HC Deb 10 June 1980 vol 986 cc446-87

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Lambie

The Government have no right to introduce such a Bill in Scotland. They are in a minority parliamentary position in Scotland and they represent very few district councils that are housing authorities in Scotland. At the local elections that took place on I May even the constituents of the Secretary of State for Scotland returned a Labour majority for the Kyle and Carrick district council, for the first time in its history. The Labour Party fought the election on the basis that if elected it would stop the sale of council houses.

The Secretary of State does not speak for the people of Scotland. He does not even speak for his own constituency. The district council within his constituency is now adopting the policy of stopping the sale of council houses. It is one of the authorities that will take up the fight against the Bill if it ever becomes an Act.

The Government should consider the new clause and the amendments, which are designed to introduce the element of flexibility that is needed in the Scottish context. In Scotland more than half the people remain in council houses. The Tory Government cannot get away with policies that they can get away with in England and Wales, where the minority stay in council houses. That is why the Government will build up trouble with local authorities, the trade union movement and hon. Members unless they listen to the ideas that have been advanced from the Opposition Benches.

This is an occasion that indicates that it was a disaster when we did not get a Scottish Assembly, and devolution. If we had been successful in setting up a Scottish Assembly, this situation would not have arisen and this debate would not have taken place. All our English colleagues who want us to keep quiet so that they may discuss other things would have had the Chamber to themselves tonight to discuss English or Weish matters if devolution had taken place.

It is on an occasion such as this that we recognise the different tradition of Scotland, how different traditions should be fostered within a Scottish Assembly and how a devolvement of power should take place from the House to such an Assembly. That is why the Government should listen to the arguments advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Government have a precedent that they should follow. In the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill the Government, in introducing major changes in the rating and valuation system in England and Wales, have excluded Scotland. The major clauses do not concern themselves with Scotland. The Government, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, have introduced in that Bill the element of flexibility for which we are asking in the Bill before us.

Why do not the Government, as they have done in the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill, accept our amendments and enter into consultation with the local authorities? They did that on rating and valuation. Why are they being dogmatic on Scottish housing, when they chose to hide behind the coat tails of the Secretary of State for the Environment on the fundamental issues of local government finance and rating and valuation?

The Government have the answer. On many occasions when the local government Bill was considered in Committee I put the case to my English colleagues and Government Back Benchers that the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland were being fair to the Scottish ratepayers and local authorities by not following blindly the policy that the arrogant Secretary of State for the Environment was carrying out in England and Wales. The Minister who led the Government team in Committee came to me privately and warned me that I was antagonising them too much. He said "If you do not watch what you are doing, you will get clauses to cover Scotland as well as England and Wales."

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We must not discuss numerous other Bills. The hon. Gentleman is straying somewhat.

Mr. Lambie

It is good and reasonable to show a precedent at this moment, when the Government are not carrying out the policy that we are demanding and that is contained in the new clauses and amendments that we are now discussing. That is why I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will listen to the Minister with responsibility for industry in Scotland. He should widen his experience in the short time available before we take the decision. The Government should allow this measure, which provides for the selling off of council houses in Scotland, to be carried not by the votes of the Scottish Members of Parliament, the Scottish district councils and the people of Scotland, but by the votes of English and Weish Members of Parliament, who are outside waiting to come in to vote down Scottish housing and vote in support of the sale of council houses in Scotland.

Mr. Ernie Ross : (Dundee, West)

Listening to the debate, I think it would be wrong if I did not at least make the position of my party in Dundee quite clear, if it is not already clear to the Government. We said unequivocally that we would not sell council houses. We do not intend to sell council houses, whatever the cost. I do not expect my my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) to agree with me on this point. We shall certainly say that, morally, we campaigned and won an election. Having gained, during that election, an overwhelming majority from the people in Dundee on a campaign not to sell council houses, we do not intend to sell them.

We are taking part in the discussions on a Bill that can be best summed up as the steal of the century. That is exactly what the Bill means. It offers a bargain to those who are lucky enough to be sitting in the best houses, but it is an absolute disaster for the 30,000 tenants who would eventually move to those houses if they were not sold off.

The plan evolved by the local Tories would mean that thousands of tenants in Dundee would have to remain in their present houses without a chance of moving to better houses in a better area. It would mean that the city's best semidetached houses would be sold off at half price to those lucky enough to be living in them at the time. The Tories went further. They decided that anyone, at any stage, even if he moved in the day before yesterday, could buy his house at 50 per cent. of its cost. We find that despicable and unacceptable.

We believe that the existing houses, which were built by successive Labour administrations in Dundee, were handed down in trust by previous generations. We in Dundee will fight to the last to preserve them within our pool of council houses. The Tory plan would ensue that rents in the city would be forced up because of the loss of the rent pooling arrangement. We shall be asking the people in Dundee to go along with us. They gave us their overwhelming support in their election on 1 May and we shall work to carry out our promise.

The current arrangements for the sale of council houses in the Bill have been developed as part of a philosophy to reduce the role of the State in housing and to increase private expenditure on housing. Those on the Government Benches who advocate sales argue that a greater proportion of housing resources should be controlled and financed through private market mechanisms that ration houses according to income, occupation and rating. As Socialists, we must reject these values. The public sector, on the other hand, gives pecedence to need, household size, structure and housing circumstances. The public sector provides housing at standards that the majority of its tenants could not secure in the private market.

Council housing challenges the profit system. Because of this, the Tories and their property-owning groupings—solicitors, estate agents, architects and financiers—are continually seeking ways of undermining council housing. It was not by accident that the Tories created the illusion of Britain being a property-owning democracy. The Labour Party's programme sees housing based on need with siting, type, allocation and rent levels democratically decided. The Tory alternative sees housing based on the ability to bear the burden of 25 or 30 years of wildly fluctuating interest charges and speculative land and building prices, and for those unable to compete there is the council house dormitory estate, of which we have our own in Dundee. There is no rational doubt about what system gives the most hope to the vast majority of people.

I shall support the new clause and the amendments despite the fact that I do not particularly agree with them. They seek to ameliorate a Bill which, by its very nature, cannot be amended. The Bill must and can only be repealed. It will require more than this Bill to ensure that any council houses are sold in Dundee.

The Secretary for State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger)

If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will forgive me, I shall not go on to the subject of Dundee now. There is a later new clause on which it might be appropriate to mention that matter. I hope that the hon. Member will not think me discourteous.

I was extremely flattered to hear that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) had been defending me so nobly in Committee on the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I cannot think of anyone who could do it better. As usual and as always, I am grateful to him.

I think that the hon. Gentleman's reasoning was confused. It sounded as though he should be away joining our old friend Jim Sillars, who has made his decision. If the logic of what the hon. Gentleman said meant anything it was that the previous Labour Government had no mandate to nationalise anything or to take any Socialist measures in England. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It must be one way or the other. Perhaps he will think about that.

I should like to comment on the more general matters that have taken up much of the debate before getting on to the new clause. Somebody from outside who did not know all this would think from the debate that the present system of council housing operating in Scotland for more than half the population was perfect, marvellous, easy to run, satisfying to customers and tremendously easy and flexible in regard to all the arrangements.

Mr. Robert Hughes

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Younger

I think that I had better get into my speech.

Mr. Hughes

On this point.

Mr. Younger

I had better get on with my speech.

Mr. Hughes rose——

Mr. Younger

I find from experience that if I give way every two minutes to everybody who wants to get in, it breaks up the continuity of what I want to say. I do not want to be discourteous. I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions, but perhaps he will let me get on.

Despite the fact that we had the impression created that everything was perfect, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that people in our cities—certainly in Glasgow—have been waiting for many years in council houses allocated to them by bureaucrats years ago with little prospect of moving to houses that they would prefer elsewhere. What a system to be proud of!

We are trying to inject a little flexibility into a system that is so rigid that it forces that sort of fate on many thousands of our constituents. No hon. Member on either side of the House who has ever done constituency work will deny that there is a great deal of heart-searching, dissatisfaction and discontent among people in Scotland about the rigidity of the council house system as it has been practised in past years. That is the background.

10.15 pm

The second impression that could be gained by somebody from outside who is listening to the debate is that the Government are about to force all tenants to buy their council houses tomorrow morning at an exhorbitant price. That is an absolute parody of what is involved. We are giving council tenants the right to buy the homes in which they live, if they wish to do so. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was right when he said that no one would be able to afford to do that, that it was not a good deal, that it was a con, and that people should not wish to buy their houses, so be it. No one who does not think that it is a good deal needs to buy his house. Nobody should ask him to do so, and nobody will ask him. It is a question of giving a right to people who have been allocated a council house, in their fair turn, by the local authority under the rules that Opposition Members think are so marvellous. They are being given the right to buy their homes.

Mr. O'Neill

If a council tenant is being given the right to buy his home, why is that right not being extended to private sector property?

Mr. Younger

The private sector properties were not built with public money.

Mr. Maxton rose——

Mr. Younger

I think that I should continue. We are injecting a limited and rather small additional element of flexibility into a system that is so rigid that many find it highly unsatisfactory. It would be a little more convincing to hear Opposition Members pleading that all that they are asking for is a little modification or flexibility in a system that they do not like, but realise will be introduced. It would be more convincing to hear that argument if Labour-controlled authorities had shown the slightest keenness over the past five years, when this has been an issue, to meet the genuine aspirations of some tenants to own their own homes and to buy their council houses.

If it is the case that only certain council houses can be sold under the rather qualified scheme suggested by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and if it is the case that the Labour Party is asking only for some control and the ability to ensure that certain houses cannot be sold, that could have been practised during the years when the Labour Party were in office. In the Green Paper produced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) lip service was paid to the fact that it was quite acceptable for council houses to be sold. I welcomed that Green Paper. In spite of that, the definite, deliberate and continuing policy that was pursued in practice was that the previous Labour Administration refused consent for the sale of council houses all over Britain, and almost all the time. There were few exceptions to that. No one can deny it.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I do not mind some members of my Party misrepresenting the Green Paper, but I object to the Secretary of State for Scotland's doing so. We did not advocate the sale of council houses. We gave limited permission in accordance with a conference resolution, and we gave it within the context of the housing plan.

Mr. Younger

That is true. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not disagree with me when I say that the Green Paper recognised that there was a case for selling some council houses. That was all that I was saying. Had the spirit behind the new clauses been genuine, and had Labour Members wanted a certain derogation so that there would be control over the matter, that could have been practised. In fact, it was not, because the number of houses that were allowed to be sold was absolutely minute. Yet during all those years literally thousands of Scots wished to have the right to buy the homes in which they lived. Every survey that had been taken, in every possible way in which one could take it, demonstrated that fact. The Labour Party cannot argue about that.

Before dealing with the new clauses and amendments, I want to reinforce the facts about the policy. First, it has all to do with giving to a person who has already been allocated a house a right to buy that house if he so wishes. Therefore, I start from the position—this is different from the position adopted by Labour Members—of wanting to do my best to ensure that the right that we are giving is spread as widely as possible. It would be my wish, if it were possible, that every public sector tenant everywhere should have that right, because if one is giving rights, I feel that one should try to give them to everyone.

From what has been said by Labour Members, it is fair to say that they start from a quite different position. Their argument is that the best system of running housing is to have it centralised under the local authority and to have the local authority bureaucrats deciding where the houses are to be built and how and to whom they are to be allocated. Some Labour Members are honest enough to nod their heads. That is what they believe. It is a respectable point of view, although I think that it is absolutely wrong. Those are the two philosophies. We Conservatives are determined to try to give every tenant the right to buy his home if he wants to. Labour Members wish to perpetuate the bureaucratic system run by local authorities, which allocate houses to everyone.

Another thing that must be said is central to everything that has been argued by every Labour Member who has spoken. I refer to the assumption that having got a proposal to give people the right to buy their houses it follows, as night follows day that every house that is sold has disappeared from the system, cannot be used, is not helping a family, and is generally a write-off. What an absurd proposition.

Let us consider for a moment what happens. A family already allocated a home decides that it would like to buy it. It does so only if it wishes. Having bought it, that family continues to live in it. It still occupies it, but it is paying a mortgage and building up some savings in the process, instead of paying rent for ever more—rent that increases every year, whether there is a Labour Government or a Conservative Government.

It is not the case that at the moment when that family is given the right to buy its home, if it wishes, the home disappears because it is still housing a family, but let us suppose that after five years, when the transitional period has ended, the family decides to sell the house. Let us suppose that it is sold to a different family. That family also needs housing, and if it does not get a house in that way it will go on to the housing waiting list and the local authority will be responsible for housing it.

The only difference produced by this policy is that the family, or one replacing it, still lives in the house. Under the Labour Party system it will pay rent for ever more, whereas under our proposals it will have the chance of owning its own home. The Labour Party is not keen to give people a chance to own their own home in that way, and the Conservative Party is keen to give people that chance. That is the difference. That is why we believe that we are right to take these measures, and why we believe that this right should be spread to everyone.

As the right hon. Member for Craigton fairly said, these new clauses are not intended to change the principle of the Bill ; they are intended to impose some form of restriction on the sale that would be permitted in order to achieve—as the right hon. Gentleman would see it—some control by the Secretary of State of the day. One of the new clauses seeks to restrict by type of house, and the other seeks to restrict by area. Both those restrictions are unacceptable to me, in that they take away from some people the rights that should be available to all people, if possible.

Secondly, the new clauses are openended. Under the scheme of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) the housing plan would have been a sort of yardstick whereby a restriction could be brought in that it would require the 25 per cent. figure. It would be possible for any authority that wished to frustrate the matter to build up a huge alleged list of houses that needed to be built, and it would be easy to produce 25 per cent. that would not be started in the current year. That would be too open-ended, and I cannot agree to it.

The same applies to the schemes put forward by the hon. Member for Dundee, West and others. They are wide open to frustration by an authority—of which there are apparently plenty—that did not wish to operate the policy and that wished to find any loophole for frustrating it.

The right hon. Member for Craigton said much about multi-storey dwellings. It was a fair point to discuss, and it was not discussed in Committee. I accept that difficulties can arise over multi-storey flats in multi-ownership, but I do not think that a case can be made—nor was a case made—for those problems being insurmountable. All the evidence, not merely in this country but all over the world, is that this is a normal situation in every city. In almost every other city there are huge apartment blocks and tower blocks, where different flats are ownd by different people, and different houses and parts of houses are owned by different people.

The hon. Member for Garscadden, who is a lawyer, will know that there are well-established procedures for dealing with repairs, multi-ownership, and so on. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Craigton was wrong in raising the matter, or for canvassing the problem, but he was wrong to suggest that it was unusual and insoluble. In this country and in every other part of the Western world it is standard practice in every city. No one can deny that, and no one can say that it is impossible.

I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) who raised the question of excluding listed buildings. No hon. Member would wish any harm to come to the standard or upkeep of listed buildings. The hon. Gentleman gave examples of such buildings in Jedburgh. There is no evidence that the considerable number of listed buildings in private ownership are worse looked after than the few in public ownership. I can give examples in both cases of good looking after and not-so-good looking after of such buildings. That alone is not a reason for excluding them. Indeed, some people would say that ownership of such listed buildings would probably lead people who wished to buy them to look after them extremely effectively.

There is also a safeguard, in that there are laws that prevent anything being done to cause the deterioration of listed buildings. It would also be open to the local authority, in selling such houses, to impose conditions of sale that would prevent their being spoiled or defaced in any way. The planning authority has control over the exterior of listed buildings, and it can prevent that.

Mr. David Steel

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) for standing in for me while I was out of the Chamber. I think that my hon. Friend gave figures to show that in the case of a newly constructed scheme, which has won conservation awards, the costs are double the district valuer's present estimate. In that scheme the local authority has already declined to sell the shops to occupiers. It has power to do that, but it has no power to prevent the fragmentation of the scheme in terms of the houses. It seems to me that this matter needs to be looked at again.

10.30 pm
Mr. Younger

I shall certainly be glad to look at that point. It is well worth examining this matter to make sure that there is nothing detrimental to the upkeep of listed buildings. I think that we all take a responsible view of that matter.

The debate has been valuable. We have gone over much of the ground that in general has been gone over in the Bill. I think that the difference between the two sides of the House is one not of detail but of principle. We approach this problem from two different points of view. As I have said, we on the Government side feel that everyone possible should have the right to own his own home if he can, and this is the only way that is put forward for him to do it. Opposition Members believe that the presumption should always be that the maximum number of people should be put into the public housing system and allocated their homes, and should be jolly thankful to be given them, and that is that.

That is not our philosophy. That is why I reject the general opposition to this proposal. I also reject the new clause and amendments, because all of them would interfere with the basic right of as many council tenants as possible to have this element of choice if they want it. That is the reason why the new clause and amendments are not acceptable. That is why I advise the House to support Government amendment No. 34 and to oppose the new clauses.

Mr. Millan

The right hon. Gentleman's description of Labour policy is such a travesty that I shall not even dignify it by answering the points that he has made. He knows that it is a travesty. I have never heard such a pathetic attempt to rebut new clauses as that to which we have just listened. If that is the standard that he brings to these debates, we are extremely thankful that he was not a member of the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to deal with the serious points made by a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members of the other parties on the Opposition Benches, as well as by myself, on the new clauses. The Government have started off on the basis that they will concede nothing in the way of flexibility in these arrangements, however reasonable the case put up and however difficult the circumstances that are likely to arise if the Government maintain the Bill's present provisions.

There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider the question of historic buildings, and the rest. I do not suppose for one moment that anything will be done about that important but comparatively detailed matter before the Bill reaches the statute book. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problems of multistorey buildings and many other specific problems that were drawn to the Government's attention in Committee. What he has done, quite deliberately, is to decide now to impose an inflexible system on local government in Scotland. He will compel Scottish local authorities to sell houses against their wishes, regardless of the local circumstances and regardless of the interests of the people living in the communities concerned.

As I said in my opening remarks, the right hon. Gentleman will produce considerable bitterness among local authorities, and confrontation with them. He is extremely unwise to adopt this attitude. It is obvious that nothing that we say in this debate on Report will change the Government's determination on this matter.

The right hon. Gentleman will live to regret the day that he turned down this last opportunity to introduce even the most minimal and commonsense element of flexibility into the Bill. I can only advise my hon. Friends, with considerable anger but also considerable regret, because of the damage that this legislation will do to housing in Scotland, to vote for the new clause. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we reach amendment No. 39 you will allow us a separate vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time :—

The House divided : Ayes 218, Noes 277.

Division No. 352] AYES [10.34 pm
Abse, Leo Booth, Rt Hon Albert Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Adams, Allen Boothroyd, Miss Betty Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Allaun, Frank Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough) Cohen, Stanley
Anderson, Donald Bradley, Tom Coleman, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Bray, Dr Jeremy Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Conlan, Bernard
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S) Cook, Robin F.
Ashton, Joe Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith) Cowans, Harry
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) Buchan, Norman Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Crowthsr, J. S.
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Campbell, lan Cryer, Bob
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Campbell-Savours, Dale Cunliffe, Lawrence
Beith, A. J. Cant, R. B. Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Carter-Jones, Lewis Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Bidwell, Sydney Cartwright, John Dalyell, Tarn
Davidson, Arthur Janner, Hon Greville Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Robertson, George
Davies, Ifor (Gower) John, Brynmor Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central) Johnson, James (Hull West) Rooker, J. W.
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) Johnson, Walter (Derby South) Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Deakins, Erie Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rowlands, Ted
Dewar, Donald Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda) Ryman, John
Dixon, Donald Jones, Barry (East Flint) Sandelson, Neville
Dobson, Frank Jones, Dan (Burnley) Sever, John
Dormant), Jack Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Sheerman, Barry
Douglas, Dick Kilfedder, James A. Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kilroy-Sllk, Robert Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Dubs, Alfred Lambie, David Short, Mrs Renée
Duffy, A. E. P. Lamborn, Harry Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale) Leadbitter, Ted Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Dunnett, Jack Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Silverman, Julius
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Skinner, Dennis
Eastham, Ken Lofthouse, Geoffrey Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire) Lyon, Alexander (York) Snape, Peter
English, Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford West) Soley, Clive
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Spearing, Nigel
Evans, John (Newton) McCartney, Hugh Springs, Leslie
Ewlng, Harry McDonald, Dr Oonagh Steel, Rt Hon David
Field, Frank McKay, Allen (Penistone) Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Fitch, Alan McKelvey, William Stott, Roger
Flannery, Martin Maclennan, Robert Strang, Gavin
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Magee, Bryan Straw, Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Mark", Kenneth Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Forrester, John Marshall, Jim (Leicester South) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Foster, Derek Mason, Rt Hon Roy Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Foulkes, George Maxton, John Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood) Maynard, Miss Joan Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Meacher, Michael Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Tilley, John
George, Bruce Miller, Dr M. S. (Eas Kilbride) Tinn, James
Ginsburg, David Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Torney, Tom
Graham, Ted Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen) Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Grant, John (Islington C) Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw) Watkins, David
Grimond, Rt Kon J. Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon) Weetch, Ken
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Movie, Rt Hon Roland Wellbeloved, James
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Newens, Stanley Weish, Michael
Hardy, Peter Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon While, Frank R.(Bury & Radcliffe)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Ogden, Eric While, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith O'Halloran, Michael Whitehead, Phillip
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy O'Neill, Martin Whitlock, William
Haynes, Frank Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Wigley, Dafydd
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire) Palmer, Arthur Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall) Park, George Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Home Robertson, John Parry, Robert Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)
Homewood, William Pavitt, Laurie Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Hooley, Frank Penhaligon, David Winnlck, David
Horam, John Powell, Raymond (Ogmore) Woodall, Alec
Howell, Rt Hon Den's (B'ham, Sm H) Prescott, John Woolmer, Kenneth
Howells, Geraint Race, Reg Young, David (Bolton East)
Huckfield, Lea Radice, Giles
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South) I ELLERS FOR THE AYES :
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North) Roberts, Allan (Bootle) Mr. Joseph Dean and
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North) Mr. George Morton.
Adley, Robert Boyson, Dr Rhodes Churchill, W. S.
Aitken, Jonathan Braine, Sir Bernard Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Alexander, Richard Bright, Graham Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Amery, fit Hon Julian Brinton, Tim Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Arnold, Tom Brittan, Leon Clegg, Sir Walter
Aspinwall, Jack Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Cockeram, Eric
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Brooke, Hon Peter Colvin, Michael
Atkins, Robert (Preston North) Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe) Cope, John
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) Browne, John (Winchester) Cormack, Patrick
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Bruce-Gardyne, John Corrie, John
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Buck, Antony Costain, A. P.
Banks, Robert Budgen, Nick Cranborne, Viscount
Bell, Sir Ronald Bulmer, Esmond Critchley, Julian
Bendall, Vivian Burden, F. A. Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) Butcher, John Dickens, Geoffrey
Best, Keith Butler, Hon Adam Dorrell, Stephen
Bevan, David Gilroy Cadbury, Jocelyn Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Bitten, Rt Hon John Carlisle, John (Luton West) Dover, Denshore
Biggs-Davison, John Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Blackburn, John Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Body, Richard Chalker, Mrs. Lynda Durant, Tony
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas Channon, Paul Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Boscawen, Hon Robert Chapman, Sydney Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Eggar, Timothy Lee, John Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Elliott, Sir William Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Ridsdale, Julian
Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rifkind, Malcolm
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Fairgrieve, Russell Loveridge, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Faith, Mrs Sheila Lyell, Nicholas Robinson, Peter (Belfast East)
Farr, John McCrindle, Robert Rossl, Hugh
Fenner, Mrs Peggy Macfarlane, Nell Royle, Sir Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey MacGregor, John Seinsbury, Hon Timothy
Fisher, Sir Nigel MacKay, John (Argyll) Scott, Nicholas
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N) Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman McQuarrie, Albert Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Fox, Marcus Madel, David Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Major, John Silvester Fred
Fry, Peter Marland, Paul Sims, Roger
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde") Marlow, Tony Skeel, T. H. H.
Garel-Jones, Tristan Marten, Nell (Banbury) Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Mates, Michael Speed, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan Mather, Carol Spence, John
Goodhew, Victor Goodlad, Alastair Maude, Rt Hon Angus Mawby, Ray Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) Squire, Robin
Gow, Ian Mawhlnney, Dr Brian Stanbrook, Ivor
Gower, Sir Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stanley, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Mayhew, Patrick Steen, Anthony
Gray, Hamish Mellor, David Stevens, Martin
Greenway, Harry Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Grieve, Percy Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) Mills, lain (Menriden) Stokes, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) Mills, Peter (West Devon) Stradling Thomas, J.
Grist, Ian Miscampbell, Norman
Grylis, Michael Moata, Roger Tapsell, Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn Monro, Hector Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) Montgomery, Fergus Tebbit, Norman
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sin) Temple-Morris, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Hannam, John Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) Thompson, Donald
Haseihurst, Alan Mudd, David Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)
Hastings, Stephen Murphy, Christopher Thornton, Malcolm
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Myles, David Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Hawkins, Paul Neale, Gerrard Trippier, David
Hawksley, Warren Needham, Richard Trouer, Neville
Hayhoe, Barney Nelson, Anthony van Straubenzee, W. R.
Heddle, John Neubert, Michael Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Henderson, Barry Newton, Tony Viggers, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael Nott, Rt Hon John Waddington, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) Onslow, Cranley Wakeham, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton) Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham Waldegrave, Hon William
Hooson, Tom Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire) Walker, Bill (Perth & Perthshire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford) Parkinson, Cecil Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Parris, Mathew Waller, Gary
Hunt, David (Wirral) Patten, Christopher (Bath) Walters, Dennis
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Patten, John (Oxford) Ward, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas Pattle, Geoffrey Warren, Kennth
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pawsey, James Wells, John (Maidstone)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick Peyton, Rt Hon John Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Pink, R. Bonner Wheeler, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Pollock, Alexander Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Kaberry, Sir Donald Porter, George Whitney, Raymond
Kershaw, Anthony Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Wickenden, Keith
Kimball, Marcus Price, David (Eastleigh) Wiggin, Jerry
King, Rt Hon Tom Prior, Rt Hon James Wilkinson, John
Knight, Mrs Jill Proctor, K. Harvey Winterton, Nicholas
Knox, David Pym, Rt Hon Francis Wolfson, Mark
Lamont, Norman Raison, Timothy Young, Sir George (Acton)
Lang, Ian Rathbone, Tim Younger, Rt Hon George
Langford-Holt, Sir John Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Latham, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES :
Lawrence, Ivan Renton, Tim Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Lawson, Nigel Rhodes James, Robert Mr Anthony Berry.

Question accordingly negatived.

  1. New Clause 22
    1. cc461-9
    2. REPEAL OF SECTION 10A(3) OF HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1974 2,512 words
  2. New Clause 25
    1. cc469-87
    2. INDEMNITY OF TENANTS 7,014 words, 1 division
Forward to