HC Deb 23 January 1974 vol 867 cc1769-83
Mr. Graham Page

I beg to move Amendment No. 39, in page 65, line 25, at end insert: '7A. In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 113 of that Act (power to make rules prescribing certain matters and the form of certain documents) after the words "the form of" there shall be inserted the words "or the matters to be specified in"'. The amendment deals with the form of the rate demand note. As the statute now stands the Secretary of State has to prescribe, among other things, the form of any rate demand note, valuation list statement, return or other document which is required or authorised to be used under or for the purpose of the Act—namely, the General Rate Act 1967.

On representations from local authority associations we think it right that we should not be so rigid as to prescribe the form. We think it sufficient if in any regulations we merely prescribe the matters to be specified in the form, thereby leaving much more flexibility to the local authorities to decide the form in which they set out these matters for the information of the ratepayers.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 65, line 40, at end insert: '9A. In section 81 of the Local Government Act 1972 (exceptions to provisions about disqualification in section 80) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection:— (3A) Section 80(1)(a) above shall not operate to disqualify any person for being elected or being the chairman, vice-chairman, deputy chairman or an alderman or councillor of the Greater London Council by reason of his being employed by the London Transport Executive or any subsidiary of theirs."'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 65, line 41, at beginning insert: '10. At the end of section 195(3) of the Local Government Act 1972 there shall be added the words "save that the provision of temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing such circumstances shall include need arising from loss of accommodation as a result of fire, flood, or eviction, shall be the duty of the authority of the district, or an authority in Greater London where the person is at that time"'. I, too, am sorry that I was not a member of the Standing Committee. I should have liked to have spoken at greater length than I can this evening on the problems of homelessness and allied problems, particularly as they arise in inner London and our larger cities. The amendment is supported by most organisations concerned with homelessness and by hon. Members on both sides.

The amendment seeks to restore the duty of a local authority to help the homeless and to give that responsibility to the housing authority. Under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948, every local authority has a duty to provide temporary accommodation for persons made homeless in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen". Schedule 23 of the Local Government Act 1972 weakens that duty in that a permissive power is substituted for the duty. The 1972 Act comes into effect on 1st April 1974 and will thereby permit local authorities to turn away many homeless people for whom they do not wish to provide temporary accommodation.

This change is tantamount to a return to the poor law in regard to provisions affecting the homeless. The National Assistance Act 1948 terminated the provisions under the poor law, but a drastic change of duties under the 1948 Act is tantamount to a return to poor law provisions.

Unfortunately time does not permit me to go into the many implications contained in the Government's proposals. There are two essential differences between the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Local Government Act 1972. First, as I have said, the mandatory part has been removed. This is coupled with the deletion of the scheme which was submitted in the 1948 Act. The change is further complicated because we are in the process of shifting the responsibility for the homeless from the social services to the housing departments in local authorities. This transfer of responsibility is almost complete in the Greater London area. Already we have examples of people being turned away by housing departments for a whole number of reasons, including the inescapable fact that it is now known that there will not be a statutory duty on the departments.

Secondly, there is a possibility of interpreting the new law to mean that no first or second-stage accommodation could be provided either by revenue or capital moneys without the approval of the Minister.

I want to deal with the assurance of the Secretary of State for Social Services when, in reply to a Question on 20th December, he said I propose to give a direction to local authorities to continue after 1st April 1974 their duty under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances for homeless people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 373.] I wish to take up two points on that assurance and to ask the Minister to reply. First, I fail to understand why it is necessary to remove the statutory duty, and to substitute a directive to local authorities to restore the duty. I should have thought that in that case the duty could have been left in the statute. That puzzled me when I read the Minister's assurance. Secondly, it seems to me that there is certainly a need for further clarification of the phrase "in certain circumstances".

I should like the Minister to broaden the definition which many people gave to the phrase "in certain circumstances", because at the moment it is accepted almost as simply to mean fire, flood and national emergency, which is far from the interpretation which most local authorities have placed on the duties hitherto. I do not believe that even with that assurance these provisions will place any real statutory duties on housing authorities which are assuming general responsibilities for the homeless.

Once again it is the most vulnerable sections of our community who are under attack or who stand to be at further risk because of the new provisions under the Bill. It is the one-parent families and those who are being evicted daily from furnished accommodation in our big cities—certainly in London—and the people who have never had any need to register on housing authority waiting lists, who have not established enough points to qualify for rehousing, who are at the most risk. They are the ones who face these problems if the statutory duty is removed from local authorities.

I could give scores of examples if time permitted. I shall mention only two cases to illustrate the kind of people who are definitely at risk if this change is accepted. First, I shall cite the case of a mother and her four-year-old son living in furnished accommodation. The landlord was evicting her because he wanted to redevelop the property—a common occurrence in London. The mother had lived in the house for two years but had not been allowed to register on the housing waiting list because she was considered to be adequately housed and because she was an unmarried mother. Some authorities do not accept registrations from unmarried mothers.

When the mother contacted the social services department, having received a court order, she was told that she was not on a housing list and could not be considered. The authority refused to take any action, even when she had a bailiff's note for the eviction. She was forced to contact her local voluntary organisation, in this instance Shelter, which happily took up her case. By using the provisions of the 1948 Act it was able to get the woman and her child rehoused. That is one of many cases which we could quote in aid of the need to retain statutory functions.

My worries can be summed up in two brief sentences. It will apparently be left to the discretion of local authorities to provide this service instead of its being a statutory duty, whereas I and many of my hon. Friends feel that it should be a compelling responsibility. Second, the Minister might have the power of veto of any scheme for the homeless which a local authority might itself firmly approve.

The amendment is the best way of protecting the rights of the homeless which have been established over a long and difficult period, especially as we enter what will probably be an even more difficult period.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Allason

When I was approached in regard to the fears expressed about the withdrawal of the statutory duty of local authorities to provide temporary accommodation, I thought that it would be worth finding out what the Government had to say. In consequence, I put down the Question the start of the answer to which the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) quoted but did not complete. It is only fair to give the rest of that reply. I had better read it in full, because the hon. Member put his own gloss on the early part of the answer.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said: I propose to give a direction to local authorities to continue after 1st April 1974 their duty under Section 21(1)(b) of the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide temporary accommodation in certain circumstances for homeless people. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friends, the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Wales, and I intend to issue to local authorities a circular setting out the Government's view that accommodating homeless people should increasingly be seen as a housing responsibility. The policy of the Government is to seek to improve the general provision for the homeless without altering the particular responsibilities placed on local authoties by the National Assistance Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December 1973 ; Vol. 866, c. 373–4.] I therefore suggest that the fears are not as well-founded as they have been argued. I am sorry that the hon. Member used the emotive phrase, "a return to the poor law", in the light of his knowledge of that answer.

The complaints must amount to the fact that it is now to be a direction to local authorities, as opposed to a statutory duty, and that it can be claimed that a direction is not as effective as a statutory duty ; and, second, that the circular which is to go out may not cover a sufficient number of cases.

On the first point, it is difficult to qualify a statutory duty but rather more easy to qualify a direction. Clearly, an absolute obligation on local authorities to house all the homeless whatever their circumstances is not possible. The whole of Scotland could decide to move to London and could arrive on the night train demanding accommodation. That is an extreme example, but we feel this problem particularly in Hertfordshire. It is a desirable place in which to live and has the highest rate of employment in Britain. Consequently, many people like to go there and are a little hurt when they find that housing is difficult to obtain. So a direction to house the homeless can be qualified.

I am not trying to be unsympathetic. Probably the ordinary ratepayer is pretty unsympathetic about this problem because he does not appreciate what goes on. Members of Parliament see these heartbreaking cases in their constituencies and are desparately worried about what has to be done. Clearly an absolute responsibility is not possible. The National Assistance Act says that local authorities should provide temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising from circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine. The circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen will mean that a great many people are left out. There are many people we wish to help. No one could possibly foresee their circumstances but still we wish to help them. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North mentioned the single-parent families who are in particular difficulties. He also mentioned the people who have not been in an area long enough to get on the housing list. Here there should be two separate lists—a list of those who must complete a waiting time before being entitled to be considered for ordinary council accommodation and, secondly, an emergency list which will be precisely for the category we are concerned with.

Placing the responsibility on the housing authority may mean that a greater pool of houses will be available, but it will still be a matter of choosing categories. There will be direct competition between those who are homeless perhaps because of a family dispute and those who have been waiting patiently with their in-laws in overcrowded circumstances until it is their turn to be rehoused.

It seems to me much fairer that there should be a direct comparison rather than that someone should falsely claim to have been put on the street and thus be able to get satisfactory accommodation. There are immense difficulties, and the right system is therefore to have direction rather than statute. A satisfactory circular should define the duties to be laid on a local authority.

Mr. Oakes

During today's debates we have been talking about money, rates, property and hereditaments. This is probably the last opposed amendment. It concerns people and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) for having brought it to the House. We are concerned with the question of duty and power. Before 1972 the local authorities had a duty to provide for the homeless. The 1972 Act gave them the power to provide for the homeless and that is one of the curses of 1974.

Yesterday I was criticised by Tory Members when I defended the peaceful occupation, for 48 hours, of Centre Point, which stands in an area of homeless people. I do not apologise for one word of what I said yesterday. I can understand the provocation that that building must give to people without a home. The amendment seeks to restore to local authorities the statutory duty to provide for the homeless.

This is a divided duty in many areas—divided between social services and housing. As we said in Committee on the Local Government Bill in 1972, that division made it worse in the metropolitan counties because social services are a county responsibility and housing is a district function. The homeless are being passed from county to district and back again, and between the various Ministries. My hon. Friend wants this statutory duty to apply in certain circumstances. He is speaking of instances of fire, flood, or eviction. He is not saying that people can wander around the country and depend upon authorities and be rehoused. That is not the purpose, nor is it the wording of the amendment. My hon. Friend is saying that there should be a duty on a housing authority to provide for the homeless in its area.

From this Opposition Front Bench I warmly applaud the amendment. It has the support of Conservative as well as Labour Members, and, I hope, the Liberal Party as well. It has support from Shelter, the Catholic Housing Association, and all those people who are concerned with the plight of the homeless in our midst at present. In view of the support from outside organisations, in view of the support from both sides of the House and from all three parties in the House, I ask the Minister—I urge the Minister—to make this a statutory duty on housing authorities and not to deal with it merely by direction.

Hon. Members on the Government side often talk about the rule of law. Let this provision be law, a law of the land, a law which says that it is the duty of the housing authority, by statute, to make provision for the homeless in its area.

Mr. Thomas Cox (Wandsworth, Central)

In view of the very forceful comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), I readily acknowledge, has very wide knowledge of housing matters, but in housing matters he is possibly not under the same pressure as hon. Members representing large cities, and certainly London.

Why are we saying that there must be a very clear instruction given to local authorities? As we are all aware, we often consider housing problems and problems which local authorities neglect even under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, an Act warmly supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and yet repeatedly hon. Members on both sides comment on the lack of constructive action by local authorities under that Act. That is why we are saying that there must be some very clear, some very precise, instruction given to the local authorities throughout the country. It is not sufficient for a direction to be given by the Minister.

Homelessness, unfortunately, is increasing in every one of our large cities. Only a few days ago I received a letter dated 18th January from a woman in my constituency, and I will quote a little of it. She writes: Sorry to trouble you, but I really am in a desperate situation. I have been living in Gassiot Road for many years. Unfortunately my landlady died last year. I am in my eighties. I am really at the end of my tether. The next step they are taking against me is a bailiff's eviction order. My local authority and, I am sure, many others are aware of these problems and will act to safeguard people, but unfortunately there are many other authorities which do not. That is the point which my hon. Friend is making in his amendment.

We do not want people, uprooted from other parts of the country, drifting into London and becoming the responsibility of London local authorities. Invariably they will come into areas which already have crucial housing problems. In 1972 in London there were 5,143 applications for temporary accommodation. Last year the figure increased to 6,859. No doubt many of the people came from other parts of the country into London. What we are saying is that the homeless must be the responsibility of the authorities in whose areas they live.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made a point about people on housing lists. I have in my constituency people who have lived in supposed furnished accommodation—we all know the "racket" in furnished accommodation—for 15 to 20 years. They have never gone on to a council list because they were decent tenants who always paid their rent. For some reason the house was sold and bought by another man——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hall-Davis.]

Question again proposed. That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Cox

They have no security and they have never been on a housing list. They become homeless. This is the problem which adds to those already existing in our city areas. This is why we believe local authorities must be made to face up to their responsibilities rather than place added burdens upon areas already facing appalling housing problems.

Mr. Rossi

This has been a serious debate on a desperately serious subject, which is perhaps the most serious social problem we have, certainly in our large cities. That much is evidenced by the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the House support the amendment and by the fact that there have been representations from Shelter and the Catholic Housing Aid Association.

At the outset I emphasise that it is the Government's will and intention to do whatever they can to help the homeless. Their intention is to seek to do precisely that in the Bill. The way in which services in the local authorities are proposed to be organised will make it easier for them to cope with the problem of the homeless. Labour Members have made great play of the fact that the legislation appears to take away a duty from local authorities and replace it simply with a power. The suggestion is that local authorities, having merely a power, will not carry out their responsibilities to the homeless. I remind hon. Gentlemen that Section 195 of the Local Government Act gives the Secretary of State a power to make a direction to local authorities.

I wish to refer to Section 21(1)(b) of the National Insurance Act 1948 upon which hon. Members place great reliance. That is the section which is being amended. It imposes a duty on local authorities to provide for the homeless in certain circumstances. The relevant wording is that there shall be a duty to provide: temporary accommodation for persons who are in urgent need thereof, being need arising in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen or in such other circumstances as the authority may … determine. That is the provision which hon. Members say should not be amended because of the duty it imposes.

However, that section is not as watertight in its imposition of a duty as hon. Members appear to imagine, because it contains a safeguard for local authorities by using the words: in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen. hat gives an escape to local authorities if they wish to use it. They can refuse to rehouse homeless people by saying that those people could have foreseen the circumstances which rendered them homeless. The local authorities are the sole arbiters. Therefore, the duty is not such an absolute duty as Opposition Members appear to think.

That defect is carried forward in the amendment, which includes the words in circumstances which could not reasonably have been foreseen". It goes further, giving a far wider discretion in the phrase or in such other circumstances as the authority may in any particular case determine". That is not the imposition of an absolute duty. Under the amendment, the local authority is the sole arbiter of the circumstances in which it shall rehouse the homeless.

The amendment goes on to give specific instances in which there shall be a duty—fire, flood or eviction. But there could be other circumstances in which people were rendered homeless. The amendment would not be sufficient to meet them.

The other defect of the amendment is that it refers to districts. Under the reorganisation, districts will not have social services functions outside the metropolitan areas.

Mr. Marks

Does not Section 34 of the National Assistance Act 1948 give the Minister powers to devise a scheme if local authorities do not submit a satisfactory scheme? Does not the power about which the hon. Gentleman is talking exist in the Act?

Mr. Rossi

The Minister has power to propose a scheme. In the Local Government Act 1972, which will take effect from 1st April this year, the Secretary of State is given the power to give directions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services intends to make a direction and it is hoped that, printing allowing, it will be available at the beginning of next month at the latest.

In that direction, a general approval will be given for local authorities to make arrangements under the section to provide accommodation. At the same time, my right hon. Friend will direct all local authorities that arrangements shall be made, first, to provide accommodation for those in need of care and attention ; secondly, to provide accommodation for those in urgent need ; and thirdly, to provide accommodation for the welfare, medical care, hygiene and amenities of those accommodated. Lastly, it will provide for review and improvement of the arrangements.

The virtue of a direction as against a general duty imposed by statute, as it is under the 1948 Act, is that direct control can be exercised by the Secretary of State over the discharge of the obligation imposed by his own specific direction, in a way that is not possible by the imposition of a general statutory duty.

A direction can also be directed against a specific authority. It can identify a particular area of need. It is not limited to categories, as the amendment suggests. The Secretary of State can direct for any need which causes homelessness as and when it may arise. It is unnecessary to bring forward legislation before that power can be given. It can identify for monitoring by the Secretary of State all the steps that are taken by the local authorities for follow up by him in a way that cannot be done when a simple general power is imposed by legislation.

The Government are giving themselves a more effective and sharper weapon to deal with homelessness. The weapon given to the Secretary of State of being able to direct particular authorities as to particular areas of need is a formidable and flexible one. It has a flexibility that is not contained in a general blanket statutory power or duty.

I ask hon. Gentlemen to reflect on this proposed new machinery. I assure them that the Government intend to tackle the problem in the best way available to them. We are talking about the means by which this can be done.

Mr. Harry Lamborn (Southwark)

The direction seems not to include an obligation on local authorities to make provision for persons who are the subject of eviction. I should like to have an assurance that the direction will place such an obligation on local authorities.

Mr. Rossi

The direction will speak of those in urgent need, and those words are sufficiently wide to cover evictions.

I emphasise that it is the intention of the direction to reimpose the existing duty under the National Assistance Act and to extend and make the powers more effective. I can give no stronger assurance than that of the Government's intention and of the concern with which the Government regard this appalling problem.

I see the way in which misgivings have arisen both in the House and outside. When one is dealing with technical, legal matters of this kind and referring backwards and forwards between statutes, there may be a suspicion that someone is trying to get out from under, and misunderstandings may arise. There is no need for any misunderstandings because the intention is to provide ourselves with a more effective tool for coping with the problem of homelessness. As well as the direction I have mentioned, it is intended within the next two to three weeks to issue a circular to local authorities. This will bring out many of the points I have been making and will emphasise that the housing authorities will increasingly undertake prime responsibility for the homeless and their accommodation. The circular will give advice to local authorities on the best way to meet the problems of home-lessness. It will draw together the best local authority practices and embody many of the recommendations of studies and working party reports. I hope that in the time available to me I have been able to relieve the anxieties that have been expressed.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oakes

With the leave of the House, I should like to take a few moments to answer some of the arguments advanced by the Minister.

Division No. 38.] AYES [10.17 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Halloran, Michael
Armstrong, Ernest Heffer, Eric S. O'Malley Brian
Austick, David Hooson, Emlyn Orbach, Maurice
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Oswald, Thomas
Beith, A. J. Hunter, Adam Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Palmer, Arthur
Bishop, E. S. John, Brynmor Radice, Giles
Blenkinsop, Arthur Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Booth, Albert Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Kaufman, Gerald Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Lamborn, Harry Silverman, Julius
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Lamond, James Skinner, Dennis
Concannon, J. D. Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Cronin, John Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Spriggs, Leslie
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Stallard, A. W.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Steel, David
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) McBride, Neil Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Oeakins, Eric MacDonald, Mrs. Margo Stoddart, David (Swindon)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Mackenzie, Gregor Stott, Roger
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Mackie, John Taverne, Dick
Dormand, J. D, Mackintosh, John P. Tinn, James
Dunn, James A McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C) Tope, Graham
Evans, Fred Marks, Kenneth Varley, Eric G.
Faulds, Andrew Marsden, F. Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Marshall, Dr. Edmund Wallace, George
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham. Ladywood) Mayhew, Christopher Watkins, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Meacher, Michael Weitzman, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wellbeloved, James
Ford, Ben Miller, Dr. M. S. Whitlock, William
Gilbert, Dr. John Mitchell, R. C (S'hampton, lichen) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Golding, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Woof, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Murray, Ronald King TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Oakes, Gordon Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hardy, Peler Ogden, Eric Mr. Krncst G. Perry.
NOES
Adley, Robert Atkins, Humphrey Biffen, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Awdry, Daniel Biggs-Davison, John
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Benyon, W. Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Astor, John Berry, Hn. Anthony Bossom, Sir Clive

The Minister said that he intended to issue a direction. I ask him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services why—remembering that the Local Government Act was passed in 1972—a direction has still not been issued even though the new authorities will take over on 1st April. It is a little late to say that that direction will be introduced in the next few weeks.

My second point is that the difference between a statute and a direction is that of course a statute is part of the law of the land. It is open to any individual or housing association to take an authority to court if it refuses to carry out its statutory duties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Stallard) will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put. That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 131.

Bowden, Andrew Hordern, Peter Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bray, Ronald Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Howell, David (Guildford) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Redmond, Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hunt, John Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Chapman, Sydney Hutchison, Michael Clark Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Churchill, W. S. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clegg, Walter Rost. Peter
Cockeram, Eric Jenkin, Rt. Hn. Patrick (Woodford) Sainsbury, Timothy
Cooke, Robert Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.) Scott, Nicholas
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Jopling, Michael Scott-Hopkins, James
Cormack, Patrick Kimball, Marcus Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Dixon, Piers Kinsey, J. R. Soref, Harold
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kirk, Peter Speed, Keith
Emery, Peter Lamont, Norman Stanbrook, Ivor
Eyre, Reginald Lane, David Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Fidler, Michael Langford-Holt, Sir John Stodart, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel (Surbiton) Le Marchant, Spencer Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Loveridge, John Sutcliffe, John
Foster, Sir John Luce, R. N. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fowler, Norman MacArthur, Ian Tebbit, Norman
Fry, Peter McNair-Wilson, Michael Temple, John M.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mawby, Ray Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Goodhart, Philip Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow. C.) Meyer, Sir Anthony Trew, Peter
Gray, Hamish Miscampbell, Norman Waddington, David
Green, Alan Moate, Roger Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Molyneaux, James Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Grylls, Michael Monks, Mrs. Connie Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Gurden Harold Monro, Hector Ward, Dame Irene
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Montgomery, Fergus Weatherill, Bernard
Morrison, Charles White, Roger (Gravesend)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Normanton, Tom Wiggin, Jerry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Onslow, Cranley Wilkinson, John
Haselhurst Alan Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Winterton, Nicholas
Hawkins, Paul Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby) Younger, Hn. George
Hayhoe, Barney Parkinson, Cecil
Hicks, Robert Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pink, R. Bonner Mr. Marcus Fox and
Holland, Philip Pounder, Ration Mr. Adam Butler.
Holt, Miss Mary Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 65, line 41, leave out 'the Local Government

Forward to