HC Deb 18 June 1969 vol 785 cc517-35

The Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a Report and Accounts of Contributions made under sections 20 to 25 of this Act; and such Report and Accounts shall show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought tip, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page

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

The Clause proposes the making of an annual report of contributions made to local authorities so that they may carry out the provisions of the Bill. It proposes that the Minister shall annually lay before Parliament a report and accounts of those contributions, and it refers to Clauses 20 to 25. In those Clauses are the provisions about contributions from the Exchequer to local authorities.

In Clause 20, there is provision for contributions to the local authorities in respect of the grants which they make to private individuals—owner-occupiers and landlords—by way of either improvement grants or standard grants, and a proportion is to be refunded by the Exchequer. In the next two or three Clauses there is provision for contributions to the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by the housing authorities, whether they he improvement grants or standard grants.

In this case they are called improvement contributions and standard contributions because these are cases in which local authorities carry out work on their own houses. In Clause 25, there is provision for contributions in respect of dwellings provided or improved by housing associations by arrangement with local authorities.

Therefore, the types of contribution which we are talking about are threefold: contributions towards payments by local authorities to individual owners; contributions from the Exchequer to the local authorities for improvements of their own houses; and contributions to the advances or grants which local authorities make to housing associations. We are discussing fairly substantial sums of money paid each year first by the local authorities and then in respect of the contributions made to them by the Exchequer.

The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill as first presented to the House stated that all this money was to be set against general public expenditure on housing. Paragraph 4, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", reads: It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above"— which deals with houses which are demolished, and so on— will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73". As I say, we are dealing with a fairly substantial sum.

The Memorandum goes on: This expenditure will be continued within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'. Taking total public expenditure on new housing as it has been in the past, say, for this financial year or the last, not so much money will be spent in future on new houses because there will be deducted from the total expenditure the sum to be paid under the Bill on the improvement of old houses.

Since the Memorandum refers to the White Paper "Old Houses into new Homes", Cmnd. 3602, I turn to it to see how the policy is expressed. It is stated in the first paragraph of the introduction to the White Paper in these words: The need for large new housebuilding programmes will remain for many years ahead".

Mr. Clegg

Hear, hear.

Mr. Page

My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear. I, too, say "Hear, hear".

I am sure that new house building programmes must remain large for a long time, despite Government forecasts that we shall have struck a balance or will have 1 million spare houses, or something or other, in 1973—something which we find incredible.

The paragraph continues: But the balance of need between new housebuilding and improvement is now changing, so there must be a corresponding change in the emphasis of the local authority housing programmes The Government intend that within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, a greater share should go to the improvement of older houses". We must take the present expenditure and say that in future we shall not spend so much of it on new houses; we shall spend part of it on improving old houses and on the larger grants to be made under the Bill.

For the purpose of the Clause, it is not my intention to criticise that policy. I accept it as Government policy and the Government's intention to carry it out in that way. Provided that the public knows what is happening and realises that the Bill will not increase expenditure on new houses plus improvements, but that they must all come within the same total expenditure, and if that policy must be accepted, Parliament should be kept continually informed.

This is a controversial policy. For example, the professional body of the architects has criticised it severely. It said that it may be found that instead of improving the stock of housing over the next few years we shall merely be preserving old houses for a short time which do not deserve to be preserved. That is one side of the picture. On the other side, with which, in the main, I agree, we must save our existing assets, and it is right that grants should be made from the local authorities and the Exchequer to try to prevent older property from falling into decay.

But, as I say, this is a controversial policy which Parliament should keep under review annually. I would hope that if a report were made by the Minister to Parliament the House would wish to debate it annually. That is why in the second part of the new Clause we set out a particular point. Not only should the Minister lay the report and accounts before Parliament annually, but they should show the relationship between the total annual amount of the said contributions and the annual public investment in housing. I am not sure how the Minister intends to keep this policy under control and to maintain the balance between new building and the improvement of old buildings. He says that by 1972 £40 million will be spent on improvements. This will be a percentage of the total expenditure on new building plus improvements. How will he keep the percentage stable if that is the policy? I am sure that from year to year any Minister would wish to change the policy in degree if not in its foundations. He will want to keep an eye on the percentage being spent on new houses and improvements. I am quite sure that the House will want to keep an eye on that and see how the policy works out and what changes there may be in it.

The Clause embodies a simple, short point. I merely ask for a report and indicate what it should include. Although the point is a short and simple one, it arises out of a major point of policy in the Bill and one which the House should keep under its eye every year.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I am surprised that it has been necessary for the Opposition to move the new Clause. I cannot understand why the provisions of the new Clause were not in the Bill when it first came before the House. It is quite clear that this is the sort of thing that Parliament should be aware of, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said, there is bound to be controversy about how much money is spent on improvement and how much is spent on new housebuilding.

I presume that it is the cold, hard fact that because of the incompetent way the Government have run our affairs during the last five years we are today having to rehabilitate old property. In a more prosperous society, with our affairs properly run, old property would have been pulled down and replaced by new buildings. This must be true, because in a society that was rolling in wealth we would be putting people into new houses every five years, but the poorer the society is the more it has to make do and mend and make its old capital assets last longer. Therefore, the fact that the Government have spent a great deal of their time in devising systems of rehabilitating old property is an indictment of them in the failure of their new housing programme, because the one follows the other.

Clauses 20 to 25 of the Bill deal with contributions to individuals and local authorities and grants to housing associations, three different aspects of the housing problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has said, the weight given to each of those aspects must be controversial—and I do not mean in a bad-tempered way. They must be open to argument. Some people may say that we ought to be doing more through housing associations, others may say that the whole weight should go on to local authorities, while others may say that the amount given to private individuals should be stopped. Therefore, it is all open to argument.

It seems to me incomprehensible that it has been necessary for the Opposition to ask the Government—I cannot conceive that they will oppose the Clause—to request that as a result of the Bill when it becomes law, the Minister should do what I would regard as his straightforward and bounden duty and lay before Parliament annually the report and accounts showing the contributions made under these five Clauses.

I would have thought that it was also necessary for Parliament to know how much was spent under these five Clauses and should know what proportion it represents of the total amount spent on the housing problem. If it showed that a greater percentage was being spent on rehabilitation and a smaller amount on new property, that would in some degree be a yardstick of the Government's failure to get the nation's economy on a satisfactory basis to get these two items in balance.

It would certainly be true for any party in the House of Commons—and we must remember not only the great Liberal Party, but we must remember that there are the independents of nationalist persuasion who, perhaps, want to take all these affairs out of the hands of this Chamber in any event; it is certainly necessary that any individual Member who is interested in this problem should know that there is a duty upon the Government to present annual accounts showing the contributions and the annual public investment in housing.

Mr. Simon Mahon (Bootle)

The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who is an old Parliamentarian, is putting the case for getting further information from the Government. Would he not get that information by the simple process of asking an Oral or a Written Question?

Sir D. Glover

I am horrified that the hon. Member, with his long experience of local government, should say that we can get this information by asking an Oral or Written Question. That is not the point. The point is that the Minister should have a responsibility, not to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), who is so assiduous in all his work on behalf of his constituents and who, I am sure, would ask a Question, but to the whole House, to those hon. Members who are not as assiduous as the hon. Member but who may equally need this information to see how the Government of the day are dealing with our affairs.

Before the hon. Member takes umbrage at the new Clause, may I point out to him that it is much more likely that he or his successor will be demanding that a new Clause like this should be written into the legislation, because within a very short time it will be my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and his colleagues who will have to provide what we are asking for in the new Clause.

It would be incomprehensible to me that any hon. Members on the benches opposite should criticise the new Clause. I am sure that it will be only a matter of form for the Minister to rise in his place and say that he has much pleasure in accepting it and thanking the Opposition for their co-operation and splendid foresight, which obviously shows that they are the potential Government.

Mr. Maddan

I hesitate to intervene in a debate which seems to be exclusive to representatives of Lancashire constituencies, important part of the country though that may be. I support the new Clause, but I want to dissent from an argument which has been used by my hon. Friends.

First, however, I should like to make a point which has not been made. Clearly, the Minister will have all the information which, it is suggested in the new Clause, should be laid before Parliament. Therefore, we are not asking him to undertake any long-winded research or compilation of statistics as an additional burden. He must have this information. What we are asking, therefore, is that he should lay it before Parliament so that we all have it.

The point on which I wish to dissent from my hon. Friends, and particularly, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), is that the more money that is spent under the six Clauses—not five Clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) suggested; nought counts as one when doing inclusive counting, so it is six Clauses and not five—

Sir D. Glover

In this Parliament all five principles always finish up as six.

Mr. Maddan

I am glad to have given my hon. Friend the opportunity to make that observation.

The point that I am making, in contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, is that the more money relative to the total public housing investment which is shown as being necessary under the provisions of these six Clauses the more pleased I shall be. My hon. Friend seemed to think that it would be worse. I know that I cannot go far within the rules of order in developing this point, but I should not like it to be thought that the support of the new Clause rests upon a desire to continue to underpin and augment the amount of public expenditure on council-house building as against other expenditure.

The Bill emphasises the importance of getting older properties into a decent state. I disagree with the architects who thought that this might be pouring good money after bad and that it would be better to spend the money on building new boxes. Architects over-estimate the durability of their work in comparison with that of their predecessors. The money spent under the Bill will be extremely well spent. I am not asking the Government to lay before Parliament figures which will enable me to chop off their heads. The bigger the figures, the better I shall be pleased, and the more I shall congratulate them.

Mr. Clegg

My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) was certain that the Minister would accept the new Clause, but, on looking into my crystal ball, I have strong doubts of that. We discussed in Committee a similar proposal, and the reply we received from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who spoke with his usual Gallic fluency—I am sorry that he is not here today—was that we could look at the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain. It may be that some relevant information would be contained in the Quarterly Housing Statistics for Great Britain, but we are seeking parliamentary participation. We want Parliament by a process of debate to examine the position year by year to see how things are going.

If at Business Question Time one asked the Leader of the House for time to debate the Quarterly Housing Statistics, he would reply, as usual, "Not next week". If it were obligatory for a report to be presented to Parliament, there would be much more chance of getting a debate on the subject. There will be progress, and, to use a trendy and bogus word, this is one way in which Parliament can "participate".

Mr. Hawkins

I rise to support the new Clause but, having asked Questions on this subject to which I have received no reply because it was said that statistics were not available, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon). I asked how many council houses were still to be improved, to which I received the answer, "About 500,000". I asked how many were still to be improved in the county of Norfolk, to which I received the answer that it was not known.

If figures were laid before the House—and presumably numbers could be given as well as the total expenditure—all hon. Members would know how the scheme was going in their constituencies, or at least in their counties.

Mr Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

In the nature of things, the hon. Member cannot know how many grants remain to be approved until applications are submitted. The total number of grants approved in any one year is contained in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where it is stated that in 1965 the total number of grants approved in England was 107,225.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Hawkins

I know how (many houses were improved last year or the year before, but I do not know how many remain to be improved, and that is another figure which could be contained in the report to Parliament. The information should be split between private and council housing, so that we know how much money is spent on each. We should be told how the scheme is going and how much money is available for new houses. I understand that the total sum previously allocated to new houses will now be split between new houses and improvements. I had hoped that the sum previously spent on new houses plus the sum previously spent on improvements would be divided beween new houses and improvements. If this is not so, the total sum of money spent on housing will be less than it has been in the past.

The information which is asked for in the new Clause would be most valuable to all hon. Members, to all local authorities and to the Government, and it would be possible for a debate on this subject to be held with hon. Members in possession of the figures.

Mr. Rossi

I support the new Clause. We are told in the Financial Memorandum which is printed in the forefront of the Bill what will be the likely financial effects of the Bill. It is stated on page xii of the Memorandum that certain charges of the Consolidated Fund under a number of sub-headings will arise in consequence of the Bill There will be increased contributions to local authorities towards the cost of improvement, standard and special grants which they make to private owners. There will be increased contributions to housing authorities towards the cost of improvements and conversions carried out by or under arrangements with them. There will be contributions to local authorities towards approved expenditure incurred in a general improvement area. There will be an increase of rate support grant resulting from expenditure incurred under the Bill by local authorities, and there will be the payment of additional expenses of Ministers relating to the rent officer service. This will all be additional expenditure falling upon the public purse for housing purposes, purposes which we welcome.

The Memorandum then states that further public expenditure will arise, in particular in respect of higher payment to be made by local authorities for unfit houses purchased or demolished, and for lending by local authorities to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. Again, these are all laudable objectives which we on this side of the House fully support.

The sum total of these heads of additional expenditure, we are told in paragraph 4 of the Financial Memorandum, will be £40 million annually by 1972–73, but here comes the rub. The concluding sentence is: This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached … If £40 million is to be taken out of the present budget for these purposes, what in the way of housing will suffer? We have not been told.

In Committee we discussed on Clause 74 the question of loans to owner-occupiers on mortgage for the repair and improvement of their houses. When we asked where the £40 million was to come from and what segment of the housing programme would suffer, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was very coy and said that he would not be drawn into a Budget debate. For technical reasons he had the protection of the Chair, and we were unable to pursue that line of inquiry. But the new Clause now puts the matter at large, and I should like to take the opportunity again to press the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the matter of expenditure. I hope that he will not dodge the issue, but will give the House a straight and frank answer.

What disturbs me is that we are to see a cut-back in local authority building of houses and flats. That must be the logical outcome if our budget is to remain the same but £40 million is to be diverted for this purpose.

Mr. Lubbock

Surely the important question is how many houses will be saved through the improvement grants provided by the Bill which otherwise would have been demolished and have to have been replaced by new houses built by local authorities? The new Clause tabled by the Opposition will not help the Government of the day to answer that question.

Mr. Rossi

That is a question for the Minister. As I understand it, the practice of the local authorities is only to demolish houses which have less than 15 years of life left. The expenditure in relation to the Bill will be on houses with more than 15 years life in them, otherwise the Bill becomes a nonsense. There is not much to be gained by pursuing that particular line of inquiry.

I continue to press for an answer as to what part of our housing programme will suffer because this £40 million will be taken out of the current budget. We have had no answer to that question and the country deserves an answer.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

If the hon. Member is putting questions to the Government a question might well be put to him. How many Conservative local authorities are answering this question by refusing to build local authority houses?

Mr. Rossi

The Government because of their economic policy have placed every possible obstacle in the way of local authorities building more. One way to help the local authorities is to make a start by lowering the interest rates. We shall quickly get out of order if we now enter into a general housing debate. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) must not be too provocative or he may get some answers he does not want. I can see that Mr. Deputy Speaker is beginning to get a little restless with this kind of discussion.

If I may return to the new Clause, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) interjected a moment ago to say that these figures will come out in the annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I may be wrong, but I believe that there is no annual report by the Ministry. There was at one time such a document, but the report published quite recently covered the two years 1967 and 1968. When a document covering the year 1969 will appear is anybody's guess.

We seek to make it quite clear in the new Clause that, if the House is to keep an eye on our housing programme, these figures should be published regularly and annually. This is what we demand, particularly in view of the evasion on this particular issue, particularly in Committee.

Mr. Simon Mahon

The Opposition have said that this is a laudable Bill. They have commended the provisions relating to local authority building, private building associations, the private owner and other aspects of housing. In one sense I almost feel like asking my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench to concede this new Clause. If the information which the Opposition seek was readily available to the people of this country, the first thing that it would prove is the failure of the previous Administration to do half as much as we are doing to solve this problem.

The Opposition have supported the major Clauses and have then, as is their right, become churlish about one or two of the details. If the new Clause were accepted, I am sure that it would show the benefits which we are giving to various sections of society in every branch of housing, benefits which have not been given previously.

The Opposition keep on asking for all sorts of information. Such information must be correlated. The Opposition are the same people who, at both national and local level, are always asking for reductions in clerical staff and in the Civil Service. Yet this rather mischievous new Clause would tend to increase the number of people required.

The new Clause would involve the Government in a time-wasting exercise. It is not an important matter, although I have listened to one after another hon. Member opposite talking as though it were. Surely the most important aspect of the Bill is that everyone admits that it is excellent in every way. In spite of what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the new Clause would add to it nothing at all.

Mr. MacColl

The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was kind enough to say that in my disposition I have a certain coyness. This no doubt has led to my remaining in an unmarried state for so long. I have no desire to get drawn into a Budget debate at this stage of the Housing Bill since the House is unanimous in being desperately anxious to get the Bill through quickly.

I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon), that perhaps there would have been a case for accepting a provision of this kind if we had not been very aware of the importance of improving the amount and the quality of the statistics which we lay before the House on the activities of the Ministry.

I am glad to say that we are restarting, after its having been abandoned, an annual report from the Ministry and hope in future to have an annual volume. We have also very much improved upon the preparation of the statistics. We have abolished the old Appendix C and now have a comprehensive statement of the housing figures.

That is the background to the problem. If we needed to provide more figures to enable the House and the general public to see what is happening, I am certain we would provide them. The Government have not been indifferent to the importance of providing adequate figures, and we have recently produced a Green Paper reviewing the methods for providing information and providing a guide as to how to reach decisions on public expenditure.

6.0 p.m.

A White Paper is to be published at the end of each year giving the appropriate information to Parliament. That is the new position.

The current position is that in the normal working of Parliament, estimates of Government contributions under the detailed headings of private owner and local authority discretionary and standard grants are already presented each year to Parliament and published in Class VI of the Civil Estimates. The expenditure under these heads is later presented and published in the Civil Appropriation Account. This is the general picture. We can supply in the fullest detail the global figures on what is happening.

Hon. Members from time to time express interest in problems in their own areas or in a more general part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bootle said, quite rightly, that if it is necessary to get more intensive information about an area it can be obtained through Parliamentary Questions.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that he was unable to get the detailed information for which he asked. It may have been that it was of a speculative nature about the condition of property in a rather more general way.

Mr. Hawkins

The question that I asked, both in 1966 and this year, was: how many council houses still remain to be improved with bathrooms and lavatories? That information apparently is not available. It seemed to me that it was necessary to know the answer to that question.

Mr. MacColl

The nature of an improvement, if it is a discretionary improvement, is difficult to measure in advance. Information is available about the number of houses without baths and essential amenities, and it is published frequently. We do not want to hide anything. We are alive to the problems. We are providing pretty well all the information that could be provided to enable a proper view to be taken of our policy. I do not wish to be provoked into discussing the merits of our policy. Therefore, I will not make any of the obvious debating replies.

Mr. Peter Walker

I am surprised that the Minister did not take up the plea by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) to provide this information, which would seemingly provide such good evidence of the success of the Government in these spheres. If this was the case, I am sure that the Minister would have done so with speed, alacrity and enthusiasm. After all, there are so few spheres where the Government can make a good case that I should think that the Minister would make every endeavour to publish this information in full.

Being a shrewd politician, both locally and nationally, there must be a query in the mind of the hon. Member for Bootle whether there is some other reason. The Minister gave no reason for not laying this information before Parliament. He just argued that there were various facts and figures available and annual statistics and White Papers here and there. But he gave no reason for resisting the new Clause. I will suggest the reason. The Government do not want it to be made too clear that any money they spend here will not be additional money to improve housing but will be taken from what would have been spent on new housing.

This is made clear in paragraph 4 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. This has already been quoted, but I wish to repeat it, because the wording is very significant. It states: It is estimated that public expenditure in consequence of this Bill, after allowing for the expenditure which will be incurred by local authorities in England and Wales in connection with improvement of older houses, and the charges on the Consolidated Fund, as well as the expenditure in paragraph 3 above, will be approaching £40 million annually by 1972–73. This expenditure will be contained within a total of public investment in housing at about the level it has now reached, as explained in the White Paper 'Old Houses into New Homes'. The Government are saying that this £40 million will be contained within what has already been promised in a previous White Paper and is already the present level of spending on housing. We want it made clear where the reduction is taking place, because there will be a reduction in expenditure by the Government on housing.

This is why Mr. Des Wilson, speaking on behalf of Shelter only a few days ago, expressed his dismay at the fact that in total the Bill would have the happy effects hoped for because there was to be a reduction in the total expenditure on housing. This Memorandum shows that clearly.

The information that we are asking for is very limited. We are merely asking for accounts to be laid before Parliament once a year showing the relationship between the various forms of expenditure by the Government on housing. I should think that the Government would be interested in this. Whatever their optimism, there is the possibility of a change of Government. I think that any future Opposition—which I believe the present Government is destined to be in the near future—would like this kind of information clearly laid before Parliament. We, as the present Opposition, obviously want it to be laid before Parliament, because it is useful information to debate.

There is no bureaucracy involved. Very little work is involved. The statistics must be available. We say that the Government should have an obligation to say to the country once a year, "We will spend less on that sector of housing, but we will spend more on this, or, if things become really hard, we will spend less on all sectors of housing". These figures should be clearly put before the country once a year.

As part of his defence, the Minister said—

Mr. Lubbock

Would the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) care to comment on what the Minister said about the Civil Estimates, Class VI, where all these figures are defined: Conversions and improvements of housing accommodation … (a) by local authorities and other bodies … (b) by private persons … (2) Standard improvements of housing accommodation …". I will not read it all. But these amounts are itemised and the figure for the previous financial year is given. Does not the hon. Gentleman think this information is sufficient for his purpose?

Mr. Walker

I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who is likely to remain in Opposition for the rest of his Parliamentary life, does not want this information in this form.

Mr. Lubbock


Mr. Walker

I am willing to concede that the hon. Gentleman can read. But, as far as—

Mr. Lubbock

Apparently the hon. Member for Worcester cannot.

Mr. Walker

All I am saying is that as part of the Bill, where there is specific investing out of the total fund, provision should be made that once a year these figures by themselves, not in the total Civil Estimates, should be published and laid before Parliament so that they can be clearly seen and debated.

I want to concentrate attention on housing. I do not want this as something which can be delved out of the Civil Estimates once a year when they are

being discussed in total. I want Governments of any complexion to lay these figures before Parliament. I am surprised at the refusal to do so.

I am sure that all those passionately interested in housing, such as movements like Shelter, would like this kind of information clearly exposed to Parliamentary debate once a year. They, too, will regret the Government's reluctance to indicate clearly the manner in which they will budget future housing policy. The only conclusion that can be drawn from their decision is that they are hoping that people will consider that they have decided to spend an additional £40 million on housing without recognising that this sum is coming from the existing housing programme.

Because they are hoping to conceal that, they are reluctant about the new Clause. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends to divide the House in favour of the new Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second Time:—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 185.

Division No. 270.] AYES [6.10 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gibson-Watt, David Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Glover, Sir Douglas Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Astor, John Goodhart, Philip Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Gower, Raymond Monro, Hector
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Grant, Anthony Montgomery, Fergus
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Grieve, Percy Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Bell, Ronald Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Biffen, John Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Black, Sir Cyril Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Hastings, Stephen Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Hawkins, Paul Nott, John
Braine, Bernard Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Onslow, Cranley
Brewis, John Heseltine, Michael Page, Graham (Crosby)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Higgins, Terence L. Percival, Ian
Hill, J. E. B.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Holland, Philip Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M) Hordern, Peter Pink, R. Bonner
Bullus, Sir Eric Hunt, John Pounder, Rafton
Burden, F. A. Hutchison, Michael dark Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Iremonger, T. L. Prior, J. M. L.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pym, Francis
Carlisle, Mark Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Channon, H. P. G. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clark, Henry Jopling, Michael Russell, Sir Ronald
Clegg, Walter Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cooke, Robert Kaberry, Sir Donald Silvester, Frederick
Corfield, F. V. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Costain, A. P. Knight, Mrs. Jill Speed, Keith
Crouch, David Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stainton, Keith
Cunningham, Sir Knox Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Currie, G. B. H. MacArthur, Ian Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry McMaster, Stanley Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.) Temple, John M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maddan, Martin Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Fisher, Nigel Maginnis, John E. Tilney, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Fortescue, Tim Maude, Angus van Straubenzee, W. R.
Foster, Sir John Mawby, Ray Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Waddington, David Wiggin, A. W. Younger, Hn. George
Walker, Peter (Worcester) Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Ward, Dame Irene Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wells, John (Maidstone) Wright, Esmond Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William Wylie, N. R. Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Abse, Leo Gregory, Arnold Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grey, Charles (Durham) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Anderson, Donald Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Neal, Harold
Archer, Peter Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Newens, Stan
Armstrong, Ernest Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Norwood, Christopher
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Ogden, Eric
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Hannan, William O'Malley, Brian
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Harper, Joseph Oram, Albert E.
Bagier, Gordon, A. T. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orbach, Maurice
Barnett, Joel Haseldine, Norman Orme, Stanley
Bidwell, Sydney Hazell, Bert Oswald, Thomas
Binns, John Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Bishop, E. S. Hooley, Frank Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Blackburn, F. Hooson, Emlyn Palmer, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur Horner, John Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Park, Trevor
Booth, Albert Hoy, Rt. Hn. James Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Boyden, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pentland, Norman
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hynd, John Perry, Georga H. (Nottingham, S.)
Brooks, Edwin Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Broughton, Sir Alfred Janner, Sir Barnett Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Jegsr, George (Goole) Price, William (Rugby)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Probert, Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rankin, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Judd, Frank Rees, Merlyn
Concannon, J. D. Kelley, Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kenyon, Clifford Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Crawshaw, Richard Kerr, Russell (Feltham) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lawson, George Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dalyell, Tam Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) Ryan, John
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Lee, John (Reading) Sheldon, Robert
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) Lestor, Miss Joan Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Silverman, Julius
Delargy, Hugh Lipton, Marcus Skeffington, Arthur
Dell, Edmund Lubbock, Eric Slater, Joseph
Dempsey, James Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Spriggs, Leslie
Dewar, Donald Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John MacColl, James Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dickens, James Macdonald, A. H. Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Dobson, Ray McGuire, Michael Symonds, J. B.
Doig, Peter McKay, Mrs. Margaret Taverne, Dick
Dunn, James A. Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty) Tinn, James
Dunnett, Jack Mackintosh, John P. Tuck, Raphael
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, J. Kevin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Ellis, John MacPherson, Malcolm Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
English, Michael Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ensor, David Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Wallace, George
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Watkins, David (Consett)
Fernyhough, E. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Manuel, Archie Wellbeloved, James
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mapp, Charles Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Marks, Kenneth Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Ford, Ben Marquand, David Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Forrester, John Mayhew, Christopher Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Freeson, Reginald Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Woof, Robert
Gardner, Tony Mendelson, John
Garrett, W. E. Millan, Bruce TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ginsburg, David Milne, Edward (Blyth) Mr. Ernest G. Perry and
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Dr. M. S. Miller.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Forward to