§ Lords amendment: No. 96, in page 74, line 34, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
§ Mr. TrippierI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendments Nos. 97 to 102 and 106 to 109.
§
Lords amendment: No. 111, in page 76, line 13, leave out from "if" to "exceeds" in line 14 and insert
in response to the consultation under section 101 above,—`
- (a) less than 50 per cent. of the tenants to whom that section applies have given notice of their wishes in such manner as may be prescribed; or
- (b) the number of tenants to whom that section applies who have given notice in that manner of their wish to continue as tenants of the landlord"
§
Amendment (b) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) the number of tenants to whom that section applies who have given notice in that manner of their wish to become tenants of the applicant is less than 50 per cent. of the total number of tenants to whom that section applies; or.
§
Amendment (c) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) 50 per cent. or fewer of those eligible to vote in the consultation process under that section have given notice of their wish to transfer to the applicant; or'
§
Amendment (d) thereto, at end, insert—
`(aa) 50 per cent. or fewer of those voting in the consultation process under that section have given notice of their wish to transfer to the applicant; or'
§
Lords amendment No. 112, in page 76, line 15, at end insert—
(2A) In any case where a tenancy is held by two or more persons jointly, those persons shall be regarded as a single tenant for the purposes of subsection (2) above and, accordingly, any notice given in response to the consultation under section 101 above shall be of no effect for the purposes of subsection (2) above unless it is given by or on behalf of all the joint tenants.
§
Amendment (a) thereto, leave out from 'jointly,' to end, and insert
`each of those persons shall be regarded as a qualifying tenant for the purposes of subsection (2) above.'.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 113 and 115.
§ Mr. TrippierAll the amendments are concerned with the interrelated questions of entitlement to consultation 700 under clause 101, how votes are registered in the majority calculation under clause 102 and the provisions for excluding houses and leasing-back flats under clause 99.
Lords amendment No. 96 provides that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State "shall" rather than "may" make regulations under clause 99 about exclusions and lease-back. There was never, in practice, any doubt that he would.
Lords amendment No. 108 was tabled by the Opposition in another place and accepted there on the Government's advice. It clarifies—as was virtually in all circumstances already the case—the point that a qualifying tenant, to be entitled to vote, must still occupy during the consultation period, under clause 101, a dwelling that he occupied on the date when the application was served.
Lords amendment No. 111 was tabled by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness in another place. It follows an arrangement proposed earlier by the Opposition there. It provides that an applicant may not proceed unless at least 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote do so one way or the other. I hope that this additional guarantee against the outcome of an application being decided by apathy will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
In practice, we believe that there will be great tenant interest in the opportunities offered by tenants' choice and that this turnout figure will be met in all cases where there is a good prospect of a successful transfer. It also removes a possible anomaly by ensuring that "no" votes cast by long leaseholders count towards the blocking majority required under clause 102 if the application is to be prevented from proceeding.
3 pm
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 11l would set the minimum turnout required for a transfer at not 50 per cent. but 100 per cent. That is unreasonable, not least because the 50 per cent. figure came originally from an amendment moved by the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in the other place. I disagree with it 100 per cent.
Amendment No. 112 clarifies that joint tenants will have one vote, which must be cast jointly. This is the right arrangement because qualifying tenants' votes, as well as contributing collectively to deciding the outcome of the application, will also determine individually whether their home stays with the existing landlord or transfers to the applicant. Families and households will decide which way their shared decision should go. The same decision is made by almost every owner-occupied household at some time or another. Because of the effect on individual tenancies, the separate voting entitlement proposed for joint tenants in amendment (a) is not practicable.
The remaining Lords amendments—Nos. 97 to 102, 106 and 107, 109, 113 and 115—put the Secretary of State's powers to prescribe descriptions of tenants for consultation under clause 101, and leaseback under clause 99, into a form which allows the links between the two processes to be completely and satisfactorily followed through. They will, for example, allow him to ensure that commercial tenants are entitled to consultation under clause 101 on a similar basis to long leaseholders. They will allow him to ensure that successors to a qualifying tenant during the period between the relevant date and consultation get a vote. They will allow him to arrange that flats which the landlord should be able to hold on to 701 indefinitely—old people's or handicapped people's flats exempted from the right to buy—are leased back under clause 99 as a matter of course.
Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) to Lords amendment No. 100 go to the heart of the issue. The amendments to Lords amendment No. 111 would all prevent an application from proceeding if less than 50 per cent. of eligible tenants voted positively to transfer. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendments. They would disturb the balance that we have carefully struck in the Bill to facilitate change for those tenants who want and need it, while providing the strongest possible safeguards for individuals.
I remind the House that the terms of approvals given by the Housing Corporation under clause 93 will require potential applicants, wherever practicable, to take part in a preliminary competition to establish initial tenant preference. My noble Friend announced in Committee in another place that the successful competitor will have to demonstrate initial "in principle" support from at least 10 per cent. of tenants before he can go ahead.
The conditions of applicant's approval will oblige them to keep tenants informed about progress with the application. When the time for formal consultation arrives, tenants will have a contractual offer of new tenancy terms from the applicant. At the same time, but quite separately, they will receive, from the independent teller, their ballot form, accompanied by comprehensive information about the process, including the consequences of voting either way or of abstaining. If any eligible tenant fails initially to vote, or returns an invalid ballot paper, the independent teller will call back and help tenants, if they wish to do so, to cast a valid vote.
When the vote is counted, we shall have taken every realistic step to ensure that tenants have known about the process, the implications of voting and not voting, the contents and status of the applicant's offer and their individual rights. A secure tenant who does not want to transfer need not change landlords against his or her will. Against that background, we believe that it is right to provide that those who, having heard all the arguments, have no feelings strong enough to vote either way, do not damage the opportunities of those who need and want change.
§ Mr. SoleyThe Government got themselves into such a mess that they had to impose the guillotine motion. The House is having to deal with amendments in an undesirable fashion.
A number of amendments in this group, and in following groups, are desirable, but some are undesirable. I shall be speaking in favour of amendment No. 108 and the amendments to amendment No. 111. We are opposed to amendment No. 207, but in favour of amendment No. 208. For reasons that the House will understand—people outside may not understand so easily—we shall vote on some of those issues. We might support some of the associated amendments even if we vote against the others.
Having said that, this is an important group of amendments and we would have liked to spend more time on it. It deals with the scheme launched by the Government—"Pick a landlord." It should be called, "Pick a tenant." The first point—I have made it before but I shall make it again to the new Minister because he may 702 not have heard it—is that if it is so wonderful for a tenant to be able to change landlords, why does it not apply to the private sector for non-resident landlords? Rights are supposed to be universal. I want the message to go out loud and clear that the Labour party has not been opposed to people being able to change their landlords. That has happened in Glasgow and Sheffield where local authorities have led the way.
It is important to know—I want this on the record for Conservative Members who take an interest in these matters—that under a future Labour Government tenants of non-resident private landlords will be given the ability to change their landlords. That means that all those pushed out into the private sector by this wretched Bill will have a chance to turn the decision around. That choice is denied them today. It also means that the tenants of the Rachmans and van Hoogstratens of the world will be able to go to their town hall, local housing association or housing co-operative and ask them to take over the tenancy. Subject to certain rules and regulations that need to be applied, they will have that right. Private landlords, whether they are taking over council properties or are already operating in this area, had better be aware of the implications of that if they prove to be bad landlords.
It is my judgment—it has always been the Opposition's judgment—that most people do not want to change their landlords. Most people—particularly in the public sector —are satisfied. We know from independent polls that the public sector is popular in most areas. There are areas where it is unpopular from time to time and tenants need to be given additional powers.
A landlord may make an offer for council properties. We should note that individual tenants do not say, "Will you come in?" As a group they may be able to ask a housing association to come in, but that is not what usually happens. A private organisation may take an interest in a set of properties and tell the local authority that it is interested in taking it over. The local authority will be obliged by law to provide all the information on the properties such as rent levels, rent arrears, empty properties, the cost of caretaking and so on. Only then will there be the so-called vote.
The important point is that it is not only people who abstain who are counted as being in favour of a transfer. In the other place when my noble Friends were moving amendment No. 108, it was clear that empty properties and people who had died would be included in the vote as having voted in favour of the takeover. That amendment has now been accepted and the Government, after much criticism from me, members of my party, and tenants have changed their opinion and we welcome that.
The Government talk about my hon. Friends whipping up fear and hysteria around the country. We have not done that, but the Government have. If I had been asked to organise a meeting of 200, 300 or 400 tenants on a housing issue, I would have said that I could not do it. However, as soon as the Government published the Bill and tenants became aware of its implications, not just public tenants but private tenants, they began to ask us to hold meetings. That happened in Conservative-controlled areas with non-political tenants' associations. If the Government need any evidence about that, they should ask the Association of District Councils and Lady Anson. The ADC is controlled by the Conservative party, but it 703 does not agree with the voting system. The National Consumer Council, hardly a Labour party organisation, described the system as, "inertia selling."
§ Mr. TrippierThe hon. Gentleman has referred to the meetings held throughout the country. He must be aware —I can verify this—that a considerable number of the meetings, particularly those about HATs, were attended by members of Militant and the Socialist Workers party. Is he happy to be associated with those people?
§ Mr. SoleyI am happy to be associated with the tenants. It was they who organised and ran the meetings, and I am 100 per cent. with them. I do not care a damn about fringe individuals from the Left or the Right, including Tory party members, attending those meetings. If they were tenants, they were welcome. It is tenants who have fought and won the battle over housing action trusts, and they will win again with our support. There are bound to be groups from the Left, Right and centre, and from no political affiliation, who will attend tenants' meetings. It is the tenants who have our support and who lead the movement against the Government's proposals.
§ Mr. TrippierMay I have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that in the likelihood of misleading information, from whatever source, being given to tenants in the run-up to any form of ballot, and if it is proved to his satisfaction that it is misleading, he will publicly condemn such literature? Yes or no?
§ Mr. SoleyNo problem. The Minister is right to say that deliberately misleading information has been produced. That has been done at the taxpayer's expense and distributed by the Department of the Environment. I quote from the leaflet, "Government Proposals for Housing: Tenants' Choice"—and that is misleading in its own right:
Each tenant who was eligible to vote would have to decide whether to vote 'yes', vote 'no' or abstain. It would be very important for you to consider fully and carefully all the arguments for and against a transfer. There would be plenty of time for this. But once you had decided to transfer, you would not be able to change your mind.Any tenant reading that paragraph would believe that he had three choices—that he could vote yes, no or abstain. That is a lie paid for by the taxpayer.It is a lie because if one abstains, one is counted as voting yes. The National Consumer Council describes that as inertia selling. I give the Minister this opportunity. He wants me to condemn misleading information; will he join me in condemning that leaflet and say that he will withdraw it, also ensuring that a new leaflet is distributed making it explicit that if a tenant abstains from voting, he will be counted as having voted in favour? Yes or no?
§ Mr. TrippierWhat is said in the leaflet is correct. I am prepared to say on behalf of the Government that if at any stage misleading information is given to tenants, and it can be proved by the hon. Gentleman that it is misleading, certainly I shall either publicly apologise or correct it. I put to the hon. Gentleman again a question that I asked of him a few moments ago. If it can be proved that misleading information, on whatever system, has been given to tenants, will he publicly denounce it?
§ Mr. SoleyI have said yes to that already—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I did. It was on the record before and I shall put it on the record again now.
704 The Minister asked me to prove the existence of misleading information. Does he accept that the National Consumer Council agrees with me that the system proposed can be described as inertia selling and that it has stated that publicly? Does he also recognise that inertia selling is not only frowned upon but is in certain circumstances, illegal? In view of the offer that the Minister has just put to me, will he acknowledge the proof provided by the National Consumer Council that the leaflet is misleading? Will he withdraw it and replace it with a clear statement that if a tenant abstains, he will be counted as having voted yes? Will the Minister give a direct answer to that question?
§ Mr. TrippierI do not accept that that is a lie.
§ Mr. SoleyBut then there is the opinion of the National Consumer Council. Will the Minister pay attention before the civil servants trouble him? He has the whole quote before him. He is on the spot now and knows that he is in difficulty. He says that he wants to get rid of misleading information, but the leaflet does not say that if a tenant abstains, he will be deemed to have voted yes. The National Consumer Council's view is that such is inertia selling. That is the independent proof for which the Minister asked. Will he withdraw the leaflet? Why should the taxpayer pay for a lie put out by the Government?
§ Mr. TrippierAs far as I am aware the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the leaflet. It is on the record, he has referred to it and he can read it again in Hansard. On page 8 there is a question:
Could my home be transferred over my head?To which the answer is:No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord.
§ Mr. SoleyPrecisely. That is what the National Consumer—[Interruption.] The Minister is trying very hard to get out of a hole. I make this offer to him. He should go to the National Consumer Council and take its advice on the wording. The Minister's example appears on the following page. The previous page refers to the voting system—
§ Mr. TrippierNo.
§ Mr. SoleyWill the Minister stop interrupting and muttering into his chin and listen for a moment. The position is clear. The National Consumer Council, the Association of District Councils, which is controlled by the Conservative party, and every organisation outside the House agree with me that this information is misleading. I say that it is a lie. The Minister knows what is on the page. He is aware that on the following page it states:
Could my home be transferred over my head?To which the answer is, "No". However, it can be transferred in certain circumstances. The real answer to that question is yes and I will deal anon with the circumstances in which that can happen if I have the time. The answer in the document reads:
No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord. But nobody who had voted against the transfer would be transferred against their wishes.The part that matters appears under the heading:How would I decide whether I wanted to vote to transfer?705 We should remember that the other quote is from another part of the document—and that is the part which the National Consumer Council, the Conservative-controlled ADC and everyone else claim is inertia selling. It is misleading and the independent proof comes from the National Consumer Council. The biased proof comes from the Conservative-controlled ADC. Many other independent and political groups say that it is dishonest and paid for by the taxpayer.The Minister has done enough wriggling now. The answer is clear. He is not prepared to withdraw or alter misleading information.
§ Mr. TrippierWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. SoleyI will give way only if the Minister will put it on the record that he will withdraw the leaflet—
§ Mr. Trippierrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One hon. Member at a time.
§ Mr. TrippierHow on earth could I be expected to put right what is clear to everyone inside and outside the House? It is absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman is on a very weak point. There is no way in which one could misinterpret the words. I will read them out again so that they are on the record a third time. Why on earth does the hon. Gentleman think we included them?
Could my home be transferred over my head?No. Tenants who voted 'yes', or who abstained, would become tenants of the new landlord.It is crystal clear.
§ Mr. SoleyI have two points. Let me try to persuade the Minister. First, will the Minister leave this House and ask the National Consumer Council—which I presume he accepts is an independent body—and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils whether they accept that the wording is misleading? They say it is and I believe that they are right.
On the next page there is a question:
Could my home be transferred over my head?The leaflet answers emphatically, "No", adding:nobody who had voted against the transfer would be transferred against their wishes.That is incorrect.Again I challenge the Minister. The leaflet ignores the position of licensees who will be denied any right to vote, including people allocated homes on an estate subject to an allocation, who could well have their homes transferred over their heads without having any say in the matter. It is therefore misleading—[Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would stop getting so agitated and would stay quiet for a minute. Will the Minister say that he understands my point and is prepared to go to the National Consumer Council and the Conservative-controlled ADC and take their advice. Will he do that?
The Minister will not change it. As we have heard, he is not prepared to withdraw misleading information which is in fact a lie, paid for by the taxpayer.
§ Mr. Trippierrose—
§ Mr. SoleyI shall not give way to the Minister any more. We have had enough prevarication and avoidance. The implication is clear. If the Minister will not take the 706 advice of the ADC or the MCC, that tells us what we already know. As I said to the Secretary of State the other night, the Minister and the Government have managed to create unnecessary terror and fear among many tenants, particularly elderly people who remember the Rachmans of old. Why should they be placed in that position?
If Conservative-controlled organisations such as the ADC arrange meetings that conclude that the information is misleading, am I to disagree when I know that they are right?
§ Mr. Trippierrose—
§ Mr. SoleyNo, no, the Minister must sit down. He is not prepared to intervene with an admission that he will not follow the example of independent organisations. It is incredibly dishonest of him to argue, as he has, that tenants will be given a choice. At best, this is a one-way ticket to a private landlord.
When challenged, the Government began defending their action by saying that if someone did not bother to vote it would mean that they did not mind going to a new landlord. That was the previous Minister's defence. Then the Government got into trouble. I gave an example—which, incidentally, would still apply—of a service man fighting in the Falklands. Let us suppose that the Government had imposed this new system. Even with the Lords amendments, if the service man was in the Falklands for three months—unless he found time to stop the battle for a few minutes, consider the available information and then vote—he would come back to find his home transferred over his head.
Does any Conservative Member wish to defend that? The Government are all for defending the troops in the Falklands while they are working to get the Government out of a hole created because they cannot run a defence policy. At the same time the Government are prepared to take homes from service men while they are clearing up the mess.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)I am sure that the fighting forces will be pleased at the first sign of support that they have ever had from the hon. Gentleman. But he is basing his claim on what I would call a Powellite line of argument. The line of argument hangs together, but to accept it we must accept the basis of the argument, which is untrue.
The hon. Gentleman is not being forthcoming or honest about the time that the process will take: it will take a long time. He and his political friends have not been telling the truth about that to council tenants up and down the country.
§ Mr. SoleyIn fact it will not take a very long time, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
This is what we shall do. The next time that General Galtieri invades we shall ask him to make sure that the war lasts a short enough time for troopers to be able to vote. The point is that in this case if tenants abstain they vote "Yes", and in no other democratic system does that apply.
Having spotted that they had got into trouble, the Government then tried another line of defence. They said, "It is all right, you can stay with the council." That again was inertia selling: they did not tell tenants that they would have to pay the rent set by the new landlord, despite remaining council tenants. They did not tell them that they would have to pay all the service charges set by the new 707 landlord. They did not say what would happen if a local authority had not transferred all its stock, and wanted to transfer that as well. And the Government wonder why tenants are afraid.
The draft industrial relations code about which the Government are now talking insists on a much larger vote even on a work-to-rule. Workers do not even have to go on strike for the Government to want a 70 per cent. vote. It is different then, is it not? What about abstentions in those circumstances?
The Secretary of State is determined to push tenants into the private sector. The Peat Marwick report says so. The previous Minister also said so in Parliament. The Secretary of State says that he wants all local authorities to give up council housing. However, the Government have seriously .misjudged the popularity of councils and councillors. Although tenants often rightly criticise their councils and councillors, they know that they can elect them. They also know that they cannot elect or remove a Mr. van Hoogstraten or a Mr. Rachman. That is what they are afraid of. That is why the Government have whipped up so much fear and hysteria.
Such an important debate should never have taken place under a guillotine motion, but what I say in this Chamber is not nearly so important as what tenants, both private and public, feel about the Bill. At the end of the day they will decide. The Government have politicised tenants in a way that they could never have dreamt was possible.
§ Mr. TrippierI think that I can be forgiven for smiling wryly—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Minister needs the leave of the House to speak again.
§ Mr. SoleyOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister spoke for a long time and persistently interrupted me while I spoke. A number of Back Benchers on both sides of the House would like the opportunity to speak.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
§ Mr. Simon HughesThe voting system that the Government are trying to railroad through Parliament is far worse than the legislation on which it is allegedly based, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. Under this system, it is clear that if tenants do not vote it will be presumed that they are in favour of being transferred to a private landlord. The non-vote will be counted as a "Yes" vote. I have asked the Secretary of State questions and I have given him a list of those that so far remain unanswered.
Even the Prime Minister did not realise the draconian nature of the measure that her Ministers in the Department of the Environment were proposing. She said on 23 June this year that if the majority of tenants agree, their tenancies can be transferred. I told the right hon. Lady that that was not what the Bill said. She had no answer. Eventually, after two letters to Downing street, she replied in the middle of August. She said:
Tenants who choose to transfer, whether they express that choice explicitly by a vote in favour, or implicitly through informed acquiescence, will indeed have agreed to the transfer.708 From the highest authority it is now abundantly clear that, according to the Government, the majority who must agree is made up not just of those who vote "Yes"—and there need be none of those—but of those who do not vote at all. The Prime Minister claims that she is the senior democratic statesperson in the world, but she now says that voting does not matter: that what matters is that views should be expressed "implicitly through informed acquiescence."What is it that makes a system of voting by silence, by informed acquiescence, better than a system under which people are asked whether they want to vote "Yes' or "No"? The Government have made it clear in the case of trade unions that even a vote of 70 per cent. in favour ma .y not be adequately representative.
I am a lawyer. It is a principle of English law that silence normally means no. Halsbury's "Laws of England' make it clear that one cannot bind an offeree as an offeror against the latter's will by expressly stipulating that if the offeree does nothing he will be bound to a contract. Does the voting system that the Bill opposes break the principle that silence in law normally means no? If it does not break that principle the Minister and the Secretary of State have not yet explained why it does not do so.
A distorted, biased voting system is the plainest evidence that the Government are not concerned about tenants' choice. Their primary purpose in introducing the Bill is not that tenants should choose, but that council estates should be demunicipalised and privatised. Tenants are seen as a barrier to the Government's will. The role of tenants is to see whether they can get enough people together to stop the Government's steamroller rolling on. The Bill is not concerned with tenants' choice, tenant initiative or tenant freedom. Today is a sad day. The Bill represented an opportunity to maximise freedom for tenants to get together to improve their position. Instead, the bill is the product of a Government who put theories about private being good and public being bad before the minds, hearts and aspirations of people throughout the land.
We would have chosen to vote on amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 111, but because of procedural technicalities that will not be possible. Because we have no choice as a result of a guillotine being in place, we shall vote on Lords amendment No. 96. We shall oppose the Government to show that some hon. Members still understand democracy. We will show them that some hon. Members will fight for democracy and will resist democracy being perverted by a Government who are in power on a minority of votes and who clearly do not understand what democracy is about.
When the House votes it decides by a majority, but when tenants vote they will have a fixed system. The sooner the Government learn that they cannot fool tenants, the better it will be.
§ Mr. Robert G. HughesI have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in wanting some answers from the Minister. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that certain things should be on the record. It should be on the record, therefore, that the Minister is unable to answer this debate because the Labour party refuses to allow him to speak again.
§ Mr. TrippierI am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the courtesy that he has extended to me, which is in stark contrast to that which was not extended to me by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Does he agree that the by-election result in Govan is relevant to what we are discussing today as we are giving—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have only three more minutes, and I do not think that we should go into that subject.
§ Mr. HughesI agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend said. We have such strong opposition to this group of amendments because councils, especially Labour-controlled councils, will in future be exposed to competition and the prospect of another landlord taking over their estates.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith is keen to tell us that the Bill is already a failure, but it is not yet on the statute book. He tells us that it cannot work in various respects. He should give it some time to operate before he comes to such a conclusion.
§ Mr. WinnickWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. HughesCertainly not.
The London borough of Lambeth has already said that it must get its act together and improve its services to its tenants or they will vote with their feet. That is what the Labour party is so afraid of. It recognises that tenants will vote with their feet and—
§ Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South)rose—
§ Mr. Winnickrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Member does not wish to give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.
§ Mr. HughesOpposition Members realise that once council tenants know that they can get away from the slum landlords that Labour councils represent, they will take that opportunity.
§ Mr. HughesI do not have any time. For the hon. Member for Hammersmith—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you not say that it is a gross abuse of the House for an hon. Member who voted in favour of the guillotine motion and who has not been here most of the afternoon to try to—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order. Mr. Hughes.
§ Mr. HughesI think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) needs an eyesight test.
§ Mr. HughesNo, I am not giving way.
The reality is that the Labour party does not like this measure. That is understandable because it is going to lose control of its estates.
§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. HughesI am certainly not giving way.
I wish to put on record—as this is an afternoon for getting things on the record—that during the process of consultation—
§ It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and Housing Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 50.
711| Division No. 492] | [3.35 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Forth, Eric |
| Alexander, Richard | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Freeman, Roger |
| Amess, David | French, Douglas |
| Amos, Alan | Gale, Roger |
| Arbuthnot, James | Gardiner, George |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Gill, Christopher |
| Ashby, David | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Atkinson, David | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Gorst, John |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Gow, Ian |
| Baldry, Tony | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Gregory, Conal |
| Bellingham, Henry | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Bendall, Vivian | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Benyon, W. | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Harris, David |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Body, Sir Richard | Hayes, Jerry |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Boswell, Tim | Hayward, Robert |
| Bottomley, Peter | Heddle, John |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Hill, James |
| Bowis, John | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Brazier, Julian | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Bright, Graham | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Burns, Simon | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Butler, Chris | Hunter, Andrew |
| Butterfill, John | Irvine, Michael |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Jack, Michael |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Jackson, Robert |
| Carrington, Matthew | Janman, Tim |
| Carttiss, Michael | Jessel, Toby |
| Cash, William | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Chope, Christopher | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Couchman, James | Knapman, Roger |
| Cran, James | Knowles, Michael |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Latham, Michael |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Day, Stephen | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Devlin, Tim | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Dicks, Terry | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Dover, Den | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Dunn, Bob | Lord, Michael |
| Durant, Tony | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Dykes, Hugh | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Evennett, David | Maclean, David |
| Fallon, Michael | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Favell, Tony | Malins, Humfrey |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Mans, Keith |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Maples, John |
| Forman, Nigel | Marland, Paul |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Speed, Keith |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Mellor, David | Squire, Robin |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stern, Michael |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Stevens, Lewis |
| Mills, Iain | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Stokes, Sir John |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Summerson, Hugo |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Moss, Malcolm | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Thurnham, Peter |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Page, Richard | Tracey, Richard |
| Paice, James | Tredinnick, David |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Trippier, David |
| Patnick, Irvine | Trotter, Neville |
| Pawsey, James | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Portillo, Michael | Walden, George |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Waller, Gary |
| Raffan, Keith | Ward, John |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Renton, Tim | Warren, Kenneth |
| Riddick, Graham | Watts, John |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Wells, Bowen |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Wheeler, John |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Whitney, Ray |
| Rowe, Andrew | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | Wolfson, Mark |
| Scott, Nicholas | Wood, Timothy |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Younger, Rt Hon George |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Shersby, Michael | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Sims, Roger | Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory. |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Anderson, Donald | Livingstone, Ken |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | Livsey, Richard |
| Banks, Tony (Newharn NW) | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Battle, John | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Beith, A. J. | Martlew, Eric |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Meale, Alan |
| Blunkett, David | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Boateng, Paul | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Patchett, Terry |
| Cohen, Harry | Pike, Peter L. |
| Cryer, Bob | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Cummings, John | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Dixon, Don | Ruddock, Joan |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Fearn, Ronald | Skinner, Dennis |
| Fyfe, Maria | Soley, Clive |
| Galloway, George | Spearing, Nigel |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Winnick, David |
| Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Holland, Stuart | |
| Howells, Geraint | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Ingram, Adam | Mr. Frank Cook. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
712§ MR. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Mr. SpeakerI inform the House that amendments Nos. 207 and 208 involve privilege.
§
Lords amendment: No. 207, in page 118, line 30. at end insert—
and with that approval the Secretary of State may undertake to meet any liabilities arising in respect of such pensions, allowances or gratuities after the dissolution of the trust
§ Question put forthwith,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 46.
713| Divsion No. 493] | [3.48 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Fishburn, John Dudley |
| Alexander, Richard | Forman, Nigel |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Forth, Eric |
| Amess, David | Fox, Sir Marcus |
| Amos, Alan | Freeman, Roger |
| Arbuthnot, James | French, Douglas |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Gale, Roger |
| Ashby, David | Gardiner, George |
| Atkinson, David | Gill, Christopher |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Goodhart, Sir Philip |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Baldry, Tony | Gorst, John |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Gow, Ian |
| Bellingham, Henry | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsorn) |
| Benyon, W. | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Harris, David |
| Body, Sir Richard | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hayes, Jerry |
| Boswell, Tim | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hayward, Robert |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Heddle, John |
| Bowis, John | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Brazier, Julian | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Bright, Graham | Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Burns, Simon | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Butler, Chris | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Butterfill, John | Hunter, Andrew |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Irvine, Michael |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Jack, Michael |
| Carrington, Matthew | Jackson, Robert |
| Carttiss, Michael | Janman, Tim |
| Cash, William | Jessel, Toby |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Chope, Christopher | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Couchman, James | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Cran, James | Knapman, Roger |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Knowles, Michael |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Latham, Michael |
| Day, Stephen | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Devlin, Tim | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Dicks, Terry | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Dover, Den | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Dunn, Bob | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Durant, Tony | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lord, Michael |
| Fallon, Michael | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Favell, Tony | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Maclean, David |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Malins, Humfrey | Shersby, Michael |
| Mans, Keith | Sims, Roger |
| Maples, John | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Marland, Paul | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Speed, Keith |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Maude, Hon Francis | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Squire, Robin |
| Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Mellor, David | Stern, Michael |
| Meyer, Sir Anthony | Stevens, Lewis |
| Miller, Sir Hal | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Mills, Iain | Stokes, Sir John |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Mitchell, David (Hants NW) | Summerson, Hugo |
| Monro, Sir Hector | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Moss, Malcolm | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Moynihan, Hon Colin | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Nelson, Anthony | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Thurnham, Peter |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Tracey, Richard |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley | Tredinnick, David |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Trippier, David |
| Page, Richard | Trotter, Neville |
| Paice, James | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Pawsey, James | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Walden, George |
| Portillo, Michael | Ward, John |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Raffan, Keith | Warren, Kenneth |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Watts, John |
| Renton, Tim | Wells, Bowen |
| Riddick, Graham | Wheeler, John |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Whitney, Ray |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Rowe, Andrew | Winterton, Mrs Ann |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Wolfson, Mark |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Wood, Timothy |
| Sainsbury, Hon Tim | |
| Scott, Nicholas | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Mr. John M. Taylor |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Livingstone, Ken |
| Anderson, Donald | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Ashley, Rt Hon Jack | McKay, Allen (Barnsley West) |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Martlew, Eric |
| Battle, John | Meale, Alan |
| Beith, A. J. | Michael, Alun |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Blunkett, David | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Boateng, Paul | Patchett, Terry |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Cohen, Harry | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Cryer, Bob | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Cummings, John | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Ruddock, Joan |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Dixon, Don | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Soley, Clive |
| Galloway, George | Spearing, Nigel |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Winnick, David |
| Holland, Stuart | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Howells, Geraint | |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ingram, Adam | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Mr. Frank Cook. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 206 and 207 agreed to.—[Special entry.]
714§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords om Lords amendments Nos. 97 to 206, 209 to 224, 228, 225 to 227 and 229 to 273:
§ The House divded: Ayes 199 , Noes 37.
715| Division No. 494] | [4.01 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Alexander, Richard | Harris, David |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Amess, David | Hayes, Jerry |
| Amos, Alan | Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney |
| Arbuthnot, James | Hayward, Robert |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Ashby, David | Heddle, John |
| Atkinson, David | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Hordern, Sir Peter |
| Baldry, Tony | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Bendall, Vivian | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) |
| Benyon, W. | Hunter, Andrew |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Irvine, Michael |
| Body, Sir Richard | Jack, Michael |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Jackson, Robert |
| Boswell, Tim | Janman, Tim |
| Bottomley, Peter | Jessel, Toby |
| Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Bowis, John | Jones, Robert B (Herts W) |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Brandon-Bravo, Martin | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Brazier, Julian | Knapman, Roger |
| Bright, Graham | Knowles, Michael |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Burns, Simon | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Burt, Alistair | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Butler, Chris | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Butterfill, John | Lord, Michael |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Maclean, David |
| Carrington, Matthew | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Carttiss, Michael | Mans, Keith |
| Cash, William | Maples, John |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Marland, Paul |
| Chope, Christopher | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Cran, James | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Mellor, David |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Day, Stephen | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Devlin, Tim | Mills, Iain |
| Dicks, Terry | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Dover, Den | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Dunn, Bob | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Durant, Tony | Moss, Malcolm |
| Dykes, Hugh | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Fallon, Michael | Nelson, Anthony |
| Favell, Tony | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Forman, Nigel | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Forth, Eric | Page, Richard |
| Freeman, Roger | Paice, James |
| French, Douglas | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Gale, Roger | Pawsey, James |
| Gardiner, George | Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth |
| Gill, Christopher | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Portillo, Michael |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Powell, William (Corby) |
| Gorst, John | Raffan, Keith |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Renton, Tim |
| Riddick, Graham | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Thurnham, Peter |
| Rowe, Andrew | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Rumbold, Mrs Angela | Tracey, Richard |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Tredinnick, David |
| Scott, Nicholas | Trippier, David |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Trotter, Neville |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Shersby, Michael | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Sims, Roger | Walden, George |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Ward, John |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Speed, Keith | Warren, Kenneth |
| Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) | Watts, John |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wells, Bowen |
| Squire, Robin | Wheeler, John |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Whitney, Ray |
| Stern, Michael | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Stevens, Lewis | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Stokes, Sir John | Wood, Timothy |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | |
| Summerson, Hugo | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Mr. Alan Howarth. |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Anderson, Donald | Martlew, Eric |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Meale, Alan |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Battle, John | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Beith, A. J. | Patchett, Terry |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Pike, Peter L. |
| Boateng, Paul | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Cohen, Harry | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Cryer, Bob | Ruddock, Joan |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dixon, Don | Soley, Clive |
| Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth | Spearing, Nigel |
| Harman, Ms Harriet | Winnick, David |
| Holland, Stuart | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Howells, Geraint | |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Ingram, Adam | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil | Mr. Frank Cook. |
| McAvoy, Thomas |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 205 agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That consequential amendments (b) to (d) be made to the Bill. —[Mr.Trippier.]
§ The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 5.
717| Division No. 495] | [4.13 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Blackburn, Dr John G. |
| Alexander, Richard | Body, Sir Richard |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
| Amess, David | Boswell, Tim |
| Amos, Alan | Bottomley, Peter |
| Arbuthnot, James | Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n) |
| Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove) | Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) |
| Ashby, David | Bowis, John |
| Atkinson, David | Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Brazier, Julian |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Bright, Graham |
| Baldry, Tony | Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Bendall, Vivian | Burns, Simon |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Burt, Alistair |
| Benyon, W. | Butler, Chris |
| Butterfill, John | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Mellor, David |
| Carrington, Matthew | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Carttiss, Michael | Mills, Iain |
| Cash, William | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Chope, Christopher | Monro, Sir Hector |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Moss, Malcolm |
| Cran, James | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Nelson, Anthony |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Day, Stephen | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Devlin, Tim | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Dicks, Terry | Page, Richard |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Paice, James |
| Dover, Den | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Dunn, Bob | Pawsey, James |
| Durant, Tony | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Dykes, Hugh | Portillo, Michael |
| Fallon, Michael | Raffan, Keith |
| Favell, Tony | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Renton, Tim |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Riddick, Graham |
| Forman, Nigel | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Forth, Eric | Roe, Mrs Marion |
| Freeman, Roger | Rossi, Sir Hugh |
| French, Douglas | Rowe, Andrew |
| Gale, Roger | Rumbold, Mrs Angela |
| Gill, Christopher | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Scott, Nicholas |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Gorst, John | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Shersby, Michael |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Sims, Roger |
| Harris, David | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Hayes, Jerry | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Hayward, Robert | Squire, Robin |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Heddle, John | Stern, Michael |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Summerson, Hugo |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) |
| Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret |
| Hunter, Andrew | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Irvine, Michael | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Jack, Michael | Thurnham, Peter |
| Jackson, Robert | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Janman, Tim | Tracey, Richard |
| Jessel, Toby | Tredinnick, David |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Trippier, David |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Trotter, Neville |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Knapman, Roger | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Knowles, Michael | Walden, George |
| Lawrence, Ivan | Ward, John |
| Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Lee, John (Pendle) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Watts, John |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Wells, Bowen |
| Lord, Michael | Wheeler, John |
| Macfarlane, Sir Neil | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Maclean, David | Wiggin, Jerry |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Wolfson, Mark |
| Mans, Keith | Wood, Timothy |
| Maples, John | |
| Marland, Paul | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Marshall, Michael (Arundel) | Mr. Michael Neubert and |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Mr. Alan Howarth. |
| Maude, Hon Francis |
| NOES | |
| Allen, Graham | |
| Cohen, Harry | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Mr. Tony Banks and |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Mr. John Battle. |
| Skinner, Dennis |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Mr. Simon HughesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the guillotine, we have obviously had a limited number of opportunities to vote. Two amendments were proposed to the Lords amendments by the Opposition, and those were dealt with in Divisions Nos. 482 and 483. The results were Ayes 68, Noes 169 and Ayes 65, Noes 159, respectively. May we assume that, with the Government's policy in the Housing Bill, as in both cases the Noes did not constitute a majority of hon. Members in this House, the Ayes have it and will continue to have it in future?