§ Mr. Eyre
I beg to move Amendment No. 114 in page 49, line 11, leave out 'paragraphs 5' and insert:'and, immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraphs'.This is a drafting Amendment to cure a technical defect spotted by the College of law, to which we are grateful for drawing our attention to it.
The new paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Rent Act, 1968, inserted by Clause 47, applies paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of that Schedule in specified circumstances. However, paragraph 5 would not be apt for this purpose as it stands, and new words are inserted by this Amendment to dispense with the need to apply paragraph 5.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 49, line 32, at end insert:In determining for the purposes of section 2(3) and 70(3) of the Rent Act 1968 whether the part of the rent attributable to attendance board or use of furniture is substantial parts or proportions of 15 per cent. or less shall not be considered to be substantial.The purpose of the Amendment is to give statutory authority to the definition of what constitutes a furnished tenancy. It is a definition which accords substantially with the present law, and it accords overwhelmingly with the law as it is enforced by the courts. The difference is that there would be a clear and firm test to enable those advising families in possession of furnished rent books and occupying premises containing some furniture to say," Notwithstanding that you have a furnished rent book, your tenancy is protected by the Rent Acts. You will have security from eviction. You will be given the right to go to the rent officer to have a fair rent determined".
Earlier today we discussed the hardships suffered by many furnished tenants 1208 and the extent to which furnished tenants are the Cinderellas in housing. These families bear the brunt of the immensely rapid rise in property prices and in rents which occur in the centres of cities.
I ask the Government to recognise that, if they are not prepared to give either security of tenure or rent allowances to furnished tenants, it is immensely important that these pariahs in the housing situation should be clearly defined and should know that they are the pariahs and that the Government are treating them as such.
When one is consulted by such a family—whether one is consulted as a lawyer or as a Member of Parliament; I am consulted in both capacities—one is presented with details such as the following which reached me at my surgery last Monday:In my house I have two single beds, one rickety old table, four ancient chairs, one small old cupboard, one small chest of drawers, one armchair, and some lino on the floor".I went to see the house for myself. This family pays £6 a week for a single room. Is that to be regarded as furnished?
As the law stands, I can say to this family," The chances are that in five cases out of six if you go to court and challenge this it will be declared to be an unfurnished tenancy and you cannot be evicted. You can then apply to the rent officer and have the rent brought down to a fair rent. Your landlord will not be able to evict you as a punishment for your applying to have the rent regulated."
I am under the constraint that I know that if one particular judge is sitting at Marylebone County Court on the day that the case is heard the tenancy will be held to be furnished, the court will dismiss the application, and the tenancy will remain classified as furnished.
I have challenged this issue in 21 cases. So far, in 19 of those cases I have been successful in getting accepted my view of the law which is embodied in the Amendment. It is the view that where the proportion of rent attributable to the furniture is less than 15 per cent. the tenancy is not furnished.
As the Minister reminded the Standing Committee when we discussed this issue on Clause 47, there has been one recent 1209 case—Goel v. Sagoo—in which the court accepted a tenancy as furnished where 6⅔per cent. of the rent was attributable to furniture; and in that case the tenant was refused the declaration that his tenancy was unfurnished and he was evicted.
This situation arises ordinarily where a furnished tenant is being threatened with eviction. I wonder how many hon. Members have been present when families have been evicted. I have. I do not wish to see it happen again. I have found that by raising the question whether premises are furnished or unfurnished and whether the landlord has a right, which the law grants him at present, to evict the family virtually without check one can in most cases succeed. But the law is uncertain. The Amendment would add certainty.
The question was considered by the Francis Committee, which recommended that instead of having a test of substantiality on the lines I have suggested—I find it difficult to imagine that anyone can seriously suggest that less than 15 per cent. is substantial anyway—the test should simply be whether the landlord provided the essentials of living, including blankets, cooking utensils, cutlery and so on. I hope the House will not accept any such definition but will recognise that we have a very serious problem in our central city areas because the housing pressures which have resulted from the rapidly escalating value of land—I mean" price of land", because there is a sharp distinction between value and price of land—have created immense problems for those on relatively low incomes seeking accommodation in central city areas. It is they who are accepting allegedly furnished tenancies, very few of which are furnished.
The danger is that the Government are contemplating an Amendment which would deprive such families of the protection they have now. I trust that even the present Administration would not contemplate that. I hope they will accept my Amendment, because the pressures for evictions are growing constantly. We have heard a great deal in the past few days from the Government about their plans for extending improvement grants and their reliance on improvement grants to renew the centres of our cities. I hope 1210 the Minister has read the editorial in today's Evening Standard, which welcomes this. It says:At last a concerted attack is to be made on what is perhaps the single most disturbing area of the housing question—the decaying and overcrowded areas of inner London whose squalor and despair is epitomised by North Kensington.Redevelopment and rehabilitation are promised. But as the G.L.C. must realise, this will inevitably be problematical. For there is always a danger that improved housing will lead landlords to evict poorer tenants and sell up to better-off families for a profit.The G.L.C. will face considerable opposition from local communities like North Kensington unless it can make it clear that the improvements are intended to benefit those who need them most—the existing population.This will not be the case if what is happening now is allowed to continue. Landlords obtain possession of premises from controlled, regulated tenants, and until they get the whole house free they put in furnished tenants. As soon as the whole house is full of furnished tenants they evict the lot, apply for improvement grants, seek to convert the house into luxury accommodation and then re-sell.
The effect of the improvement grants in the stress areas is disastrous. But it is compounded by the fact that furnished tenants can be evicted virtually at will. The security that can be given by the rent tribunal is negligible.
The Amendment would make the law certain in a field where it is uncertain. It would provide protection for the vast majority of working-class families who are compelled to accept furnished accommodation.
Earlier today, and in Committee, the Minister said he was seeking to distinguish between the long-term and short-term furnished tenant. He will find that overwhelmingly the working-class family in furnished accommodation are long-term tenants, and that the test in the Amendment will for the most part protect the working-class family and will not protect the tenant of luxury accommodation. I hope therefore that the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment. If not, I hope that the House will compel them to do so.
§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South-West)
I should like to congratulate 1211 my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on his persistence in moving an Amendment in this sense. He has great experience of this matter both as a Member of Parliament and as a lawyer. My experience is limited to that of a Member. However, anyone who represents a constituency in inner London is familiar with the weakness of his position which the existence of some bits of furniture in accommodation introduces. It is one of the factors in the social change in areas of inner London such as Barnsbury in my constituency where the whole object of the developers is to drive out the existing population and bring in new population able to pay the much higher prices for the emptied houses, houses emptied of controlled tenants.
I have read carefully the arguments on this subject that were rehearsed at rather greater length in Standing Committee, and I have gone over the Minister's reply. He did not rebut the case put by my hon. Friends. He seemed to argue that if one introduced the arithmetical test of what was furnished accommodation, there was still left an area of judgment as to what constituted furniture, whether furniture was attached, built in and so on. That is true. One cannot remove all discretion from the court, and it is no part of the intention of the Amendment to remove the exercise of judgment from the court.
But in so far as it could be done, it should be done. We are all familiar with examples of tenants being ignorant whether the courts would hold that their accommodation was furnished. It costs money to test an issue and so tenants often do not test it when the case seems to them or their advisers to be marginal. The Amendment would introduce further certainty.
In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman argued that such a change, as other recommendations of the Francis Committee, would have to be considered when there was more time. It reflects badly on the Government that they accept that this is an important factor and yet say that they will deal with it when they have another opportunity to do so. The Amendment is in order in this Bill and if it is a good Amendment, we might as well make it.
1212 There was another issue on which the Minister showed himself to be totally immovable, namely, the increase in penalties for the harassment of tenants. He said that there was no opportunity to make the desired Amendment, an Amendment recommended by the Francis Committee, and he said that he would consider the matter when he had the opportunity to do so. The Minister smiles, but because he did not find the opportunity, some of us, who looked into the matter with rather more interest than he possesses, gave him the opportunity to do so. He could not resist and as a result the Amendment was made.
Here we have a similar instance. This is a matter to which the Francis Committee attached importance. The Minister has not been able to mount a reasoned objection to the Amendment, but merely says that the matter needs more consideration, that we should discuss it on another occasion.
Given the human suffering that is involved, that is not good enough. If anyone is prepared to stand at the Government Despatch Box and argue that if rent covers less than 15 per cent. of the furniture in the opinion of the court, then that ought nevertheless to be treated as furnished accommodation, he should have the guts to say "We are not doing anything for those people". He should not argue that he has not had time to think about it properly. If the Minister argues that, then hon. Members opposite below the Gangway should have the guts to say that while they support him generally they will not support him on this. The Government do not have a case. Hon. Members who have read the Committee proceedings will recognise that and also that this Amendment is well deserving of their support.
§ Mr. John Fraser
I hope that the House will support this Amendment which is very moderately worded and which seeks to clarify the law. We should like to go much further and provide fuller security for furnished tenants. Let no one underestimate the extent of furnished tenancies. In Greater London, according to the Francis Report 23 per cent. of all privately-rented accommodation was let as furnished accommodation and the figure is growing fairly rapidly outside London to around 15 per 1213 cent. of all private rented accommodation. This is becoming a major problem.
Those who live in such accommodation are living on the edge of a precipice. About 50 per cent. of families living in such accommodation have children. What do they face? They never know when their tenancy will end, they are unable to collect those personal belongings, furniture and other things which create a bond insides a family, a pride in possessions. They lack such things.
Secondly, they are a sector of the community which pay, in relation to the value of the accommodation, the highest rents of all. All of them know that if they apply to have their rents reduced by the rent tribunal, they are in most cases automatically giving themselves six months notice to quit. True, the tribunal can extent the period of security but in most cases it is six months.
Perhaps the worst affected victims of the furnished accommodation situation are the children. What happens is that the families move from furnished accommodation to furnished accommodation and the children frequently have to change their schools. Their education is interrupted and the bond between children and school is broken. These are often the children who need a stable educational background and the kind of stability in school which they may not have been able to get from their families because of the constant change in accommodation.
Tenants of furnished accommodation are in a sense urban gipsies, chased from place to place every time they make a complaint or appear to be settling. These people must be accorded security. We have not the time to give the kind of mature consideration needed to extending the security of tenure to the vast majority of tenants of furnished accommodation. There are the problems of students and owner-occupiers sharing their houses. We have not time to deal with them but we have time to accept this Amendment which says in effect that if less than 15p in the pound of a person's rent is attributable to furniture they should be given security.
What we are trying to do is to protect those tenants where furniture and fittings are a sham.
This House surely has no brief for the landlord who puts in a few 1214 sticks of furniture, some junk from the local saleroom or junk shop, and pretends that the accommodation is furnished. We are out to protect that kind of tenant, who can make no complaint about the state of the furniture. He can at least go to the public health inspector about the state of the premises but he cannot complain about the rickety wardrobe. If we accept the Amendment we ensure that rents fixed by private landlords in furnished accommodation will be kept at a reasonable level. The higher the rent is fixed, the more likely it is that the premises will be found to be unfurnished, because the higher the rent the lower will be the proportion of rent attributable to the furniture.
We want to do away with this sham. We want to give certainty to tenants of sham furnished accommodation who know little enough of their legal rights. In Islington, about 75 or 80 per cent. of tenants had never heard of the Rent Acts. The least we can do for them is to provide certainty in the law and to make it absolutely plain that if as small a proportion of the rent as 15 per cent. is not attributable to furniture, they should be given the security which they and their families deserve. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. Eyre
The Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) who has considerable professional experience of these matters. It would modify the borderline between furnished and unfurnished accommodation by providing, in effect, that if the furniture element of the rent were less than 15 per cent. of the whole rent the letting would be regarded as unfurnished. It would also modify, by referring to Section 70(3), the borderline between furnished tenancies without substantial board and furnished tenancies with substantial board, the latter tenancies being outside the furnished code of protection.
The Amendmentis much simpler than the corresponding Opposition Amendment which was debated in Committee—and I am relieved about that. It makes the minimum amendment to the Act needed to impose the basic 15 per cent. minimum standard. In the corresponding debate in Committee the Minister said that the most appropriate time for 1215 any legislation on this border line would clearly be when there was legislation to implement the Francis Report but added that, nevertheless, if and when the Government announced the introduction of legislation to provide furnished rent allowances, that would be a proper occasion for Parliament to consider the border line question. If therefore there is a new Bill to introduce furnished rent allowances opportunity will be available for the question of the border line to be raised again.
At this stage there is little which the Government can reasonably add to the points made in the very good debate in Committee. It is noted that the Opposition have, since the Committee stage, streamlined their Amendment. The new version, no less than any other suggestion made to deal with this thorny problem, is clearly worthy of detailed study. It does not, of course, altogether dispose of the difficulties mentioned in Committee of finding a solution which seeks to define "substantial" by reference to some rigid proportion. But that does not make it any the less deserving of full examination.
The Amendment, in fixing a percentage standard for substantiality, simply shifts the scope for argument on to the value to be placed on the furniture and on how that value is to be converted to a rental amount. Also, rental values vary widely in different parts of the country, while furniture values either do not vary or, to the extent that they do, they do so much less and in different ways. A rigid percentage would therefore apply unevenly over the country.
§ Mr. Freeson
Half the 500,000 estimated furnished tenancies are believed to be concentrated in one part of the country—in London, and indeed in inner London. Others can be identified in certain specific city areas. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is straining his argument a little too far.
§ Mr. Eyre
I am naturally affected by what the hon. Gentleman says. I realise the nature of the very serious problem in London, and I appreciate that London Members are particularly aware of them. But the rest of the country sometimes wants its problems to be borne in mind.
1216 There are large numbers of furnished tenancies in Birmingham and other parts of the country, and the formula to be devised must take account of the problem there.
I feel that the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) was strong in what he said in the debate on these points which I am mentioning, and that he was too sharp in dismissing what is detachability in considering what is furniture. It is a material point, and these two matters together are of practical difficulty and have to be taken together. This rigid percentage may force occasional nonsense on the courts in establishing whether rental values are high or cheap.
§ Mr. George Cunningham
The courts have to decide whether a fixed wardrobe, for instance, is a piece of furniture. That is bad enough, but, having decided that, it would be easier if they did not have to decide what constitutes "substantial". They have to exercise that discretion. How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?
§ Mr. Eyre
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly satisfied with his own argument and I quite understand that. Nevertheless, the Francis Committee recommended against the arithmetical approach, which it described as inapt.
The hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) in Committee mentioned that a number of possible formulae had been mooted from time to time. The Government's study of the various possible solutions will go on. There is a wealth of evidence and argument available to the Department on this, not only from debates in Parliament but from conference records and papers, correspondence, and the Francis Committee. Even so, the Government recognise that any new proposals would need to be tested by scrutiny by a number of bodies outside the Department before recommending alternative proposals, and the Government would want to be as sure as possible that the new formula would stand the test of time; they would need to reach an informed view of the extent to which it would in the long run help tenants and prospective tenants.
The Government are well aware that the House will probably want to know, 1217 in connection with any legislation to introduce rent allowances, the developments in the Government's continuing examination. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and other hon. Members on both sides can be assured that my right hon. Friend will take a close interest in that continuing examination. No commitment can, of course, be given on whether a satisfactory solution can be found.
§ Mr. Clinton Davis
Is all this guff coming from a nice Minister just a recipe for total inaction and delay, without regard to the concern of thousands of tenants in inner London constituencies such as those which have been represented in the debate here today? Surely the Minister must have some compassion towards those people, and do something quickly?
§ Mr. Eyre
I understand the feelings of the hon Member, but there must be recognition of the fact that there are these practical difficulties, and that consultation is necessary to devise the best way to deal with this matter on a long-term basis. I can assure the hon. Member and others who are concerned about this matter that there will be continuing
|Division No. 147.]||AYES||[10.55 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Cohen, Stanley||Evans, Fred|
|Albu, Austen||Coleman, Donald||Ewing, Henry|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Concannon, J. D.||Faulds, Andrew|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Conlan, Bernard||Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)|
|Ashley, Jack||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Ashton, Joe||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Fletcher, Raymond (llkeston)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cronin, John||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Foley, Maurice|
|Barnes, Michael||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Foot, Michael|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Ford, Ben|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Forrester, John|
|Baxter, William||Dalyell, Tam||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony (Wedgwood)||Davidson, Arthur||Freeson, Reginald|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Garrett, W. E.|
|Bishop, E. S.||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Gilbert, Dr. John|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Deakins, Eric||Golding, John|
|Booth, Albert||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Delargy, H. J.||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bradley, Tom||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Dempsey, James||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Doig, Peter||Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dormand, J. D.||Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Buchan, Norman||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Driberg, Tom||Hamling, William|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Campbell, I. Dunbartonshire, W.)||Dunn, James A.||Hardy, Peter|
|Cant, R. B.||Dunnett, Jack||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Eadie, Alex||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Edelman, Maurice||Hattersley, Roy|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Ellis, Tom||Hooson, Emlyn|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||English, Michael||Horam, John|
§ close examination, and that my right hon Friend will take an interest in this matter, and that this is a point which the Government will keep in the forefront of their mind.
§ Mr. Crosland
When a Minister speaks of the Government keeping something in the forefront of their mind, and when a Minister speaks of continuing close observation and examination, that means, as it does in this case, that absolutely nothing has been done. The Government have had the Francis Report for many months. The Under-Secretary of State a few minutes ago said that a great deal of discussion, examination and exchange of views had gone on in the Department from which a great deal of advantage had been gained, but he could not advance further until there were consultations with certain outside bodies. Why could not these consultations have started six months ago and been concluded three months ago? The fact is that there has been total inactivity inside the Department on this, and we shall vote strongly in favour of the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 275.
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Marsden, F.||Rowlands, Edward|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Sandelson, Neville|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Mayhew, Christopher||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Meacher, Michael||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Mendelson, John||Silkin Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Hunter, Adam||Mikardo, Ian||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)||Millan, Bruce||Sillars, James|
|Janner, Greville||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Silverman, Julius|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Milne, Edward||Skinner, Dennis|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Small, William|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Molloy, William||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Spearing, Nigel|
|John, Brynmor||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Steel, David|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Moyle, Roland||Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Murray, Ronald King||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Oakes, Gordon||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Ogden, Eric||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Kelley, Richard||O'Halloran, Michael||Swain, Thomas|
|Kinnock, Neil||O'Malley, Brian||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Lambie, David||Oram, Bert||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Lamond, James||Orbach, Maurice||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Latham, Arthur||Orme, Stanley||Tinn, James|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Oswald, Thomas||Tomney, Frank|
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Torney, Tom|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Paget, R. T.||Urwin, T. W.|
|Leonard, Dick||Palmer, Arthur||Varley, Eric G.|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Pardoe, John||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Wallace, George|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pavitt, Laurie||Watkins, David|
|Lipton, Marcus||Pendry, Tom||Weitzman, David|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pentland, Norman||Wellbeloved, James|
|Loughlin, Charles||Perry, Ernest G.||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Lyon, Alexander (W. York)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|McBride, Neil||Price, William (Rugby)||Whitlock, William|
|McCartney, Hugh||Probert, Arthur||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|McElhone, Frank||Rankin, John||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|McGuire, Michael||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Mackie, John||Richard, Ivor||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Woof, Robert|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Roper, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Marks, Kenneth||Rose Paul B.||Mr. Ernest Armstrong and|
|Marquand, David||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Mr. Joseph Harper.|
|Adley, Robert||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Dean, Paul|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Bryan, Paul||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&M)||Dixon, Piers|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Buck, Antony||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec|
|Astor, John||Bullus, Sir Eric||Drayson, G. B.|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Burden, F. A.||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Awdry, Daniel||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)||Eden, Sir John|
|Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Carlisle, Mark||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Batsford, Brian||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Chapman, Sydney||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)|
|Bell, Ronald||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Emery, Peter|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Churchill, W. S.||Eyre, Reginald|
|Benyon, W.||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Farr, John|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Clegg, Walter||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy|
|Biffen, John||Cooke, Robert||Fidler, Michael|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Coombs, Derek||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)|
|Blaker, Peter||Cooper, A. E.||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Body, Richard||Cormack, Patrick||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Boscawen, Robert||Costain, A. P.||Fortescue, Tim|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Critchley, Julian||Fowler, Norman|
|Bowden, Andrew||Crouch, David||Fox, Marcus|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Crowder, F. P.||Fry, Peter|
|Bray, Ronald||Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Gardner, Edward|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Longden, Sir Gilbert||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Loveridge, John||Rost, Peter|
|Goodhart, Philip||Luce, R. N.||Royle, Anthony|
|Goodhew, Victor||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Gower, Raymond||MacArthur, Ian||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||McCrindle, R. A.||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|Green, Alan||McLaren, Martin||Scott, Nicholas|
|Grieve, Percy||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Sharples, Richard|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Grylls, Michael||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Gummer, J. Selwyn||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Simeons, Charles|
|Gurden, Harold||Maddan, Martin||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Madel, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Marten, Neil||Soref, Harold|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mather, Carol||Speed, Keith|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Maude, Angus||Spence, John|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Sproat, Iain|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Mawby, Ray||Stainton, Keith|
|Hastings, Stephen||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Havers, Michael||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Hay, John||Miscampbell, Norman||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Stokes, John|
|Heseltine, Michael||Moate, Roger||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Hicks, Robert||Money, Ernle||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Hiley, Joseph||Monro, Hector||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Montgomery, Fergus||Temple, John M.|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||More, Jasper||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Holland, Philip||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Morrison, Charles||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Hordern, Peter||Mudd, David||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)|
|Hornby, Richard||Murton, Oscar||Tilney, John|
|Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Neave, Airey||Trew, Peter|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Normanton, Tom||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Nott, John||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Hunt, John||Onslow, Cranley||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Osborn, John||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|James, David||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Waddington, David|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Jessel, Toby||Parkinson, Cecil||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Percival, Ian||Walters, Dennis|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Jopling, Michael||Pink, R. Bonner||Warren, Kenneth|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Kimbail, Marcus||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Wilkinson, John|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Winterton, Nicholas|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Raison, Timothy||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Kitson, Timothy||Redmond, Robert||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Knox, David||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Lane, David||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Younger, Hn. George|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Mr. Kenneth Clarke and|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Ridsdale, Julian||Mr. Hamish Gray.|
§ Amendment accordingly negatived.
§ It being after Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [13th March and this day] to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at Eleven o'clock.