dame Irene
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lubbock, Eric Webster, David
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) McAdden, Sir Stephen Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) MacArthur, Ian Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Doughty, Charles Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maginnis, John E. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Maude, Angus Wylie, N. R.
Errington, Sir Eric Mawby, Ray
Eyre, Reginald Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fisher, Nigel Mills, Peter (Torrington) Mr. Hector Monro and
Mr. Timothy Kitson.