HC Deb 25 July 1972 vol 841 cc1715-35


Lords Amendment: No. 83, after Clause 89, in page 95, line 35, at end insert new Clause "A":


  1. (1) Subsections (6) and (7) of this section shall come into force if and only if the Secretary of State so directs by an order made not later than 1st September 1973.
  2. 1716
  3. (2) For the purposes of the said subsections (6)and (7) (which, for dwellings first entered in the valuation list on or after 1st April 1973, alter the rateable value limits in sections I and 71 of the Rent Act 1968) an order under subsection (1) above shall determine—
    1. (a) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house in Greater London, such sum exceeding £400 as is specified in the order, and
    2. (b) as the relevant amount for a dwelling-house elsewhere, such sum exceeding £200 as is so specified.
  4. (3) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and the Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  5. (4) The date specified in an order under this section as the date when it is to come 1717 into force shall not be earlier than 1st April 1973.
  6. (5) If the date so specified is later than 1st April 1973, the order may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be desirable.
  7. (6) For paragraph (a) of section 1(1) of the Rent Act 1968 (protected tenancies) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
    • "(a) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house fell before 1st April 1973, the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200, or
    • (aa) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling-house falls on or after 1st April 1973, the dwelling-house on the said appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding the relevant amount determined by an order under section (Power to increase rateable value limits for Rent Act 1968) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, or".
  8. (7) In section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968 for the words from "which has or had" to end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—
    • "unless—
    1. (a) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling fell before 1st April 1973, the dwelling on the said appropriate day had a rateable value exceeding, if it is in Greater London, £400 or, if it is elsewhere, £200, or
    2. (b) where the appropriate day in relation to the dwelling falls on or after 1st April 1973, the dwelling on the said appropriate day has or had a rateable value exceeding the relevant amount determined by an order under section (Power to increase rateable value limits for Rent Act 1968) of the Housing Finance Act 1972."
  9. (8) It is hereby declared that in section 1(1)(a) and section 71(1) of the Rent Act 1968, as they have effect apart from the preceding provisions of this section, the expression "has or had on the appropriate day" requires, in all cases, the ascertainment of what the rateable value is or was on the appropriate day, and not on any other date."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Frank Allaun

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (2) after" 1968)"insert: and which give power to the Secretary of State to alter the rateable value limits for dwellings first entered in the valuation list before 1st April 1973'. So far today most speeches from this side of the House have been aimed at defending council tenants. Yesterday the Labour group on my council in Salford decided not to implement the Housing Bill. That decision was also arrived at by Barrow, Bolton and many other Lancashire councils, and councils in South Wales, Scotland and other parts of the country. I am very happy about that. But we are also concerned with the private landlord's tenant whom we have not so far mentioned. Indeed, in the Amendment we are dealing with the medium-income tenant living in valuable property.

Many tenants are dissatisfied with the way in which the Rent Act, 1968, is working out. Indeed, some of us warned at the time that the formula for fixing a fair rent was nebulous, and we have been proved only too right. The figures we have extracted from the Secretary of State for the Environment show that the average increase in rent, when a tenant is taken out of control and through the so-called fair rent fixing machinery, has been to 2.6 times the previous rent. The result is that the great bulk of applications today to rent officers and rent assessment committees are coming from the property owners rather than from the tenants. What was intended as a measure to help the tenants in many cases is now working out as a measure to help the landlords.

The level of rents is going up rather than down, but at least the 1968 Act gave some protection to the private landlord's tenant. The class of tenants with whom we are dealing in the Amendment has no protection at all regarding either rents or security of tenure. These tenants live in houses with a rateable value of over £400 a year in London and over £200 a year in the provinces. Why, when the Act was first mooted in 1968, were those figures of £400 and £200 introduced? For a good reason. It was thought at that time that in that range of property the supply and demand were roughly in balance; there was not the tremendous scarcity factor existing amongst houses of a lower rateable value.

Today that situation has altered. House prices and rents have so rocketed that a scarcity exists even with this class of house. The scarcity operates there, with the result that these tenants are living in a terribly exposed situation. They are facing not only uncontrolled rent increases, but, even more serious, notices to quit. This applies throughout Hampstead, St. John's Wood, Chelsea, South Kensington, Chingford, Brondesbury, the Barbican and similar areas of London and the provinces. These tenants are often sick with worry.

Major Sam Waldman, a forceful and well-informed tenants' association leader, has been inundated with telephone calls from tenants in this category who are in real trouble. Concerning this situation, he says: Thousands of middle-class and lower middle-class families are living in such apartments—by no stretch of imagination luxury homes. The owners are refusing to renew short leases. Since these tenants have no protection from the Rent Acts, a pistol is being held at their heads. They are being faced with the ultimatum, 'Buy or get out.' These include families who have lived in such a house for 30 years and are faced overnight with this demand. Many of them are elderly people, possibly in reduced circumstances. Surely this is wrong. The insecurity and lack of rent control for those living in houses with a rateable value exceeding 400 in London, or £200 in the provinces, is now in addition seriously affecting those living in houses with a rateable value lower than those figures.

12.30 a.m.

May I explain and give an example? Take the case of families paying uncontrolled rents of £15 to £20 a week for a good-class house or flat—by no stretch of the imagination luxury houses. I am referring to flats and houses such as those at Hanover Gate and Regents Park. The property owners are refusing to renew leases at this rent and the tenants cannot afford to buy—indeed, if they are elderly they cannot get a mortgage because of their age. They are being offered 99-year leases at astronomical figures which they cannot take up, and consequently they are having to get out.

What happens to these people? They then seek poorer lettings, perhaps rented previously at £12 a week, but now raised by tie landlord to £20 a week because, although the premises are controlled, after tarting them up the property owners are getting such increases registered by the rent officers and rent assessment committees. It means that the tenants who have had to move out of good quality flats are now having to pay what they were previously paying but for much poorer quality dwellings.

The landlords of the lower quality stock are getting registrations for higher rents from rent officers and rent assessment committees. For example, in Hampstead, Metropolitan Holdings applied for £19 a week, a massive increase of £8 a week on the present rent of £11. It has gone through the rentfixing machine, and the rent has been fixed at £16, but this £4 or £5 increase for the tenants in those controlled houses makes all the difference. The result is that they in turn are having to leave their homes and to seek poorer quality dwellings. It is no use the Minister talking about rent allowances for these people, because it may be that they have some savings—though they cannot go dipping into them—and that precludes them from getting the allowance. Moreover, they face the prospect that every three years their landlord will go after another rent increase and get it. This is happening almost without exception.

One London property company has just bought a large block for a price which will give the man behind the company only 3 per cent. return on his capital if the existing rents continue. But he is happy to do that because he knows only too well that the rents will be increased when he applies to the rent fixing machinery and he will get a far higher return than the3 per cent. which would appear to be the limit on his property. Those in controlled dwellings are in turn forced out and have to look for poorer houses. This absence of control in the higher priced flats works downwards continually and affects everybody.

Members of the Conservative Party like to pose as the friends of the middle-class. That is not so. They are the spokesmen of the ruling class, not of the middle class. If they claim to be the upholders of the middle class, they should support the Amendment. Will they do so? Right hon. and hon. Members will remember that on Report there was a revolt by a small number of Conservative Members—all credit to them—in defence of tenants in good quality houses who were affected by the phoney service charges which some property companies were inflicting. As a result of the combined votes of this side and of the minority on the Conservative side, the Government were defeated, and I am glad that they have made an Amendment accordingly. I hope that, if hon. Members opposite feel keenly about the injustice which is being suffered by these people who are in many cases relatively well-to-do people, they will show their support by their votes.

The Rent Act does not provide sufficient protection to the private tenant. More drastic measures are needed. It is good that the new policy statement of the Labour Party proposes municipal ownership of rented property irrespective of its rateable value—it may be over £400—if the local authority thinks that that is the best way to protect the tenants from injustices. The policy statement also proposes co-operative housing and, as a further alternative, that tenants should be permitted and enabled to purchase their properties from the landlords where they are being exploited in this way. There has been support for this policy from all over the country.

As a safeguard for tenants of private landlords I have moved the Amendment.

Mr. Eyre

The effect of this Amendment—and the two other Opposition Amendments to this Lords Amendment—would be to empower the Secretary of State to increase the rateable value limits for protection of existing dwelling.

The Government do not seek to belittle the difficulties experienced by a number of tenants in certain areas who live in properties with rateable values above the limits which qualify for Rent Act protection. These difficulties undoubtedly exist. However, the issue here is not simply one of defining the field of lettings in which there is a substantial scarcity of rented accommodation. Before there can be any question of raising the rateable value limits, it is also necessary to ask whether Parliament is justified in statutorily intervening in contracts entered into by people who have been able to afford to take tenancies of dwellings which, back in 1965, had a rateable value of over £400 in London or over £200 elsewhere. That means that the dwellings had a letting value nearly 10 years ago at the 1963 revaluation of over £510 a year in London or over £265 a year elsewhere. People who could afford these rents are, as the Francis Report said, well-to-do.

I was interested in the description of these people given by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) as middle income people. I greatly hope that the hon. Gentleman will preserve the tolerance and understanding he showed this evening when he discusses Socialist taxation measures which bear heavily upon these people.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

Will the Under-Secretary explain why a tenant who goes into Centre Point at any time has security of tenure as a business tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, no matter what the rateable value of the accommodation is? Why cannot ordinary residents have the same protection?

Mr. Eyre

The hon. Member for Salford, East made no reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, relates to business tenancies and must be distinguished heavily from the private sector tenancies at which the Amendments are aimed. That has been the position since 1954 under both Governments.

People who can afford these rents are well to do, and one needs to keep one's priorities right—and possibly the hon. Gentleman needs to keep his social priorities right—in the whole question of protection. Tenants who are able to occupy property at these rateable value levels will generally have adequate means to exercise choice in the type of housing they occupy, even if, in common with everyone else in a situation of shortage, they cannot always find just what they want. This should be borne in mind when considering a serious move such as the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would involve.

Mr. Freeson

Will the hon. Gentleman also take into account that it is mainly in certain parts of the stress areas of London, and no doubt of other cities as well, that these flats, as they become vacant as a result of the kind of purchase being discussed, are being sold off in to owner occupation, and thus there is a major contribution to the reduction in the total rented accommodation available which, again, puts pressure lower down the rented sector market. This is another reason why action should be taken.

Mr. Eyre

I am not in any way belittling the problems in the central area of London, and I shall refer to them.

The stifling effects of rent legislation should also be borne in mind in this context. If landlords lose all control over their assets and the return to be expected from them, they will, whenever a dwelling is vacated, tend to find some way of disposing of it other than relet-ting. The supply shrinks, the shortage worsens and a vicious circle starts from which it may take a very long time to escape. Sitting tenants may benefit so long as their circumstances enable them to go on living in the same place but prospective tenants suffer, and in the long term nearly all tenants wanting this kind of accommodation will suffer unless alternative methods are found of providing the rented accommodation needed.

It is doubtless true that supply is already shrinking and that many landlords, when they get possession, remove the dwellings from the field of unfurnished short lettings. But many others are content to relet at present, and indeed there is evidence of some new building for renting above the rateable value limits, though one has to admit that the policy of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member certainly discouraged the prospect of private build-for letting. In the long term, therefore, to extend protection to these high value dwellings could aggravate the problems which face us in this field.

It is also necessary to bear in mind another consideration, and that is that statutory protection is extremely important for both landlord and tenant. It is vital that each party to the contract should know precisely where he stands, and should be able to regard the status of his tenancy as not likely to be disturbed until Parliament has very good reason, after full examination to decide otherwise.

The Government declined to implement the Francis Committee's recommendation to reduce the limits because they did not want to remove protection from tenants who enjoyed it. The Government must make it clear now that they would not at present propose to increase the limits either. In their White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing" the Government made it clear that, apart from the decisions already announced, the Francis Committee's Report as a whole was still open to public debate and examination, and that new legislation would be proposed thereafter.

If there is to be any question of protecting tenants outside these limits, the Francis Committee's recommendation would provide the right basis for such further consideration. If in any area the situation were considered serious enough to justify further intervention in private contracts by widening the effective field of fair rent protection, this ought not, in the Government's view, to be left to delegated legislation of the kind specified in the Amendments. This appears to have been the view of Parliament for half a century. It may seem a cautious attitude but the Government believe that it is wise that this should be a matter of substantive legislation.

12.45 a.m.

It may be argued that it is better to have a flexible approach under which protection limits can be adjusted at short notice to current circumstances in particular areas by delegated legislation. It is, however, wrong to think that protection can be switched on and off to meet sporadic localised difficulties. Once protection has been given, it is extremely difficult to take it away without causing new hardship.

It is worth adding that the Amendments as drafted are defective. For example, it would be very much open to doubt whether, in setting new limits, separate limits could be set for dwellings built before and after 1st April, 1973. There would be no transitional powers, and so on. Even if the Government had been persuaded of the merits of the case for the Amendments, which I have stressed they are not, the Amendments could not be accepted. For all these reasons, I ask the House to reject them.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

I did not want to intervene while the Minister was trying to explain the opposition to our Amendments. I did not want to be unfair to him. He appeared to be very reluctant to move away from his script. I am not so sure that he understood it.

The value of the Amendments is related to the total supply of rented accommodation. The Minister said that there was evidence of an increase in this type of accommodation for rent. I do not want to tie him down specifically to figures but can he tell the House what evidence he was referring to that during, say, the past 12 or six months there has been, or there is likely to be, either in London or in the rest of the country, an increase in the type of property to rent which would be covered by virtue of the rateable values referred to in the Amendments?

Mr. Douglas-Mann

I hope that the Minister will be speaking again to answer my hon. Friend's question. I hope he will also tell the House how long he intends to continue pursuing the chimera of the idea that there is to be a resurgence of private investment in the provision of housing to let.

The Government are allowing families to be turned out of the houses they occupy to provide accommodation for the very rich. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only new accommodation he is getting in central London is accommodation offered to let at £50 or £60 a week or more. That is the only resurgence into this market. For the most part, it is taken up not by nationals of this country but by business men or diplomats coming here—mostly business men—to whom the cost is immaterial.

Is the Minister satisfied to see families turned out of accommodation in which they have lived for many years? In many cases they are retired people living on fixed incomes. Although they had taken high-rented accommodation, they now have no security in it. How long will the Minister allow this to continue?

Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us when we may expect the Francis Committee legislation, to which he has referred as though it were coming? When is it coming? The House has been waiting two years for it. We would now like to have some information about it.

Mr. James Hill

I know from personal experience that this is a serious problem for anyone trying to find rented accommodation in London. There are those who are exploiting the situation. Blocks of flats are purchased at a very low percentage return for the sole purpose not of trying to secure higher rents but of obtaining vacant flats so that they may be sold off, with the business of service charges, increased ground rents and all the other evils associated with the middle-class accommodation scene in London.

I feel that my hon. Friend the Under-secretary would do well to give some promise in his statement. He will have to meet this problem before very long. There are injustices being perpetrated in the housing scene in greater London. I hope that he will in the near future, if not tonight, look at the question of the rateable level, which I regard as very low.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsbcrg (Hampstead)

I had not intended to intervene on this Amendment until I heard the sickening and phoney argument of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), who poses as the champion of the middle class. It is like Keir Hardie speaking in support of surtax payers. The middle class know very well, after analysing the hon. Gentleman's arguments over the years, what sort of a friend he is of theirs. If he had had his way, they would have been stripped of every asset they had. He knows it, and the House knows it. Let us get that bit of hypocrisy out of the way at the start. The hon. Member has put down his Amendment because his scare campaign about the doubling or trebling of council rents has failed, and he is now searching for fresh ground and new people to scare.

There is concern about this problem, and many of us have been connected with efforts to solve it for far longer than has the hon. Gentleman. His interest has never extended to the middle class. There are those of us who have better knowledge of Hampstead's problems than he has or those have who have lived in Hampstead for a short time. Let us not listen to the hon. Member for Salford, East on that sort of theme.

Mr. William Price (Rugby)

What has the hon. Gentleman done?

Mr. Finsberg

The hon. Member for Salford, East purported to praise what some Members had done on the question of service charges. It is noteworthy that some of us voted twice against our own party on this issue. I am glad to praise the Government's good sense and regard for the national interest, about which the hon. Gentleman, in speech after speech, has shown he never cares. He represents only a certain class. The Government have clearly shown that they recognise that there is genuine concern and anxiety on the question of service charges. I am content with what they have done.

On this issue, the record should be put straight. There is the problem of the linkage of rateable value of £400 in greater London, for example, with the figure above which people cannot enfranchise their leases. The Labour Government recognised this factor, and that is one reason why they decided to take no action in this respect.

What nauseates me is the present attitude of the Opposition. If all the facts were known to them, why did they do nothing about them? Why, in a sort of death-bed repentance, do they now, at the last moment, come crying to the House saying, "We are the champions of the middle class"? The middle class is sensible enough to know that its real interests are being protected by the Government. Taxation measures are bringing them more real disposable income, and the category of tenant to which the hon. Member for Salford, East referred over and over again, in a rather mixed rag bag of a speech, is being protected and receiving for the first time rent allowances.

This is one issue on which I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, though it rather grieves me to have to do it. He at least did not like his party's 1968 Act. But very few members of the Opposition Front Bench were in revolt on it, and very few of them bothered to do anything about it when they saw the so-called evils. Although I was not in the House, I read the debates and heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman, in which he talked about loaded rent assessment panels and rent officers always doing something for the landlord. Where was the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)? Why did not he introduce legislation when he had the chance? Because he was not convinced, and nor am I. I believe that this must form part of a new package of legislation on housing in the next Session or the one after. It must be properly considered as part of the Francis Report; a lot has come out of Francis which we need to examine carefully.

If it were a matter of simple alteration, the House would be entitled to think that there was something in it. Because I believe it to be even more complicated than my hon. Friend has tried to tell us, so far as London is concerned, I believe that the balance he has expressed is right, that we should ask the Government to have a careful look at the matter and tell us by the Session after next, "Here is a Bill based upon what Francis said, a Bill sweeping up many of the problems which were apparent to the Labour Party, who did nothing. We, while we have a chance, will do it." If the Government do not do anything about it, they may find some local difficulties again on this side. But as they have responded so generously on service charges, I am sure that we need not be too worried.

Certainly, the one class of person who has nothing to fear from this side, and everything to fear from the Opposition, is the middle class person.

Mr. Frank Allaun

The hon. Gentleman seems to be very upset and heated about this matter. I hope that he feels strongly enough to follow his words with his vote.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

My own views on the matter are well known tithe House, because I recently tried to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill to abolish the upper limit. Unfortunately, by the operation of the guillotine I was prevented from doing that, so I do not know what the reaction of the House would have been, but I laid the Bill on the Table.

The upper limits should be abolished. The Lords Amendment that we shall shortly discuss, which will mean that there will be different top rateable value limits for different ages of property, will make the argument even stronger. Many blocks of flats in my constituency have flats above and below the marginal line. My hon. Friend the Minister must realise that they are not very grand flats. In a single block—I can think of two in my constituency—there can be very nearly identical flats which are just above or just below the limit. The difference may even be because before the rateable value was fixed in 1965 in one case there was an appeal for a reduction. Therefore, one flat may be protected and an identical flat not be protected.

1 a.m.

In the present situation there is not a supply. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was right in one respect when he said there was a scarcity in this area of housing. The situation has been reached in which people—not poor people but, equally, not those with great resources—find themselves without accommodation. I am particularly concerned about the older people who cannot get mortgages and who may have lived in this sort of accommodation for some years. Perhaps they depend on a pension, which may be very good, or on an annuity. But because they have no capital they cannot buy a flat, and that is all that can be bought in my constituency.

The time must come for the abolition of the upper limits. I cannot see why the Shell Corporation should be protected for example, and yet an elderly lady in a not-very-grand two- or three-bedroom flat in my constituency should have no protection. My view remains that the upper limit should be abolished. This is a good Bill, and I am not therefore disposed to vote with the Opposition, but I cannot support my hon. Friend.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

I intend to make only a brief contribution on a subject which certainly concerns my constituency, although not as much as it affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). I supported my hon. Friend in his Bill and I am confident that this is a subject which requires Government attention as a matter of urgency. I listened to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) who, I think, is not quite as intimately aware of conditions in South Kensington as he would lead the House to assume.

If we introduce control into this area we shall ensure that the shortage of the sort of accommodation that people are seeking at these rents will continue, and perhaps become worse. I am not, therefore, in principle in favour of control, but I am in favour of something being done quickly. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider not tonight, but seriously and as soon as possible, whether it is desirable to give a special incentive to developers to offer long-leased unfurnished flats of good quality in central London.

Developers who offer this type of accommodation should be allowed tax advantages possibly in the form of depreciation of the property as if it were an industrial property. That suggestion obviously does not commend itself to the Opposition but it deserves consideration because we have not heard a single constructive suggestion from them about how to overcome the shortage. They never reduced the shortage; they simply tried to grapple with it by controls. Controls have not proved successful and it is desirable that my suggestion should be given further serious consideration.

Mr. Eyre

Replying by leave of the House, an example of the accommodation about which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked is Devonport House in Bayswater which was built by the Church Commissioners and completed only this year.

Mr. Loughlin

If the hon. Member sent me information like that I should sack him.

Mr. Eyre

I said that it was an example. I agreed with so many of the points by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg). He is a genuine champion of the interests of tenants in this category. He has worked most diligently in their interests, particularly in relation to service charges, and he has been supported in this by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat). It has been genuine and consistent work and support over the years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South also stressed the importance of the work of the Francis Committee and its report. I assure him that the Government are greatly concerned about the problem of residents in central London. I noted carefully and sympathetically the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea stressing the difficulty of accommodation of elderly tenants in central London, and I noted the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South.

In stressing the importance of the Francis Committee's recommendations to the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. B. Douglas-Mann), I suggest that he will appreciate that the timing of any legislation following that Committee's report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and that I could not answer specifically

on that score. The Francis Report and the matters associated with it are of considerable importance in this context and they will be carefully considered before we get to any legislation that may result.

Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 275.

Division No. 318.] AYES [1.10 a.m.
Abse, Leo English, Michael Lipton, Marcus
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Evans, Fred Lomas, Kenneth
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Ewing, Harry Loughlin, Charles
Armstrong, Ernest Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lyon, Alexander W (York)
Ashton, Joe Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Foley, Maurice McBride, Neil
Barnes, Michael Foot, Michael McCartney, Hugh
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Ford, Ben McElhone, Frank
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Forrester, John McGuire, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fraser, John (Norwood) Mackenzie, Gregor
Bidwell, Sydney Freeson, Reginald Mackie, John
Bishop, E. S. Garrett, W. E. Mackintosh, John P.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Gilbert, Dr. John Maclennan, Robert
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Booth, Albert Golding, John McNamara, J. Kevin
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Gourlay, Harry Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bradley, Tom Grant, George (Morpeth) Marks, Kenneth
Broughton, Sir Alfred Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Marquand, David
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Marsden, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Buchan, Norman Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mayhew, Christopher
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hamling, William Meacher, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Hardy, Peter Mendelson, John
Cant, R. B. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mikardo, Ian
Carmichael, Neil Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Millan, Bruce
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hattersley, Roy Miller, Dr. M. S.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Milne, Edward
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Heffer, Eric S. Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Horam, John Molloy, William
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Cohen, Stanley Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Coleman, Donald Huckfield, Leslie Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Concannon, J. D. Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Mark (Durham) Moyle, Roland
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Crawshaw, Richard Hunter, Adam Murray, Ronald King
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Oakes, Gordon
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Janner, Greville Ogden, Eric
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas O'Halloran, Michael
Dalyell, Tam Jeger, Mrs. Lena O'Malley, Brian
Davidson, Arthur Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Oram, Bert
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) John, Brynmor Orme, Stanley
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Oswald, Thomas
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Johnson. James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Paget, R. T.
Deakins, Eric Jones, Barry (Flint E.) Palmer, Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jones, Dan (Burnley) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Pavitt, Laurie
Dempsey, James Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Doig, Peter Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Pentland, Norman
Dormand, J. D. Judd, Frank Perry, Ernest G.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Kaufman, Gerald Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kelley, Richard Prescott, John
Driberg, Tom Kinnock, Neil Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lambie, David Price, William (Rugby)
Dunn, James A. Lamond, James Probert, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack Latham, Arthur Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Eadie, Alex Lawson, George Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Edelman, Maurice Leadbitter, Ted Richard, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Leonard, Dick Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lever, Rt Hn. Harold Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Ellis, Tom Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Spriggs, Leslie Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Stallard, A. W. Wallace, George
Roper, John Stoddart, David (Swindon) Watkins, David
Rose, Paul B. Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Strang, Gavin White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Rowlands, Ted Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Whitehead, Phillip
Sandelson, Neville Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Whitlock, William
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Taverne, Dick Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. peter (Stepney) Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff,W.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Tinn, James Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Sillars, James Tomney, Frank Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Silverman, Julius Tuck, Raphael Woof, Robert
Skinner, Dennis Urwin, T. W.
Small, William Varley, Eric G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Wainwright, Edwin Mr. Joseph Harper and
Spearing, Nigel Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Mr. Tom Pendry.
Adley, Robert du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Dykes, Hugh Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Eden, Sir John Jessel, Toby
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Astor, John Elliott, R. W. (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Atkins, Humphrey Emery, Peter Kaberry, Sir Donald
Awdry, Daniel Eyre, Reginald Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Farr, John Kershaw, Anthony
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Fell, Anthony King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Batsford, Brian Fenner, Mrs. Peggy King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Fidler, Michael Kinsey, J. R.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Kirk, Peter
Benyon, W. Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Kitson, Timothy
Berry, Hn. Anthony Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Knight, Mrs. Jill
Biggs-Davison, John Fookes, Miss Janet Knox, David
Blaker, Peter Fortescue, Tim Lambton, Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Foster, Sir John Lamont, Norman
Body, Richard Fowler, Norman Lane, David
Boscawen, Robert Fox, Marcus Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bossom, Sir Clive Fry, Peter Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bowden, Andrew Gardner, Edward Le Marchant, Spencer
Braine, Sir Bernard Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bray, Ronald Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Brewis, John Glyn, Dr. Alan Longden, Sir Gilbert
Brinton, Sir Tatton Goodhart, Philip Loveridge, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Goodhew, Victor Luce, R. N.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Gorst, John McAdden, Sir Stephen
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Gower, Raymond MacArthur, Ian
Bryan, Sir Paul Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) McCrindle, R. A.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Green, Alan MacLaren, Martin
Buck, Antony Grieve, Percy Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Bullus, Sir Eric Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Burden, F. A. Gummer, J. Selwyn McNair-Wilson, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gurden, Harold McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Maddan, Martin
Carlisle, Mark Hall, John (Wycombe) Madel, David
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Marten, Neil
Chapman, Sydney Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mather, Carol
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hannam, John (Exeter) Maude, Angus
Chichester-Clark, R. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mawby, Ray
Churchill, W. S. Haselhurst, Alan Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hastings, Stephen Meyer, Sir Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Havers, Michael Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Clegg, Walter Hawkins, Paul Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Cockeram, Eric Hayhoe, Barney Miscampbell, Norman
Cooke, Robert Heseltine, Michael Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C.(Aberdeenshire. W)
Cooper, A. E. Higgins, Terence L. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cordle, John Hiley, Joseph Moate, Roger
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Money, Ernle
Cormack, Patrick Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Monks, Mrs. Connie
Crouch, David Holland, Philip Monro, Hector
Crowder, F. P. Holt, Miss Mary Montgomery, Fergus
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hordern, Peter More, Jasper
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jamas Hornby, Richard Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Dean, Paul Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Morrison, Charles
Digby, Simon Wingfield Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Mudd, David
Dixon, Piers Hunt, John Murton, Oscar
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hutchison, Michael Clark Neave, Airey
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Iremonger, T. L. Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Drayson, G. B. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
James, David
Normanton, Tom Rost, Peter Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Nott, John Royle, Anthony Tilney, John
Onslow, Cranley Russell, Sir Ronald Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally St. John-Stevas, Norman Trew, Peter
Osborn, John Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Tugendhat, Christopher
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Scott, Nicholas Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Scott-Hopkins, James van Straubenzee, W. R.
Parkinson, Cecil Sharples, Sir Richard Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Peel, John Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Vickers, Dame Joan
Percival, Ian Shelton, William (Clapham) Waddington, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Simeons, Charles Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Pink, R. Bonner Sinclair, Sir George Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Skeet, T. H. H. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Price, David (Eastleigh) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wall, Patrick
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Soref, Harold Walters, Dennis
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Speed, Keith Weatherill, Bernard
Quennell, Miss J. M. Spence, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Raison, Timothy Sproat, Iain White, Roger (Gravesend)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stainton, Keith Wiggin, Jerry
Redmond, Robert Stanbrook, Ivor Wilkinson, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) Winterton, Nicholas
Rees, Peter (Dover) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Rees-Davies, W. R. Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Sutcliffe, John Woodnutt, Mark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Tapsell, Peter Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Ridsdale, Julian Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Younger, Hn. George
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Tebbit, Norman Mr. Michael Jopling and
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Temple, John M. Mr. Hamish Gray.
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Question accordingly negatived.

The Lords Amendment agreed to.