§ Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, leave out from "circumstances" to end of line 5.
§ 10.28 p.m.
§ The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is one of a small number of amendments which raise a point of principle. As the Bill left this House it included at the end of Clause 1(3) the words:but save as aforesaid they shall not make provision for a surplus in that account.Those words related to the rule which was being laid down in the Bill regarding the making of reasonable rents by local authorities: the new proposals provided for the return of freedom for local authorities in the fixing of rents compared with the rules laid down in the Housing Finance Act 1972. The words, which were deleted in another place, carried into effect what may be described as the no-profit rule. Their effect was that local authorities were forbidden to budget for a profit out of their housing. The qualification in the words "as aforesaid" simply allowed local authorities, if they wished, to budget for a reasonable working balance.
Such a working balance is regarded by many authorities, although not all, as a useful management tool. The Government do not wish to impede local authorities in their choice whether to have one or not. If an authority provides for a working balance, it may in inflationary times wish to increase it. Provided the increased balance would still be reason- 180 able, the words deleted, which we wish to restore, allow them to do so. This would not, of course, be making a profit and we do not wish to stop it.
Once the authority begins to budget for a surplus larger than a reasonable working balance, it has begun to make such a profit. The Labour Party manifesto, published twice last year, pledged that local authorities were to be given the right to fix rents which do not make a profit out of their tenants. This is, of course, a right for tenants, and can be made effective only by a provision which effectively stops local authorities from "making provision"—that is, budgeting to make such a profit.
It may be argued that as the law stands in relation to housing accounts a surplus cannot be disposed of out of the account, and that there is no harm done if an authority builds up a surplus out of its present rents and rates to finance future housing activity. This seems a harmless argument, but it is one that cannot be accepted in the context of the Bill.
I should make it clear that the no-profit principle does not prevent an authority from building up a reasonable balance to contribute to future maintenance, repairs, and so on. That is one of the proper uses of a working balance, which is allowed. Nor does the "No-profit" rule place a local authority in an impossible straitjacket for budgeting purposes. We appreciate that in framing a local authority budget, the income and expenditure for the year can rarely be estimated precisely in advance. Houses may be completed sooner or later than expected and the rate of interest may also vary. In present circumstances, what is most likely to happen is an adjustment in the size or timing of the next rent review. An increase may be postponed if the HRA can do without it, just as it would take place if the extra income became necessary.
It could be argued pointedly that the possibility of profit at the present time is so unreal for local authorities that it is superfluous to forbid it. But the Bill sets up a system which will last for several years, during which there could well be authorities whose finances would allow them to move towards profit. An authority which reduces its rate of 181 building for a few years will find its loan charges shrinking in real terms. If its rents continued to rise it could in a few years see a profit on the horizon, if not nearer.
Such an authority would, we hope, reassess its housing position, and in order to more effectively cope with problems previously not fully tackled it might look to the quality of its environment and management to see how they could be improved; it could look to the older areas of its district to undertake more housing improvement; it could look more rigorously to special needs—the disabled, the one-parent families, the single person and the handicapped, the frustrated poorer would-be owner-occupier; or it might consult with less fortunate neighbouring local councils and see if it could help them by building with them. These and other possibilities would be open to it, rather than pile up an unnecessary surplus or profit.
For those reasons, I consider the Lords amendment undesirable.
§ Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury)
The Opposition strongly oppose the Government's attempt to defeat the amendment from the House of Lords. The amendment was passed by 116 votes to 59, and it is interesting to note that there was Liberal support and some sympathy from the Labour Party for their lordships' action.
We are arguing for the right of councils to make a surplus on their housing revenue account if they believe that to make sense. The amendment provides the right, not the duty, to make a surplus.
The Labour Party manifesto was quoted frequently during the previous proceedings, and by the Minister this evening, in justification of the Government's view. However, the Labour Party manifesto said that Labour would restore to local authorities the right to fix rents which do not make profits from tenants. The manifesto used the word "right" rather than "duty", and the Lords amendment would allow councils the right not to make a surplus if they did not wish to do so. Nothing in the Lords amendment makes it mandatory for councils to make a surplus. Therefore, the Lords amendment does not contradict the Labour Party manifesto.
§ Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)
I am not speaking of party affiliations. However, if a reactionary council wished to disadvantage its council tenants, perhaps to help the ratepayers, the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman would fall into its lap.
§ Mr. Raison
I intend to come to that point.
Throughout the long and occasionally wearisome proceedings on the Housing Finance Bill in Committee, the Labour Opposition wished to increase the freedom of local authorities to make their own decisions. If we give people freedom, that must entail a degree of freedom for them to make decisions which we may or may not like.
§ Mr. Raison
I shall come to that point.
The Lords amendment gives the council the right to produce a surplus if it judges that to be right. A council does not have to exercise that right if it does not wish to do so. The point made in another place, when the amendment was moved, was that it may well be for the proper judgment of a council to exercise that right. The amendment seeks to enlarge the freedom of action of local authorities. Therefore, the Government's action in seeking to defeat the Lords amendment exposes the cant in the protestations of the Labour Party about freedom for local authorities. I have referred to the wearisome hypocrisy of Labour Members during the proceedings on the Housing Finance Act. This amendment affords the chance to achieve a little of that much-vaunted freedom about which the Labour Party like to talk.
However, that is far from being the whole story. There are sensible reasons why a local authority might wish to exercise this freedom. At a time of high inflation, and of great uncertainty over local government finance, and all finance, a surplus on the housing revenue account could be of real potential value. The reasonable working balance envisaged by the Government does not necessarily cover that point. That is different from the notion of a reserve, which is embodied in the idea of a surplus. A working balance might well prove inadequate to 183 meet the ups and downs of public expenditure. It will be possible to use the surplus, of which the Lords amendment speaks, if there is a sudden crisis or escalation of costs, which, Heaven knows, is perfectly on the cards.
What does Government legislation really mean? What is "a reasonable working balance"? As Lord Foot asked in the other place, when does it become a surplus? The Under-Secretary of State said in Standing Committee:In the Bill we seek to restore freedom to local authorities. In doing so, we are not saying to local authorities … that they shall not accumulate a surplus in their housing revenue account".—[Official Report, Startling Committee A; 28th November 1974, c. 65.]But that is exactly what they seem to be saying. The amendment would allow such a surplus. Can we have a definitive and preferably not lengthy statement of what the Government mean? Is their attempt to defeat the amendment simply a sop to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his hon. Friends?
It is implied that the amendment is designed to penalise council tenants. It emphatically is not. It means only that in those areas where the housing stock is not new, and is therefore less expensive, although perfectly good, it would not be wrong to bring rents up to a reasonable level as defined by the local authorities and to use any surplus for the good of the community. This is only a variant of the approach favoured by Labour Members, a pooling of costs rather than an assessment of each house on its individual historic costs. Under that system, the lucky people in rent terms pay a little towards the costs of those whose housing would otherwise cost more.
So there is nothing novel in the idea of redistribution of the housing revenue account. The amendment is a recognition of that principle and of the fact that whether one has a low cost council house or flat is decided not by one's income but by fate. Many people in the community may be much worse off than some local council tenants, so it is not wrong that a surplus should exist to help them. But the amendment does not require local authorities to take this course: it merely gives them the freedom to have a surplus if they believe it right.
184 The amendment would explicitly allow councils to make a surplus in their housing revenue account, which is something in which the Under-Secretary believes. It is also a chance to clarify an obscure piece of drafting. Third, it gives local authorities some freedom, which the Government apparently do not want to give. Fourth and perhaps strongest, it allows for some common sense. That may be anathema to some Socialists, but the House should support its application. As Lord Foot said in another place:I think there is a great deal in what is suggested by the amendment, because things would be made much clearer if these words were simpy omitted."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 11th February 1975, c. 1249.]I hope that we shall have a victory for common sense tonight.
§ Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South West)
Column 65 of the Committee proceedings shows why the Government are so opposed to the use of the word "surplus". It is plain from the passage further on from that quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that it is equated with the word "profit". It is the concept of profit in housing which sticks in the craws of Labour Members. If we had been braver in our support of profit in every sphere, particularly in housing, half the problems that beset the housing market would not exist.
I hope that we of the Opposition will proudly proclaim our belief in profit in housing by supporting the amendment of the other place. In doing so, we shall also be proudly supporting the principle of local democracy.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Freeson
I want to make one or two general remarks. First, on the question of principle, I for one would certainly favour the idea of local authorities providing services other than housing which one could loosely call "commercial type" services—services which if provided by private enterprise, would be so described. However, I shall not go too far down that road, because that is not before us in detail now. I should favour the idea of local authorities being able to make what I believe Marx described many years ago as municipal profits on behalf of the community.
185 When it comes to housing, however, I do not believe that it is right for public authorities to run such a service for commercial purposes. I hope that we shall take hon. Members of the Opposition with us when in due time, perhaps—during the many years of Labour Government ahead—we proceed to experiment with social enterprise in this matter as well as others, in competition with the private sector generally, with a view to accruing some benefit to ratepayers and taxpayers and the community at large. But that matter must rest for another occasion.
I hope, too, that we shall have the support of Conservative Members in giving greater freedom to local authorities to act generally in these matters, when we look more deeply at such matters as direct labour organisation in the future and similar services, and at questions which will revolve around the individual freedoms and rights of local authorities to provide these services for the community.
So much for the generality of the principle of local authorities being able to have freedom and being able to go in for the creation of what has been described very usefully as municipal profits for the community.
I come to the particular matter of housing. During the long and wearisome passage of the Housing Finance Act 1972, time and again in argument then, we stated as a matter of policy and principle that as a party we were opposed to the idea of profit being made out of a public service, which until the passage of that Act had always been treated as a nonprofit making service. Events overtook that Act so that its objectives in this respect were never in practice achieved. But this does not alter the fact that we disagreed with the original objectives of the Act. Those objectives were, indeed, to require more and more local authorities to make a profit on this hitherto non-profit-making public service. What is more, they required that when such profit was made it was to be taken by the Treasury and some part handed back subsequently to the local authority, to the detriment of the rate support grant that would be negotiated subsequently with the Treasury.
186 These matters are on record. They were argued in great detail at the time. Therefore, we have not only made clear our position on the question of returning freedom of action on fixing rents—contrary to what the present Opposition had fought for, successfully, in their Act, although now they are pretending or tending to forget it—but we have raised and argued our objections against their policy and in favour of this flexibility and freedom of action for the fixing of reasonable rents. We equally argued against making housing in this field a profit-making, commercial type service. That is the background.
Coming to the specific situation before us, the position is this. If we do not make it abundantly clear in what sometimes are described as manifesto-type texts in the Bill—it is not the first time that such principles have been stated in texts in Bills, under successive Governments—that any action taken by a local authority to establish what it considered to be a reasonable working balance—not surplus—from one year to another, should not mean that it could go into vast surplus, it would be open to local authorities to so go into vast surplus which, correctly described by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in other terms, could be described as going into profit. It is a simple proposition of principle. There may be working balances, but there may not be vast surpluses or profits.
§ Mr. Raison
Will the Minister explain to us exactly what the Under-Secretary meant when he said:In doing so, we are not saying to local authorities … that they shall not accumulate a surplus in their housing revenue account."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 28th November 1974, c. 65.]
§ Mr. Freeson
If the hon. Gentleman will read on in the text he will find that during subsequent exchanges it was established that there had been a switch of labels at that point and what my hon. Friend had said and made clear subsequently was that he was referring to working balances—that there was nothing to stop a local authority from providing a working balance from one year to the next, but that there was no question of profitability.
§ Mr. Raison
Will the Minister acknowledge that in the House of Lords debate a great deal of attention was devoted to the question of what a working balance meant? There is no satisfactory definition of it. It is clear to us that the inclusion of the word "surplus" gives a sense which does not exist at present or at the least serves to clarify it.
§ Mr. Freeson
I do not want to keep repeating myself, but, having had some experience in local government, as I know the hon. Gentleman has, I am well aware of what it means to try to get a reasonable working balance, not only on the housing revenue account, but also in other aspects of local government finance from one year to another. If a local authority, in looking at its programmes for the coming year, establishes that costs have risen or are likely to rise during the currency of the prospective budget, it will make allowance for that so that it does not find the housing revenue account out of balance at the end of the next financial year. It will provide for a working balance to cover sharp and unexpected rises which can occur during the course of the year. Those rises can occur through
§ changes in interest rates or through a speeding up in the building programme. A change in income level can occur due to a slowing down in the completion rate of houses so that there is a slowing down in the rate at which houses come into rent.
§ It is factors such as these that a local authority, in close and detailed consultation with its housing manager and borough treasurer or director of finance, will establish at the beginning of a financial year. It will also see how its programme of repairs is being carried out and carry out an assessment of maintenance costs. It will then provide for a return of rental income which will meet such outgoings. There is nothing mysterious about this. We do not have to spell these points out in legislation. They are part of the management of housing estates which local authorities have been concerned with for over half a century.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 237.191
|Division No. 103.]||AYES||[10.55 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Cartwright, John||Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)|
|Allaun, Frank||Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||English, Michael|
|Anderson, Donald||Clemitson, Ivor||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)|
|Archer, Peter||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Evans, John (Newton)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Cohen, Stanley||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)|
|Ashley, Jack||Coleman, Donald||Faulds, Andrew|
|Ashton, Joe||Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Conlan, Bernard||Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Flannery, Martin|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Corbett, Robin||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel||Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Bates, Alf||Cronin, John||Ford, Ben|
|Bean, R. E.||Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Forrester, John|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Cryer, Bob||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dalyell, Tam||Garrett, John (Norwich S)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davidson, Arthur||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)|
|Boardman, H.||Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||George, Bruce|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Gilbert, Dr John|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Ginsburg, David|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Golding, John|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Deakins, Eric||Gould, Bryan|
|Bradley, Tom||Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Gourlay, Harry|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Graham, Ted|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Delargy, Hugh||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Grocott, Bruce|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Dempsey, James||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Buchan, Norman||Doig, Peter||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)|
|Buchanan, Richard||Dormand, J. D.||Hamling, William|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hardy, Peter|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Dunn, James A.||Harper, Joseph|
|Campbell, Ian||Dunnett, Jack||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Hart, Rt Hon Judith|
|Cant, R. B.||Eadie, Alex||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Carmichael, Neil||Edelman, Maurice||Hatton, Frank|
|Carter, Ray||Edge, Geoff||Hayman, Mrs Helene|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Marquand, David||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Hooley, Frank||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Horam, John||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Meacher, Michael||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Huckfield, Les||Mendelson, John||Silverman, Julius|
|Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Mikardo, Ian||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Millan, Bruce||Small, William|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Snape, Peter|
|Hunter, Adam||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Molloy, William||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Moonman, Eric||Stallard, A. W.|
|Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Janner, Greville||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Stott, Roger|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Moyle, Roland||Strang, Gavin|
|Jeger, Mrs Lena||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Newens, Stanley||Swain, Thomas|
|John, Brynmor||Noble, Mike||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Ogden, Eric||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||O'Halloran, Michael||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Orbach, Maurice||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Ovenden, John||Tierney, Sydney|
|Judd, Frank||Owen, Dr David||Tinn, James|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Padley, Walter||Tomlinson, John|
|Kelley, Richard||Palmer, Arthur||Torney, Tom|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Park, George||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Kinnock, Neil||Parker, John||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Lambie, David||Parry, Robert||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Lamborn, Harry||Pavitt, Laurie||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Lamortd, James||Peart, Rt Hon Fred||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Pendry, Tom||Ward, Michael|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Perry, Ernest||Watkinson, John|
|Lee, John||Phipps, Dr Colin||Weetch, Ken|
|Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Weitzman, David|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Prescott, John||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lipton, Marcus||Price C. (Lewisham W)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Price, William (Rugby)||White, James (Pollok)|
|Luard, Evan||Radice, Giles||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Lyon, Alexander (York)||Richardson, Miss Jo||Whitlock, William|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|McElhone, Frank||Rodgers, George (Chorley)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|MacFarquhar, Roderick||Rodgers, William (Stockton)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Rooker, J. W.||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Roper, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Rose, Paul B.||Woodall, Alec|
|Maclennan, Robert||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)||Woof, Robert|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Rowlands, Ted||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Madden, Max||Ryman, John||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Magee, Bryan||Sandelson, Neville||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Mahon, Simon||Sedgemore, Brian||Mr. David Stoddart and|
|Marks, Kenneth||Selby, Harry||Mr. John Ellis.|
|Adley, Robert||Budgen, Nick||Drayson, Burnaby|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Bulmer, Esmond||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Alison, Michael||Burden, F. A.||Durant, Tony|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Carlisle, Mark||Eden, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Baker, Kenneth||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Banks, Robert||Channon, Paul||Elliott, Sir William|
|Bell, Ronald||Churchill, W. S.||Emery, Peter|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Eyre, Reginald|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Clark, William (Croydon S)||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Biffen, John||Clegg, Walter||Farr, John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Cockcroft, John||Fell, Anthony|
|Blaker, Peter||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Body, Richard||Cope, John||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Cormack, Patrick||Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Corrie, John||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Costain, A. P.||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Brittan, Leon||Critchley, Julian||Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Crouch, David||Fox, Marcus|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Crowder, F. P.||Freud, Clement|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Fry, Peter|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Gardiner, George (Reigate)|
|Buck, Antony||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Luce, Richard||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Goodhew, Victor||McCrindle, Robert||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Macfarlane, Neil||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Gorst, John||MacGregor, John||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Gray, Hamish||Mates, Michael||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Grieve, Percy||Mather, Carol||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Shepherd, Colin|
|Grist, Ian||Mawby, Ray||Shersby, Michael|
|Hall, Sir John||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Silvester, Fred|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Mayhew, Patrick||Sims, Roger|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hannam, John||Mills, Peter||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Hastings, Stephen||Moate, Roger||Speed, Keith|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Monro, Hector||Spence, John|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Montgomery, Fergus||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Heseltine, Michael||Moore, John (Croydon C)||Sproat, Iain|
|Hicks, Robert||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Stainton, Keith|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Morgan, Geraint||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Holland, Philip||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral||Stanley, John|
|Hordern, Peter||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Mudd, David||Stokes, John|
|Hunt, John||Neave, Airey||Tapsell, Peter|
|Hurd, Douglas||Nelson, Anthony||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Neubert, Michael||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Newton, Tony||Tebbit, Norman|
|James, David||Nott, John||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &W'df'd)||Onslow, Cranley||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Jessel, Toby||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Osborn, John||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)||Trotter, Neville|
|Jopling, Michael||Pardoe, John||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Pattie, Geoffrey||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Kaberry Sir Donald||Penhaligon, David||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Percival, Ian||Viggers, Peter|
|Kimball, Marcus||Peyton, Rt Hon John||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Pink, R. Bonner||Wakeham, John|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Kitson, Sir Timothy||Raison, Timothy||Wall, Patrick|
|Lamont, Norman||Rathbone, Tim||Warren, Kenneth|
|Lane, David||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)||Wells, John|
|Latham, Michael (Melton)||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Lawson, Nigel||Ridsdale, Julian||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Rifkind, Malcolm||Younger, Hon George|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Mr. Jeffrey Thomas and|
|Lloyd, Ian||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Mr. W. Benyon.|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.