§ Lords Amendment: No. 89, in page 73, line 17, after "deciding" insert "(a)".
§ Mr. OakesThe amendments require authorities to have regard to the considerations listed in paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6 not only in disposing of land, as at present, but also in considering what use should be made of land before disposal. They are to meet the point raised by the Opposition in the Lords that more should be said in the Bill about the management of land, and particularly agricultural land.
The amendments work by amending paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 6, so that authorities must have regard to the factors set out there not only in disposing of land, but also when managing land prior to disposing of land, and when managing land prior to disposal. The particularly important factor in this context is in 1405 sub-paragraph (c), which requires authorities to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. This, taken together with the new amendments, will mean that authorities, in exercising their functions under the land scheme, must have regard to the management of agricultural land in their ownership. It was always intended to achieve this result through issuing guidance to authorities, but the Government accept that it would be helpful to draw particular attention to this in the Bill itself.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 93, in page 73, line 29, at end insert:
and shall draw up and publish annually a five year programme of the development land that they propose to acquire in the course of the following 5 years. The authority shall indicate in the programme the relevant plans or planning factors that support such a programme of acquisition.
§ Mr. OakesI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment deals with the preparation by authorities of five-year rolling programmes. It would put the matter on a statutory basis. There is no argument between us about whether there should or should not be rolling programmes or about what they should contain. The point at issue is somewhat narrow—namely, whether there should be a requirement laid down in the Bill.
Rolling programmes are not a new invention contained in the Bill. Over the years they have been adopted as the best means of planning and controlling public expenditure in many sectors—for example, nationalised industry investment, road-building and school-building. They have been adopted by Governments both Labour and Conservative. The most recent example is local authority transport expenditure. However, there is never any reference to such a programme in legislation.
Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974, of which the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will be aware, is solely concerned with transport supplementary grant. Rightly, there is no mention in that Act of transport policies and programmes. It is the rolling pro 1406 gramme which forms the basis of the grant payment. To write the rolling programme into the Bill is unnecessary. It could be potentially dangerous to institute the precedent of putting the provision in a statute. I ask the House, in accordance with the precedent set by both sides of the House in different forms of legislation, to state that we disagree with the Lords in this amendment.
§ Mr. RossiI cannot possibly agree that this is a narrow point. This is a broad point of principle. It is not right for the Minister to look at other circumstances where there are five-year rolling programmes and to say that they are precedents that the Bill should follow. The programmes that he has instanced are mainly programmes for investment. Here we are dealing with something quite different—namely, the public acquisition of people's private property. We are dealing with the operation of a local authority in an activity that concerns the citizens and residents living within its area. They will be involved in the intentions of the authority regarding the development of their land.
If it is intended to have five-year rolling programmes for local authorities—and we are told that they will be required by the Secretary of State to prepare such programmes—the programmes will have to be made. They will have to state the land that it is intended to acquire within five years so that the necessary borrowing requirement provisions may be made. If that is the case, we feel that as well as the Secretary of State, the people living in the locality of the local authority are entitled to know what land within the five years the local authority intends to acquire.
Lip service is paid to the concept of public participation. We are being told the whole time that there must be public participation in planning. Here we are dealing with an extension of the planning and use of land, we are dealing with the development of the land itself. It is a matter of great importance to residents in any locality to know what land within a period of five years their elected councillors are proposing to acquire in their names.
This matter is important not only to residents as a whole but also to those likely to be affected by acquisition proposals—in other words, those whose land 1407 is likely to be taken. If a person's land, his house, or his garden are within a programme in the short time scale of five years, he is entitled to know whether blight will affect his property in any way. This can best be revealed to him by the plan being published in the town hall where he can go to look at it. Therefore, because it is both necessary and desirable that these plans should be published, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. CostainThe Minister by his remarks on this Bill has shown how determined he is to nationalise land while at the same time paying no regard whatever to development prospects.
I have spent a great part of my life in work connected with the development of large areas, and I know that no sensible developer—or indeed anybody interested in providing accommodation—would wish to act in any way different from the course of action laid down in the provisions of this amendment. We must remember that an ordinary developer has limited finance at his disposal. He has a rolling programme of five years. Some local authorities believe that these programmes can be undertaken within a period of three years, but that is not the case.
We believe that the amendment would lay down safeguards in ensuring that development was properly carried out. It will give the Secretary of State the opportunity to know what policies are being pursued by local authorities and at the same time it will give the public a chance to evaluate what is taking place. But the Minister does not care about these considerations. He just wants to nationalise the land and to take any profit he can from it. We are certainly not happy with the situation, and if we are to put up with this Bill the Minister will have to produce a better case than we have heard so far. Unless we produce a rolling programme on the lines laid down in the amendment, the process just will not work.
§ Mr. Graham PageIt is preposterous that the Minister should seek to resist this amendment. All it does is to let the public know whose land is involved in a five-year rolling programme. It is surely only a matter of common decency that 1408 those affected should be aware of these matters.
I cannot understand the Minister's reasons for rejecting this amendment. Is he trying to avoid any blight on property affected in a programme? If he is, he should not be taking that course. Provision should be made for blighted property to be acquired in such a programme, and those affected should be told right away.
The Minister said that the amendment was unprecedented in a Bill. I would reply by saying that the whole Bill is unprecedented. We have to take this exceptional course in order to protect the public and the interests of individuals.
I am not concerned with precedent in this Bill. Precedents apply to normal, ordinary legislation—but this Bill is not normal, ordinary legislation. It is extraordinary. It is a wholly new system for seizure of land. We want to protect the public by letting them know what the programmes are. It is good local government to prepare a programme of that sort and to publish it so that those concerned may know what progress is being made. I cannot see any reason why a reasonable provision of this sort should be resisted.
Ministers have apparently come to the Box since four o'clock yesterday afternoon determined to resist every reasonable amendment inserted in another place. This debate is yet another example of this. It is a reasonable amendment which would improve the Bill. It would certainly improve the position of those who may be affected by it.
§ 5.15 a.m.
§ Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)I want to take up a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). No one could possibly argue that this was not a Bill designed to take away the rights of the individual citizen. [Interruption.] Of course it is. It is a confiscatory Bill. Let us get that clear.
Many of us over the years have been concerned with the question of blight. If the amendment is accepted it may help individuals whose properties are affected, giving them an opportunity of knowing the future of their property. Is it unreasonable that those who won land and property should be given fair notice 1409 that their properties are affected? Should there not be some provision for blight? My right hon. Friend has rightly said that there is no provision for this. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about the individual who has property which is affected in a small but important way and where blight is the factor affecting them.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonI find it extraordinary that the Government should be resisting this eminently suitable amendment. As a Government they believe in a planned society and a planned economy. This amendment is all about planning—five years ahead. Not only does it give the public an idea of what is to happen but it also gives those whose property or land is affected an idea of what is to happen. It is important that individuals owning property, large or small, should know where they stand.
The Minister did not advance an argument that could be supported by hon. Members. I regret to say that I do not believe that any thinking Labour Member would resist this if they were not whipped. It is a pity that in such an important debate on a Bill of constitutional importance so many unthinking people will go through the Lobby voting down a well-thought-out amendment.
§ Mr. MayhewIn justifying the stand he is taking on this amendment the Minister said that it would not be necessary to incorporate it into the Bill. It is useful to compare his attitude on this amendment with the attitude of the Government on Lords Amendment No. 83, which dealt with whether there should be included in the Bill under Clause 17 (1) these words about the desirability of bringing development into public ownership. I would have thought that everyone accepted that for practical purposes it was totally unnecessary to incorporate those last words into the measure. But the Minister said that they should go in. Everyone agreed that every councillor concerned with putting the provisions of this measure into operation knew that the Government regarded it as desirable that they should use powers conferred on them.
Here, when there is abundant practical reason for incorporating a reference into the Bill to the five-year-old rolling programme, so as to enable individuals to 1410 know in advance what a council has in store for them, the Minister says that we cannot have the amendment because it is unnecessary. It looks as though he should have included further words in Clause 17(1) to the effect that the authority shall have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership but keep quiet about it until the last possible moment so that it will not make itself liable to pay compensation for blight.
§ Mr. FairbairnOne characteristic of planning authorities is that they frequently get the plans wrong. They have an amazing capacity for making plans for five years ahead on assessments which prove to be substantially in error. The citizen has a right to see those plans and to challenge them. I have a profound scepticism of the wisdom of any authority which is essentially anonymous and answerable to nobody. If an authority has no duty to publish its ambitions, the individual cannot challenge the powers which the authority takes until itself. That is why its stupidity—or its wisdom—should be preceded by light. It is wrong that powers against the citizen should be taken without warning. I am sure that all hon. Ministers agree that they are made wiser by criticism of their ideas.
The Bill is about what is stupidly called the public ownership of land, which means that land which belongs to members of the public shall cease to belong to them. All the land in this country belongs to the people.
§ Mr. Russell KerrYou people.
§ Mr. FairbairnThat is where you make your mistake. It belongs to millions of people. It belongs to anyone who owns a farm, a field or a garage. You want to take it away from each and every one of them and put it in the hands of bureaucracy. You hate the people, detest them—
§ Mr. FairbairnI beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members on the Labour benches—such as are appropriate—detest people, detest ownership and detest land. Land is anathema to them, 1411 and the public ownership of the land is about nothing else than that.
§ Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Cannock)What about the lads?
§ Mr. FairbairnAnd the lads—you detest them all.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
§ Mr. FairbairnI know not—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. and learned Member must resume his seat when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet. He must be careful whom he is addressing.
§ Mr. FairbairnI know not whether you are a lad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you are, Labour Members resent you. Labour Members are determined to ensure that the citizens of Great Britain who form the electorate and who own the land shall be deprived of it. At least Labour Members have the decency to give those citizens notice of their execution.
§ Mr. OakesI assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friends and I would not detest you even if you were a laird. By that speech the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) has shown his detestation, distrust and contempt of local authorities in both Scotland and England. He implied that right from the start of his speech. I find it amazing that he should regard local authorities of all bodies as being responsible to nobody. They are responsible to their electorates. That is the purpose behind the Bill—that development land should be put into the hands of the responsible authority, the authority responsible to the people of the area.
Some important observations were made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). They asked why the Bill did not specify individual sites over a five-year period, and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) seemed to pursue this line. There is nothing in this provision to hide. The first difficulty about a rolling programme that identified specific sites over a five-year period is that it could produce a kind of duplicated planning system that could easily come to supplant the 1412 existing development plan system but not be subject to any of the procedures for public participation and inquiry built into the system by successive Governments over the years.
The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead accurately came on to the second point. If sites were to be specifically listed in that way, unnecessary blight could be created. The idea of a rolling programme is that land policy statements are issued by local authorities to give general guidance not least to builders—I tell that to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)—about the authority's general ideas on acquisition over the five-year period. It would be clearly wrong to lay down that sites and areas should be specified for the rolling programme for the five years. That could jeopardise the existing planning system without any possibility of public participation and, secondly, it could cause unnecessary blight.
§ Mr. RossiI do not follow that reasoning. We are giving local authorities the duty to consider the desirability of acquiring land 10 years ahead. That specific obligation has been placed on local authorities. In discharge of that obligation they must consider individual sites, or otherwise the obligation is meaningless. We are saying that if within those 10 years the authorities are considering individual sites, they must declare them within the shorter period of five years. The authority must know precisely what is intended if it is to be able to calculate its borrowing requirement within a five-year rolling programme.
The hon. Gentleman says that we may be supplanting the existing planning system. That is not so, because, as we have been told throughout, the consideration of acquisition must be against the planning background and in accordance with plans already agreed and laid down. Rather this could fill in the detail of plans already evolved under the planning system against which the classification system would operate. Certainly, on the question of blight, if there is to be this duty only within the local authority as to the sites it is going to acquire within the five-year period, the owners should be told at the earliest possible opportunity.
§ 5.30 a.m.
§ Mr. OakesAgain the hon. Gentleman is dealing with specific sites. The sort of thing we have in mind for a rolling programme is where it will be necessary, for example, for a local authority to know how much land it may require for industrial or commercial or housing development by private builders or for its own statutory housing requirements.
We do not expect specific sites to be laid down. The acquisition programme must, under the terms of the Bill, follow the planning background. If there were a statute-based list of sites, there would be a danger of that list beginning to take precedence over the ordinary planning of the area. It is the very thing that the Opposition feared would happen, and it is the thing we are trying to prevent by avoiding a specific five-year programme of individual sites.
§ Mr. CostainThe Government are turning the local authorities in this context into a situation parallel with that of new town corporations. Any sensibly run new town has a five-year programme. It could not sell anything without it. Surely these authorities should have the same procedure as the new towns in such circumstances.
| Division No. 402.] | AYES | [5.35 a.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) |
| Allaun, Frank | Coleman, Donald | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) |
| Anderson, Donald | Concannon, J. D. | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. |
| Archer, Peter | Conlan, Bernard | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cook, Robin P. (Edin C) | Flannery, Martin |
| Ashley, Jack | Corbett, Robin | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Ashton, Joe | Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Forrester, John |
| Atkinson, Norman | Crawshaw, Richard | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Cronin, John | Freeson, Reginald |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Garrett, John (Norwich S) |
| Bates, Alf | Cryer, Bob | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) |
| Bean, R. E. | Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | George, Bruce |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Gilbert, Dr John |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Davidson, Arthur | Ginsburg, David |
| Bishop, E. S. | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Golding, John |
| Boardman, H. | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Gould, Bryan |
| Booth, Albert | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Gourlay, Harry |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Davis Clinton (Hackney C) | Graham, Ted |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Deakins, Eric | Grant, George (Morpeth) |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Grant, John (Islington C) |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Delargy, Hugh | Grocott, Bruce |
| Buchan, Norman | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Hardy, Peter |
| Buchanan, Richard | Dempsey, James | Harper, Joseph |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Doig, Peter | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Dormand, J. D. | Hart, Rt Hon Judith |
| Campbell, Ian | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Hatton, Frank |
| Canavan, Dennis | Duffy, A. E. P. | Hayman, Mrs Helene |
| Cant, R. B. | Dunn, James A. | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Carmichael, Neil | Dunnett, Jack | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Carter, Ray | Eadie, Alex | Hooley, Frank |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Horam, John |
| Cartwright, John | Edge, Geoff | Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Huckfield, Les |
§ happen with a local authority and a new town. There is a strong parallel between the rolling programme in the Bill and the existing procedure of the new towns. Nevertheless, there are differences. A new town is a designated area for a specific purpose and very often, although not always, it is on virgin territory. The planning provisions within a new town are quite different from those in a local authority.
§ The Lords amendment would create grave danger to planning because of the precedence the list might take. There is also the problem of blight. We shall remind local authorities that, whichever way they draw their plans, they must try to do so in such a way as to avoid blight in any particular area. It is implicit that they will do it in any event. They must look, too, at hardship caused by non-statutory blight which may be created. Both statutory and non-statutory blight would be enhanced by producing lists with a rolling programme of specific sites in the way the Opposition imagine it should be done.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 241.
| Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) | Maynard, Miss Joan | Sillars, James |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Meacher, Michael | Silverman, Julius |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Small, William |
| Hunter, Adam | Mikardo, Ian | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) |
| Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) | Millan, Bruce | Spearing, Nigel |
| Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) | Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) | Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Stallard, A. W. |
| Janner, Greville | Molloy, William | Stott, Roger |
| Jay, Rt Hon Douglas | Moonman, Eric | Strang, Gavin |
| Jeger, Mrs Lena | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. |
| Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley |
| John, Brynmor | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Swain, Thomas |
| Johnson, James (Hull West) | Moyle, Roland | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| Jones, Alec (Rhondda) | Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| Jones, Barry (East Flint) | Newens, Stanley | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Noble, Mike | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Judd, Frank | Oakes, Gordon | Tierney, Sydney |
| Kaufman, Gerald | Ogden, Eric | Tinn, James |
| Kelley, Richard | O'Halloran, Michael | Tomlinson, John |
| Kerr, Russell | O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Tomney, Frank |
| Kilroy-Silk, Robert | Orbach, Maurice | Torney, Tom |
| Kinnock, Neil | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Tuck, Raphael |
| Lambie, David | Ovenden, John | Urwin, T. W. |
| Lamborn, Harry | Owen, Dr David | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Lamond, James | Palmer, Arthur | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Park, George | Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) |
| Leadbitter, Ted | Parker, John | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Lee, John | Parry, Robert | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) | Pavitt, Laurie | Ward, Michael |
| Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Watkins, David |
| Litterick, Tom | Price, William (Rugby) | Watkinson, John |
| Loyden, Eddie | Radice, Giles | Weetch, Ken |
| Luard, Evan | Richardson, Miss Jo | Wellbeloved, James |
| Lyon, Alexander (York) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | White, James (Pollok) |
| Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| McCartney, Hugh | Roderick, Caerwyn | Whitlock, William |
| McElhone, Frank | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| MacFarquhar, Roderick | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Rooker, J. W. | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Mackenzie, Gregor | Roper, John | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Rowlands, Ted | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Sandelson, Neville | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Madden, Max | Sedgemore, Brian | Woodall, Alec |
| Magee, Bryan | Selby, Harry | Woof, Robert |
| Mahon, Simon | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Marks, Kenneth | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) | |
| Marquand, David | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | Mr. James Hamilton and |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) | Mr. David Stoddart |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Channon, Paul | Fookes, Miss Janet |
| Alison, Michael | Churchill, W. S. | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) |
| Arnold, Tom | Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Fox, Marcus |
| Awdry, Daniel | Clark, William (Croydon S) | Fry, Peter |
| Baker, Kenneth | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Gardiner, George (Reigate) |
| Banks, Robert | Clegg, Walter | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Cockcroft, John | Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Glyn, Dr Alan |
| Benyon, W. | Cope, John | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Cormack, Patrick | Goodhart, Philip |
| Biffen, John | Costain, A. P. | Goodhew, Victor |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Blaker, Peter | Crouch, David | Gorst, John |
| Body, Richard | Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C) |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Drayson, Burnaby | Gray, Hamish |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Grieve, Percy |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Dunlop, John | Griffiths, Eldon |
| Brittan, Leon | Durant, Tony | Grist, Ian |
| Brotherton, Michael | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Grylls, Michael |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Elliott, Sir William | Hall, Sir John |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Emery, Peter | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Eyre, Reginald | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Buck, Antony | Fairbairn, Nicholas | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Budgen, Nick | Fairgrieve, Russell | Hannam, John |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Fell, Anthony | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Burden, F. A. | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss |
| Carlisle, Mark | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Hastings, Stephen |
| Havers, Sir Michael | Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Sainsbury, Tim |
| Hawkins, Paul | Mawby, Ray | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Scott, Nicholas |
| Heseltine, Michael | Mayhew, Patrick | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hicks, Robert | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Shelton, William (Streatham) |
| Higgins, Terence L. | Mills, Peter | Shepherd, Colin |
| Holland, Philip | Miscampbell, Norman | Silvester, Fred |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Sims, Roger |
| Hordern, Peter | Moate, Roger | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Molyneaux, James | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Howell, David (Guildford) | Monro, Hector | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Montgomery, Fergus | Speed, Keith |
| Hunt, John | Moore, John (Croydon C) | Spence, John |
| Hurd, Douglas | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Morgan, Geraint | Sproat, Iain |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Stainton, Keith |
| Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| James, David | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Stanley, John |
| Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) | Mudd, David | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Neave, Airey | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Neubert, Michael | Stokes, John |
| Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Newton, Tony | Stradling Thomas J. |
| Jopling, Michael | Nott, John | Tapsell, Peter |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Onslow, Cranley | Taylor, R (Croydon NW) |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Tebbit, Norman |
| Kimball, Marcus | Pardoe, John | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Parkinson, Cecil | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Pattie, Geoffrey | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Percival, Ian | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Peyton, Rt Hon John | Trotter, Neville |
| Knox, David | Pink. R, Bonner | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Lamont, Norman | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| Latham, Michael (Melton) | Prior, Rt Hon James | Viggers, Peter |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Wakeham, John |
| Lawson, Nigel | Raison, Timothy | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Le Marchant, Spencer | Rathbone, Tim | Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) |
| Loveridge, John | Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Wall, Patrick |
| Luce, Richard | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Walters, Dennis |
| McCrindle, Robert | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | Wells, John |
| MacGregor, John | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Wiggin, Jerry |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Ridsdale, Julian | Winterton, Nicholas |
| McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) | Rifkind, Malcolm | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Madel, David | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Younger, Hon George |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | |
| Marten, Neil | Ross, William (Londonderry) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mates, Michael | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Mr. Adam Butler and |
| Mather, Carol | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | Mr. Michael Roberts |
| Maude, Angus | Royle, Sir Anthony |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.