§ Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 40.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. John SilkinI beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith that it will also be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 12.
§ Mr. SilkinThe effect of the amendments would be to remove the building of a single dwelling-house from excepted development under Clause 3(1)(b) and place it in exempt development in the First Schedule.
There are two strong objections to this approach. The first is that there might be circumstances where it would be right for an authority to buy land for the building of a single house. By putting the building of a single house into "excepted development" we have recognised that such cases would inevitably be rare, but I can think of a case where the authority might want to build a single house—for example, for a park keeper or a local authority worker. However, equally within the terms of the land scheme if there are such cases an authority should have the power to buy the land for such development. In previous legislation—for example, the Housing Acts—local authorities already have powers to buy land for single houses. 1166 Therefore, I cannot see what possible objection there can be to bringing this development within the scope of the new acquisition powers.
The second objection is that the amendment will have a much wider effect on the operation of compulsory purchase powers. Let us suppose that an authority proposed to buy an area of land for the erection of 100 or 150 houses. If these amendments were accepted, it is conceivable that the vires of the compulsory purchase order could be challenged on the basis that what was proposed was the building of 100 or 150 single houses and that each house should be regarded as exempt development. I do not regard that as a realistic approach to the situation, but it is a possible approach.
What is more possible is that the owner of a single plot in the middle of such an area might be able to challenge the order on the basis that the plot is suitable for exempt development and that he intended to carry out such development by building a single house. I do not think the second challenge is likely to arise in practice because I assume, as a practitioner of law and an officer of the courts that the court would take a reasonable view of what Parliament intended to do in this legislation. I also believe that the courts will not accept as a general rule that the fact that the land was suitable for exempt development as well as for other development would take it outside the acquisition power—otherwise, all agricultural land would be outside the power because it would be suitable for development within paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. Therefore, to include some housing developments as exempt developments could, from a practical point of view, introduce uncertainty into the exercise of the acquisition power.
The Government are not prepared to run that risk, especially as the case for including such housing within exempt development is so weak, and we believe that the matter would already fall within the existing powers in the Housing Acts.
§ Mr. CleggI listened with interest to the Minister's explanation. The Bill has an amoeba-like quality. It constantly changes shape and its clauses appear and disappear, jargon is spawned one moment and recycled the next.
1167 In the earlier days following the White Paper certain single plots were to be exempted. In other words, plots held by people on "White Paper day" were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill. However, following Government amendments the matter appears to have been widened in one sense since they brought all single plots into the Bill, but this has acted to the detriment of the man whose land was exempted in the White Paper. One merit of the Lords amendment is that it places those people back into the position in which they were.
The amendment sets out to exempt the single plot by putting it in Schedule 1. That, I understand, takes it out of the operation of Clauses 15 and 25. Clause 15, which covers the powers of acquisition, excludes any development specified in Schedule 1, and the Lords amendment has the effect of including the single plot in that schedule. We are concerned that it should be included in the schedule to do justice to the people who originally though that they would be exempted, and there appears to be a strange difference between "exemption" and "exception".
Clause 25 deals with assumptions as to planning permission on or after the second appointed day. After the second appointed day, any land which is not covered by the exemptions in Schedule I can be bought at current use value. If the single plot were included in the schedule and exempted thereby it could be bought by the State at current use value plus the value of the planning permission to develop it as a single plot.
That was the position of the owner of a plot on White Paper day. Now, his position has been materially changed. A person who owned a plot would, after the second appointed day, have received market value compensation under the White Paper. Under the Lords amendment he would not get market value compensation but current use value, and there could be a difference in value between those two figures.
§ Mr. John SilkinI do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, which charms me as always, but we are due to debate exactly that issue on a later amendment which specifically deals with that point. I think it is Lords Amendment No. 150.
§ Mr. SilkinSo long as the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to bite the cherry on this occasion, I shall bite it on a later occasion.
§ Mr. CleggWe shall be a right bunch of cherry pickers before we have finished. I turn from cherries to the mutton of the argument. Those who say that single plots should be exempted have a good argument in the general sense of equity. I do not dispute that it is a major exemption from the Bill, but it will make the operation of the Bill more practicable. People with single plots will he able to develop them more easily if they are exempt.
The Minister said—I have no doubt that he is right because the same argument was used by the Lord Chancellor—that local authorities have considerable powers under other legislation to purchase single plots, and they might need to. But that argument cannot be fully applied to the powers given under the Bill which are blanket powers for more specific purposes.
The Minister used the illustration of a local authority which wanted to build a cottage for a park keeper. There are others who say that a local authority might want to build a house for a town clerk or another official. That might not be greeted with so much enthusiasm. Local authorities would have power to do that, and to do it without justification.
For those reasons the House should not disagree with the amendment but should vote to keep the single plot exempted, as was the original intention of the White Paper. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to go further than the concession which has already been given by him. We are asking him to do the job thoroughly by putting the single plot into Schedule 1.
§ Mr. Michael LathamIn speaking to an earlier amendment I said that we were in danger of talking to ourselves because we have lived with the Bill for so long. On this amendment, which is so important, it is essential not only for those who have lived with the Bill but for the people in the Press, who have the unenviable task of trying to report our deliberations, to know what we are talking about. It is 1169 also important that those in places to which I am not allowed to refer who may be listening to the debate should know what we are talking about. We are talking about the word "exempt" which, throughout our discussions on the Bill during the past six months, has changed its meaning.
In the White Paper which appeared 14 months ago, just before the General Election—it was published for the purposes of the General Election, not for the good of the people—the proposal was that persons with dwelling-houses in a certain category should be exempt from the Bill. To avoid using the term of art "exempt" I shall say that the intention was that those persons should be completely outside the scheme. The local authority would not be able to acquire the land of persons who had dwelling-houses of a certain sort either under its general powers to do so between the first and second appointed days or under its specific duty to do so after the second appointed day.
That was a very limited concession. It was limited to "uncles, cousins and aunts", in the words of W. S. Gilbert, that is to say, to people who on White Paper day were building a house either for themselves or for certain named relatives.
There were two nightmare clauses, Clauses 4 and 5, which we discussed at great length in Committee, and to understand them one needed to be a positive Solon. All the different forms of relationships were involved. I remember that at one stage my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and I queried whether in areas where Pakistanis and Indians were numerous the family concession was sufficient because of the family pattern of Pakistanis and Indians.
On Report the Government brought forward a new proposal. They produced a new schedule of exempt development. Although I have lived with the Bill for so long, I do not know much about it because it changes every week, but I understand that the present position is that exempt development will be outside the scope of the Bill. It will require a new Act of Parliament to get rid of Schedule 1, which contains the limited categories outside the acquisition powers.
1170 Exempted development is a non-statutory exercise. Concessions were made by the Government. I refer, for example, to the building of houses on land of up to 10,000 square feet. Special concessions are to be made on an extra-statutory basis by means of regulations that we have not yet seen. Their Lordships rightly took the view that the scope of Schedule 1 was limited. The Opposition's attitude is simple. We believe that the Government should carry out their election pledges. People living in owner-occupied houses should not have their land compulsorily acquired from them by the local authority. That is what the Government promised the people. That promise was in the White Paper and the manifesto. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to carry out that election pledge.
5.0 p.m.
Their Lordships seized on the Minister's concession. They said that the Minister had at last admitted that the powers of the Bill were too wide. It is not enough just to state that certain matters may be exempted by regulation made by the Secretary of State. On Report the Secretary of State produced proposals to be included in the Bill rather than the nightmare Clauses 4, 5 and 10, to give exemption to some categories of development. Their Lordships said "The Minister has seen the light. He has exempted some categories. What could be better than now to give him the chance to honour his election pledges? We shall insert into that exempt category an amendment." However, the Minister said "No, I am not in a position to keep my election pledges. That might lead to abuse." The Minister painted a fantastic picture. He and I are good friends. We have always got on very well.
§ Mr. John Silkin indicated assent.
§ Mr. LathamThe Minister said that the Government must resist the Lords amendment as otherwise speculators, developers, profiteers and other wicked men would be able to break up large sites into 100 plots and to obtain 100 different exemptions.
I work in the building industry. It is often said that people using land look for mistakes and for means of evading legislation in Bills dealing with complex matters. From time to time I lecture to 1171 builders about the workings of the Bill. I am obliged to re-write my lecture every week or so when the Government amend the legislation. Builders ask me the question that the Minister posed to the House—"Is there any way by which we can obtain individual plot exemptions?" I reply "No, that is not possible under the Bill, even with the Lords amendment." That amendment is not susceptible of the interpretation that the Minister has placed on it. Even if the Minister were right, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the right hon. Gentleman to put down an amendment to the Lords amendment, as he has to Lords Amendment No. 13.
The Minister could have said "I agree that the Government must keep their election pledges to the effect that owner-occupied houses and single plots should come outside the duties and the powers of the Bill. But I am worried that the odd person may make a quick buck if I am not careful. Therefore, I shall put down an amendment stating that for the avoidance of doubt the provision shall not be taken as meaning that estates can be broken up." It is not beyond the resources of the Minister to draft such an amendment. I go further. If it is beyond the resources of the Minister, he can ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who would be delighted to draft the legislation for him and who would do a good job.
This is the most important of the Lords amendments. Their Lordships made it for the reasonable purpose of asking the Government to keep their election pledges. I am not the custodian of the Labour Party manifesto. However, if the Minister is the custodian, all he has to do is to agree with the amendment.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisI support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham). The Minister said that there were two factors which caused the Government's reaction against the Lords amendment. The first was that the local authorities already had powers under the existing housing legislation. We accept that. Surely the Minister accepted that those powers existed when the White Paper was drawn up.
The Minister is on slippery ground. The White Paper, which was published before the last General Election, aroused 1172 excitement in my constituency. Section VII referred to "Permanent Exemptions from Acquisition". Great play was made with the word "permanent". Paragraph 34 said
The Government propose to exclude from the scheme the building of a house for owner-occupation on a single plot which was owned by the prospective owner-occupier on the date of this White Paper (12th September 1974).In normal circumstances that could be regarded as a firm pledge. Indeed, a garbled version of it was repeated in the Labour Party manifesto. People in the marginal constituencies may have been influenced by those words in the manifesto. They may have acted upon that White Paper. It would not be proper to go back on those words.The Minister attempted, by means of the wording of the exception, to tidy up the Bill and to remove the complicated dimensions of the extended family relationship and the other doubtful points that we debated in Committee. The Government issued a White Paper in September and produced a Bill the following March. They took another four or five months to make this change. Therefore, they run the risk of being accused of misleading the people. It is the rôle of the Opposition to point out that the Minister has misled the public. I do not think that that is stretching the position too far.
This afternoon the Minister has a chance to think again, to accept that he misled the public and to say that their Lordships acted wisely, for they have had time in which to reflect on these changes and to put the matter in its true perspective. I do not think that it is too much to ask the Minister to admit that he has misled the public. That is the last thing he would want to do. He is an honourable man. Therefore, he should accept the amendment.
§ Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)We should not spend too long discussing whether people should base their actions on a programme which was set out in the Labour Party manifesto but which has not been published with the imprimatur of the Government and the authority which should go with a White Paper. It is important that we should refer to the contents of the White Paper. If there had been a more enlightened reaction by the electorate to the situation in which the country found itself over a year ago, 1173 we should not have to worry now. However, we can assume that after an election a Government attach some authority to their own publications
The Minister did not deny that the intention, which was set out in non-statutory language in the White Paper, was to give exemption to the person wishing to develop a single plot. It was read in that way in the Press, whatever was said in the Cabinet, and that served to reinforce that assumption.
The problem that the right hon. Gentleman found himself facing was whether, as a result of the omission of Clauses 4 and 5, the exemption would be slightly widened or somewhat restricted in practice. We are reminded of the nightmare of trying to follow the debate as clauses change their meaning. Searching through the reports of what happened in Committee one finds that the debate took place on 10th June and that we were discussing the matter at about mid-day on 11th June. This adds an extra dimension to the nightmare quality, as it was by then my birthday, and I could not have been more beneficially employed than in pleading the case of the single plot.
With the leaving out of Clauses 4 and 5, on which we spent so many happy morning hours, the question is whether we widen the exemption a little or restrict it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) pointed out, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that by widening it a little there is a small risk that some person might be able, by arranging his affairs in an unnatural way, to seek to take some advantage, surely that could be prevented by an appropriately worded amendment, or perhaps by some other measure.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Government or local authorities needing on occasions to develop single houses. I know that he would not deny that the Government have powers under other legislation to acquire land, subject to all the appropriate safeguards of inquiry and the Secretary of State's approval. They might use those powers, or try to buy the necessary land by agreement, if they did not already own some land on which to carry out the development.
The Lords amendment quite rightly gives priority to ensuring that the undertaking contained in the White Paper is 1174 carried out. The impression that was spread abroad was that the developer of the single plot would be exempt—totally outside the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that a case has been made out for rejecting the Lords amendment. The small disadvantages could be dealt with in other ways. I therefore support my hon. Friends in saying that the Lords amendments ought not to be rejected.
§ Mr. CostainI suppose that as I own a house with an acre plot beside it, I ought to declare an interest.
As has been said, those hon. Members who were on the Committee are, in a sense, talking to themselves. I do not have that benefit, because I was involved with other Bills at the time. It ought to be pointed out that the clause is very much against the Labour Party's manifesto, so that it is surprising that the House is not being urged to reject it on that ground. Looking around the Chamber, one finds that there are no Liberals here, no Ulster Nationalists, and only a few members of the minority party, so that we have not a sporting chance.
The Minister started by saying that the clause was not necessary because he was able to take over or to buy a house under his other powers. He says that he does not need the clause, but it appears that he wants to have it. Why does he want it? Why is he resisting the amendment? As I see it, the amendment to the Lords amendment would give him the right to purchase property below its market value and to confiscate property. I suppose that he will press it through the House as a further confiscation measure, and that is why we must resist it.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. John SilkinThere is only one major point that I need to answer. The others relate to differences that have emerged—if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, without being taken to task—from a course that we have cantered round many times before.
The affection in which the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) holds me is more than reciprocated, in the politest, most political way, but I felt that there were two contentions that he put to us that stretched credulity beyond all imagining. One is that I am responsible for the changes in the Bill during the past few weeks. I can assure him that I should have been delighted if the changes 1175 that we have been debating, and will be debating all through the night, had not been made. It is a little too late for him now to influence his noble Friends.
When he offers me the prospect of their Lordships' House as the custodians and guardians of the Labour Party manifesto, as his noble Friends did, that, too, stretches credulity to the ninth degree. I agree on this occasion with the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury)—with whom I rarely agree—that it is to the White Paper that we should look as the only begetter, in a parliamentary sense, of the Bill. It is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Melton and the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) pointed out, that the White Paper refers to the building of a single house. The paragraphs in question are 34 and 35.
I should like to read a little more of the White Paper than the hon. Member for Northampton, South chose to read. I noticed a slight glottal hesitation when he reached the word "acquisition" because, of course, he had seen the words following. Paragraph 34 begins:
The Government propose to exclude from the scheme…".Then paragraph 35 reads:Other permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme will be set out in due course…".It is paragraph 26 that deals with compulsory acquisition. In that paragraph it is very fairly stated that:Local authorities also buy some land for private development under powers in the Housing and Planning Acts. Local authorities, however, should be enabled to do much more positive and comprehensive planning through ownership; and for this purpose they will be given new and very much wider powers to acquire land for development.What we are really talking about is the scope under the scheme and the scope of the acquisition power.Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read right to the end of paragraph 35 of the White Paper. I understand that it is because they are out to make, as they believe, a good, solid electoral point, but it is not as solid as they think. The words in paragraph 35 cover not just the single house, the single dwelling. Let us read it a little further:
buildings used in agriculture and forestry; and development related to the extraction of minerals.1176 Two lines later it says:the exemptions will also take account of the need not to constrain important industrial development and expansion.Paragraph 35, with one or two small exceptions, is basically talking about what became the excepted development and was always intended to be.
§ Mr. Michael LathamIs the right hon. Gentleman seriously trying to persuade the House that the specific concessions announced in paragraphs 34 and 35—particularly paragraph 34—were to be treated as being qualified by the general remarks in paragraph 26? There is nothing in the Labour Party manifesto about that.
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Gentleman must have been enormously tired while we were cantering round that course, because we have dealt with it over and over again in Committee and on Report. There is a difference between a global scheme and the individual situation within it.
What one is saying, therefore, is that outside the general scheme, outside the scope of the scheme, is the individual plot, but an individual plot might be in the middle of a huge circle to be developed. Common sense would dictate to the hon. Gentleman that that must be so, and that that must have been in our minds at the time of the presentation of the White Paper. Incidentally, I take it, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, as one of the nicest compliments ever paid to us that we won the last election on the White Paper on Land.
§ Mr. Michael LathamNow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that, in normal circumstances, owner-occupiers or plot owners are to be treated as exempted, but when it is a local authority it will no longer be exempted. There was nothing in the manifesto about that.
§ Mr. SilkinI have said over and over again that of course there may be global development that will inevitably override. That is the whole point. The point of public ownership of development land is precisely that we must plan properly. But in the normal course of events the building of a single house is outside the scope of the scheme. Of course it is not outside the compulsory 1177 acquisition power. It never was. It was not under the Tory Government or under the Liberal Party when it was in office. It has not been for 100 years.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisBut the White Paper says in black and white, "Permanent exemptions from acquisitions". That is in Section VII. It is not in Section V. If it came under Section V, it would be acceptable, but it comes under "permanent exemptions".
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Gentleman must read something beyond headlines. He must read what they relate to as well. Paragraph 35 says:
Other permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme will be set out in due course but they will include…".The hon Gentleman has not made the point about, for example, minerals being exempted, but that is also under paragraph 35.
| Division No. 391.] | AYES | [5.23 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) | Hardy, Peter |
| Allaun, Frank | Davidson, Arthur | Harper, Joseph |
| Anderson, Donald | Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Archer, Peter | Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) | Hart, Rt Hon Judith |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Hatton, Frank |
| Ashley, Jack | Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) | Hayman, Mrs Helene |
| Ashton, Joe | Deakins, Eric | Healey, Rt Hon Denis |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Atkinson, Norman | Delargy, Hugh | Hooley, Frank |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Dell, Rt Hon Edmund | Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) |
| Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) | Dempsey, James | Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) |
| Bates, Alf | Doig, Peter | Huckfield, Les |
| Bean, R. E. | Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood | Duffy, A. E. P. | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Dunn, James A. | Hughes, Roy (Newport) |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dunnett, Jack | Hunter, Adam |
| Bishop, E. S. | Eadie, Alex | Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) |
| Boardman, H. | Edelman, Maurice | Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) |
| Booth, Albert | Edge, Geoff | Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Janner, Greville |
| Boyden, James (Bish Auck) | Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) | Jay, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | English, Michael | Jeger, Mrs Lena |
| Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) | Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) |
| Buchan, Norman | Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) | Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) |
| Buchanan, Richard | Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | John, Brynmor |
| Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) | Faulds, Andrew | Johnson, James (Hull West) |
| Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) | Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | Jones, Alec (Rhondda) |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Jones, Barry (East Flint) |
| Campbell, Ian | Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Flannery, Martin | Judd, Frank |
| Cant, R. B. | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Kaufman, Gerald |
| Carmichael, Neil | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Kelley, Richard |
| Carter, Ray | Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Kerr, Russell |
| Cartwright, John | Forrester, John | Kilroy-Silk, Robert |
| Castle, Rt Hon Barbara | Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) | Kinnock, Neil |
| Clemitson, Ivor | Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) | Lambie, David |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | Freeson, Reginald | Lamborn, Harry |
| Coleman, Donald | Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Lamond, James |
| Concannon, J. D. | Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) |
| Conlan, Bernard | George, Bruce | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) | Gilbert, Dr John | Lee, John |
| Corbett, Robin | Ginsburg, David | Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) |
| Cox, Thomas (Tooting) | Golding, John | Lever, Rt Hon Harold |
| Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) | Gould, Bryan | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Gourlay, Harry | Lipton, Marcus |
| Cronin, John | Graham, Ted | Litterick, Tom |
| Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony | Grant, George (Morpeth) | Loyden, Eddie |
| Cryer, Bob | Grant, John (Islington C) | Luard, Evan |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington S) | Grocott, Bruce | Lyon, Alexander (York) |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) |
§ Mr. Graham PageThe right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the point made by a number of my hon. Friends. Does not he think it incredible that the ownership of land and the amount of compensation will depend on the difference between the words "except" and "exempt", with exclusions thrown in? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the public will understand that?
§ Mr. SilkinI said earlier that we should be dealing with that aspect under a later amendment. We had a long discussion on cherries and mutton and agreed that there would be another bite later on. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber at the time.
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 266.
| Mabon, Dr J. Dickson | Palmer, Arthur | Swain, Thomas |
| McCartney, Hugh | Park, George | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| McElhone, Frank | Parker, John | Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) |
| MacFarquhar, Roderick | Parry, Robert | Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) |
| McGuire, Michael (Ince) | Pavitt, Laurie | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Mackenzie, Gregor | Price, C. (Lewisham W) | Thorne, Stan (Preston South) |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Price, William (Rugby) | Tierney, Sydney |
| Maclennan, Robert | Radice, Giles | Tinn, James |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) | Richardson, Miss Jo | Tomlinson, John |
| Madden, Max | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Tomney, Frank |
| Magee, Bryan | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) | Torney, Tom |
| Mahon, Simon | Robertson, John (Paisley) | Tuck, Raphael |
| Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Roderick, Caerwyn | Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. |
| Marks, Kenneth | Rodgers, George (Chorley) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Marquand, David | Rodgers, William (Stockton) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Rooker, J. W. | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Roper, John | Ward, Michael |
| Maynard, Miss Joan | Rose, Paul B. | Watkinson, John |
| Meacher, Michael | Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) | Weetch, Ken |
| Mellish, Rt Hon Robert | Rowlands, Ted | Weitzman, David |
| Mikardo, Ian | Sandelson, Neville | Wellbeloved, James |
| Millan, Bruce | Sedgemore, Brian | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) | Selby, Harry | White, James (Pollok) |
| Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) | Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Molloy, William | Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) | Whitlock, William |
| Moonman, Eric | Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) | Willey, Rt Hon Frederick |
| Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) | Williams, Alan (Swansea W) |
| Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) | Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) |
| Moyle, Roland | Sillars, James | Williams, W. T. (Warrington) |
| Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick | Silverman, Julius | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King | Small, William | Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton) |
| Nowens, Stanley | Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) | Wilson, William (Coventry SE) |
| Noble, Mike | Spearing, Nigel | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Oakes, Gordon | Spriggs, Leslie | Woodall, Alec |
| Ogden, Eric | Stallard, A. W. | Woof, Robert |
| O'Halloran, Michael | Stoddart, David | Wrigglesworth, Ian |
| O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian | Stonehouse, Rt Hon John | Young, David (Bolton E) |
| Orbach, Maurice | Stott, Roger | |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Strang, Gavin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Ovenden, John | Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. | Miss Margaret Jackson and |
| Owen, Dr David | Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| Padley, Walter |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | Godber, Rt Hon Joseph |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Clegg, Walter | Goodhart, Philip |
| Alison, Michael | Cockcroft, John | Goodhew, Victor |
| Amery, Rt Hon Julian | Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) | Goodlad, Alastair |
| Arnold, Tom | Cope, John | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Cormack, Patrick | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) |
| Awdry, Daniel | Costain, A. P. | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Crawford, Douglas | Gray, Hamish |
| Baker, Kenneth | Crouch, David | Grieve, Percy |
| Banks, Robert | Crowder, F. P. | Griffiths, Eldon |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) | Dean, Paul (N Somerset) | Grimond, Rt Hon J. |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Grist, Ian |
| Benyon, W. | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Grylls, Michael |
| Berry, Hon Anthony | Drayson, Burnaby | Hall, Sir John |
| Biffen, John | du Cann, Rt Hon Edward | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Dunlop, John | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) |
| Blaker, Peter | Durant, Tony | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Body, Richard | Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Hannam, John |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Elliott, Sir William | Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Emery, Peter | Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Hastings, Stephen |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Eyre, Reginald | Havers, Sir Michael |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Fairbairn, Nicholas | Hawkins, Paul |
| Brittan, Leon | Fairgrieve, Russell | Hayhoe, Barney |
| Brocklebank-Fowler, C. | Fell, Anthony | Heath, Rt Hon Edward |
| Brotherton, Michael | Finsberg, Geoffrey | Henderson, Douglas |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Fisher, Sir Nigel | Heseltine, Michael |
| Bryan, Sir Paul | Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) | Hicks, Robert |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick | Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Higgins, Terence L. |
| Buck, Antony | Fookes, Miss Janet | Holland, Philip |
| Budgen, Nick | Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) | Hooson, Emlyn |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Fox, Marcus | Hordern, Peter |
| Burden, F. A. | Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) | Howell, David (Guildford) |
| Butler, Adam (Bosworth) | Freud, Clement | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Fry, Peter | Hunt, John |
| Chalker, Mrs Lynda | Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. | Hurd, Douglas |
| Channon, Paul | Gardiner, George (Reigate) | Hutchison, Michael Clark |
| Chuchill, W. S. | Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) |
| Clark, William (Croydon S) | Glyn, Dr Alan | James, David |
| Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wansl'd & W'df'd) | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) | Morgan, Geraint | Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Morris, Michael (Northampton S) | Speed, Keith |
| Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Spence, John |
| Jopling, Michael | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) |
| Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith | Mudd, David | Sproat, lain |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Neave, Airey | Stainton, Keith |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Neubert, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Klmball, Marcus | Newton, Tony | Stanley, John |
| King, Evelyn (South Dorset) | Nott, John | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Onslow, Cranley | Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) |
| Kitson, Sir Timothy | Oppenheim, Mrs Sally | Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) |
| Knight, Mrs Jill | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) | Stokes, John |
| Knox, David | Pardoe, John | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Lamont, Norman | Parkinson, Cecil | Tapsell, Peter |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Pattie, Geoffrey | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Latham, Michael (Melton) | Penhaligon, David | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Percival, Ian | Tebbit, Norman |
| Lawson, Nigel | Peyton, Rt Hon John | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Lloyd, Ian | Pink, R. Bonner | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Loveridge, John | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch | Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) |
| Luce, Richard | Price, David (Eastleigh) | Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Prior, Rt Hon James | Thompson, George |
| MacCormick, lain | Pym, Rt Hon Francis | Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) |
| McCrindle, Robert | Raison, Timothy | Townsend, Cyril D. |
| McCusker, H. | Rathbone, Tim | Trotter, Neville |
| Macfarlane, Neil | Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| MacGregor, John | Rees-Davies, W. R. | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) | Reid, George | Vaughan, Dr Gerard |
| McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) | Viggers, Peter |
| McNair-Wilson, p. (New Forest) | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| Madel, David | Ridley, Hon Nicholas | Wakeham, John |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Ridsdale, Julian | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Marten, Neil | Rifkind, Malcolm | Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) |
| Mates, Michael | Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey | Wall, Patrick |
| Mather, Carol | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) | Walters, Dennis |
| Maude, Angus | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) | Watt, Hamish |
| Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald | Ross, William (Londonderry) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Mawby, Ray | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) | Wells, John |
| Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) | Whitelaw, Rt Hon William |
| Mayhew, Patrick | Royle, Sir Anthony | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Sainsbury. Tim | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Mills, Peter | St. John-Stevas, Norman | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Miscampbell, Norman | Scott, Nicholas | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Moate, Roger | Shelton, William (Streatham) | Younger, Hon George |
| Molyneaux. James | Shepherd, Colin | |
| Monro, Hector | Silvester, Fred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Montgomery, Fergus | Sims, Roger | Mr. Michael Roberts and |
| Moore, John (Croydon C) | Sinclair, Sir George | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.