§ Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. RaisonThe debate has now run for 22 hours. We still have to consider this important Clause 5 and there are to be about five more debates after that. We have reached the stage when it is yet one more constitutional outrage to expect the Committee to go on talking about these detailed matters when many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been in and out of the Chamber—largely in it—for 22 hours. It is an abuse of the parliamentary system for the Government to expect us to go on like this well into the afternoon of the day after the debate began. It is scandalous that we should be treated in this way.
The reason for this is that the Government have landed themselves with a grossly overloaded and in our view excessively odious and Socialist programme. Even before the collapse of their economic policies cause them to bring in this panic measure, they had far too much legislation going through the pipeline. On top of that mass of odious legislation they added this ramshackle but nevertheless important Bill.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Employment for sitting here a great deal of the time, unlike some of his colleagues—for example, the Secretary of State for the Environment. All Ministers who have sat with us will accept that there has been no filibustering from either side during the passage of the Bill. At all times we have tried to discuss it seriously.
There inevitabley comes a moment when it cannot make sense to go on dealing with these serious matters when hon. Members are in the sort of condition to which they have been reduced after such a long period of time. In addition, the House has lost some important European business as a result of the Government's mishandling of their programme. I wish 1212 to put clearly on the record our belief that the Government's mishandling of the measure and of their whole programme is a disgrace—
§ The Deputy ChairmanOrder. The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Question that we are supposed to be discussing, which is that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. RaisonI accept your ruling, Sir Myer. I believe that what I have said is of some importance. Perhaps I should have raised the matter on a point of order. However, I have made my point and I believe it to be an important one.
I turn to the clause. Its aim, as the memorandum makes clear, is to moderate rent increases in England and Wales next year by making a special subsidy under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975.
§ Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)On a point of order, Sir Myer. Is it in order for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber in conversation with their colleagues while we are trying to listen to a Front Bench spokesman?
§ The Deputy ChairmanIt is quite all right. I do not think the hon. Lady need worry. I am still able to hear her hon. Friend.
§ Mrs. Kellett-BowmanBut I am nearer to them than you are, Sir Myer.
§ Mr. RaisonI must say that I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend. Some Labour Members are behaving very badly indeed. As I was saying, the aim of the clause is to moderate rent increases by making the special element of housing subsidy under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 payable in 1976–77 as well as in 1975–76. As we know, the size of the special element is determined by the Secretary of State. I think I am right in saying that it does not appear in the measure itself, but we understand from the White Paper that the subsidy is to be £80 million. According to the White Paper, the result will be that average rent increases next spring will be of the order of 60p a week rather than £1 or substantially more, as was anticipated previously.
It is interesting that the Government do not intend to use the reserve powers 1213 under Section 1 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act to limit rents. Further, they have the power to restrict rents under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. The Government know that my right hon. and hon. Friends believe very strongly that in present circumstances it is unjustified to provide an extra £80 million for the purpose of keeping down average rent increases to 60p. We believe that it is a serious mistake. For a start, it represents a dramatic reversal of the policy embarked upon only a matter of weeks ago by the Secretary of State. It is widely believed that he has opposed this reversal of policy and is unhappy about it. I do not know about that, but I do know that he has recently had to steel himself to take what I believe everyone who is seriously interested in housing recognises to be a commonsense view of housing finance.
The other day I watched a "Panorama" programme on which the Secretary of State appeared. Unfortunately, I do not have a transcript of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I distinctly recall his making clear that the whole of our housing problems and housing policy must be subject to the overriding goal of defeating inflation. I do not think he will dispute that that is the message he was putting over in that programme. He said—I believe rightly—that the fight against inflation must come first. It is clear that by any standards this measure plays no part in that fight.
I shall quote one or two remarks which the Secretary of State has made recently. In a Written Answer on 5th May he is reported as saying:
it would be essential for them"—he is referring to local authorities—to raise rents substantially so that they make a larger contribution to costs than will obtain this year."—[Official Report, 5th May 1975; Vol. 891, c. 309.]On 2nd July the right hon. Gentleman went further. He said:my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is seeking savings next year by reducing the rate fund contribution to housing revenue accounts. This will be considered with the local authority associations in the context of the discussions on rate support grant."—[Official Report, 2nd July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 474.]In an Oral Answer on 11th June he said: 1214we are likely to reach a situation in which the taxpayer and ratepayer combined will simply say 'We cannot go on indefinitely footing the bill.'"—[Official Report, 11th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 398.]That is what the right hon. Gentleman said on 11th June, but he has now clearly reversed the policy that, in our view, he was sensibly putting forward at an earlier stage.I quote one more example of what the right hon. Gentleman said. In the debate on housing that was held on 16th June he expressed a view that was received with some sympathy. He said:
This year, on present indications, they"—he was referring to rents—will rise by only about 12 per cent—far less than the likely rise in earnings. Next year, the increase will have to be larger. Exactly how much it will need to be is a matter for detailed discussion between Government and local authority associations in the course of the rate support grant negotiations over the next few months. We cannot yet give a figure in money terms, partly because we do not yet know what next year's inflation rate will be. However, it is clear that increases will have to do more—and quite a bit more—than merely keep pace with inflation. Rents will have to start making the kind of contribution in real terms towards housing costs that they have done prior to the most recent developments."—[Official Report, 16th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 986.]Those who are interested in the debate would do well to read what the Secretary of State said in preceding paragraphs when talking about the problem of distortion that has grown up. I shall not quote his remarks in full, as they are on the record. However, what the right hon. Gentleman said in the passage that I have quoted is of great importance. The policy that he was putting forward was explicit.In the new White Paper which has been transformed into law, or is in that process—the process is taking place in a most shoddy maner—we have a complete climb down, a complete retreat from the position the right hon. Gentleman adopted earlier.
I think we are entitled to ask a number of important questions of the Secretary of State, who, I take it, will be concluding the debate for the Government. For example, we want to know what percentage of the housing revenue account will be met next year by rates, by taxes and by the Exchequer. We want to know how that will compare with the figures for the current year. We 1215 also want to know something which to me, at any rate, is not completely clear, namely, what has happened about the £65 million cut in subsidies for 1976–77 which was announced in the April Budget by the Chancellor? Has that cut now disappeared? Has it been overtaken, as it were, by the £80 million proposal? What exactly is the position?
Another point is that rent increases are to be limited, as we know, to 60p—an increase of about 15 per cent. Does that mean that the Government are forecasting a 15 per cent. rate of inflation between April 1976 and March 1977? Equally, there is no word about any limitation of rate increases. We have discussed this already. Will there be any reduction in the rate fund contribution to housing revenue account? If not, why not?
The Secretary of State knows—indeed, almost everyone knows—that substantial rent increases are inevitable. Why, then, do the Government maintain the charade of keeping tenants in a fool's paradise? The fact is that the 60p increase next year could be, and almost inevitably will be, followed by dramatically high increases in the year after that. If rents are kept down artificially one year, almost inescapably one finishes by having to push them up by way of a greater increase the following year than would otherwise be the case. To adopt the phrase which has now become part of the jargon of inflation economics, re-entry will be at least as difficult here as in any other part of our escape from the policy to which the Government have committed themselves.
Of course, there may be another special element subsidy in 1977–78. Yesterday—this is col. 583 of Hansard—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would not be. But we have heard that sort of promise before. For example, the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) who used to be Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said in the Standing Committee on the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill:
The hon. Gentleman knows that the special element is for the coming financial year, and no other year, although it is then incorporated."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th December 1974; c. 175.]We now see that it is, in fact, to go on for an additional year in spite of what 1216 the hon. Gentleman said. So what can we believe?What is certain, as I say, is that artificially cheap housing is a major contributor to our housing problem. The more one looks at the history of housing in this country, the more one sees that the troubles have time and again risen from constantly trying to provide housing at an artificially low charge.
§ 2.30 p.m.
§ We on the Opposition side oppose this subsidy, and I stress that for those in real need and hardship a generous rebate system is provided by our Housing Finance Act 1972. That rebate system is there to take care of the hardship which certainly does exist and which will, alas, intensify as unemployment and recession go on.
§ It is madness to add indiscriminately to public expenditure in this way, at a time such as the present. Anyone who looks objectively at the problem of inflation must recognise that the completely runaway nature of public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement over the past year or so has led to the appalling problems which we now face.
§ Thus far, in dealing with the environment aspect of the Bill, we have been restrained, but I could not help thinking, especially during the last debate, that it would have been a good idea if the Minister then replying had acknowledged that the reason for the Bill is that public spending and spending in the local authority sector have got completely out of hand both last year and this.
§ As I say, to add indiscriminately to public expenditure in this way is a form of madness. The truth is that the Government's housing policy is becoming increasingly crazy. The form of the madness, I suggest, is schizophrenia. On the one hand, the Secretary of State—when he can be bothered—makes occasional attempts to bring it under control, but, meanwhile, his Minister for Housing and Construction proceeds with all his old-fashioned, obsolete and dogmatic views about what a housing policy should be.
§
Perhaps it is just as well that the hon. Member for Ardwick has been translated elsewhere—whether to higher or lower things, I know not—because I wish now to quote one or two of his sayings at the
1217
time when he held office in the Department of the Environment in order to give the Committee an idea of the sort of policies which at least some Ministers in the Department were then pursuing. For example, in the Standing Committee on the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill the hon. Gentleman said:
If local authorities were vastly to expand their house building programmes in this coming financial year, as I very much hope they will, it would greatly inconvenience my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has no doubt budgeted for the minimum possible. But that is his inconvenience; we hope we will inconvenience him. It is as simple as that.
He then said:
I have gone round the country addressing special conferences of local authorities urging them to build far more houses and to put my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in trouble.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5th December 1974; cc. 178–80.]
What a way to run a Government housing policy. What a way to run an economic policy. How can one possibly justify or defend a Government who are prepared to allow junior Ministers to carry on in that sort of way?
That is the measure of the schizophrenia with which we are confronted. The Government are now trying, at least intermittently, to control public expenditure and local authority spending. Yet they are apparently not prepared to recognise the realities of the housing situation. Their attitude is thoroughly hypocritical. In fact, the high cost of borrowing will make it impossible for many local authorities to go ahead with major building programmes. Who has any confidence that the rate of council house building can in reality be kept up?
What is absurd about the Government's latest £80 million subsidy is that it is not designed to provide additional housing. It is simply a subsidy to many people who will not really need it. As I pointed out in our debate on 16th June—I believe that the Secretary of State realises it—the foolishness of the Government's housing policy lies in the way that, increasingly, housing support—the money available for housing—has gone to income maintenance rather than to the provision of new housing. This, coupled with the Government's blindness in relation to the private rented sector, to municipalisation, and the refusal to recognise that the soaring cost of new council house building makes better use 1218 of the existing stock absolutely imperative, will inevitably produce a rapidly deteriorating situation over the next year or two.
In housing terms, this £80 million is irrelevant. In public expenditure terms, it is madness. For these reasons, I ask the Committee to reject the clause.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)It was not until the last sentence uttered by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that I realised that he was addressing himself to the Question "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill". The party-political broadcast that we had from him was a poor indication of his recognition of what we have been discussing over the past 24 hours.
In fact, the Bill is related precisely to the emergency situation which the country now faces. The measures in it are designed to deal with that emergency. We do not go back on a word of any of the quotations which the hon. Gentleman gave from various statements by my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will wish to say a word or two about that, but I shall concentrate on the clause, and be brief about it.
Our objective is clearly stated in the White Paper. Clause 5 enables the Government to pay up to £80 million as a subsidy, so that rent increases in 1976–77 will be limited, and to ensure that rents do not rise faster than prices generally. The 60p is not an estimate of the likely increase in local authority costs. It is an estimate of the average rent increase next spring—I emphasise "average"—which will keep rents broadly in line with the movement of prices generally.
This subsidy will be payable for one year only, and it is to meet the particular needs of the Government's policy in fighting inflation. There are over 5 million families housed in public sector housing, and we believe that they are amongst the most vulnerable sections of the community. This subsidy is intended to help them in what will be a difficult year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to certain powers to limit rent increases. Should there be unreasonably large increases in rents, the rent—limiting powers which 1219 we have in Section 11 of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act are available, and my right hon. Friend would not hesitate to use such powers.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a precise question about the proportions of cost which would be met. Let me take 1975–76 first: 42 per cent. is met by council rents, 11 per cent. by the rate fund, and 41 per cent. by the Exchequer. Other income accounts for the remaining 6 per cent. On the assumption that rents rise on average in line with prices generally in 1976–77, the proportion of housing revenue account income to be met by rebated rents is likely to remain at about 42 per cent.
§ Mr. RaisonThe hon. Gentleman said that it was on the assumption that rents rise with prices generally. What assumption about price rises generally is he using?
§ Mr. ArmstrongI cannot enlarge on that. It is an estimate of the general increase in price rises.
I turn now to the hon. Gentleman's comments on the rate fund. The local authorities are required to meet any deficit on the housing revenue account for any year by means of a rate fund contribution. Any local authority can make a voluntary rate fund contribution greater than the deficit if it so chooses.
The provisions we are making, and which are included in Clause 5, cannot in themselves generate a need for a greater rate fund contribution. More subsidy, if it is used to bring about a reduction in the rent increases which would otherwise be made, leaves the deficit requiring to be met by the rate fund contribution exactly as it was. I emphasise again that this is a special subsidy for one year to meet the very difficult conditions that these tenants will encounter, but it is not a comment on the overall housing policy as announced by the Secretary of State.
§ Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington)I have not spoken on the Bill up to now, and I shall speak for only a few minutes on this important clause. Until now we have been dealing with the control of wages; in Clauses 5 and 6 we are dealing with the other aspects of Government policy—the social wage. In order 1220 to understand what Clause 5 is about, we must try to analyse the Government's strategy overall.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring about a virtual standstill in the rise in incomes while prices are continuing to rise. In effect as a result of the Bill the standard of living of the mass of the British people will inevitably decline in the course of the coming year. The Government are not seeking to apply an absolute standstill in incomes in the face of the increase in the inflation of prices, but are allowing a measure of relief through wages. They are also making a small extra contribution through the "social wage".
We can learn something about Socialist priorities from the figures involved. It is difficult to calculate the increase in spending power which will result from the £6 across-the-board wage increase, but I suppose that it may well be £2,000 million or even £3,000 million in the course of the year. But the increase in the social wage has been minimised—it will be a relatively very small figure. We are to have £70 million through food subsidies and £80 million through rent relief represented by the changes in this clause and in Clause 6.
I think that the priorities of the Government are wrong. Hardship will be caused in the coming year in the fight against inflation, and to give perhaps £2,000 million or £3,000 million in wages indiscriminately is a false priority when there will be so many cases of grave and serious need.
In this clause we are looking at the housing subsidy. If we are to get £80 million for housing, are we using it in the right way if we give it to the 5 million people whom the Government have selected for benefit in the public sector? There are other ways in which a subsidy on housing costs could have been given. I could give a short list—others could add to it—of people other than householders in the public sector who may well be facing serious hardship in the coming year. For example, there are house buyers unable to keep up with rising mortgage rates and having to abandon their house-purchase schemes. Then there is the construction industry itself. If we have money to give to housing, we could think of ways of keeping up the rate of new building— 1221 or of modernisation of existing buildings—to give employment to the building industry.
As a result of the rise in rates, some ratepayers are going to be forced into homelessness during the next year. What concern have the Government shown for them? What about the one-parent families struggling, as usual, on the edge of the housing scene? What about the long-term unemployed? They, thank God, have not been a major social problem in this country in recent years; but after their earnings-related benefit has dried up, many people who have been used to substantial incomes, and no doubt have been well-housed, will find themselves in severe difficulties in the next 12 months. How much money have the Government set aside to consider their housing needs? None. The Government are giving their £80 million to the 5 million people in the public housing sector who, they believe, give them their votes.
§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Local authorities are not the right bodies in any event to handle tests of means for handing out as much public money as this. We have to revise the entire housing subsidy system. Simply to add another element of controversy on top of the morass which is the present housing subsidy policy serves little purpose. It is a blunder.
§ The Bill could well stand without Clause 5. If the clause were dropped, it would not be a serious matter for the Government, and I warmly support the the view of my hon. Friend that it should not stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. HefferI shall take exactly two minutes. I start by saying that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) was talking a lot of absolute tripe. Clauses 5 and 6 are the two parts of the Bill which really are very worth while. If the Government are doing anything right in the Bill, it is bringing in these two clauses.
| Division No. 304.] | AYES | [2.49 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank | Bates, All | Boardman, H. |
| Archer, Peter | Bean, R. E. | Booth, Albert |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Boothroyd, Miss Betty |
| Atkinson, Norman | Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Boyden, James (Bish Auck) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Bidwell, Sydney | Bradley, Tom |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Bishop, E. S. | Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Blenkinsop, Arthur | Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) |
§ For the Tory Party to get up once again and say that cheap housing for the ordinary mass of working people is no longer necessary shows that it does not live in the real world. All over the country there are thousands upon thousands of ordinary working men and women, particularly youngsters, who cannot afford to buy a home, but need a home, and the only way in which it can be done is through council house building, with the type of subsidy and support that the Government are giving.
§ Mr. CroslandI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for his very well-deserved tribute to the Department of the Environment for providing the only acceptable part of the Bill. It is well known that he and I are the only considerable Socialist thinkers of our generation. It gives me, therefore, great pleasure to be in alliance with him on this occasion.
On this clause, we have had a wide-ranging debate on housing policy as a whole. I will only make two comments on what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said. It is true, as I am on record as saying, that I think rents now provide too low a proportion of the cost of housing. Therefore, taking a medium-term view, I think that the contribution which rents make will have to increase.
On the other hand, as I have said again and again in our over-long debates on the Housing Finance Act 1972 when it was before the House, I do not believe that housing policy can be divorced from anti-inflation policy. To put it crudely, if we were to have next April an average increase of £1 a week on all council house rents, the counter-inflation policy would go phut. That is why this clause is necessary.
§ Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 157.
| Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) | Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) | Pendry, Tom |
| Buchan, Norman | Hardy, Peter | Phipps, Dr Colin |
| Buchanan, Richard | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Prescott, John |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Hart, Rt Hon Judith | Price, C. (Lewisham W) |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Hatton, Frank | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Hayman, Mrs Helens | Radice, Giles |
| Campbell, Ian | Healey, Rt Hon Denis | Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Heller, Eric S. | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Cant, R. B. | Horam, John | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Carter, Ray | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) | Roderick, Caerwyn |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Huckfield, Les | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Cartwright, John | Hunter, Adam | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Rooker, J. W. |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Jackson, Colin(Brighouse) | Roper, John |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Rose, Paul B. |
| Cohen, Stanley | Janner, Grevlile | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Coleman, Donald | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Ryman, John |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Sandelson, Neville |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Kaufman, Gerald | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Kelley, Richard | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) |
| Cronin, John | Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Kinnock, Neil | Silverman, Julius |
| Cryer, Bob | Lambie, David | Skinner, Dennis |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Lamborn, Harry | Snape, Peter |
| Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) | Lamond, James | Spearing, Nigel |
| Davidson, Arthur | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisie) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelil) | Litterick, Tom | Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Loyden, Eddie | Stoddart, David |
| Deakins, Eric | Luard, Evan | Stott, Roger |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Lyon, Alexander (York) | Strang, Gavin |
| de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | McCartney, Hugh | Swain, Thomas |
| Dempsey, James | McElhone, Frank | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Dormand, J. D. | McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Mackenzie, Gregor | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Dunn, James A. | Maclennan, Robert | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| Dunnett, Jack | McNamara, Kevin | Tierney, Sydney |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Madden, Max | Tinn, James |
| Edelman, Maurice | Mahon, Simon | Tomlinson, John |
| Edge, Geoff | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Torney, Tom |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Marks, Kenneth | Urwin, T. W. |
| Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) | Marquand, David | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| English, Michael | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Ennals, David | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Meacher, Michael | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Evans, John (Newton) | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Ward, Michael |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Mikardo, Ian | Watkinson, John |
| Faulds, Andrew | Millan, Bruce | Weetch, Ken |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Flannery, Martin | Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Fletcher Raymond (Ilkeston) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | White, James (Poilok) |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Whitlock, William |
| Forrester, John | Newens, Stanley | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Noble, Mike | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Oakes, Gordon | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Ogden, Eric | Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) |
| George, Bruce | O'Halloran, Michael | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Gilbert, Dr John | 0' Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Ginsburg, David | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Woodall, Alec |
| Golding, John | Ovenden, John | Woof, Robert |
| Gould, Bryan | Owen, Dr David | Wriggiesworth, Ian |
| Graham, Ted | Palmer, Arthur | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Grant, George (Morpeth) | Park, George | |
| Grant, John (Islington C) | Parker, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Grimond, Rt Hon J. | Parry, Robert | |
| Grocott, Bruce | Pavitt, Laurie | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Peart, Rt Hon Fred | Mr. John Ellis. |
| NOES | ||
| Aitken, Jonathan | Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Bralne, Sir Bernard |
| Alison, Michael | Biffen, John | Brotherton, Michael |
| Arnold, Tom | Biggs-Davison, John | Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) |
| Atkins, m Hon H. (Speithorne) | Blaker, Peter | Burden, F. A. |
| Awdry, Daniel | Boscawen, Hon Robert | Butler, Adam (Bosworth) |
| Baker, Kenneth | Bottomley, Peter | Carlisle, Mark |
| Banks, Robert | Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Carr, Rt Hon Robert |
| Bell, Ronald | Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Channon, Paul |
| Churchill, W. S. | Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Cockcroft, John | Kirk, Peter | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Cope, John | Kitson, Sir Timothy | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Knight, Mrs Jill | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Corrie, John | Lamont, Norman | Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Critchloy, Julian | Lane, David | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) |
| Crouch, David | Latham, Michael (Melton) | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Davles, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Lawrence,Ivan | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Drayson, Burnaby | Lawson, Nigel | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Durant, Tony | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Shepherd, Colin |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Lloyd, Ian | Shersby, Michael |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Luce, Richard | Sims, Roger |
| Elliott, Sir William | McCrindle, Robert | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Emery, Peter | Macfarlane, Neil | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Farr, John | MacGregor, John | Speed, Keith |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey | Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) |
| Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Mates, Michael | Sproat, Iain |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Maude, Angus | Stanley, John |
| Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Mawby, Ray | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Moate, Roger | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Montgomery, Fergus | Tapsell, Peter |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Goodhart, Philip | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Goodhew, Victor | Morgan, Geraint | Tebbit, Norman |
| Goodlad, Atastair | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Gorst, John | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Neave, Alrey | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Griffiths, Eldon | Neubert, Michael | Trotter, Neville |
| Grist, Ian | Newton, Tony | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Osborn, John | Viggers, Peter |
| Havers, Sir Michael | Page, John (Harrow West) | Wakeham, John |
| Hawkins, Paul | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Parkinson, Cecil | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Holland, Philip | Percival, Ian | Wells, John |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Peyton, Rt Hon John | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Pink, R. Bonner | Wood, Rt Hon Richard |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Hunt, John | Prior, Rt Hon James | Younger, Hon George |
| Hurd, Douglas | Pym, Rt Hon Francis | |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Raison, Timothy | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| James, David | Rathbone, Tim | Mr. Anthony Berry and |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd) | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Mr. W. Benyon. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.