§ Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 12, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".7.11 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
§ Mr. Ancram
Hon. Members may recall that when the Bill had its Report stage on 4 March concern was expressed that the provisions of clause 2, which provides for improved discount on flats, did not go far enough, and in particular were less generous than the corresponding provisions of the Housing and Planning Bill, as it had been amended in Standing Committee.
On that occasion, I said that I recognised the strength of the views which had been expressed. I accepted also that it would not be right in principle for tenants who live in similar houses to have a different entitlement to discount in England and Scotland. I said, therefore, that the Government would look again at the discount which should be available on flats. The present amendments are the result.
As introduced, the Bill proposed that discount on flats under the right to buy should be increased by 10 per cent. Under our original proposals, people buying a flat would have been entitled to a new minimum discount of 42 per cent. after two years, rising to 70 per cent. after 30 years.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 provide a better deal for flat purchasers. We are now proposing that discount entitlement should rise by steps of 2 per cent. each year, instead of 1 per cent. as at present. A tenant with the minimum of two years standing will therefore be entitled to a discount of 44 per cent. on a flat, and the maximum of 70 per cent. will be reached after 15 years.
The upper and lower limits of the discount scale on flats sold under the right to buy will therefore remain virtually the same as in the Bill as introduced. However, the time required in order to qualify for the maximum discount will be halved. This will benefit the tenants of all types of flats. It recognises that, because of the way in which local authority allocation systems operate, tenants of flats tend to be younger people, and I believe that the amendments will be particularly welcomed by younger purchasers taking their first steps into home ownership.
These amendments fulfil the undertaking I gave to this House in March that we would again see whether we could improve our proposals for discounts on flats. They are consistent with amendments which have been carried to the Housing and Planning Bill, so that the rules on entitlement to discount will remain the same in Scotland 1064 as in England. I believe that the amendments will contribute to our aim of further promoting home ownership amongst tenants of council flats. I am confident that they will be particularly welcomed by younger purchasers.
§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)
These amendments are horrendous. The more I look at them, the more horrendous they become. I should like first to deal with the reasons why the Government considered it necessary to introduce them at all. The reason which we have been given is that the majority of members of the Standing Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill decided that they wanted a change in the upper discount for those who lived in high-rise or deck-access flats—hard-to-let flats—in England and Wales.
The Government said that the House believed that there should be an improved discount, but that was not the view of the majority on the Standing Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. If the Under-Secretary of State is going to plead, as did the Secretary of State on Monday, how good it is that we have separate Scottish legislation and that things can be done differently in Scotland, it ill becomes him to say that, just because something has happened in England and Wales, he will immediately bring Scotland into line. It should not work that way.
We shall see when we consider later Lords amendments that the Government are not prepared to go along with what happens in England and Wales; yet, in this measure, which is another attempt to give away housing, that is what the Under-Secretary of State is prepared to do.
It must be continually pointed out that there is a difference between England and Wales in council housing stock and attitudes to housing. In England, the proportion of housing that is council controlled and the proportion of those council dwellings that are flats are considerably smaller than in Scotland. The attitude to renting in Scotland is based on a much stronger tradition than in England, and most people would happily accept that attitude. There is a difference of which the Government should take account when considering council house sales and tenants' rights. We must look at Scotland in a different way.
The amendments go considerably wider than the original proposal in Committee on the Housing and Planning Bill, which was limited to what were considered to be hard-to-let flats in high-rise blocks and deck-access blocks. This group of amendments extends to every flat in council ownership. By the Government's definition, that includes attractive—certainly in Glasgow terms— four-in-a-block flats. Those flats can be found in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and of hon. Members from Glasgow and the west of Scotland as well as in my constituency. They are the most desirable form of housing in the Glasgow district council's stock. The provision to do something about hard-to-let property is now being extended to highly desirable property, giving those who are in housing in which they want to live anyway a massive and accelerated discount.
I shall give an example of a person who lives in a Glasgow council flat in Moss Park, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan), or in Knightswood, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. Both areas are sought after by council house tenants in Glasgow. At 1065 present—I have checked this with the Glasgow district council—a flat there would be valued at approximately £21,000. Someone who originally got a tenancy from the Glasgow district council or from any other district council at the age of 21 could, at the age of 35, purchase that house —he may not have lived in it for more than one day—for £6,300. Three years later he can sell the house for £21,000. I am not including any profit he may make, but I accept that he will probably get something for inflation, so he would probably sell it at £22,500 or £23,000. However, even if he sold it for £21,000 he is making £14,700 at the age of 37. I wish at the age of 37 someone had given me a lump sum of £14,700 to spend on my housing. Many people who have always lived in the private sector would have loved to have had that amount of money to invest in their housing at the age of 37 or 38.
Let us look at exactly what that means. The people who sell their flats in that way have £14,700. What have they paid out for that flat over 15 years? At present the amount paid by council house tenants in somewhere such as Mosspark is about £100 a month in rent and rates. Therefore, they are paying approximately £1,200 a year. Fifteen years ago they were paying about £20 a month in rent and rates. If we average it out and say that over the 15 years they have paid an average of £500 a year in rent and rates, they are now taking away almost double what they have paid in for their housing. Therefore, they have had their house for 15 years rent and rates free. In fact, they have been paid to live in that council house for 15 years. That is what this amendment means.
§ Mr. Maxton
The Minister is obviously now very embarrassed and squirming because he has no answer other than to sit there and say "flat" every time I say "house". If Hansard would like to put in "flat" every time I say "house" that will suit me fine. I shall say "flat" because these are highly desirable flats.
§ Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Does my hon. Friend agree that he should perhaps reinvestigate the value of the houses. I am astonished to hear him say that they are only £21,000. I have houses in my constituency —they are houses, not flats—with three bedrooms and a front door and a garden or, in many cases, a side door and a garden. They are in the most desirable parts of the city. In Sandyhills in my constituency they are valued at £26,000. They are very desirable houses. I think that my hon. Friend's figures slightly undervalue the houses. No one in Glasgow would describe them as flats.
§ Mr. Maxton
My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, I phoned Glasgow district council this afternoon to check the figures and it said that the valuation for a three-bedroomed fiat in Mosspark is £21,000. That is the valuation for sale which is based on the fact that there is a sitting tenant. If one buys a property for investment and it has a sitting tenant, one buys it at a cheaper price than if it has vacant possession. The Minister always claims that that is what the discounts are about. But that is another matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston is right; the person may be able to sell it three years later for £28,000 or £29,000. I am being modest in saying it would be sold for £21,000. Therefore, the profit margin is bigger. What I am saying is that, even if it is sold at the price it was bought for, the person will have been paid roughly 1066 £500 a year for each of the 15 years he has lived in that house rent and rates free. That is an absolute rip-off of public property. It has nothing to do with the principle of whether one buys or sells. It is to do with whether we have a Government who have any regard for public expenditure and the public purse. They keep claiming that that is what the Government are about.
§ Mr. Ancram
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He suggests that these flats—I use the word advisedly because it is the word in the amendment—are attractive and that therefore any help to people to buy them is, in effect, a rip-off. If they are so attractive, can he tell me how many of the flats are at present being sold to their sitting tenants?
§ Mr. Maxton
I would accept that in Glasgow there has not been any great rush to buy. Surely that might just say to the Minister that his policy is wrong and that the tenants in Glasgow do not particularly want to buy their houses. He is doing everything to get rid of them. He is giving them away now. He is telling people they can live rent and rates free for 15 years and the Government will then pay them a bonus of £500 for every year they have been in the house—sorry, I mean flat. I must get it right or the Minister will complain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said, many people consider those four-in-a-block flats as houses because many of them are on the ground floor and have a garden, a drive and a garage and all the things most people would consider to be highly desirable. Of course there are other flats. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they are selling increasingly. Yes, they are selling. [Interruption.] The Minister says "Good" because he wants to be rid of them. If the Minister or his right hon. and hon. Friends were to show the same disregard for the shares of the British Gas Corporation or British Telecom he would be rooted out of the Government by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so fast that his feet would not touch the ground because his action would be against every principle that the Government stand for — probity in terms of public finance, controlling public expenditure and trying to ensure that we have efficiency in the public sector. The Government are giving away money and giving away public property at knock-down prices not even for the sake of a principle because there is nothing principled about it. They have an antipathy and hatred of all that is in local authority control and they want to do something about it. They are trying to give away the flats.
I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall be urging all my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this amendment.
§ Mr. Hugh Brown (Glasgow, Provan)
I know we need to be brief but it would be wrong to let this pass without having another observation on it. I must say to the Minister in the kindest possible way that the Bill has been badly handled. I would describe it as a complete and utter shambles. It was not prepared properly and there have not been enough discussions. He knows that to be true. Then it had to suffer so many defeats in the Lords. Perhaps there is a badge to be awarded to Ministers who reverse unpopular decisions made in the other place by their own supporters.
I am not sure what our view is on this. Perhaps somebody will put me right if I am wrong. I do not 1067 necessarily believe that it has to be on all fours with the discount in England and Wales. It is difficult because if there is something better or more generous in England and Wales we would be complaining if we did not have a right to it. Therefore, there is an element of doubt about the right way to proceed in this. I am not concerned about whether the aim is to be on all fours with England and Wales. I am looking at the matter purely on the basis of whether the change in the discount is a good thing. I believe that it is not.
Obviously, I slipped up on this. When we discussed the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, I confess that I did not realise that a flat was what we would call a four-in-a-block house. That is typical of technical descriptions not being in accordance with what things are popularly understood to be. I am sure that that was an omission on my part, and that there has been no change, as the Minister said.
Most of the flats about which I am concerned are in good quality housing areas. To me, a flat is a tenement flat, and there are many of them in good housing areas. In Riddrie, for example, we would be giving a 70 per cent. discount in good quality property in a highly desirable area with one of the highest amenity groupings in Glasgow. Frankly, the lengths to which the Government are going to keep up their statistics for the number of houses being sold are absurd. That is what is behind it.
I refuse to give the Government credit for having a housing policy.
§ Mr. Brown
The Minister quotes the Green Paper to me with great regularity, but he is not getting away with it this time. It was never my intention to go along the road of flinging houses away at a 70 per cent. discount after 15 years' tenancy.
The disadvantage is that these are good houses. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments. If they are not being sold now under the present discount, this little bonus will have little or no effect. That is my guess. It might look all right, but I do not think that there will be much effect. The present level of discount is so generous that if people have not bought their houses by now I doubt whether the extra discount will make a great difference. Therefore, I do not see the need for the amendment. On that general principle, I shall vote against it.
The Bill is a shambles. This is the third attempt by the Government to change the discounts in fewer than five years. They will have to realise this sooner or later. There is a growing hope among many families in what are called difficult-to-let areas that they will move out of those areas. They cannot afford to take on a mortgage because they are on low income or supplementary benefit. If they cannot move out or have no hope of moving out, there is greater hopelessness. I warn the Minister that sooner or later, whether it is drug abuse, alcohol abuse or violence, the end result to the big housing estates will be social trouble of one sort or another. The Government, who do not care about those problems, much as they always say they do—
§ Mr. Brown
If the Government had any knowledge or feeling for those problems, they would be putting more resources into those areas than they are now. This is a trivial way in which to pursue an ideological objective. I know that we shall not win in the vote tonight, but I have no compunction about voting against the amendment. I hope that the public will realise that this Government are a poor substitute for a housing policy. The sooner we get a Government who know something about housing the better.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) put a contradictory case. He said that this was a bad proposition and then he said that it would not make much difference and that it was essentially trivial. If it is essentially trivial, I am not sure why we are making such a tremendous fuss about it.
Secondly, we are not making a judgment on the absence of a housing policy, which, I agree, is true in respect of the Government. Throughout the Committee I took the position that we in the alliance support the right to buy, and accept that the various incentives that the Government have introduced with a view to improving the possibility of people doing so and enabling those in some difficulty to do so more easily may be a crude form of redistribution, but it is a form of redistribution. I recognise it as such.
The Government have failed in that, while being willing to reduce the available public stock by the amount that is sold, at the same time they have been unwilling to make available to the local authority the necessary finance to provide more general needs housing. Therefore, I do not see any particular contradiction in saying that I accept the system of discount, but that does not lead me to say that I think that the Government have a housing policy or that this is a central issue in housing policy, or, further, that they should not make available more money for general needs housing.
§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)
I accept for the moment that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a sales policy and sees a discount as a form of redistribution. Is he happy with the rather arbitrary way in which people who may be in the most attractive and desirable properties with the largest possibility of capital gains are being given an unnatural advantage in an accelerated discount buildup as against other tenants who might want to buy their council houses? Is not the hon. Gentleman slightly offended by the illogicality of the amendment?
§ Sir Russell Johnston
It is not exactly illogicality; it is a fact that one cannot devise the perfect legislative way of doing it. Some people will benefit considerably. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is also a fact that people who are buying are the best off. They are the people who are best able to do it. The other side of the argument is that the Minister would reasonably say, "I am giving them, on an incremental basis, a considerable discount that will enable certain people who otherwise would not be able to contemplate purchase to do so." Although the system produces the unfairnesses and disparities that the hon. Gentleman properly puts his finger on, I am prepared to thole that in pursuit of the other general principle.
§ Mr. Henderson
I had not intended to speak, but I should like to make a point arising out of the exchange between the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
I am puzzled by the position of the alliance. To say that the alliance is in favour of sales is perhaps going too far. It is not against sales, which is the way in which the alliance tends to express its policy. It sounds as if it is not against sales in a few selective cases that it can imagine on occasions. It is not in favour of the right to buy. If I remember correctly, the Liberals have always voted against any extension of the discount system.
In the exchange between the two hon. Members to whom I referred, it seemed to me that the hon. Member for Garscadden was implying that the people covered by this part of the Bill are particularly favoured, but surely we are talking about flats—large blocks of flats. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. Maxton
That is the point. We are not necessarily talking about large blocks of flats. If the hon. Gentleman has been in Glasgow he will have seen what are called four-in-a-block houses, where there are only four flats in one building. Therefore, they are deemed by the Bill to be flats which could be sold with the discount.
§ Mr. Henderson
The hon. Gentleman's point might have had a little more validity if the distinction which he makes had been made in amendments tabled by the Opposition during the passage of the Bill. I was not a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. The Opposition may have moved amendments in Committee, in which case I apologise, but I was not aware of amendments appearing on the Floor of the House. In general, flats are not the most popular types of council houses available. They are not the most popular types of houses for people in the housing associations sector. To suggest that a specially privileged group has been given some special deal is fallacious. The Government's policy is much more reasonable.
The Labour party has consistently made it clear where it stands on the issue. I wish that we could obtain the same clarity from the Liberal party. It seems to be trying to find a position somewhere between the Labour party and the Tory party. There is no logical position on which it can rest its case.
§ Mr. Ancram
With the leave of the House, may I sum up some points that have been made in the debate? Had my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) been on the Committee he would have had no difficulty with the position of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) who, like his colleague the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on a previous Bill, proved that the Liberal policy is simple. The Liberal party is for the principle of the right to buy but against the practice. It is a good position, and one which I am sure it will try to maintain for many years to come.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) continues to accuse me of not having a housing policy. If he considers the policy that has been operated by the Government since 1979 he will discover that he, if not its 1070 direct father, at least has a close relationship with it in terms of the Green Paper for which he was responsible in 1977, and to which Conservative Members have always given more credence than his hon. Friends and colleagues gave it when it was published.
§ Mr. Ancram
I am delighted to hear from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman that that is incorrect and that he regards it as a splendid document. I look forward to the greatest support from him for our housing policy.
The hon. Member for Provan made the valid point that we keep changing the discount. He is a man who believes in learning by experience. When the discounts were introduced in 1980, it was understood by all that, as we saw how it worked, we would review it. I do not wish to discuss in detail the figures which were given a great airing in Committee, but it is clear from the figures that flats, and that includes four-in-a-block houses, have not sold as well as ordinary council houses. The figure that I gave in Committee was somewhere between 4 and 5 per cent. That is the upper limit of the figure of flats, although there is a distinction between the types of flats. That compares with 14 per cent. for self-contained houses.
The reason for that, as I tried to say earlier during the course of the legislation, is that there are extra obligations and undertakings when buying a flat which do not exist when buying a self-contained house. The most obvious of those are the common charges for which the owner might be liable. That was why we moved an amendment to increase the discount to 70 per cent. During Committee proceedings on the Housing and Planning Bill, Opposition Members moved an amendment to introduce a better discount scheme for flats—
§ Mr. Ancram
Allow me to finish. I never give way in the middle of a sentence. I shall give way when I have finished it. During the course of the legislation, we accepted that we should reconsider types of flats, and the people who live in them. I understood, perhaps wrongly, that the Labour party intended to encourage and help younger house purchasers. Here is an example, as I said in my earlier remarks, where that could be achieved by giving a better rate of discount to those who live in flats, accepting that most of them are young.
On the basis of the experience of the right-to-buy policy, we accepted that further changes in the discount were required, and they have been made. When the Bill was in the other place, their Lordships — from all political parties—did not see fit to divide on this matter, so the principle was given credence in that House.
§ Mr. Maxton
The Minister should not distort that amendment. It did not refer to flats; it referred to a specific group of flats which are recognised as being hard to let and hard to sell. They are high-rise deck-access flats. That amendment did not extend to all flats as this amendment does.
§ Mr. Ancram
I accept that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues made it clear in Committee that they were not averse to the principle of applying higher discounts to flats that are hard to let. They accepted that there were good reasons in some cases for applying discounts. That is not 1071 the line that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has taken this evening. He has once again shown us—I shall not ask him again what the Labour party policy is, since I have asked him enough times—that the Labour party, whatever the fudge that came out of its conference last March, is still opposed to the right to buy. That is the basic objection. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman is asking his hon. Friends to vote against the amendment. On that basis, I call on my hon. Friends to support the amendment.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 91.1072
|Division No. 242]||[7.46 pm|
|Alton, David||Holt, Richard|
|Ancram, Michael||Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)|
|Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)||Howells, Geraint|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Hunter, Andrew|
|Best, Keith||Jackson, Robert|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Johnston, Sir Russell|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Bright, Graham||Jones, Robert (Herts W)|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)||Kennedy, Charles|
|Browne, John||King, Roger (B'ham N'field)|
|Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)||Knight, Greg (Derby N)|
|Carttiss, Michael||Knox, David|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Lang, Ian|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Lawler, Geoffrey|
|Colvin, Michael||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Coombs, Simon||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Cope, John||Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Lord, Michael|
|Dunn, Robert||Macfarlane, Neil|
|Durant, Tony||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Emery, Sir Peter||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Favell, Anthony||Maclean, David John|
|Fletcher, Alexander||McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Major, John|
|Forth, Eric||Malins, Humfrey|
|Franks, Cecil||Marland, Paul|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Marlow, Antony|
|Freeman, Roger||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Gale, Roger||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Mellor, David|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Merchant, Piers|
|Gorst, John||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Morris, M. (N'hampton S)|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)|
|Hancock, Michael||Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Harris, David||Mudd, David|
|Harvey, Robert||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Normanton, Tom|
|Hawksley, Warren||Norris, Steven|
|Hayes, J.||Onslow, Cranley|
|Hayward, Robert||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Page, Richard (Herts SW)|
|Heddle, John||Pawsey, James|
|Henderson, Barry||Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth|
|Hickmet, Richard||Penhaligon, David|
|Hicks, Robert||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hirst, Michael||Portillo, Michael|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Powley, John|
|Prentice, Rt Hon Reg||Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)|
|Proctor, K. Harvey||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Raffan, Keith||Thurnham, Peter|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Tracey, Richard|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Rost, Peter||van Straubenzee, Sir W.|
|Rowe, Andrew||Waddington, David|
|Ryder, Richard||Walden, George|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Walker, Bill (T'side N)|
|Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')||Wallace, James|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Waller, Gary|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Speed, Keith||Watson, John|
|Speller, Tony||Watts, John|
|Spencer, Derek||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Wheeler, John|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Whitfield, John|
|Steen, Anthony||Wilson, Gordon|
|Stern, Michael||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)||Yeo, Tim|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Taylor, John (Solihull)||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Mr. Archie Hamilton and|
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)||Mr. Michael Newbert.|
|Anderson, Donald||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Home Robertson, John|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Janner, Hon Greville|
|Barnett, Guy||John, Brynmor|
|Beckett, Mrs Margaret||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)||Lewis, Terence (Worsley)|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Boyes, Roland||McCartney, Hugh|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||McKelvey, William|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)||Mason, Rt Hon Roy|
|Buchan, Norman||Maxton, John|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Meacher, Michael|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Michie, William|
|Clay, Robert||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Clelland, David Gordon||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Nellist, David|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)||Patchett, Terry|
|Conlan, Bernard||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Prescott, John|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Randall, Stuart|
|Craigen, J. M.||Richardson, Ms Jo|
|Deakins, Eric||Rogers, Allan|
|Dewar, Donald||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|Dixon, Donald||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Dormand, Jack||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Douglas, Dick||Skinner, Dennis|
|Dubs, Alfred||Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Snape, Peter|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Spearing, Nigel|
|Eastham, Ken||Stott, Roger|
|Evans, John (St. Helens N)||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|Ewing, Harry||Tinn, James|
|Fatchett, Derek||Wareing, Robert|
|Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)||Winnick, David|
|Fisher, Mark||Woodall, Alec|
|Flannery, Martin||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Foulkes, George||Tellers for the Noes:|
|George, Bruce||Mr. Allen Adams and|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)||Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.