§ INFORMATION ABOUT SERVICE CHARGES
Lords Amendment: No. 84, in page 95, line 35, at end insert new Clause "B":
and the certificate shall identify the accounting year to which the summary relates.
§ Read a Second time.
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Mr. John Fraser
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in subsection (2), leave out '£80'and insert '£13'.
The House will recall that there was a Conservative backbench rebellion on service charges, as a result of which a Clause was inserted in another place which gave a degree of protection to all kinds of tenants of residential accommodation against their being overcharged with phoney service charges imposed by landlords. The curious thing is that that protection extends only to tenants where the amount of the service charge is in excess of £80 per annum. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend that protection and to lower the limit of service 1739 charge above which the protection will apply to £13 a year.
The principles in the new Clause are welcome, although I have little doubt that had it not been that the Government were defeated on that occasion, we would not have had this new Clause today. Equally, if some backbenchers had had more guts over rent allowances for furnished premises and the Government had been defeated on that issue in Committee, we would have had rent allowances for them in the Bill as it is today.
Why have the Government chosen £80 a year for the service charge limit? Why not a much lower minimum? One could have the ridiculous situation in which a landlord is imposing a service charge of £70, of which £9 is phoney, and the tenant has no protection; but if the landlord is charging £81 of which only £1 is phoney, that tenant gets protection.
When one looks at the debate on this subject in Committee one sees the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) who spoke about lifts which did not work, hot water and a central heating charge, porter age, and stair carpets. There is no reason why people may not be faced with service charges for that kind of amenity and service where the total service charge comes to less than £80 a year.
That is the case for this Amendment. There may be an argument for a minimum, and that is why we have suggested 25p a week, although the Secretary of State could still lower that minimum by a Statutory Instrument. To leave exempt from challenge service charges under £1.50p a week leaves considerable latitude to landlords on calculation of service charges, and especially to those who are not scrupulous about service charges.
Anyone who doubts that there is abuse should go to an auction. I went to an auction recently—and it would do the Minister some good to go there. It was being said there that property is worth £100 a year nuisance value per tenant. What is being sold is not simply property but peace of mind and security for many people. One has only to see that kind of operation to see the abuses which are taking place and to see why there is a minimum figure.
Have the Government considered provision for some leases which, wisely, pro- 1740 vide for a reserve fund? If I am drafting a long lease which contains provisions for repainting, I think it wise, in the tenant's interest, to try to spread the cost of painting, for providing for heating, over five or 10 years so that the tenant may be paying something by way of a reserve charge which cannot be accounted for except by putting it into are serve pool. I hope that the Minister will say that the new Clause does not prevent that kind of arrangement, which is sensible and prudent.
This only tinkers with the problem of managing flats. When are the Government to deal with the long-outstanding recommendations of the Wilberforce Committee on positive covenants and to provide for condominium arrangements such as obtain in France where an owner is the holder of an individual flat but is also collective owner of a freehold interest? This operates throughout Europe and in some Commonwealth countries, and it should operate here so that tenants can be free of a landlord and run the block of flats themselves.
We should extend enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to blocks of flats so that there can be collective enfranchisement. We should go further, so that on long leases the tenants can have a collective right to buy a freehold or to form a collective, to run it—that would abolish service charges—or have the right to nominate the local authority to municipalise the block of flats. If we gave tenants the chance to invite the local authority to municipalise, a good many tenants would exercise that option, even in middle-class Hampstead. We should try to achieve a state of affairs which would end the division of ownership between individual flats and the freehold of the whole block.
The rights granted under the new Clause should not be simply a luxury given to tenants of luxury flats but rights which are of general application wherever abuse occurs.
§ Sir B. Rhys Williams
As we have come to expect from him, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made a number of interesting suggestions, some of which will require further consideration and are perhaps controversial. I think that where the question of service charges is concerned he is aiming at the 1741 wrong target. To bring the requirement that an audit should take place of service charges down to as little as £13 seems quite a supererogation. He should perhaps press for something more definite to be said on the right of the tenants to challenge the figures. That, I hope, will be dealt with in the next session of Parliament.
What the hon. Gentleman should have added to what the Government have done on service charges—which we axe glad to see—is that where a service charge is instituted where there was none before, or where there is a sharp increase, perhaps of 50 per cent. from one year to the next or of 100 per cent. over a period of five years, that should be taken to be a matter within the competence of the planning authority in that change of use would be deemed to have taken place so that examination of the reasons for a very sudden change in service charges would be permissible.
I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that the figure should be reduced from £80 to as little as £13. If there is an element of hanky-panky and service charges are being pushed up unreasonably, the figure will rise to £80 a year and will be caught by the Clause.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
The remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) suggest that £65 a year is of no consequence. That may be the case in South Kensington but it is not the case in the greater part of the country. Even in South Kensington I am sure that it is not the case.
Many tenants have taken flats with service charges estimated at the time of taking the lease at about £15 but find them rapidly escalating towards £80. Until it gets to the£80 level, one has no right to inquire into the frequently vastly inflated figures. I trust that the House will not be misled by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it is not necessary to investigate service charges where the amounts involved are less than £80 a year, because £65 a year makes a lot of difference to many people.
§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
The arguments of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. 1742 John Fraser) rather puzzled me. If one applied to his £13 the same logic as he applied to the figure of £80, a mere £1 phoney figure would take his £13 out of audit and scrutiny. If he were practical and meant what he said he would have a nil figure—no figure at all.
§ Mr. Freeson indicated dissent.
§ Mr. Finsberg
It is no good the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) shaking his head. The logic of the argument is as I have adduced. Either there will be a nil figure or one accepts the figure which the Government have put forward, which is £80.
One finds, in Amendment No. 84, that the said amount is £80, and that the Secretary of State may from time to time vary it by order. That means that if the Secretary of State had any evidence—as opposed to conjecture and speculation—that the figure of £80 was not a reasonable one, he has power to alter it without introducing what I call this claptrap Amendment, which will put everyone to considerable trouble. On second thoughts "claptrap" is the wrong word; I should have referred to it as a "tinkering" Amendment.
On Report some of my hon. Friends and I had a new Clause selected and voted on twice. Until then the Opposition had shown virtually no interest in the subject, because it affected the private tenant. Now they want to change the figure from £80 to £13.
I want to quote the words of their spokesman in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—
§ Mr. John Fraser
The hon. Member mentioned a number of examples in his speech on Report—in particular, two cases that went to the rent officer. Can he assure the House that the examples that he gave in the 100 letters to which he referred concerned service charges of over £80 a year? Can he give that categorical assurance?
§ Mr. Finsberg
I am afraid that I cannot, because the information was not given by my constituents, but my hon. Friend, by the pressure that he has put, through the Department, has got a far wider service charge Clause than I dared hope for, because the Clause now covers tenants whether or not they have bought 1743 their leases. I do not notice any reference to middle-class protection on this issue.
Let us look at the matter in perspective. I was about to quote the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. On 27th June, 1972, he said:…we are glad that the Government have worked fast and put something into the Bill which undoubtedly meets part of the problem—and I should have thought a major part of the problem.…We recognise that a great deal has had to be done and that the Amendment has been put together rather more quickly than usual in this complicated field of rents and leases. Nevertheless, on a quick reading, it appears to me that the Government have got it about right. There are one or two small points where perhaps the periods might be varied a little—"periods", not "figure"—"but they are niggling points and certainly not worth raising at this stage."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th June, 1972; Vol. 332, c. 845.]Nor was the question raised subsequently on Report in another place.
I therefore suggest that what has happened is simply that when this long list of Amendments came from another place the Opposition sat down and scratched around trying to find something on which they could spin out the length of time for which they had asked on this last day, because they know that the public are not interested any more; the Opposition's scare campaign has been shot to pieces. They are now trying to find fresh issues.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the figure £13 because he has power in the subsection to alter it by order if the evidence appears. But I am not satisfied about the right of challenge. I note that there has been no Opposition Amendment on this point. So much for middle-class interest. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that in the next Session and not the one after he will find it possible to provide a right of challenge, in spite of the difficulties which he will undoubtedly be told by his advisers exist. If he will say to his advisers, "I want this", they will give him a suitable Clause. I will accept nothing less. I have said this to my hon. Friend, and I know that he appreciates that this is an important issue.
Lastly, my hon. Friends and I can claim to have been consistent in saying that on this issue of service charges too 1744 long an interval elapsed when the Labour Party was in power to do something and did not, and it appeared as though we would miss the opportunity which the Housing Finance Billoffered. My right hon. Friend seized the opportunity, when the Bill went to another place, of introducing half the protection that some of us wanted on service charges—namely, the right of audit and of inspection. I am not particularly concerned about the figure of £80, because anyone with experience in this sphere knows that it is not a wildly high figure. The right of challenge will provide an opportunity of looking at and scrutinising another kind of phoney figure which is being put about.
I refer to the kind of situation where two or three major property companies get together and form a consortium company, in which they each own shares, to carry out, say, the gardening for certain blocks of flats and do not get a competitive quote because they are all perfectly happy. The tenants cannot do much about that kind of situation. However, individual tenants, particularly tenants' associations which are not politically motivated but are genuinely interested in their tenants' problems, know that they can get an alternative quote to keep the gardens at their blocks of flats trim, neat, and the lawns mown at a cheaper price than that being quoted by the consortium. Unfortunately, until there is a right of challenge, they cannot do anything about it.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I accept that this tactic that the hon. Gentleman is describing of getting one company to offer services to another at an excessive price is common and that it is undesirable that somebody should be charged £79 a year for a service which should be provided at £15 a year.
The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that we on this side of the House are not entitled to represent the middle class. We do not accept that. I do not know whether he is seeking to suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled on occasions to represent the working class or those on low incomes. If so, does he agree that it is unreasonable that they should be charged £79 a year for a service for which they should be charged only £15?
§ Mr. Finsberg
I should not be so arrogant as to claim to represent any 1745 class. I hope and think that I represent people of all classes. I leave it to the Opposition to be so arrogant about which class they represent.
On the sensible point made by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he and I are thinking on the same lines. The matter about which I have spoken is merely one element. If one analyses the breakdown of many service charges, the cumulative figure will in almost every case far exceed £13 a year. What I tried to point out, and thought that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had accepted, was that there would have been logic in putting down a figure of, say, £1, but that there is no logic in putting down a figure of £13. I am critical because they have just plucked a figure from the air.
If the Opposition wanted to be practical, they could have done one of two things. They could have tried to cash in on the challenge part, but they did not, or they could have put down a nil figure, which they did not. Instead, they plucked from the air a figure which had not occurred to their spokesmen in another place who had not queried the figure, but merely thought there might be something in the detail to be looked at later. When that later stage came, they did not then find any cause to change the figure.
I do not believe there is any merit in what the Opposition have been saying. I repeat, stage 1 has been successfully accomplished. I trust that stage 2 will be accomplished with the help of my right hon. Friend's advisers, but in spite of them, if necessary. I reject the pork barrel approach of the Opposition.
§ Mr. Eyre
As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has explained, the effect of the Amendment would be to ensure that any tenant who was asked to pay more than £13 by way of a variable service charge in any calendar year was entitled to receive on demand audited accounts covering the relevant costs. The measures contained in new Clauses "B" and "C" are designed to remedy an abuse involving the payment by tenants of unexpectedly large sums of money by way of service charges under the terms of the lease enabling the landlord to vary such charges. These charges cover expendi- 1746 ture incurred on the tenant's behalf, but in many cases the tenant has been unable to obtain an adequate record of the way in which the money has been spent.
The Department has now seen a fair number of examples of this abuse, including those quoted in letters in which many hon. Members have provided, and, for which we are most grateful. In all the examples drawn to our attention—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann)—the annual charges were far more than £80. Indeed, they were usually more than double that amount, and the figure of £80 has not been changed since the Clause was introduced in Committee in another place and where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) said, the new proposal was commented upon approvingly.
The hon. Member for Norwood mentioned a reserve fund. If there is a charge which goes to a reserve fund for service, maintenance, and so on—the building of the fund for a period of time—and if it is variable, then it is covered by the Clauses and will be included in this requirement about audited accounts.
I want to stress what we have always made clear, that this provision about £80 a year is only a first step. We have set up a leasehold service charge study not only to consider methods of giving tenants a right of arbitration but also to look at any shortcomings which the new Clauses may contain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead wisely said, the Clauses contain power to vary the £80 limit by order, and if the study or experience of the new provisions were to reveal the need to reduce this limit, it could be done by order.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood about co-operatives, or condominium which I think can be a middle-class description of a similar operation. The leasehold service charge study will examine the methods adopted to run the common parts of blocks in Europe and in the United States of America and also the arrangements being developed in this country—and there are many interesting developments. All these proposals for the bringing together of people to look after shared common interests—which is of considerable significance 1747 in the arrangements for the occupation of these shared blocks—will be carefully considered. We want to develop a good and adequate system for encompassing these difficulties.
§ 1.45 a.m.
§ My hon. Friends the Members for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and for Hampstead referred to the right to challenge service charges. I accept the importance of the points they made and will have strongly reassuring words to use on a subsequent Amendment, if it is reached. At this stage I remind my hon. Friends that a full study has been set up on the question of arbitration and the aim of being able to challenge service charges. The service has the purpose of bringing forward legislative proposals to meet this point.
§ Meanwhile, there is not sufficient evidence for choosing a figure anything like1748
§ as low as £13 a year. The new Clauses will ensure that landlords provide professionally audited statements on request, on pain of a maximum fine of £200. We have made this a severe penalty. The provisions are designed to deal with the mischief under which considerable sums are sometimes demanded and of which tenants are not given a record. To make this apply to service charges of just over 25 pa week when the tenant must know that he would have to pay some service charge would put an unreasonable burden on the great number of respectable and responsible landlords and would run the danger of trivialising the provision and the offence. It is for this reason that I urge the House to reject the Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 274.1751
|Division No. 319.]||AYES||[1.48 a.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Dempsey, James||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Doig, Peter||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Dormand, J. D,||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Ashton, Joe||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hunter, Adam|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Driberg, Tom||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Barnes, Michael||Duffy, A. E. P.||Janner, Greville|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Dunn, James A.||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Dunnett, Jack||Jeger, Mrs. Lena|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Eadie, Alex||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Edelman, Maurice||John, Brynmor|
|Bishop, E. S.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Ellis, Tom||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Booth, Albert||English, Michael||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Evans, Fred||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Ewing, Henry||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)|
|Bradley, Tom||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Broughton, Sir Alfred||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Judd, Frank|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Foley, Maurice||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)||Foot, Michael||Kelley, Richard|
|Buchan, Norman||Ford, Ben||Kinnock, Neil|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Forrester, John||Lambie, David|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Lamond, James|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, VV.)||Freeson, Reginald||Latham, Arthur|
|Cant, R. B.||Garrett, W. E.||Lawson, George|
|Carmichael, Neil||Gilbert, Dr. John||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)||Leonard, Dick|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Golding, John||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Gourlay, Harry||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Lipton, Marcus|
|Cohen, Stanley||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Concannon, J. D.||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hamling, William||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||McBride, Neil|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Hardy, Peter||McCartney, Hugh|
|Dalyell, Tam||Harrison, Walter(Wakefield)||McElhone, Frank|
|Davidson, Arthur||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||McGuire, Michael|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Hattersley, Roy||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Mackie, John|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Heffer, Eric S.||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Horam, John||Maclennan, Robert|
|Deakins, Eric||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Pavitt, Laurie||Stallard, A. W.|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Marks, Kenneth||Pendry, Tom||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Marquand, David||Pentland, Norman||Strang, Gavin|
|Marsden, F.||Perry, Ernest G.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Prescott, John||Taverne, Dick|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)|
|Meacher, Michael||Price, William (Rugby)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Probert, Arthur||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Mendelson, John||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Tinn, James|
|Mikardo, Ian||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Tomney, Frank|
|Millan, Bruce||Richard, Ivor||Tuck, Raphael|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Milne, Edward||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Molloy, William||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Roper, John||Wallace, George|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Rose, Paul B.||Watkins, David|
|Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Moyle, Roland||Rowlands, Ted||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Sandelson, Neville||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Murray, Ronald King||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Whitlock, William|
|Oakes, Gordon||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Ogden, Eric||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|O' Halloran, Michael||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|O'Malley, Brian||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Oram, Bert||Sillars, James||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Orme, Stanley||Silverman, Julius||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Oswald, Thomas||Skinner, Dennis||Woof, Robert|
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sufton)||Small, William|
|Paget, R. T.||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Palmer, Arthur||Spearing, Nigel||Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Donald Coleman.|
|Adley, Robert||Cooke, Robert||Green, Alan|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Cooper, A. E.||Grieve, Percy|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Cordle, John||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick||Gummer, Selwyn|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Cormack, Patrick||Gurden, Harold|
|Astor, John||Crouch, David||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Crowder, F. P.||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Dean, Paul||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Batsford, Brian||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Dixon, Piers||Hastings, Stephen|
|Benyon, W.||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Havers, Michael|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Hawkins, Paul|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Drayson, G. B.||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Blaker, Peter||Dykes, Hugh||Heseltine, Michael|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Body, Richard||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hiley, Joseph|
|Boscawen, Robert||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Emery, Peter||Holland, Philip|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Eyre, Reginald||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Bray, Ronald||Farr, John||Hordern, Peter|
|Brewis, John||Fell, Anthony||Hornby, Richard|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Fidler, Michael||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Hunt, John|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)||Fookes, Miss Janet||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Buck, Antony||Fortescue, Tim||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Foster, Sir John||James, David|
|Burden, F. A.||Fowler, Norman||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Fox, Marcus||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. C. (Moray&Nairn)||Fry, Peter||Jessel, Toby|
|Carlisle, Mark||Gardner, Edward||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Chapman, Sydney||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Jopling, Michael|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Goodhart, Philip||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Churchill, W. S.||Goodhew, Victor||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Gorst, John||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Gower, Raymond||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Clegg, Walter||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Mudd, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Kirk, Peter||Murton, Oscar||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Kitson, Timothy||Neave, Airey||Soref, Harold|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Speed, Keith|
|Knox, David||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Spence, John|
|Lambton, Lord||Normanton, Tom||Sproat, Iain|
|Lamont, Norman||Nott, John||Stainton, Keith|
|Lane, David||Onslow, Cranley||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Osborn, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Sutcliffe, John|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Parkinson, Cecil||Tapsell, Peter|
|Longden, Sir Gilbert||Peel, John||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Loveridge, John||Percival, Ian||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Luce, R. N.||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Pink, R. Bonner||Tebbit, Norman|
|MacArthur, Ian||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Temple, John M.|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon. S.)|
|McLaren, Martin||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Tilney, John|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)||Raison, Timothy||Trew, Peter|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Redmond, Robert||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Maddan, Martin||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Madel, David||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Marten, Neil||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Waddington, David|
|Mather, Carol||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Maude, Angus||Ridsdale, Julian||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Mawby, Ray||Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Wall, Patrick|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Walters, Dennis|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Rost, Peter||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Royle, Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Russell, Sir Ronald||Wilkinson, John|
|Moate, Roger||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Money, Ernle||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Monks, Mrs. Connie||Scott, Nicholas||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Monro, Hector||Scott-Hopkins, James||Worsley, Marcus|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Sharples, Sir Richard||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|More, Jasper||Shaw, Michael (Se'b'gh & Whitby)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Shelton, William (Clapham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Simeons, Charles||Mr. Hamish Gray and|
|Morrison, Charles||Sinclair, Sir George||Mr. John Stradling Thomas.|
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.