HOUSING BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

HC Deb 06 August 1980 vol 990 cc566-95

6.2 pm

Mr. Speaker

Mr. John Stanley, to move the allocation of time motion.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

rose—

Mr. Speaker

If this is a point of order, it will come out of the time for the allocation of time debate.

Mr. Hamilton

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to express a view on the Scottish matter. A Government Minister from Scotland is sitting on the Front Bench and it is quite intolerable for the Secretary of State for the Environment to speak on behalf of the Scots when they have a Minister here.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Member may be able to make that point in the debate that will follow. It is not a point of order on which I can rule. It is possible for the hon. Member to raise it on the motion.

Mr. Hamilton

I was simply asking whether the Scottish Office had applied to you, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement to this effect, instead of delegating it to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. J. W. Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have called the Minister and you have said that points of order will come out of the time for the guillotine motion, which will take one hour. The Minister rose at 6.2 p.m. The Order Paper today on page 5396—No. 2 Order of the Day—states: HOUSING BILL [Allotted Day]: Consideration of Lords Amendments. Just above the sentence in bold type it says: If the Motion (Housing Bill (Allocation of Time)) is agreed to:—At the conclusion of the Proceedings of the Housing Bill … then we shall have the proceedings on the Eastbourne Harbour Docks Bill. Does that mean that if the motion is not agreed to by 7 pm—and the Minister rose with only 58 minutes to go—at 7 pm opposed Private Business must be taken? Surely this sentence cannot be put into operation, because the motion will not be agreed by 7 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker

According to our Standing Orders, Private Business is taken at the end of the Bill which is subject to the guillotine motion. I believe that that is made clear on the Order Paper—that it will come at the end of the discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Rooker

That is my understanding from the front page of the Order Paper, but that seems to contradict the statement that the guillotine motion must be agreed to before 7 pm. If it is agreed to by 7 o'clock the Private Business is put back till the end of the day. The word "if" is there. If it were not, I would not be raising this point of order.

Mr. Speaker

The original order covers it. It is very long but I shall read it. Paragraph 8 says: Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that hon Members realise that they are taking time out of the debate on this motion. We have started the debate on the timetable motion.

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for further clarification. It seems to me that if we have agreed a motion for a guillotine, Private Business is not taken at 7 o'clock but at the end of the business that is covered by the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has raised a different question. If 7 o'clock arrives and at that stage we have not agreed the motion for the guillotine, we then have no motion for a guillotine, so what is there in the Standing Orders to prevent the business set down for 7 o'clock being called then?

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right in suggesting that today cannot be an allotted day within the guillotine motion of 16 April until it has been so allotted by the House? That cannot be so until the House has decided the guillotine motion.

Mr. Speaker

It is an allotted day. It is on the Order Paper. That is the answer to both hon. Gentlemen.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Order of the House [16th April] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Time for Conclusion
Nos. 1 to 116	9 p.m.
Nos. 117 to 145	10.30 p.m.
Nos. 146 to 251	midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.

3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
569
3. (iii)put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
4. (iv)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion—[Mr. Stanley.]

6.7 pm

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley)

The Housing Bill that we have been considering for more than six months is perhaps as far-reaching and as comprehensive a housing measure as has come before the House in the post-war period. On this side of the House we look forward to its early enactment. I do not think that anyone can reasonably deny that the Bill has been debated at great length—both in the House and in another place.

A total of 167 hours was spent debating the Bill in this House before it went to another place. Of that time, 139 hours were spent in Committee, covering 46 Committee sittings spanning over three months. In another place there has been further detailed consideration of the Bill over a period of another 58½ hours. To date, therefore, both Houses have spent a total of 225½ hours discussing the Bill.

I do not believe that there are any substantive provisions that have not already been discussed at some length. Indeed, there are some provisions that may have been debated as many as seven times—on Second Reading, Committee and Report in this House, and then on Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading debate with amendments in another place.

The Opposition may no doubt refer to the number of Lords amendments for consideration by this House. The numerical total is 251, but it would be highly misleading to do what the Opposition may be tempted to do, namely, to argue against this motion by reference to the number of amendments passed in another place. Of the 251, a considerable number, 143 in all, are of a minor, technical or drafting nature.

The remaining 108 amendments can be said to relate to substantive issues, but that total includes all the consequential or drafting amendments relating to those issues. The majority of the substantive amendments have, in fact, been made to meet the points put by hon. Members on both sides of the House and also to meet points put by bodies outside the House.

Mr. A. W. Stallard (St. Pancras, North)

I am interested to learn of the reports that have been discussed. The Minister will recall that on a number of occasions the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) and myself have raised the issue of houses in multiple occupation. We were given to understand that a survey was being carried out in conjunction with local authorities and the Department and that a report would be produced outlining some of the conditions, such as fire precautions. On a number of occasions, both in the Chamber and in written answers, the Minister said that that report would be made available before the end of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Can he tell me where I can obtain a copy of that report, so that even at this late stage I can consider it and be in a position to discuss it on the relevant part of the Bill? If it is not available, when will it be?

Mr. Stanley

If the hon. Gentleman refers to exactly what I said he will see that it was to the effect that it was our intention to try to make that report available before the proceedings on the legislation was concluded. Unfortunately, that has not been possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows probably as well as any hon. Member, some extremely difficult and complex issues are involved. As I think he is also aware, as a result of representations that he and some of my hon. Friends have made, we have made significant progress on the legislation governing houses in multiple occupation.

We have moved amendments to meet points made by a great variety of outside bodies—the local authority associations, the Building Societies Association, the Law Society, the Federation of Private Residents Associations and the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies, among others.

The Opposition may try to make the point that it does not say too much for the Bill as originally drafted that we had to take so much account of representations made by outside bodies. However, if the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook, (Mr. Hattersley) in particular seeks to make that point, I put it to him that had he been more responsive to the representations made by people both inside and outside the House, some of the legislation for which he was responsible would have been mightily improved.

We have introduced amendments to meet in whole, or at least in part, points made by many Members on both sides, in both Houses. We have met some of the points made by the hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Anglesey (Mr. Best) and Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on matters relating to hostels. We have also brought forward amendments to meet an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) on successor children, under the right to buy.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) made an important point relating to rental purchase. Points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) on rural areas.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

As it seems possible that we shall not reach a debate on those amendments, I should like to register my appreciation, on behalf of my constituents and a large number of victims of these people in the North of England, for the amendments that the Government have tabled. They do not cover the whole problem but they represent a valuable safeguard for those affected. I would not like the Bill to proceed without registering my thanks to the Minister for what he has done.

Mr. Stanley

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge the fact that, had it not been for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that problem in regard to his own constituency, it would not have been drawn to our attention in the way that it was. Therefore, the fact that we have brought these amendments forward relates directly to the action that he took on behalf of his constituents.

We have also brought forward important amendments that were asked for by the right hon. Member for Ardwick and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page) on the application of the two-thirds rateable value rule under the Rent Act. Points were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), Chelsea (Mr. Scott), Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and Fulham (Mr Stevens) on service charges. Points were also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), together with Lord Banks in another place, on option mortgages for the elderly, where we have made an amendment which I believe commands widespread support on both sides of the House. Another amendment was moved in another place by Lord Greenwood and Lord Selkirk on home ownership for Service men. That shows that throughout this legislation we have endeavoured to make a reasoned and sensible response to sound cases for amending the Bill.

That means that the House now faces a considerable number of amendments that have been brought forward from another place. If the Opposition want to argue against the motion on the grounds that there are too many amendments, my reply must be that the Government could have taken up quite a different stance. They could have closed their ears to all the representations that have been made and paid not one jot or tittle of attention to them. In that event, the Housing Bill would have returned to this House with far fewer amendments than 251. Indeed, it might have come back with precisely five amendments, namely, the five on which the Government were defeated in another place.

Had that occurred, and had the Government brought the Bill back with precisely five amendments to it, I have a pretty good idea what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would have said. I am certain that he would have castigated the Government for not bringing forward enough amendments. He would have said that it was outrageous that the Government had not accepted more of the amendments that were tabled in another place. I am sure that if there were only five Lords amendments on the Amendment Paper he would still oppose the motion on the ground that the Opposition needed more time to persuade us to accept more amendments.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

The Minister should not stretch that point too far. Surely the truth is that the vast majority of amendments have been tabled by the Government in order to amend their poor drafting.

Mr. Stanley

I recall several amendments designed to deal with drafting errors in the previous Government's housing legislation, which they had lost sight of. In any event, a considerable number of the amendments that have been brought forward are in response to points made on both sides in both Houses.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)

I accept that there have been drafting errors in previous legislation. Does the Minister accept that the majority of errors that have occurred have resulted from the introduction in the Lords of amendments at a late stage—the Rent Act 1974 was a supreme example—which were not properly examined by the House? Does he agree that we should learn the lesson from our past mistakes and ensure that, in future, rather than coming back to the House with a 42-page Bill to be debated in six hours, we should refer Lords amendments back to a Committee so that they can be properly discussed?

Mr. Stanley

I do not want to trespass onto questions of procedure. However, I believe that the course of the Bill underlines the Government's position and their attitude towards the other House, which is certainly not the position that has been adopted by the Labour Party.

If the Opposition wish to argue that a large number of these amendments are, in fact, controversial, that is hardly borne out by the proceedings that have taken place in another place. Of the 246 Government amendments that were tabled in another place, the number against which the Opposition divided was exactly zero. That does not suggest that we are bringing forward a large number of controversial amendments. I accept that not every amendment is entirely free from controversy, and there are the five amendments to which the Government have tabled motions to disagree. One of those—the one to extend option mortgage arrangements to annuities bought by the elderly—is purely a technical disagreement to enable us to rectify the drafting of an amendment that we have already made clear we are accepting. We are left, therefore, with just the four right-to-buy amendments, with which we disagree. We shall table a further amendment to one of them in lieu.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

I have no doubt that the Minister regards have no doubt that the Minister regards the concession that has been made this afternoon as tremendously important. I do not. It involves 200,000 houses out of a total of 6 million. I wanted the whole Bill to be postponed for three months. The Minister and his hon. Friends, one of whom appeared on television last night, said that that would deny tenants the right to buy. That is misrepresentation. What is really happening is that councils are being compelled to sell even if they do not want to. That puts a different emphasis on the situation.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Gentleman has been following our proceeding closely. The only interpretation of the legislation is that we are doing that which we promised—to give a legal right to buy to 6 million council tenants.

Each of the four right-to-buy amendments has been debated extensively already. We have endeavoured to arrange the timetable motion to give the House the opportunity to debate these subjects today. However, in Committee and on Report, in both Houses, apart from the time spent in the Second Reading debates, the issue of dwellings for the elderly has been debated for three and a quarter hours, the rural areas for seven and three quarter hours, the option provisions for five hours, and the Secretary of State's intervention powers for five and a half hours. The four right-to-buy amendments have been debated extensively already in both Houses. In the circumstances, the timetable motion, with the extension to midnight, provides reasonable time for the consideration of Lords amendments.

Whatever view is taken in the House, I am sure that the thousands of tenants who are anxiously waiting for the right to buy their homes will agree that the time provided is ample.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Watford)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there has been considerable anxiety in the past few days about this matter? I spent most of the morning answering telephone calls from constituents who are deeply anxious and who will be most relieved if and when the House chooses to approve the guillotine motion.

Mr. Stanley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his view is shared by many thousands of council tenants. I am sure that it will be shared by the many hundreds of Birmingham tenants who were in the process of buying their homes, only to be stopped last May. I am sure that it will be the view of the hundreds of Manchester tenants who were in the process of buying their homes when they were stopped by a change in control in 1971 and had to fight their way through the courts for eight years. Such tenants, and thousands like them, have been waiting for the Bill for 15 months with increasing impatience. I hope that the House will agree that they should not have to wait any longer.

6.24 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

It would be ungracious of me not to respond to the concern expressed for the tenants of Birmingham by the Minister. If he visited the Spark-brook division and the great housing estates at Foxholes and Acocks Green, he would obtain a clear picture of what the tenants think of the Government in general. I should be delighted to take him round the estates while he discusses these matters with the tenants.

I am in a benevolent mood, matters having turned out as they have, and I shall give the Minister credit since he wrote his speech before the Government made their major concession of which he seemed to be unaware. When we debated the timetable motion on the Report stage I said that I was not attracted to the normal rituals of guillotine debates. That is still my view. However, today's debate, by any standards, cannot be called a normal guillotine debate. The facts and figures speak for themselves.

The House of Lords spent eight days considering and amending the Bill. Initially, the Government offered the House of Commons eight hours to consider what it took the Lords eight days to consider. In fact, the period will be substantially shorter. No reasonable person will argue that eight hours or less is adequate time to decide whether their Lordships were right in the considerations which took them eight full days.

In the House of Lords 255 amendments were carried. The Minister said that the figure was 251 because he did not separate amendments with the same number but with different letters. I understand that that was a genuine error and I forgive him. Two new schedules and 11 new clauses were passed. Even allowing for the full day which it is charitable to assume that the Government felt would be devoted to these matters, we would have been allowed two minutes' discussion per amendment in the House of Commons.

Hon. Members will argue that that is a bogus time because amendments and new clauses are grouped together. The provisional selection offered the House 79 separate debates which, had the debate today begun at 3.30, would have given us six minutes per group of amendments. It would not have given us time to vote on each group, nor to debate each group. The Government would have hardly had time to describe each group.

I hope that the Minister and the Leader of the House have learnt one or two lessons in the last couple of days. They must realise that it is not for them to tell the House what is an important issue and what is not. Perhaps 243 amendments would be judged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to be of no great significance. However, that is for the House to decide. It is an unacceptable use of the Government's power for them to decide that certain amendments are unimportant and to decree that the House should not have the opportunity to make its own judgment and have its own discussions. That is for the House of Commons to decide. It has not been allowed that proper courtesy and right.

Why are we in the present position? Part of the reason is the Government's incompetence, although the Minister tried to pass over that with a blandness which is new to him. It is no good his saying that the Government could have rejected every amendment made in the House of Lords. If the Bill had come here unamended, large parts of it would have been unworkable. I suppose that the Government, hell-bent on getting the Bill through, might have been sufficiently wrongheaded to turn down the corrective amendments which they moved themselves. Many of the amendments are necessary because of the Government's incompetence.

That incompetence was demonstrated dramatically by the Minister of State last Wednesday. The Minister of State is not the type of performer that we expect to stop the show, but he managed to stop the House of Lords for half an hour a week ago by making an announcement which has been gainsaid by the Government. It was typical and indicative of the incompetence with which the Bill has been pursued.

The Bill was debated in the House of Commons Standing Committee for 136 hours or 46 sittings. Yet it was so deficient, and remains so deficient, that literally dozens of technical amendments had to be moved in the House of Lords. It may be that most are no more than corrections of errors that a competent Government would have discovered earlier. However, I repeat that it is for this House to decide whether they are matters of substance. It is a denial of our right not to be given time to make that judgment.

Why are we being required to dispose in an afternoon and evening of what it took their Lordships eight days to deal with? The answer is in three parts. I want to explain why the Government have forced themselves into a humiliating position over the past three days and why a major concession has been granted at the last minute, much to my pleasure, but in a way that does the Government no credit and reveals that the Leader of the House is the most incompetent man to occupy that office for a long time.

One reason is the strange and dangerous psychology of the Prime Minister, who is never prepared to be seen to change her mind, especially when she is wrong. Time after time the Government are required to plough off the straight furrow, irrespective of whether they are proceeding in a manner that will do them, the Commons and the country great damage. However, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis): when Labour Back Bench Members demonstrated that they would not have it, the Prime Minister at least saw sense on one issue.

The second reason why we have been rushed along in this wholly unacceptable way is the arrogance of the Leader of the House. Over this, as over so many other matters, he has not behaved as a Leader of the House, protecting our rights to debate issues in the proper way. He has behaved as a functionary of the Conservative Party. I warn him, and I hope that his hon. Friend will draw my warning to his attention, that the more he pursues the narrow party line while occupying the great office that he does, the more he is bound to face more difficulties of the sort that he encountered on Monday and today. When he starts behaving like a Leader of the House, we shall make more progress.

It is not only the Prime Minister's obduracy or the incompetence and arrogance of the Leader of the House that has led to the House being rushed. The third reason is the ambition of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Smiling in that simpering way that he has, the Leader of the House said that the Bill would now be passed in time for the Conservative Party conference. Pressure is being put on us in order that the customary ovation for the Secretary of State can be enhanced by his announcement that the Housing Bill has passed into law. That is why Conservative Members will have only six days in which to prepare to shoot whatever they shoot on 12 August. That is why holidays have been abandoned, pairs have been broken, yesterday's business was lost and we shall stay up late tonight. It is in order to further the most carefully contrived and long-winded ovation that even the Conservative Party has ever known.

I leave the Government with this thought. Having obtained a major concession, we look forward to voting against those Government propositions to which we take the strongest objection in principle.

We shall go through the evening and the night sustained by the thought that we are voting for principles. Conservative Members will be voting for the Secretary of State's ambition. I wish them well with it.

6.33 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)

I have two important points to make. First, the Shadow spokesman has accused others of attributes that many would attach to him. He accuses my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of not changing her mind. He is not willing to change his mind so that ordinary working people can have the chance to buy their homes. About 30 per cent. of my constituents will not have the opportunity to buy homes unless the Bill becomes law. The local authority, allegedly representing ordinary people, considers that they should not have that chance. They are told that they should look for homes on the private market, which in most cases would mean leaving the constituency. Over the past 25 years the average rate of owner-occupation has doubled, but that is not true in my constituency, where a great many homes are owned by the local authority. Unless the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) believes that those people must always be council tenants, whatever the general pattern of owner-occupation, he should change his mind.

Mr. Frank Allaun

If the hon. Gentleman wants ordinary working people in his constituency to buy their houses, why does he not tell them that there is plenty of private housing available? They should buy those houses instead of buying property that is desperately needed by people who cannot afford to buy houses, even with the aid of a mortgage.

Mr. Bottomley

I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with my constituency, but it contains many empty public sector houses because of the difficulty experienced by one local authority in managing so many homes. As a result there is more friction than if there was ordinary marketing.

The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of arrogance. However, the right hon. Gentleman is arrogant to suggest that people who want the chance to own their homes should not have it. I own my home, or at least that part of it which is not owned by the building society, and I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman owns his. Many people have not had the opportunity to buy a flat or small house to begin with and to move as they changed jobs. We are not here to represent only those who own their homes. We should try to make it possible for more people, especially young people, to own homes. We should give those who moved into a council house when they first got married the opportunity to own homes.

The right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment of ambition. We all have ambitions. My ambition is not to become Secretary of State for the Environment in a Labour Government or leader of the Labour Party. It is that more people should have the opportunity to own homes. The right hon. Gentleman and his party fail to understand the ambitions of those they represent. If he believes that so many people want to buy their homes, why does he not give them a chance to do so? Alternatively, if he believes that only a few would take advantage of the opportunity, why does he oppose the proposals?

Mr. Allen McKay (Penistone)

Has the hon. Gentleman considered cases where Labour-controlled local authorities went to the electorate on not selling houses, because they did not consider that there was a need, and were returned with an overwhelming majority?

Mr. Bottomley

I believe that there is a tendency for local authority elections to be influenced by the party in power. Over the past 20 years there have been massive swings in local elections away from the party in power. It is misleading to claim that a single item of policy makes an enormous difference. In my constituency many people who would normally vote Labour have made it plain that they want the chance to buy their homes.

If Labour Members think that because people, by chance, could not get their own homes when they were young and managed to get a council house, they should be left in servitude to the local authority, not sharing in the distribution of wealth that has been argued for by many Labour Members and not being as mobile as those who own their own homes, they have got things the wrong way round.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency which is similar to my own. When his constituents say that they want to buy their own homes, does he explain to them that the easiest way for them to do that would be for the Government to give them a large deposit, to reduce interest rates, so that buyers could afford mortgages, reduce inflation—instead of doubling it—sand reduce VAT, so that purchasers would have more money in their pockets to pay for a mortgage? Those actions would help all his constituents to buy their homes, but the Government have done the reverse of all those actions.

Mr. Bottomley

My constituents cannot all buy their houses while 30 per cent. of properties remain in the ownership of the local authority.

Some Labour Members argue that only the more desirable council homes will be purchased.

Mr. Frank Allaun

That is correct.

Mr. Bottomley

The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has got it wrong. Many people do not manage to get a council house or choose to buy small flats that may be in worse condition than those owned by local authorities. Most of those people do not continue to live in their inexpensive or less desirable flat or house, but do it up—which helps to regenerate run-down areas—and it represents their first rung on the housing ladder. They have mobility and they have had the opportunity to put their money into what matters to them rather than into other areas of expenditure.

Many council tenants of what appear to be less desirable flats and houses would be well advised to buy those properties. If the council homes are as undesirable as many Labour Members suggest, what sort of housing system have we had that has condemned so many to live in sub-standard housing? Secondly, can we not learn from what has happened in many parts of the country where ordinary working people have had the opportunity of doing up their homes, have enjoyed living there and, because of the value that they have added to the properties, have been able to sell at a better price?

Mr. George Grant (Morpeth)

The hon. Gentleman may think that he is presenting a reasonable case, but he is missing the point of the argument. If the Bill goes through and meets all the requirement that he is asking for, and council houses are sold—and, because of high mortgage rates, houses are being taken off the market—what will happen to the multitude who cannot afford to buy their own homes? There will be no council houses for them.

Mr. Bottomley

If I were to answer that intervention, I would go back over all the arguments that we have had previously. The arguments that I am putting forward have not been put forward in this way before.

Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that as we have given security of tenure to council tenants, they can stay in their homes for the rest of their lives, so the properties would not become vacant anyway?

Mr. Bottomley

My hon. Friend has made the point which I thought had been made often enough for me not to offer it to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant).

I am prepared to stay here right through the night and, if necessary, to come back next week, because I regard the extension of home ownership to council tenants as one of the most important aspects of policy, towards which there ought to be a bipartisan approach. Only Labour Members' ambition, arrogance and refusal to change their minds have stopped the proposal going through in that way as an important part of social legislation. It is as important as the Education Acts and the introduction of old-age pensions, and it will be as important as the increase in child benefits which I hope we shall see in the future.

6.45 pm

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn)

The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley is said to be one of the leading wets in the Tory Party. Having listened to his speech, I feel as though I have walked through a lukewarm shower. It is not convincing for the hon. Gentleman to bleed his heart for ordinary working people when he has walked through the Lobbies with his hon. Friends in support of policies that are making hundreds of thousands of ordinary people unemployed so that they have no chance of buying their home, whether they live in private rented accommodation or council housing.

The Bill is not only irrelevant to the housing needs of the nation but is supremely damaging to them. It is so damaging that not even this Government could convince another place, which has an overwhelming number of their own supporters, on certain major aspects. Not once or twice but five times the Government were defeated because of defections among their own supporters.

It is astonishing that the Government, who, we have been told, are so attached to another place, should have acted in such an arrogant way towards the institution which they hold so venerable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) will recall that it was not long ago that the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he was Opposition spokesman on aircraft and shipbuilding, was beating the Labour Party over the head for daring to disagree with another place. He said: The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber as they presumably intended in their Parliamentary Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House."—[Official Report, 8 November 1976; Vol. 919 c. 99.] The Secretary of State not only criticised another place when it started to scrutinise his legislation; he slapped it in the face.

The Leader of the House, who has conducted our proceedings with such skill in the past week, said during the election campaign: A unicameral legislature constitutes a giant step towards tyranny, yet it is precisely this which is proposed by the Labour Party. One of the good things to come out of this fiasco is that the Government have turned their noses up at another place and hastened its abolition. Let us be clear that the victory achieved today is partly a victory for Labour and cross-bench Peers—to whom I give credit—but mainly a victory for the Opposition in this place. It would not have been possible but for the log jam of business that the Government created and the tactics of the Opposition in forcing the Government to concede. Anyone who doubts that should look at the Amendment Paper and note that time and again the Secretary of State is asking this House to disagree with Lords amendments. The Government have had to stand on their heads because of pressure from the House.

The second reason why this is a humiliating day for the Government is that time and again in Committee they rejected our pleas on the need to amend the Bill in order to prevent tens of thousands of dwellings used for old people from being sold on the private market and no longer being available for old people. The result would have been to force those old people into NHS hospitals, many of them old workhouses, or to put additional pressure on social service homes.

We argued with the Government time and again, but they turned us down. They turned down the arguments in another place, but, because of the chaos that they have produced and the pressure that they were under, they have had to eat their words, stand on their head and accept what they have spent five months objecting to.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Does my hon Friend agree that it is the utmost hypocrisy for Conservative Members to claim that they are trying to establish the right of tenants to buy their homes? If that is the principle involved, why is it that all attempts to persuade the Government to extend it to private tenants have been refused? We can only reach the conclusion that it is a vendetta against the rented public sector. It has nothing to do with the rights of owner-occupation.

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend is right. The Government are only too delighted to sell public assets on the cheap, while carefully defending the rights of private property owners.

More time should be made available to debate the matter, not only because of the items on the Order Paper, but because there are many important matters relating to shorthold tenancy that should be discussed. In Committee we asked the Government why the survey of empty houses in England had not been produced. Question after question was turned down with the promise that, at some stage, the survey commissioned in 1977 would be produced. That has finally happened. I am not surprised that the Minister sat on it for so long. It explodes the idea that there are vast numbers of empty properties waiting to come on to the market when shorthold comes into force. It states that the numbers of empty properties have been consistently overestimated, and that the number of empty properties empty because of the Rent Acts is, at the maximum, 41,000. If shorthold does not work, it will not be because of the Labour Party's promise to repeal the legislation, but because the property is not available.

On 15 January the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) described the Secretary of State for the Environment as the gauleiter of housing.

Mr. W. Benyon (Buckingham)

The hon. Gentleman is always selective in his quotations. He should have continued the quotation by reminding the House that I said that the next gauleiter might be a commissar.

Mr. Straw

That is right. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. He said that it was all very well for the Secretary of State to set himself up as the gauleiter of housing but that the next gauleiter might be a commissar. That worried the hon. Gentleman, and he refused to vote in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. The Secretary of State is destroying basic principles of constitutional relationship between the local authorities and the Government. Labour Secretaries of State may be tempted to use the powers which the present Secretary of State has taken unto himself for other purposes. I do not think that that temptation will come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley, who will be the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. He is a man of the utmost principle. But it is conceivable that others with fewer scruples about the needs of local government will occupy that seat, even from the Labour Benches, and that those powers will be used.

Nothing in the course of the proceedings on the Housing Bill during the past seven sorry months has undermined the hon. Member for Buckingham's description of the Secretary of State as a gauleiter—for gauleiter he is and gauleiter he has been. He has jackbooted his way through the housing needs of the nation. He has jackbooted his way not only through the House of Lords but through the House of Commons.

6.55 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on his success in eliciting from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) his description of the Secretary of State. Whenever we repeated that description in Committee we drew rebukes as though it was our invention. I am glad that the original author has acknowledged his paternity of that remark.

In its election manifesto last year the Conservative Party gave prominence to a section headed "The Supremacy of Parliament". It stated: the traditional role of our legislature has suffered badly from the growth of government over the last quarter of a century. We will see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions, and we will seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive. Of all the many broken pledges in that manifesto, none has been more cynically betrayed than that.

Let us consider the extraordinary progress of the Housing Bill through Parliament. It was introduced last December, seven months after the election. When it first appeared in the Vote Office it consisted of 129 clauses and 20 schedules, covering 142 pages—a modest measure costing £3.50. The Secretary of State and the Minister clearly felt that it was far too modest: if they were to make their names as legistlators, they would have to do better than that.

In Committee they increased the number of clauses from 129 to 136, the number of schedules from 20 to 22, and the number of pages from 142 to 156. They raised the price from £3.50 to £4.50. For the Ministers the Bill had become not simply an embryonic statute, but a way of life. On Report the Government added another eight clauses, two schedules and 11 pages, and they raised the price to £5.

In a moment of rapture they realised that they need not stop there. It dawned on them that we have a bicameral legislature, and that the Bill's transit to the House of Lords opened up a whole new world. With a whoop of glee they added a further six clauses and one schedule at the Lords Committee stage, and another four clauses and one schedule on Report there. The original 129 clauses had multiplied to 154, and the 20 schedules to 26. At the last count, with final returns not yet available, the length of the Bill had increased by 27 per cent. and its price by 43 per cent.—higher even than the rate of inflation under this Government.

That does not take amendments into account. Last week I tabled a question to the Minister asking how many Government amendments had been made to the Bill. He went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that I received his answer, even to the extent of sending it to my flat in Manchester. I am grateful to him for taking that trouble, but his answer was that he did not really know. He said: There is no easy way of providing the analysis nor, to avoid disproportionate cost, has a detailed check of the analysis been made. The Minister has tabled so many amendments that he has lost count of them. His estimate—and it was only an estimate—was that 159 amendments were tabled in Committee, and 100 on Report. In addition, 99 were tabled in Committee in another place, 87 on Report, and 48 on Third Reading, making a grand total of 493 Government amendments in addition to the extra clauses and schedules.

The Ministers have amendments in the way that dogs have fleas. Their slogan is "If it moves, amend it". Today the House is having to pay the price of their legislative incontinence. We are being asked to absorb, deal with and, in some cases, dispose of or reject 255 amendments in a few hours. There was to be another new clause, but its has been withdrawn.

I draw attention to the fact that the Leader of the House has not troubled to be present during the debate. He and the Secretary of State are turning this House into a mincing machine. They are making a mockery of the parliamentary process. Yet it was they, in their manifesto, who promised that they would see that Parliament and no other body stands at the centre of the nation's life and decisions and that they would seek to make it effective in its job of controlling the Executive. Four years ago in this Chamber the Secretary of State, sitting in the position which I have been occupying with my right hon. Friends today, achieved notoriety by rising, seizing the Mace and brandishing it. Today he is degrading it more than he did on that night, because he is dragging it into the mire by asking Parliament to deal with 255 amendments, in 79 groups, in this minimal time—an average of five minutes per group of amendments, provided that there are no Divisions.

The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State and his colleagues are treating Parliament with contempt. Their puppet majority will provide their guillotine in a minute's time, but their majority will not eradicate the stain of what they have done to the reputation of parliamentary government. When a Labour Government return to office, we shall repeal the unacceptable parts of this Bill.

Division No. 446]	AYES	[7.02 pm
Adley, Robert	Budgen, Nick	Farr, John
Aitken, Jonathan	Bulmer, Esmond	Fell, Anthony
Alexander, Richard	Butcher, John	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Butler, Hon Adam	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Arnold, Tom	Cadbury, Jocelyn	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Forman, Nigel
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Channon, Paul	Fox, Marcus
Banks, Robert	Chapman, Sydney	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fry, Peter
Bendall, Vivian	Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Clegg, Sir Walter	Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Cockeram, Eric	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Best, Keith	Colvin, Michael	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Bevan, David Gilroy	Cope, John	Glyn, Dr Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Corrie, John	Goodhart, Philip
Biggs-Davison, John	Costain, Sir Albert	Goodhew, Victor
Blackburn, John	Cranborne, Viscount	Goodlad, Alastair
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Critchley, Julian	Gorst, John
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Crouch, David	Gow, Ian
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Bowden, Andrew	Dickens, Geoffrey	Gray, Hamish
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Dorrell, Stephen	Grieve, Percy
Bright, Graham	Dover, Denshore	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Brinton, Tim	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Grylis, Michael
Brittan, Leon	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Gummer, John Selwyn
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Durant, Tony	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Dykes, Hugh	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brotherton, Michael	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Haselhurst, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)	Elliott, Sir William	Hastings, Stephen
Bruce-Gardyne, John	Emery, Peter	Hawkins, Paul
Bryan, Sir Paul	Eyre, Reginald	Hawksley, Warren
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick	Fairgrieve, Russell	Hayhoe, Barney
Buck, Antony	Faith, Mrs Sheila	Heddle, John

We shall vote on the motion.

7.1 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) was an ornament of the Labour Government who passed five major guillotine motions in one day. I believe that today we have heard from him one of the most arrant pieces of nonsense that the House has heard for a long time.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made his contribution to the debate, because the House will now know what many of us had to listen to—with his charm, courtesy and jokes—for some 46 Committee sittings. I hope that the House will have the benefit, during the remaining few hours, of hearing some more contributions, but I suggest—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker proceeded to put forthwith the Question, pursuant to the Resolution of the House [16 April].

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 173.

Henderson, Barry	Mellor, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br hills)
Hicks, Robert	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Shersby, Michael
Hill, James	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Silvester, Fred
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Miscampbell, Norman	Sims, Roger
Hooson, Tom	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)
Hordern, Peter	Moate, Roger	Speed, Keith
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)	Monro, Hector	Speller, Tony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Montgomery, Fergus	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Moore, John	Sproat, Iain
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Squire, Robin
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Stainton, Keith
Jessel, Toby	Mudd, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Murphy, Christopher	Stanley, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Myles, David	Steen, Anthony
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Neale, Gerrard	Stevens, Martin
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Needham, Richard	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Kershaw, Anthony	Nelson, Anthony	Stokes, John
King, Rt Hon Tom	Neubert, Michael	Strading Thomas J.
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Newton, Tony	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Knight, Mrs Jill	Normanton, Tom	Tebbit, Norman
Knox, David	Onslow, Cranley	Temple-Morris, Peter
Lamont, Norman	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Lang, Ian	Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Thompson, Donald
Latham, Michael	Parris, Matthew	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Lawrence, Ivan	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Thornton, Malcolm
Lawson, Nigel	Patten, John (Oxford)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Lee, John	Pattie, Geoffrey	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Pawsey, James	Trippier, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Percival, Sir Ian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Pink, R. Bonner	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)	Pollock, Alexander	Viggers, Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Porter, Barry	Waddington, David
Luce, Richard	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Wakeham, John
Lyell, Nicholas	Price, Sir David	Waldegrave, Hon William
McCrindle, Robert	Proctor, K. Harvey	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Macfarlane, Neil	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
MacGregor, John	Raison, Timothy	Waller, Gary
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Rathbone, Tim	Watson, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)	Wells, John (Maidstone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wheeler, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
McQuarrie, Albert	Ridsdale, Julian	Whitney, Raymond
Madel, David	Riffkind, Malcolm	Wickenden, Keith
Major, John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Wilkinson, John
Marland, Paul	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Marlow, Tony	Rost, Peter	Winterton, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Wolfson, Mark
Marten, Neil (Banbury)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mates, Michael	Scott, Nicholas
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	TELLERS FOK THE AYES:
Mawby, Ray	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Mr. Anthony Berry and
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Mayhew, Patrick

NOES
Allaun, Frank	Cryer, Bob	Forrester, John
Alton, David	Cunliffe, Lawrence	Foster, Derek
Anderson, Donald	Cunningham, George (Islington S)	Foulkes, George
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Davidson, Arthur	Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)	Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Freud, Clement
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Deakins, Eric	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Beith, A. J.	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	George, Bruce
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Dewar, Donald	Gourlay, Harry
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Dixon, Donald	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Bidwell, Sydney	Dobson, Frank	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Dormand, Jack	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hardy, Peter
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)	Dubs, Alfred	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)	Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth	Haynes, Frank
Campbell, Ian	Eadie, Alex	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Eastham, Ken	Heffer, Eric S.
Cant, R. B.	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Cartwright, John	English, Michael	Home Robertson, John
Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Homewood, William
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Evans, John (Newton)	Horam, John
Cohen, Stanley	Faulds, Andrew	Howells, Geraint
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Field, Frank	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Janner, Hon Greville
Crowther, J. S.	Ford, Ben	Johnson, James (Hull West)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Molyneaux, James	Soley, Clive
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)	Spearing, Nigel
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Spriggs, Leslie
Kerr, Russell	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Stallard, A. W.
Kilfedder, James A.	Owen, Rt Hon Dr David	Steel, Rt Hon David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Palmer, Arthur	Straw, Jack
Kinnock, Neil	Park, George	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lamborn, Harry	Parker, John	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Lamond, James	Pendry, Tom	Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North west)	Penhaligon, David	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Tilley, John
Litherland, Robert	Prescott, John	Tinn, James
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Race, Reg	Torney, Tom
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Radice, Giles	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)	Varley, R Hon Ecir Q.
McDonald, or Oonagh	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Maclennan, Robert	Rodgers, Rt Hon William	Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
McNally, Thomas	Rooker, J. W.	Walking, David
McNamara, Kevin	Roper, John	Welsh, Michael
McTaggart, Robert	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
McWilliam, John	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)	Whitehead, Phillip
Magee, Bryan	Sandelson, Neville	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Marks, Kenneth	Sever, John	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Sheerman, Barry	Winnick, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester south)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)	Woodall, Alec
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)	Short, Mrs Renée	Woolmer, Kenneth
Maxton, John	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Maynard, Miss Joan	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Silverman, Julius	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mikardo, Ian	Skinner, Dennis	Mr. James Hamilton and
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Snape, Peter	Mr. George Morton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Order of the House [16 April] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE
Proceedings
Lords Amendments	Time for Conclusion
Nos. 1 to 116	9 p.m.
Nos. 117 to 145	10.30 p.m.
Nos. 146 to 251	midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings for two hours after 10 o'clock.

3. For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
594
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
2. (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
3. (iii) put forthwith with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
4. (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
3. (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

1. (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question 595 on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
2. (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve Questions of Privilege and shall—
1. (i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
2. (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
3. (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph `the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2)Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3)A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4)Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5)No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6)If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion of Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.