§ Mr. Speaker
With this we may discuss the following amendments:
2158 No. 37, in page 6, leave out lines 39 to 42.
No. 163, in page 6, line 41, leave out from 'borough' to end of line 42.
§ Miss Maynard
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 is to ensure that all the provisions of the Bill apply to the Crown, the Government and the City of London.
There are two kinds of tenant in the Bill: protected occupant—farm workers who work in the industry—and statutory tenants. As the Bill stands, no farm worker working for the Crown, the Government or the City of London could ever become a statutory tenant. I think that is wrong. The full provisions of the Bill should apply to all these authorities just as it applies to other owners of agricultural tied cottages. It seems wrong that farm workers who work for the Crown, the Government or the City of London should be excluded from the full provisions of the Bill. There may be legal reasons for this. Apart from that, there seems to be no argument against the amendments.
§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)
I support the amendment. In fact, although I was not a member of the Committee, I was the originator of the amendment. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was good enough to move the amendment shortly and moderately—too moderately—and he received a very unsatisfactory reply from the Minister. Unless we have a more satisfactory reply tonight, I propose to vote for the amendment against the Government, and I hope that my hon. Friend will support me.
I was astounded, when the Bill was published, that it specifically excluded by name the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, and presumably the private estates of Sandringham and Balmoral.
In Committee, in defence of the omission of these houses from the Bill, the Minister said:Detailed discussions with the exempted bodies and the local authority associations are in train. I can now say that the Crown, together with other exempted bodies, has every intention of observing the spirit of the Bill's provisions under appropriate administrative arrangements.2159 What a load of codswallop. What on earth does that mean? Either they are in or they are not in the Bill.
The Minister went on:Again, in response to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) which dealt basically with the tied cottages owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, there will be extra-statutory arrangements to ensure similar protection for agricultural workers housed and employed by the bodies exempted under the Rent Act 1968."—[Official Report, Standing Committee K, 27th May 1976; c. 183.]My hon. Friend the Member for Keighlcy withdrew the amendment on the understanding that the Government would table amendments invoking suctions of the Rent Act 1968. No undertaking was given by the Minister, and I do not see any amendment on the Order Paper fulfilling any kind of promise. As the Minister made no such promise, he was under no obligation to table any such amendment. Therefore, the Bill stays as it is with cottages on those royal estates exempted.
I fear that the Government are resting their case on the verbiage used by the Minister in Committee. Therefore, I want to probe and ask him one or two questions about what is going on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley asked what was meant by the declaration of intent of the Crown to observe "the spirit of the Bill's provisions". If those estates are to observe it, why not put it down in black and white?
Let me inform the Minister of a matter that is directly related to this problem. There is on the statute book the Crown Private Estates Act 1862, Section 8 of which reads:The private estates of Her Majesty, her heirs or successors, shall be subject to all such taxes, rates, duties, assessments, and other impositions, parliamentary and parochial, as the same would have been subject to if the same had been the property of any subject of this realm".In other words, that Act specifically states that the private estates of the Crown shall be treated in no way whatsoever differently from the estates or property of any other individual.
The Civil List Select Committee, of which I was a naughty member, went 2160 into this matter in great detail. We were told by the Treasury that that section of that Act had been interpreted by it as meaning that no profits of any kind from the private estates should be taxed in any way whatsoever. The only payment that is made for Sandringham or Balmoral is rates. Apples, vegetables and other kinds of fruit are sold from those estates, and the profits from them are entirely tax free.
Referring to the Duchy of Cornwall the Minister used the phrase "extra-statutory arrangements". What is meant by that? The Minister said that the Government had every intention of observing the spirit of the Bill's provisions. I cite the case of a lady, still living, who was a tenant of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales. The lady's husband died and she was evicted from her farm. She is now 77 or 78 years old, and lives in Marazion in Cornwall. I have visited her. She writes to me as regularly, as she writes to the Prince of Wales. That is a case of a tenant who was evicted by the Duchy of Cornwall.
The undertakings given by the Minister in Committee were unconvincing and nonsensical. Unless he has firm evidence and gives a firm commitment and undertaking that the tenants of these cottages will be covered by the Bill we shall be obliged to vote for the amendment.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
I support the amendments in the names of my hon. Friends. First, I should like to deal with the amendment which would require the Bill to apply to the Common Council of the City of London.
I understand and appreciate the reasons for the exclusion of other local authorities because such authorities are democratically organised and controlled. There is some element of public scrutiny over the operations of local authorities' farms and tenants. However, the Common Council of the City of London is generally regarded by sensible people with a belief in democracy as the last rotten borough in the country.
§ Mr. William Hamilton
Is my hon. Friend referring to the place which conferred the Freedom of the City upon the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)?
§ Mr. Cryer
Yes. It is the only local authority which does not apply the public accounting procedure applied by other local authorities. It is the only council which can decide whether candidates are fit and proper candidates for membership of the council. It is the only council which insists that a candidate who wishes to stand for election must pay a fee. The council is totally undemocratic, grossly overrated and totally out of line with the representation which the previous Conservative Government established in the Local Government Act 1972.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of London has farms, open spaces, parks and land workers? There are farm workers in Epping Forest. They are very well looked after.
§ Mr. Cryer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me that useful information. Although, as my hon. Friend says, the workers are well looked after, that may change, and the provisions of the Bill should, therefore, apply to the City.
There is no democratic scrutiny of the proceedings of the Common Council of the City of London and no opportunity for democratic changes to be made, as there is in every other local authority. Therefore, the City should be included in these provisions and the amendments should be made.
The London Government Act 1963 was basically an attempt to wrest power by legalistic means from the Labour-controlled London County Council, but the then Conservative Administration did nothing about the City of London, which was the local authority most ripe for reorganisation. Again, in 1972, when the Conservatives had the opportunity for massive reorganisation they did not touch the City. The City is a self-perpetuating oligarchy, and the amendment would be valuable.
2162 My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said in Committee that if the Minister on Report tabled amendments to invoke the Rent Act 1968 to cover this difficulty he would find many willing supporters among his hon. Friends. In Committee the Minister argued that as the Rent Act 1968 did not apply to the Crown it would be wrong to apply it. I hoped that the Minister would table amendments to ensure total consistency. The Crown, as a corporation sole with a wide range of diverse activities, should fulfil the same requirements as anyone else.
It would be nice if, instead of debating round the subject, we said "All right. Since standards are maintained, what is wrong with putting it into the Bill?" We like people who support the spirit of the law, but we say to the rest of humanity, "You have to observe the letter of the law". Why not say it to the rest of the institutions, including the corporation sole of the Crown?
I am much concerned about this, because we have had precedents created by the Government in the past when they have excepted the Crown. It causes a great deal of concern to ordinary working people employed by the Crown. I am not speaking just of estates owned by the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall but of people like those in the Royal Ordnance Factories, because the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act includes exemption of the Crown. It would cause me great concern if we followed that precedent in giving exemption.
Where an Act applies, questions may be asked of a Minister about the application of the Act—for instance, when evictions are taking place. In the circumstances of this Bill, there would be an opportunity to ask whether advisory committees are performing their function of recommending to local authorities that agricultural tenants should, or should not, be rehoused.
If the Bill has exemptions, we shall be told at the Table Office that there is no ministerial responsibility. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that. Will he tell us whether we may ask questions about the spirit of the law being applied? Can we ask them in Parliament, the most important scrutinising body in the country? It is essential that hon. Members should have that most 2163 important opportunity to put down questions. It is difficult when certain areas are exempt because the Act does not apply.
§ Mr. Lee
Perhaps this will give an opportunity to question the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he is not engaged in his spectral duties advising the Government on the International Monetary Fund, asking whether the farm workers on the Duchy of Lancaster estates are being treated in the spirit of the Act.
§ Mr. Cryer
That illustrates the case neatly, because it took a great deal of trouble by Back Benchers to get the Chancellor to the Dispatch Box to answer questions at all. I well recall, Mr. Speaker, that your predecessor was appealed to on several questions, on many genuine points of order—that is almost unique—to get the Chancellor of the Duchy to the Dispatch Box to answer. How on earth we get the Minister to answer when his functions are exempt from the legislation, I do not know.
§ Mr. Farr
We are all anxious in the House to see that justice is done and the hon. Member has highlighted, in his own way, the exemptions which some hon. Members obviously agree with. Will the hon. Member not agree that the most glaring exceptions, the most privileged positions, are not those of the Duchy of Lancaster but those of organisations like the National Coal Board and the British Waterways Board, which have 100,000 tied houses, unlike the Duchy. They are the privileged people, and if the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was fair he would concentrate on them rather than on the others who cannot answer back.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Cryer
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. The Bill applies to agriculture, but I have always maintained that if tied houses in other areas—the NCB and police houses, for example—were brought into the ambit of legislation I would support it. As a fair-minded hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman must recognise the lead given by the National Union of Mineworkers in providing a good organisation which tends to inhibit the 2164 NCB from behaving as a bad landlord. That lead should be followed by other organisations representing workers who live in tied houses.
Scrutiny by hon. Members is all-important. Under the Health and Safety At Work etc. Act 1974 factory inspectors do not have the right to issue improvement and prohibition notices requiring the Crown to carry out statutory duties. How can we find out the number of serious breaches when there is no record of improvement and prohibition notices because they are not allowed to be issued?
I am concerned that we are creating a privileged group of people to whom legislation does not apply. Because it does not apply in, for example, royal palaces, people working in the House are in a much inferior position in many respects compared with the general body of employed people.
I ask my hon. Friend for a comprehensive explanation.
§ Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)
I had not intended to intervene in the debates on the Bill, which I understand applies only to England and Wales, but I am encouraged to do so by the intervention of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who, although he does not represent an English constituency either, deserves support on two grounds, embarrassing though it may be for him to receive it.
First, he is prepared to raise questions which most hon. Members are too mealymouthed to touch. It is a valuable quality in Back Benchers, whether or not we agree with them, if they are prepared to raise such matters. Secondly, one of the most undesirable features of our society is the growing gap between government, in all its forms, and governed. I am not enthusiastic about the Bill, but if the Government believe it to be a good Bill I can see no reason why it should not apply to the Crown. If it is a bad Bill it should apply to no one. Like other hon. Members, I mean the Crown in its corporate capacity.
It has also been mentioned that there are many other tied houses besides agricultural tied houses. I agree. It is a powerful point that if we are to object to tied houses in general we had better 2165 object to them all, starting with Downing Street and going down the scale. If that were done I should have much more sympathy with the Bill.
If hon. Members are courageous enough to raise these rather prickly subjects which offend the Establishment, as the hon. Members for Fife, Central and Keighley (Mr. Cryer) are, at least those of us who in our hearts agree with them should stand up and be counted on their side.
If it is wrong that people should live in tied houses and be subject to eviction when other people are not, the Bill should apply to tenants of the Crown, employees of nationalised industries and public boards, and everyone else.
I therefore put myself on record as having considerable sympathy with the last two speakers and, embarrassing as it may be to them, I wish to say that there are some Liberal consciences which are also troubled by this matter.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I do not always find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in respect of his views on the Royal Family but I agree with him that this legislation should apply to the the Crown as much as to anybody else. I can see no possible justification for leaving the Crown out of the provisions of the Bill.
We have had an assurance that the Crown intends to preserve the spirit of this Bill. If so, why should it not be bound by it? We know only too frequently that the declaration of intent of local authorities, and indeed housing associations, that they do not need to have Acts applying to them because they are always the perfect landlord, are by no means fulfilled.
Most hon. Members will be aware of occasions when local authorities have acted in the most arbitrary and offensive fashion in relation to their tenants. I do not wish to widen the scope of this debate, but not all local authorities are perfect landlords and not all housing associations are either.
We are considering an amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) seeking to make the Bill apply to the Crown, which I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept. The hon. 2166 Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and other hon. Members have also tabled amendments which would make the Bill apply to local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred specifically to the City of London. As hon. Members will be aware, that is a local authority which has the most abysmal record because its accommodation at the Barbican does not come under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act or the Rent Act.
§ Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the City of London owns a good number of houses in my constituency? I have had a recent case where it is trying to evict a woman, deserted by her husband, who turned in the tenancy before disappearing to Australia. The local authority is now trying to evict the woman and her family. Would my hon. Friend not agree that an authority with a record of that kind in its ordinary houses really should come under this Bill?
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
Most emphatically. My hon. Friend has given an example of the City of London, but I believe that many other local authorities also take an arbitrary view when the tenant departs leaving his wife and children in occupation, and particularly if he leaves owing an amount of rent which is not the wife's responsibility. Many local authorities seek to evict the wife on the ground of rent arrears.
However, in respect of the Barbican, the City of London local authority has a record which should be a source of shame to any local authority because the level of rents which it is charging for its accommodation there are completely contrary to the basis on which it was given consent, in the first place, for the erection of that accommodation. That local authority is, above all, one which should not be given exemption from a Bill of this kind.
Several hon. Members have asked whether or not there are any farms in the City of London. The question arising from the Bill relates to the ownership of the farm. I have very little doubt that the City of London has investment property which would be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. The wording of the Bill relates to the interest of the 2167 landlord. Consequently, if the interest of the landlord is that of the Common Council of the City of London it would, by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, be exempt from it.
I would have preferred Clause 6—and the corresponding Section 5 in the 1968 Rent Act—to be omitted. Everyone must know of examples of local authorities or housing associations abusing the fact that their arbitrary decisions cannot be challenged in the courts. In a case two or three years ago, I was able to challenge eviction proceedings by the St. Albans City Council. The Court of Appeal expressed its vehement disapproval of the way in which the council had acted, but it was only because of a procedural technicality that it was able to send the matter back to the council to see whether it really wished to go ahead in those circumstances. Luckily, the council thought again.
Many councils need to be challenged in the courts in these circumstances. Once one can compel them to state their case before a tribunal, they will think again. They will retract and common sense will prevail. I am sure that the same applies to the Crown. I am sure that it would not wish to defend before the courts an arbitrary eviction procedure or a total disregard of the spirit of the law. But if the Bill does not apply, such a body can be judge in its own cause and sole interpreter of the legislation.
It is preferable that the Bill should apply even to those bodies which we are confident will observe the spirit of the law. If it does not, it will be so easy for them to decide that they have complied with the spirit of the law, and no one will be able to challenge them. I therefore agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and urge the Minister either to accept the amendments or in another place to withdraw the whole of Clause 6. The only justification for it is that one part of the Rent Act law should accord with another. I hope that the Government will correct the Rent Acts generally to make them accord with the Bill as we would amend it, rather than incorporate in the Bill the defects of the 1968 Act.
§ Mr. Rossi
Amendment No. 37 has not really been discussed yet. It seeks 2168 to remove from the ambit of the clause not merely the City of London but all local authorities and to place them all on an equal basis.
I was fascinated by the discussion of the City of London. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas Mann) said, the way in which it behaves is no different from the way in which the majority of local authorities behave when they need accommodation for their own use. The great problem is the lack of security of tenure for council tenants. No doubt the House will have to consider that matter in future. But there seems no reason to single out one local authority.
If we accepted Amendment No. 163 but not Amendment No. 37 we should face an anomalous situation. The City of London owns Epping Forest, where it houses a number of foresters, who would be subject to this measure. The GLC owns and runs Hampstead Heath and has foresters there. It would be ridiculous if one happened to be a forester living in Epping Forest and enjoyed one kind of protection, and if somebody else was a forester on Hampstead Heath and enjoyed another type of protection. I do not think the House would wish to see an anomally of that kind. Surely we should seek to be consistent in these matters.
The issue to which the House must address its mind is whether tenants of local authorities should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. That is the simple issue. I do not see why local authority tenants should be treated differently. The situation will surely recur. With the advent of the Community Land Act and the urgings of the Department of the Environment and the local authorities to apply for as much land as they can obtain with future development potential, no doubt there will be an increasing amount of farm and agricultural land being brought into the ownership of local authorities.
Until they are ready for development, those farms and agricultural holdings will have to be managed by the local authority because that is the duty placed upon the authority by Parliament. We could have a situation in which a farm is acquired under the Community Land Act and it contains a number of cottages 2169 in which there are protected or statutory tenants protected by the operation of the Bill. Immediately on acquisition by a local authority, the security we are giving them by the Bill would disappear. I do not think that is the intention. Therefore, I urge the House to reconsider this matter.
§ Mr. Armstrong
There are two matters to which I must refer following an interesting debate.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) reminded the House that there were other workers who lived in tied cottages and suggested that the Bill should cover everybody. Since the consultative document was published I have had a great volume of correspondence from all parts of the country asking my special attention had been given to the agricultural worker and his industry. This is a long-standing grievance of the agricultural worker, and we decided to give priority to the situation in the industry.
From the original publication of the consultative document I have been engaged in discussions with all sides of agriculture. The evidence I have been given by its workers is that they want no more and no less than other industrial workers. In other words, they require the same privileges, obligations and duties.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has drawn my attention many times to the fact that the Bill relates to many of the provisions in the Rent Acts. This brings in all kinds of difficulties because of the complicated legislation on rents. I must admit that that gives me many headaches day after day. Therefore, we must consider these amendments in the context of our intention to give priority to agriculture. We do not apologise for that. Anyone who has studied the efforts of agricultural workers over the years would agree with that view of priorities. We have also tried to give them the same protection as other workers have taken for granted for many years. That is all that is being asked by the agricultural workers' union.
Amendment No. 37 is aimed at removing the exclusion of local authorities from the Bill's provisions. Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, supported by my hon. Friends, are aimed at removing the exclu- 2170 sion of the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall, Government Departments and the Common Council of the City of London. But the amendments do not achieve those aims because Clause 2, in defining a relevant licence or tenancy, applies inter alia, sections 4 and 5 of the Rent Act 1968, and hence a worker housed and employed by those bodies cannot be a protected occupier.
I shall address my remarks to the aims, rather than the specific wording of the amendments. We had a brief discussion on the subject in Committee and I made it clear that these bodies are exempt from the Bill because we have followed, as far as possible, the precedents in the Rent Acts—and they are exempt from those.
I can assure the House that there is no question of the bodies mentioned in Clause 6 being given a special status under the Bill. As my right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading, we intend that agricultural workers housed and employed by those bodies should in practice enjoy the same benefits and protection as those who are covered by the Bill. Detailed discussions on the administrative arrangements by which this will be achieved are already in train.
§ Mr. Lee
My hon. Friend has already significantly departed from following the 1968 Act on the question whether there should be a double succession and a survivor's right of protection. Why does he now try to take the cloak off that Act to protect himself from extending the scope of the Bill in the way sought by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi)?
§ Mr. Armstrong
In my opening remarks I explained why we were following the precedents of the Rent Acts for agricultural workers.
§ Mr. Armstrong
My hon. Friend asks rather a lot of me. I can only deal with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. I meant what I said. I believe that no agricultural worker employed by the bodies mentioned in the amendment will be treated differently from those protected and covered by the Bill.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
Will the Minister explain why there is a specific section in the Bill exempting bodies which he now tells us will not be exempt?
§ Mr. Armstrong
The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me say that we have followed the precedents in the Rent Acts.
On the broader issues, we are committed to giving statutory security of tenure to local authority tenants, although we believe that measures such as the Bill deserve priority. I would be willing to defend that at any time.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will agree that it would be wrong to apply this one part of the Rent Act code to those bodies and that they will not press the amendments.
§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that the relevant sections of the Rent Acts apply irrespective of whether we remove Clause 6. When discussing subsection (2) in Committee, we were assured that the purpose was solely to give a signpost. As a consequence of amendments moved today, the clause clearly applies the relevant provisions of the Rent Acts. If that is the case, we have a double application. Can my hon. Friend explain whether, if we took out or amended Clause 6, it would mean that the signpost clause would simply have to be interpreted accordingly? This is a technical point and I can appreciate that my hon. Friend may be in some difficulty in replying to it now, but it is important.
§ Mr. Armstrong
It is a technical point. I speak not as a lawyer, but I am assured that the the provision follows similar provisions in the rent legislation and that agricultural workers will not be at a disadvantage because of the provisions of the Bill.
§ Mr. Fairbairn
I echo the remark of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that it is important that a Back Bencher such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) should express an individual point of view, but as his amendment would only except subsection (1) of 2172 Clause 6 it seems to me to indicate a partiality which destroys the principle upon which the Bill is allegedly based.
I was horrified by the Minister's explanation of Clause 6. He says "We are making exceptions for a number of bodies—for local authorities, the Crown, the Greater London Council, and the rest—but we assure you that those exceptions are meaningless". Anyone who promotes legislation on that basis is idiotic and unprincipled. It it no good saying that it has happened before. It is scandalous that the Establishment—I do not care what form it takes—should be expected from a general principle. That is utterly wrong, and it is ridiculous to say "We are including a provision which includes it, but I promise you that it will not". Yet that is what the Under-Secretary of State's explanation amounted to.
In general principle, if it is wrong that a person who loses his job may lose his house, as the Prime Minister does, equally it is wrong that the farmer should lose not only his employee, but his house as well. If the man is a bad employee, an idle employee, someone who never intended to do the job in the first place and just wanted the house, here is that man's chance.
Let us not look on the farmer as a rich employer. He is just a working man. Having taken on a man and given him a house to go with the job, if he loses that employee he loses the house as well the local authority, exempted under this provision, says "Sorry, but we are unable to give a house". That is why this is such an unprincipled measure. It is partial—as the hon. Member for Fife, Central said, although for the wrong reasons, because he is partial and only wants to take out part of the Establishment—it is wrong, and it is prejudiced. There is an hon. Member opposite who is taking advantage of his present situation with regard to his tenant who will vote for this measure tonight, and that shows the extent of the hypocrisy of every hon. Member opposite.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I had no intention of speaking but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and others who have just come in—
§ It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.2174
§ Question put, That the amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 432.2177
|Division No. 271.||AYES||11.30 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Heffer, Eric S.||Prescott, John|
|Allaun, Frank||Hooley, Frank||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Ashton, Joe||Hooson, Emlyn||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preeton N)||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Bean, R. E.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Beith, A. J.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Hunter, Adam||Roper, John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Rose, Paul B.|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Bradley, Tom||Kelley, Richard||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Kerr, Russell||Selby, Harry|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Buchan, Norman||Kinnock, Neil||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Lamble, David||Silverman, Julius|
|Canavan, Dennis||Lamond, James||Skinner, Dennis|
|Carmichael, Nell||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Cartwright, John||Lee, John||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Swain, Thomas|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)|
|Colquhoun, Ms Maureen||Lipton, Marcus||Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Litterick, Tom||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Corbett, Robin||Loyden, Eddie||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)|
|Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)||McDonald, Dr Oonagh||Tierney, Sydney|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||McGulre, Michael (Incc)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Madden, Max||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Edge, Geoff||Maynard, Miss Joan||Watkins, David|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||Mendelson, John||Watkinson, John|
|Evans,loan (Aberdare)||Mikardo, Ian||Weetch, Ken|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Flannery, Martin||Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Newens, Stanley||Woodall, Alec|
|Freud, Clement||Noble, Mike||Woof, Robert|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Orbach, Maurice||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Ovenden, John|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Pardoe, John||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Grocott, Bruce||Parry, Robert||Mr. William Hamilton and|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Pavitt, Laurie||Mr. Bob Cryer.|
|Hatton, Frank||Penhallgon. David|
|Adley, Robert||Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)||Coleman, Donald|
|Altken, Jonathan||Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Conlan, Bernard|
|Alison, Michael||Brittan, Leon||Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Brotherton, Michael||Cope, John|
|Archer, Peter||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Cordle, John H.|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cormack, Patrick|
|Arnold, Tom||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Costain, A. P.|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Bryan, Sir Paul||Critchley, Julian|
|Awdry, Daniel||Buchanan, Richard||Cronin, John|
|Bagler, Gordon A. T.||Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony|
|Baker, Kenneth||Buck, Antony||Crouch, David|
|Banks, Robert||Budgen, Nick||Crowder, F. P.|
|Bernett, Guy (Greenwich)||Bulmer, Esmond||Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)|
|Bates, Alf||Burden, F. A.||Cunningham, G. (Islington S>|
|Bell, Ronald||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Dalyell, Tam|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Davidson, Arthur|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)||Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)|
|Benyon, W.||Campbell, Ian||Davies, Ifor (Gower)|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Cant, R. B.||Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)|
|Bitten, John||Carlisle, Mark||Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Carter, Ray||Deakine, Eric|
|Bishop, E. S.||Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Dean, Paul (N Somerset)|
|Blaker, Peter||Channon, Paul||de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Boardman, H.||Churchill, W. S.||Dell, Rt Hon Edmund|
|Body, Richard||Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Dempsey, James|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Clark, William (Croydon S)||Dodsworth, Geoffrey|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Doig, Peter|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Clegg, Waiter||Dormand, J. D.|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Cockcroft, John||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Bottomley, Peter||Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Drayson, Burnaby|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Cohen, Stanley||du Cann, Rt Hon Edward|
|Dunlop, John||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Dunn, James A.||Howell, David (Guildford)||Moate, Roger|
|Dunnett, Jack||Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham.Sm H)||Molyneaux, James|
|Durant, Tony||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Monro, Hector|
|Dykes, Hugh||Huckfield, Les||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Eadie, Alex||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Moonman, Eric|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hunt, David (Wirral)||More, Jasper (Lud'ow)|
|Elliott, Sir William||Hunt, John (Bromley)||Morgan, Geraint|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Hurd, Douglas||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Emery, Peter||Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|English, Michael||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Ennals, David||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||James, David||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Janner, Greville||Moyle, Roland|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Mudd, David|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Farr, John||Jessel, Toby||Murray, Rt Hon Ronaid King|
|Faulds, Andrew||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Neave, Airey|
|Fell, Anthony||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Nelson, Anthony|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Neubert, Michael|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Newton, Tony|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Normanton, Tom|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Jopling, Michael||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Onslow, Cranley|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Ford, Ben||Kaufman, Gerald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Forman, Nigel||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Osborn, John|
|Forrester, John||Kilfedder, James||Owen, Dr David|
|Fowler, Gerald (The WreKin)||Kimball, Marcus||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Fox, Marcus||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Paisley, Rev Ian|
|Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)||Kirk, Sir Peter||Palmer, Arthur|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Park, George|
|Freeson, Reginald||Knight, Mrs Jill||Parker, John|
|Fry, Peter||Knox, David||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Lamborn, Harry||Peart, Rt Hon Fred|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Lamont, Norman||Pendry, Tom|
|Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)||Lane, David||Percival, Ian|
|George, Bruce||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Perry, Ernest|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Lawrence, Ivan||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)||Lawson, Nigel||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Leadbitter, Ted||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Ginsburg, David||Le Marchant, Spencer||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Price, David (Eastlelgh)|
|Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Lever, Rt Hon Harold||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Golding, John||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Goodhart, Philip||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Goodhew, Victor||Lloyd, Ian||Raison, Timothy|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Lomas, Kenneth||Rathbone, Tim|
|Gorst, John||Luce, Richard||Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||McCartney, Hugh||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Graham, Ted||McCrindle, Robert||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Macfarlane, Neil||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Gray, Hamish||MacGregor, John||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Griffiths, Eldon||MacKenzle, Gregor||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Grist, Ian||Mackintosh, John P.||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Grylls, Michael||Maclennan, Robert||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Hall, Sir John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Robinson, Geoffrey|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Madel, David||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Hannam, John||Magee, Bryan||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Hardy, Peter||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Harper, Joseph||Marquand, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Marten, Nell||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|Hastings, Stephen||Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Mates, Michael||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Havers, Sir Michael||Mather, Carol||Scott, Nicholas|
|Hawkins, Paul||Maude, Angus||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Mawby, Ray||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Hayman, Mrs Helene||Mayhew, Patrick||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Heath, Rt Hon Edward||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Heseltine, Michael||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Shepherd, Colin|
|Hicks, Robert||Millan, Bruce||Shersby, Michael|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Holland, Philip||Mills, Peter||Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Hordern, Peter||Miscampbell, Norman||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek|
|Silvester, Fred||Tapsell, Peter||Wall, Patrick|
|Sims, Roger||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)||Walters, Dennis|
|Sinclair, Sir George||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Tebbit, Norman||Weather ill, Bernard|
|Small, William||Temple-Morris, Peter||Weitzman, David|
|Smith, Dudley (Warwick)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret||Wellbeloved, James|
|Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Wells, John|
|Snape, Peter||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Speed, Keith||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)||White, James (Pollok)|
|Spence, John||Tinn, James||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)||Tomllnson, John||Whitlock, William|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)||Tomney, Frank||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Sproat, lain||Townsend, Cyril D.||Willey. Rt Hon Frederick|
|Stainton, Keith||Trotter, Neville||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Stallard, A. W.||Tugendhat, Christopher||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Urwin, T. W.||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Stanley, John||van Straubenzee, W. R.||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)|
|Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)||Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)||Vaughan, Dr Gerard||Wood, Rt Hon Richard|
|Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)||Viggers, Peter||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Stoddart, David||Wakeham, John||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Stokes, John||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)||Younger, Hon George|
|Stott, Roger||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Stradling, Thomas J.||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Strang, Gavin||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)||Mr. Thomas Cox.|
§ Amendment accordingly negatived.
§ Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and this day], to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments to the Bill, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.