'In section 3A of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, for subsection (1) the following is substituted—
(1) This section applies to a dwelling house which has been designed or specially adapted for occupation by an elderly person or persons and it is the practice of the landlord to let the dwelling house only for occupation by such persons."'.—[Mr. Millan.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.8.30 pm
§ Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this new clause we return to the matter of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act which Parliament passed only a few months ago. We return to it for a very simple reason. We are returning to arguments that we made at that time but which bear repetition because the realities of that Act and its impact on local authorities in Scotland have become even more evident since we passed it.
As the House has a lot of other business before it, I shall not speak for more than a few minutes about the clause. However, I hope that that will not be taken as any indication of a lack of feeling about the clause or about the level of importance that we attach to it, because we consider that it is very important.
When the Government made a concession last summer during the passage of the equivalent English Act, the Housing Act, to deal with housing for the elderly, we were given the most explicit assurance by the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers that appropriate legislation would be introduced for Scotland which would make the position in Scotland exactly the same as that in England and would exclude from the compulsory sale of council houses housing specifically designed for the elderly.
The reality is that under the exemption in the English Act from the compulsory sale of council houses to protect the interests of the elderly, which is what the debate is about, about 220,000 additional houses were excluded from the right-to-buy provisions.
The more restricted definition incorporated in the Scottish Bill and the full impact of the definition and understanding of what is imported became clear during the discussions. It meant that far from there being a proportionate number of exemptions in Scotland, those added by the Bill amounted only to about 6,000. There were approximately 220,000 in England and Wales, but in Scotland, which has proportionately more council 705 houses, the Government proposed a restricted definition in the amendment Act which exempted only 6,000 houses in Scotland, bringing the total to about 12,000. The total of exempted houses in England and Wales is more than 400,000.
At the time I said that the Government had not fulfilled the promise made to the House, especially to the Opposition and that the Government had cheated. The Conservatives have so little interest in this important matter that there is not one of them here to discuss it. Thousands of their constituents are affected by the compulsory sale provisions. When houses for the elderly are compulsorily sold under the provisions of the 1980 Act, they will disappear from the pool of housing available for the elderly.
As every hon. Member should know—I repeat that not one Conservative Member is here—there is a desperate shortage of housing in Scotland for the elderly. It is scandalous that local authorities should be compelled by legislation to dispose of what little they have in the way of housing specially for the elderly.
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as I know that he does not wish to delay the House for too long, but it might be of value if he would briefly recall the main differences between the English and the Scottish legislation.
§ Mr. Millan
The main difference is simple. In the new clause I have incorporated the wording of the English Housing Act. I shall explain the differences and how the provisions of the Scottish Act are considerably more restrictive.
Unless the situation has changed since the Act was passed, the result of using that definition was that the total number of dwellings safeguarded in Scotland was less than 6,000. It is so-called amenity housing. A table in the Scottish housing statistics gives the figures. As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has intervened, I shall give him the figure for Inverness. He will be glad to know that the number of exemptions under the Government's definition is nil. There are no amenity housing units in the Inverness district. The same is true of Lochaber and a number of other districts in Scotland. Skye and Lochalsh has eight houses within the definition, but not one house in Inverness is covered by the amendment Act, which was meant to place us on all fours with England and Wales.
Not a single house in Glasgow city is included among the amenity houses. The total for the whole of Scotland is less than 6,000. A considerable number of those are in one or two districts. For example, Kirkcaldy has 3,400 and Aberdeen about 1,200. Most of the other districts have very few.
The Scottish Act states:This section applies to a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.Under that Act, two qualifications have to be met which do not have to be met in the English legislation. First, a dwelling house must have facilities which aresubstantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house";and, secondly, the occupant must have special needs thatrequire accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house.706 Most old people's housing is different from other types of housing simply because it is designed for old people and it is smaller. It is normally in a development where the rest of the houses are smaller and particularly suitable for elderly persons and where it is, in the words of the English legislation, the practice of the landlord to let the premises only for occupation by elderly people.
Most old people's housing in Scotland is not "substantially different" from an ordinary dwelling house. It just happens to be smaller, with only one bedroom or with a bed in a recess of the sitting room. Similarly most elderly people in such housing do not have special needs that require such accommodation. Their only special need is for a small house. They are not necessarily disabled or suffering from a physical or other disability that means that they must live in that size of house. They are simply elderly and they require that sort of accommodation.
The use of the restrictive terms in the Scottish legislation excludes the generality of old people's housing, including every old person's house in Inverness—there must be some—because none comes within the definition of amenity housing. They are not "substantially different" from ordinary dwelling houses and they are not occupied by people who have special needs, other than the need to occupy a smaller dwelling because they are elderly and have no family living with them.
I have told local authorities that have asked me for advice to apply for exemption for other houses that do not fall within the strict definition of amenity housing. I am not sure what has been the result of that. The Secretary of State must give special permission before a local authority can refuse the right to buy.
The Government cheated on the obligations that they made solemnly to the House. They did not produce legislation that was on all fours with the English Act; they produced much more restrictive legislation. No justification was given for that at the time, and there has been none since.
Since the. Act was passed, Scottish local authorities have realised its full import and the restrictive nature of its drafting and they have become increasingly angry and concerned about the impact of the right-to-buy provisions on housing for the elderly, which is already too limited to deal with the needs of elderly people in Scotland, and which, if the Act is not amended, will become even more limited as housing is taken out of the local authority stock and, in some cases, rapidly lost to elderly people.
Basically, those houses are smaller houses which are also attractive to young married couples. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel strongly about this matter. That is why we have raised it again. Even now the Government could do the honest thing and accept the new clause and discharge the promises that they solemnly made to the House.
§ Mr. John Home Robertson
My right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) is right to point out that the Government have cheated on a fair undertaking. It might be helpful if I refer briefly to the course of events on 6 August last year, when a specific undertaking was given that an exclusion would be provided that would protect genuine old people's accommodation and council houses from the provisions of this ludicrous legislation, which compels local authorities to sell their property.
707 As Members will recall, on that occasion there was a bit of a debacle in the House. The Secretary of State for the Environment was alarmed that he might lose his entire Housing Bill. He therefore decided to do a deal with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). The Secretary of State said:The Government have considered the amendments and have decided to widen the exclusions so that genuine elderly persons' accommodation is excluded".My right hon. Friend pressed him further, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised me to say, as regards the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Bill that he will facilitate legislation to make a change along the lines that I have announced."—[Official Report, 6 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 562.]I should have thought that that made the position clear. The intention was that these old people's houses would be protected from the provisions of the sell-off legislation in England, and similarly in Scotland, and in due course the Government came forward with the amendment to which my right hon. Friend referred.
During a debate on 5 November last year my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) pressed the Minister about the houses that would be covered under the terms of the amending Bill. My hon. Friend asked:I should like to know where the 6,000 houses are located. How was that figure arrived at?The Under-Secretary of State replied:I refer him to the Scottish housing statistics published by the Scottish Development Department for the third quarter of 1979. Page 35 gives a list of all the amenity housing, where it is and in which district it can be found."—[Official Report, 5 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 1372.]We understood that 6,000 genuine old people's council houses would be protected under the legislation. The following day I obtained the list from the Library and discovered that there were not 6,000 houses in that category, but only 5,857. One might have assumed that these houses would be spread around the districts of Scotland. I found, however, that 3,452 were in Fife, and that of those 3,414 were in Kirkcaldy. A further 1,204 were in the city of Aberdeen. There were practically none in many areas, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and my constituency.
There have since been some comings and goings over the precise descriptions of properties that come within the protection of the amending legislation. It has also been revealed that the one and only old people's adapted house in one of the Highland districts has been sold because it apparently did not qualify for the protection.
My remarks and those of my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government have reneged on a clear undertaking. They have cheated. The opportunity now provided by my right hon. Friend will make it possible, once and for all, to bring our legislation into line with that of England and Wales, in accordance with the clear promise and undertaking given by the Secretary of State for the Environment last year, and flagrantly broken by the Scottish Office.
§ Mr. Dempsey
The Secretary of State and the Department have not gone thoroughly enough into the provision of houses for the elderly, which has been a feature in Scotland for many years. The houses are not substantially different from other houses, but they were 708 built specially for the elderly, many after consultation with county medical officers, welfare departments and architects.
The interpretation that we have heard today seems to rule out almost all houses except those deliberately designed as sheltered accommodation. That is a grave mistake by the Government and the Department. When I was a member of a local authority, as I was for many years, we tried several experiments to meet the needs of the elderly, including beautiful sites with small semidetached villas for the elderly. We found that such developments isolated them, so we developed the idea of putting at each end of existing blocks of terrace houses two appartments for the elderly. That was done not by chance, or simply as a result of a sudden thought that came into the minds of those responsible, but after careful consideration and careful research and planning by architectural staffs.
Those houses, which are still allocated to the elderly, can now be sold. Houses that can be established to have been occupied for several years only by elderly persons should be exempt from sale. That would be fair and common sense. It should be taken for granted that houses occupied for year after year by retirement pensioners, houses deliberately built to accommodate old folk, should automatically be exempt from sale.
I should like the Minister to see some of the houses, the way in which they have been constructed and laid out especially to meet the convenience of old people, with no steps that can be difficult to negotiate, although the houses are not substantially different from others. If the Minister saw some of the houses he would realise that it is an error of judgment not to exempt them from sale. Some of them are already being sold, and that is reducing the pool for the elderly who are queueing up in large numbers for entry into these council houses.
I urge the Minister to realise, on reflection, that a mistake has been made. Let us put right that error. Let the Government take advantage of this new clause to make a statement that it is their intention to ensure that all houses in Scotland that have for some time been occupied by elderly people—whether or not the houses are substantially different from others—should be exempt from sale and retained in the pool to accommodate the old souls and at least give them a contented eventide.
§ Mr. Foulkes
I hope that the House will notice that the Scots Tories, who crowded into the Chamber for the discussion on sex shops, have evaporated now that we are discussing old people's housing. That is a demonstration of the priorities of Scots Tories.
§ Mr. Foulkes
Yes. Their absence now reveals the lack of concern that they have for the elderly. Perhaps they did not want to be in the Chamber to witness the embarrassment of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), as he twists and writhes in attempting to explain away the allegations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
This is the biggest double deal that the old people in Scotland have seen—and they have seen so many double deals from this double-dealing Government. It was made clear to the old people that their housing would be protected. The Government made a solemn promise, but 709 when we come to the reality nothing could be further from the truth than their promise of protection. I am sorry that Conservative Members are not in the Chamber to see the Minister's embarrassment and shame. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends are present to watch him writhe under the onslaught of my colleagues.
It is interesting that the Social Democrats, whom we keep hearing about, have not remained in the Chamber. I am glad to see that the old-fashioned Liberals are still able to maintain an interest. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). Surely the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) should have been present to protect the 2,500 old people in Sutherland. It seems that only 18 houses in Sutherland are to be protected under the Bill. Where are the old people of Sutherland to stay?
I hoped that we would see some dynamism from the new party. It may be that its members are trying to work out their policies prior to the great ball that we are supposed to see on Thursday. As I said during the weekend, it is appropriate that one can join their party and pay for membership with plastic money. It is truly a plastic party for plastic people. The people of Scotland will pass their verdict. We would like an opportunity for the people of Scotland to pass a verdict. We would like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to go to his electorate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton rightly said that there is a desperate shortage of all forms of housing for old people in Scotland. There is a desperate shortage of sheltered housing and specially adapted housing. Will the shortage become less serious? The Under-Secretary of State might have some sort of argument if he were able to say "It does not matter about selling off these houses because we shall improve and develop the stock through our building, capital and adaptation programmes." However, the reverse is the truth. The hon. Gentleman is slashing the programme of housing for the elderly through the Housing Corporation.
For example, the hon. Gentleman had to write to me recently to reveal that the provision for special housing for the elderly will be reduced in real terms. The authority within my constituency of Cumnock and Doon Valley is having to review its position in association with sheltered housing associations that were hoping to provide sheltered housing—for example, the BIELD, the housing association in Cumnock—because of the cutbacks in the allocation to the Housing Corporation.
The local authorities are not getting the money to provide new houses for old people or adaptations. Many of my constituents come to my surgery who have disabled and elderly people in their households. They tell me that they have a desperate need for adaptation. They say that they have a great need for central heating, which is essential for old people in Scotland. We need adaptations because two-thirds of the disabled in our society are elderly. There are so many elderly people who are severely disabled and who need adaptations in their homes, but there is no money to enable them to be undertaken.
The desperate shortage that my right hon. Friend the Member for Craigton has talked about will become even worse because of the Government's proposals. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for health, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), is on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman will have 710 to face some of the problems because his colleague, the hon. Member for Pentlands, who has responsibilities for housing, will not be able to meet the problems of old people.
Many of the old people who will not be able to go into houses specially adapted and designed for them will have to go into old people's homes and hospitals instead. The burden of responsibility on the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West will be increased. I see that his brows are furrowed at the thought of that.
The hon. Member for Pentlands might say—he has been quoted as saying it—that the local authorities can redefine their housing and fiddle the number a little. That is entirely the wrong thing to suggest to local authorities. I know that lawyers are able to twist things, to make them seem what they are not. But, however much the Under-Secretary twists them, we know that he is cheating and that the Government promised to give us the same exemptions as in England and Wales. We know that we do not have those exemptions— the people of Scotland and the old people of Scotland know that. The old people will know that the Government and the Under-Secretary have cheated them, and they will never forget that.
§ 9 pm
§ Mr. Russell Johnston
I shall not detain the House long. Unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and the five Labour Members who are present, I support the sale of council houses, as the Minister knows. Therefore, I hope that he will bear that in mind when he listens to what I have to say in support of what right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) said. I ask him to reconsider the position.
§ Mr. Foulkes
There must be only one present. The hon. Member said that five Labour Members were present. There are more than five Labour Members present, unless the hon. Gentleman knows something about what will happen on Thursday about which I do not know.
§ Mr. Johnston
Perhaps the total is eight.
I was making the point that, while it is regrettable that no Conservatives are here apart from those on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was a little rough on the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). As a solitary Liberal, I know that it is not always possible to be present all the time. That point should not be too much stressed.
I know that the Minister cannot easily accept a proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Craigton. However, I should have thought that he would give further thought and consideration to the fact that the definition is too narrow. I have always argued—I know that the Minister takes a contrary view—that the sale of council houses is not necessary and that there should not be an unfettered sale of council houses. The Minister has accepted that argument in principle by curbing the sales. Therefore, it is only a question of scale and degree.
That being so, I should have thought that the points cogently made by the right hon. Member for Craigton by 711 way of comparison between the situation south of the border and that in Scotland are ones to which the Minister must respond positively. Even if he does not immediately say that he will do something tonight and accept the wording or approach put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that he will say that he is sympathetic towards a genuine argument and that he will reconsider it, because the Bill has to go through the other place.
§ Mr. Lambie
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) about the lack of Tory Back Benchers. The Secretary of State for Scotland is not here, and no wonder. Kyle and Carrick district council is shared by us. The district has 17,000 old-age pensioners, yet under the legislation only 233 houses will be protected from sale, at a time when more and more elderly people are requiring houses adapted to their needs. My area of Cunninghame has 16,700 old-age pensioners. Every town has houses that can be earmarked for old people. In Saltcoats, about 100 yards from where I stay, in Old Raise Road, we have old people's houses that are not included in the provisions. The tenants will be allowed to buy those houses, even though we are all inundated with requests from elderly people living in four and five apartment houses who wish to move to one or two-apartment accommodation.
The English Minister responsible for housing, the Secretary of State for the Environment, covers an area of the United Kingdom where only one-third of the people live in council houses, yet he manages to get a better deal for council tenants than we do in Scotland. In Scotland, 65 per cent. of the people live in council houses. The bogy man, the Tarzan who is out to kill council housing, can clear 220,000 houses in England and Wales, yet the Secretary of State for Scotland, the decent person who never speaks and generally agrees with everyone, can clear only 6,000 houses.
The Scottish people vote Labour at local and parliamentary elections. We vote Labour wherever we can, and we are treated more badly than are the people in England, who vote Tory every five years. Perhaps if we started to vote Tory we should get better treatment from the Government. Where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does he not have the power to stop the sale of more than 60,000 houses that could be used to house elderly people? Only 6,000 are being protected. Why are Scottish Ministers more vindictive towards the people of Scotland than even the Secretary of State for the Environment is towards English council tenants?
§ Mr. Rifkind
For one small moment, part of the logic of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) appealed to me, but his concluding remarks spoilt it.
The basic matter that we are debating is not, as some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches appear to suggest, whether all housing occupied by elderly persons should be exempt from the right to buy. No one seriously suggests that either the Scottish or the English legislation contains such a provision or was ever intended to do so. In both cases they deal with specific categories of old folks' housing where the provisions in Scotland are the same in substance as those south of the border.
The essence of the debate is, in effect, whether the Scottish provisions are much more tightly drawn than are the English provisions, as the Opposition suggest, or 712 whether, as we have always maintained, the effect has been comparable. I am happy to deal with it on that basis, because I believe that the evidence that we can put to the House substantiates what we have always said.
Since the Act came into force in Scotland there have been five applications for exemption under the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Act. In each case the Secretary of State refused the application by the local authority because it did not fall within the provisions of the Act. So far as we can tell, the Secretary of State for the Environment would probably have come to the same conclusion, given the kind of houses being considered. Of equal interest and importance is that, compared with the situation in Scotland, where not one of the five applications has been accepted, since the coming into effect of the English Housing Act—with far wider provisions, according to the Opposition—only one house in the whole of England and Wales has been excluded, and that would have been excluded in Scotland also under the Scottish provisions.
The Opposition have waxed loud and furious, saying that the Scottish terms are terribly narrow, while the English terms are wide and generous by comparison, yet in England and Wales, under the so-called very generous provisions, only one house has been excluded, which would have been excluded under the Scottish provisions in any case. On that basis, their arguments are bogus and do not stand up to examination. They may protest as much as they like, but the evidence so far—and that is all that we can go on—is that their protestations are without foundation.
§ Mr. Millan
The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that. What he has said is absolutely irrelevant. He has not answered the point made by my hon. Friends and myself. How many houses in England fall within the definition? The figures for exemptions were given by Ministers as more than 200,000. Is that accurate? He was also asked to comment on the equivalent figure for Scotland, which was fewer than 6,000. Is that accurate? It is perfectly accurate, because he gave the figure himself when he drew our attention to what was stated in the Scottish housing statistics.
If the houses are exempted from the provisions, there is no right to buy. I imagine that any local authority receiving an application from a tenant to buy a house which is exempted under the terms of the Act will simply tell the tenant that it is not eligible to be sold. Therefore, the vast majority of such cases will not be referred to the Secretary of State at all. The only reference to the Secretary of State is when a tenant wishes to buy a house for which exemption has been granted and persists in his wish. Therefore, the number of references in England and Scotland is irrelevant to the number exempted by the provisions of the legislation.
If the Minister intends to rise, I ask him to answer the direct question that I have put to him twice. Is the effect of the English legislation to exempt or exclude 220,000 houses in England and Wales while the Scottish legislation exempts or excludes only 6,000 houses in Scotland? Is that accurate or not?
§ Mr. Rifkind
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the figures given for England and Wales are estimates. They were described as estimates in the last debate, and I therefore have nothing to add. He is quite wrong to say that 713 in England and Wales the Secretary of State is not involved. If a local authority wishes to take advantage of the English provisions, it must be confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. If only one house has so far been excluded under the English provisions, that is because, despite whatever larger numbers might be considered eligible, only one was in fact excluded. On exactly the same approach, that house would have been excluded in Scotland. It is not the Government's fault if the city of Glasgow authority has built no houses over the last 50 years which fall within the category of amenity housing.
§ Mr. Millan
The Minister is making another speech, but has not answered my point. He has admitted that 220,000 houses are covered by the English legislation and less than 6,000 by the Scottish legislation. There is no way in which those figures are comparable. The discrepancies arise because of the more restrictive definition in the Scottish legislation and the more liberal definition in the English legislation.
If the Minister argues that there is no difference, he can accept the new clause. It would put into the Scottish legislation exactly the same definition as is in the English legislation. If there is no difference in effect, there is no reason why the new clause should not be accepted. It would then be absolutely clear that the English and Scottish legislation said exactly the same things.
The number of references to the Secretary of State is not relevant. In any case, it is early days yet. But even that is not the point. Sheltered housing is excluded from the right-to-buy definitions in both the Scottish and English legislation. If amenity housing or housing for the elderly were excluded, anyone wishing to buy such a house would simply be told by the local authority that he had no right to buy. If, despite that advice, the individual wished to press the right to buy, the local authority would only then have to apply to the Secretary of State for exemption. However, the vast majority of cases would never reach the Secretary of State, because it would be crystal clear from the legislation that there was no right to buy and that a tenant would be wasting his time trying to persuade the local authority that he had a right to buy.
What the Minister has said has been typical of the dishonesty with which the Government have approached this matter. He has not answered any of the points put to him. He has tried to obscure the issue by introducing the red herring of comparing the English and Scottish experiences. The new clause would insert in the Scottish legislation exactly the same words as are contained in the English legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had any shred of honesty, he would welcome the new clause. As obviously he is not prepared to do so, I ask my hon. Friends to vote for it in the Lobby.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 162.715
|Division No. 114]||[9.18 pm|
|Adams, Allen||Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Campbell, Ian|
|Ashton, Joe||Canavan, Dennis|
|Beith, A.J.||Carmichael, Neil|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Clark, Dr David (S Shields)|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Cook, Robin F.|
|Cowans, Harry||Maclennan, Robert|
|Craigen, J. M.||McNamara, Kevin|
|Crawshaw, Richard||McTaggart, Robert|
|Cryer, Bob||McWilliam, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||Maxton, John|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Dempsey, James||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dewar, Donald||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)|
|Dixon, Donald||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Dobson, Frank||Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)|
|Dormand, Jack||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Douglas, Dick||Morton, George|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||O'Neill, Martin|
|Eadie, Alex||Palmer, Arthur|
|Eastham, Ken||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Prescott, John|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Roberts, Albert(Normanton)|
|Ford, Ben||Roper, John|
|Foster, Derek||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Foulkes, George||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Grant, George(Morpeth)||Sever, John|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Short, Mrs Renee|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Silverman, Julius|
|Hamilton, James(Bothwell)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)||Snape, Peter|
|Hardy, Peter||Soley, Clive|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Spearing, Nigel|
|Haynes, Frank||Stallard, A. W.|
|Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|HomeRobertson, John||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Hooley, Frank||Stoddart, David|
|Howell, Rt Hon D.||Stott, Roger|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Strang, Gavin|
|Janner, HonGreville||Thomas, Dafydd(Merioneth)|
|John, Brynmor||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Wainwright, E.(DearneV,)|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Wainwright, R (ColneV)|
|Kilfedder, James A.||Weetch, Ken|
|Lambie, David||Welsh, Michael|
|Lamond, James||White, Frank R.|
|Leadbitter, Ted||White, J. (G'gowPollok)|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Wigley. Dafydd|
|Litherland, Robert||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Winnick, David|
|McDonald, DrOonagh||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|McGuire, Michael (Ince)|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|McKelvey, William||Mr. James Tinn and|
|MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor||Mr. Donald Coleman.|
|Alexander, Richard||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Ancram, Michael||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Cockeram, Eric|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Colvin, Michael|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Cope, John|
|Bendall, Vivian||Corrie, John|
|Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)||Cranborne, Viscount|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Crouch, David|
|Best, Keith||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Dover, Denshore|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Dunn. Robert(Dartford)|
|Blackburn. John||Dykes, Hugh|
|Bonsor, SirNicholas||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Braine, SirBernard||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Bright, Graham||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Brinton, Tim||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Fletcher-Cooke, SirCharles|
|Brotherton, Michael||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Budgen, Nick||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Fraser, Peter (South Angus)|
|Carlisle, John (LutonWest)||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Gorst, John|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Gray, Hamish|
|Chapman, Sydney||Greenway, Harry|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Gummer, JohnSelwyn||Percival, Sir Ian|
|Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hawkins, Paul||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Hawksley,Warren||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Raison, Timothy|
|Heddle, John||Rathbone, Tim|
|Henderson, Barry||Ronton, Tim|
|Hill, James||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)||RhysWilliams, SirBrandon|
|Hordern, Peter||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)||Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Rossi, Hugh|
|Hurd, Hon Douglas||Rost, Peter|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Scott, Nicholas|
|Knight, MrsJill||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Knox, David||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Lang, Ian||Speller, Tony|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Spence, John|
|LeMarchant, Spencer||Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)|
|Lester Jim (Beeston)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Sproat,Iain|
|Macfarlane, Neil||Stainton, Keith|
|MacGregor, John||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Steen, Anthony|
|McNair-Wilson,M.(N'bury)||Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Stradling Thomas,J.|
|Major, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Marlow, Tony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Marten,Neil (Banbury)||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Mather.Carol||Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Thornton,Malcolm|
|Mawhinney, DrBrian||Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Viggers, Peter|
|Mills, lain (Meriden)||Wakeham, John|
|Mills, Peter (West Devon)||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Moate, Roger||Waller, Gary|
|Monro, Hector||Ward, John|
|Morgan, Geraint||Watson, John|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Mudd, David||Wheeler, John|
|Murphy, Christopher||Wickenden, Keith|
|Myles, David||Williams, D.(Montgomery)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Wolfson, Mark|
|Needham, Richard||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Neubert, Michael||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Normanton, Tom||Mr. Tony Newton and|
|Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)||Mr. Donald Thompson.|
|Page, Richard (SW Herts)|
§ Question accordingly negatived.