HC Deb 25 July 1972 vol 841 cc1735-51


Lords Amendment: No. 84, in page 95, line 35, at end insert new Clause "B": B.—

  1. (1) Where the service charges which are payable by the tenant of a flat in any calendar year, or which are demanded from the tenant as being so payable, exceed the amount specified in subsection (2) of this section, the tenant shall, in accordance with this section, be entitled to obtain a summary in writing of the relevant costs in the accounting year ending in or with that year, certified by a qualified accountant as being in his opinion—
    1. (a) a fair summary of those costs, set out in a way which shows how they are or will be reflected in demands for service charges, and
    2. (b) sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to the accountant,
    and the certificate shall identify the accounting year to which the summary relates.
  2. (2) The said amount is £80, but the Secretary of State may from time to time vary that amount by order.
    • An order under this subsection may contain such transitional or other supplemental or incidental provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, and shall be contained in a statutory instrument of which a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  3. 1736
  4. (3) The rights conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable—
    1. (a) if the tenant has contractual rights exercisable in return for a reasonable payment, or without payment, enabling him to obtain from time to time statements of the relevant costs, certified by a qualified accountant, which afford all the information which could be obtained under this section, or
    2. (b) if there are accounts, certified by a qualified accountant, which afford all the information which could be obtained under this section, and the tenant is given reason able facilities for inspecting them, and taking copies of or extracts from them, or
    3. (c) where there are not more than five flats in the building, and the relevant costs relate only to that building, if the tenant is afforded reasonable facilities for inspecting the receipts and other records supporting the service charges, and for taking copies of or extracts from them.
  5. (4) The tenant shall exercise the rights conferred by this section by serving on the land lord a request in writing which states the calendar year to which the request relates, and which is so served not later than twelve months after the end of that year.
  6. (5) It shall be the duty of the landlord to comply with the request not later than one month after the service of the request, or six months after the end of the accounting year with which the summary is to deal, whichever is the later.
  7. (6) If the request relates in whole or in part to relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of a superior landlord, and the landlord on whom the request is served is not in possession of the relevant information about the costs so incurred—
    1. (a) he shall in turn serve a request for the relevant information on the person who 1737 is his landlord, and it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the request within a reasonable time, and
    2. (b) it shall be the duty of the landlord (that is to say the immediate landlord) to comply with the tenant's request, or the pan of the request relating to the relevant costs incurred by or on behalf of the superior landlord, within the time allowed by subsection (5) above or within such further time, if any, as is reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. (7) If no accounts have been made up, or if for any other reason it is impracticable to deal with an accounting year, the summary specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be a summary of the relevant costs in the calendar year, and—
    1. (a) the accountant's certificate shall indicate that the summary deals with relevant costs in the calendar year, and
    2. (b) subsection (5) above shall apply with the substitution for the reference to the accounting year of a reference to the calendar year.
  9. (8) A request under this section shall be deemed to be duly served on a landlord if it is served on any agent of the landlord named as such in a rent book or other similar document, or to the person who receives the rent on behalf of the landlord; and it shall be the duty of a person on whom the request is so served to forward it as soon as may be to the landlord.
  10. (9) The assignment of a tenancy shall not affect the validity of a request served under this section before the assignment, but a landlord shall not be obliged to provide the summary specified in subsection (1) of this section more than once for the same flat for the same period.
  11. (10) If any person without reasonable excuse fails to perform any duty imposed upon him by this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
  12. (11) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted by any local authority.
  13. (12) In this section—
    • "accounting year" means a period of twelve months for which the accounts relating to the building in question are made up,
    • "flat" means a separate set of premises, whether or not on the same floor, constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling and forming part of a building from some other part of which it is divided horizontally, being a set of premises occupied wholly or mainly as a private dwelling,
    • "landlord", in relation to a flat occupied by a tenant under a right conferred by an enactment, includes the person who, apart from that right, would be entitled to possession of the flat,
    • "qualified accountant" means a member of—
      1. (a) The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales,
      2. 1738
      3. (b) The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland,
      4. (c) The Association of Certified Accountants,
      5. (d) The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland, or
      6. (e) any other body of Accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of section 161(l)(a) of the Companies Act 1948 by the Secretary of State, or a person who is for the time being authorised by the Secretary of State under section 161(1)(b) of that Act; but excludes, except in the case of a Scottish firm every partner of which is so qualified, any body corporate,
    • "relevant costs" means any costs (including charges for overheads) incurred or defrayed in the period in question by or on behalf of the landlord, or any superior landlord, which affect, or may affect, the amount of the service charges for the flat for that period or for any other period, earlier or later,
    • "service charge" means any charge for services, repairs, maintenance or insurance, being a charge which is payable as part of, or in addition to, the rent, and which varies or may vary according to any costs (including charges for overheads) incurred from time to time by or on behalf of the landlord or any superior landlord,
    • "tenant" includes a tenant under a right conferred by an enactment, and, where the whole or any part of the flat is sub-let, includes both the tenant and the subtenant.
  14. (13) This section shall come into force, for tenancies granted before the passing of this Act or later, on 1st November 1972, but subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to an accounting year ending before 1st August 1972."

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 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- 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 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.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

The arguments of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. 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 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 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 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- 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 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 like

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.

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)
Cockeram, Eric
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.