Skip to main content

Direct Payment Of Rent

Volume 885: debated on Wednesday 5 February 1975

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 5, leave out Clause 5.

In moving that Clause 5 be deleted from the Bill I say at once that I understand and share the concern which led to this clause being moved in Committee. I must also say, however, that it is essential that the clause should not be allowed to remain in the Bill. As hon. Members would expect, in the interval between the Committee proceedings and today I have met my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Security to draw his attention to the clause and to seek his views. The clause has also been drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, Lord Collison.

After these discussions I have to tell the House that I am reinforced in my view that the clause is technically deficient—I know that is never a good argument—and impracticable in that it aims to provide an "on request" type of service for beneficiaries without regard to whether they have difficulty in budgeting. Much more importantly, however, the clause is unnecessary in so far as it relates to people who fall behind with their rent.

To take the main point first, the clause is no longer necessary because of an important shift of emphasis in the approach by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the whole question of direct payment of rent. While in the past this has been regarded as an expedient to be adopted only when persuasion or other attempted remedies have failed, this is no longer the case. Guidance recently issued to Department of Health and Social Security offices, which make payments of supplementary benefit on behalf of the commission, will result in authorisation of direct payment where a tenant is persistently failing to pay rent at a much earlier stage than previously.

This is a significant change in emphasis and should serve to eliminate one of the most frequent difficulties encountered in the past when requests for direct payment were liable to be turned down until arrears reached substantial proportions. The new guidelines will allow much greater flexibility and a greater area for discussion, so that it will become more a matter of management than of policy to see that the guidance is put into practice.

6.0 p.m.

There are detailed instructions in the code for the guidance of local offices. I have studied them, and, knowing something about the subject, I am satisfied that they provide a flexibility that did not exist before.

I am aware of the guidelines which have been sent to the offices, but I am not sure about their interpretation. It has always been a problem to use compulsory powers to deduct rent payments from supplementary benefit recipients. However, I understand that they will be introduced only as a last resort, when all other efforts have failed. My information from social security people in my constituency is that they intend to go to great lengths to encourage people to pay their rent, to accept their responsibilities, to fulfil their obligations—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he is intervening in a speech.

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an important point. I had to mention the background before asking my hon. Friend whether he is positive that the guidelines will be interpreted in the generous way he has indicated.

I can never be positive about anything in which there is a degree of flexibility. I should not have used that word. "Discretion" is the official word.

There has been a change in the guidelines given to local offices. On the one hand, there is a specific guideline to deal at a much earlier stage with beneficiaries who have rent arrears, while still leaving discretion to be exercised locally.

Has my hon. Friend had time to look at the figures which I gave him earlier today which showed that in Edinburgh there are 2,000 supplementary benefit claimants who owe, on average, about 12 weeks' rent and that only 260 of them are paying rent direct through supplementary benefits offices? Is he confident that the arrangement which he has made with the DHSS and the assurances which he has been given by that Department will guarantee that these figures are brought much more closely in line with each other?

There have been discussions with officials of Edinburgh Corporation and the DHSS subsequent to the last letter which my hon. Friend received from the corporation. I think that Edinburgh Corporation will be reasonably satisfied, but that is a matter for my hon. Friend to check and perhaps advise me on if I am wrong There has been an increase in the number of direct payments, and, with the new instruction, I am sure that no technical barrier will exist if the case is made for increasing the number of direct payments.

When last May the East Kilbride and Stonehouse Development Corporation increased rents for some houses which were occupied by people on supplementary benefits a difficulty arose for some people because the extra amount was not available from the Department of Health and Social Security until they had incurred the debt for the extra rent which had to be paid. In other words, there was a time-lag during which they owed the money. Some elderly people, in particular, came to see about the matter. I thought that I had straightened it out with the development corporation and with the DHSS, but apparently that is not so.

It would be of great benefit if the Department of Health and Social Security could ensure that the extra amount of rent—indeed, the whole rent—was paid without the tenants, often elderly women, having to worry and sometimes even receiving letters saying that they are in arrears.

That is a slightly different point which my hon. Friend should take up with the Department of Health and Social Security. Presumably he is talking about cases in which direct payment has been accepted but there is an increase in rent or rates, or both, and a time-lag in increasing the allowance. I agree that such situations sometimes cause unnecessary alarm and concern. However, I am sure that that matter can be sorted out and explained to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend's constituents.

I confirm that the letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) sent me showed that there were 263 direct payments made in Edinburgh. Our latest information, which covers the last couple of weeks, is that the figure is up to 483.

The change in the regulations is not a minor change. Perhaps I did not do the point justice in Committee. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is conscious of the problem of housing associations which cater specially for one-parent families and other low income groups liable to experience particular difficulty in budgeting and has issued special instructions about these. This initiative has been warmly welcomed by the National Federation of Housing Associations.

We are expecting the report of the Morris Committee dealing with the relationship between social work and housing, but within its remit was a requirement to examine problems associated with the matter we have been considering. I sympathise with the views of hon. Members. I shall meet in the near future the Association of Housing Managers. I shall be putting this matter to the association, because the key to it is the use by housing managers of better and quicker methods for identifying people who are in arrears with their rent, or even identifying them before they fall into arrears.

I hope that, with that explanation, the House will accept the amendment.

The Minister's explanation is not satisfactory. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) struck the nail on the head when he said that direct payments were made only in the last resort.

The Minister made clear that there were three criticisms. The first was that the clause was imperfectly worded. Imperfect wording can easily be straightened out. His second criticism was that the clause was impracticable. It is perfectly practicable to enlarge the Department of Health and Social Security and ensure that the civil servants render a service of the nature we advocate. It may be inconvenient for them to do it with their present staffing, but it is perfectly practicable. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument in that respect was not convincing.

The third argument was that it was not necessary. It is extremely necessary, and I am reinforced in that belief by representations from three sources. The first source is Shelter, the Scottish campaign for the homeless. The second is the housing committee of Edinburgh Corporation, which has had its request turned down by the Secretary of State and has resorted to approaching Members of Parliament. The third source is the report of the Committee on One-Parent Families by Sir Morris Finer. The Minister mentioned the Morris Committee, but the Finer report deals with this matter on page 511 in recommendation No. 158 which states:
"Where a tenant receiving supplementary benefit requests, with the support of the social services department or the housing authority or an appropriate voluntary organisation, the Supplementary Benefits Commission to pay the rent direct the application should normally be granted as a matter of course."
We are asking only that this should be done on request.

Recommendation No. 159 states:
"Where the social services department and landlord, in the long-term interests of the tenant, ask for the rent to be paid direct there should be greater willingness on the part of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to do so."
I appreciate that the Civil Service may have applied great pressure on the Minister and said that this arrangement would be inconvenient, but there is a feeling growing up between social workers in Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in the Department of Health and Social Security. The corporation social workers feel that they are doing a lot of work which should be carried out by officials of the Department, especially in relation to the payment of energy charges. Rather than risk persons committing suicide or having to be taken into care, they feel that they must pay the energy charges on an emergency basis although they do not believe that within the strict definition of the statute they are entitled to do so.

This is a reasonable request which I ask the Minister to accept.

I share a great deal of the concern which was expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and I have a full power of attorney to speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). The assurances given by the Minister go a long way towards meeting the reservations which were expressed in Committee, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has adopted similar procedures in days gone by.

The Minister was generous enough to say that perhaps he had not done justice to the point in Committee. He has responded generously. In the interval he has consulted Lord Collison and has had discussions with the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security. The situation in Edinburgh has improved substantially in the last two weeks. We are always as concerned about Edinburgh as we are about our own localities.

The assurances given by the Minister have gone a long way to meet the distressing problems. The Minister is aware of our concern, and I do not doubt that he himself has a genuine concern. His explanation has more than satisfied us.

6.15 p.m.

I have listened carefully to what the Minister said but I cannot take as charitable a view of it as did the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). I am surprised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) saw fit to give a power of attorney to his colleague rather than give his own public confession of why, for reasons best known to himself and his colleagues, he supports the Government.

The Minister gave interesting details which we all welcome. No one disagrees with the added flexibility that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will apply. What I have been waiting to her and have not heard is any good reason why a tenant who wishes his rent to be paid directly by the Supplementary Benefits Commission should be refused that right.

It is desirable that flexibility should be applied, but the tenant is in no different position from any other person who chooses to have various sums deducted from his income before it reaches him. All hon. Members receive their salaries after deductions for national insurance and pension contributions. We have no choice in the matter. The deductions are made partly because it is thought desirable to make them and partly to ensure that the payments are made. In addition, many members of the public, fearful of getting into arrears with insurance contributions, choose to have them deducted before the money reaches their pockets.

Will the Minister give us an explanation of his attitude, other than the inconvenience it might cause to one or two Government or public officials, which is not a good explanation when we are considering the public interest? Will he give a good reason why a tenant who chooses to ask for his rent to be paid directly should not be allowed to do so?

The argument that has been put forward in the past is that the tenant must bear the onus of meeting his own commitments, and we accept that. This request in no way indicates that the tenant is denying his commitments any more than an hon. Member who asks his bank to deduct money by standing order refuses to accept his commitments. If this method is convenient to the tenant, if it ensures that the landlord receives the rent and that the arrears disappear and do not reappear, on what basis does the Minister refuse to accept the method?

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) was not present in Committee when we discussed this matter and he cannot have read my magnificent contribution or he would not have gone over the same around. His is a typical middle-class approach: "Why should not we have the right to decide how the money should be paid?" It is not as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman claimed to take account of the right of the individual. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) skilfully disguise their patronising attitude which is that in the interests of the public purse we should take away the right of the individual to say "I shall decide how I shall spend my own money".

The argument may be put the other way. The next stage will be when the Morris Committee reports on electricity charges. It may be said that the people who are receiving supplementary benefit should have their bills paid direct. The next suggestion will be that if they need clothes they should be Given chits which can be exchanged for clothes at the local store. Those people will end up with no money.

I did not say "Quite right" to the Minister's remark about people ending up with no money. What I said "Quite right" to was the suggestion that a person on social security benefits should have the responsibility to say that he would like to have his rent deducted from his social security payment. It is the Minister who is interfering with the right of the individual. We are trying to protect the right of the individual to do what he wants to do.

There is a genuine difference of opinion on the two sides of the House. I think I have expressed the overwhelming view of my hon. Friends. There are staffing problems in the Department, but that is not the main burden of the case. If the House wills something it is up to us to find the means to do it, but we must appreciate that there have been many changes in legislation which have laid burdens on the Department—for example, the Christmas bonus, and beef coupons for old-age pensioners. I should not like to see the matter go by without proper consultation through the DHSS with the staff concerned.

Does not the Minister accept that it will take much more time and cause more trouble for the Department if it considers each application and decides whether it is to be accepted or refused than if the Department accepts every application in which a tenant asks for such deductions to be made?

I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. The system works fairly well. Where there are guidelines, most of the cases fall within them. It is only in the odd case that discretion needs to be exercised.

Hon. Members who know anything about social security will realise that the system works reasonably well. The Finer Report has been taken on board. That is partly the reason why there have been changes of coding and advice to local offices. I am confident that we do not need to have the clause in the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree to delete it.

I am bitterly disappointed with the Minister's remarks. He spoke about extending the guidelines, but the debate in Committee on this point was on the question not whether the guidelines should be extended but whether the principle should be accepted. The Minister must be aware that if this proposal cannot be undertaken in one year because of administrative difficulties, if the principle is accepted the Opposition—and, we hope, those Labour Members who supported us upstairs in Committee—will be glad to go along with the Minister in any proposal for the period to be increased to two, three or four years.

The Minister mentioned the Finer Report—a bulky document running to hundreds of pages. I ask the Minister to look at page 396. I hope the Minister will listen to what I am saying instead of making arrogant and stupid interventions—[Interruption.] Had the Minister taken part in the proceedings on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, he would understand why we take this attitude. However, if he looks at page 396 of the Finer Report, he will see that it says:
"where the tenant, with the support of the social services department, or the housing authority … requests the Commission to pay the rent direct, the application should (other than in exceptional circumstances) be granted as a matter of course".
That is precisely the situation we want to arrive at.

The Minister was wrong in his comments about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind). There is no question of our adopting an arrogant or middle-class attitude, but we are deeply concerned that, because of the absence of this facility, which we seek to provide, many hundreds of families in Scotland will be penalised. Those families are undergoing agonising crises. Many are breaking up, and mothers are taking pills because many families find great difficulty in managing their affairs.

The Minister said that he would extend the guidelines, but I am concerned in assisting families who now face problems, and am very much interested in preventing such situations arising. The Minister must be aware of the figures published in Glasgow by the Castlemilk Interest Group showing an increase in the number of evictions for non-payment of rent. Every eviction involves human hardship and tragedy. The Minister must be aware that if this facility were introduced, it would go a long way towards preventing some of these problems arising, and would certainly help a large number of people who are in trouble.

Nobody underestimates the administrative difficulties. This proposal would mean creating work for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the DHSS. However, if the right were automatic there would be no need to go through each case individually. We want to establish that at some future stage, when the administrative problems are overcome, the Government will accept the Finer Committee's recommendation on this point—a point supported by the Edinburgh Corporation and social workers in many parts of Scotland—namely, that every tenant on supplementary benefit and other benefits who wants his rent paid direct should be able to take advantage of such provision.

I was disappointed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) for we thought that we had his support—

Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence of persons making such a request from the social security authorities, and of the request being refused?

Yes, I have. I can give the hon. Gentleman many examples. If he will contact the Castlemilk Interest Group, it will give him the evidence. Furthermore, the Family Service Unit in Glasgow has evidence of such refusals.

We are interested in this being an automatic right. We do not want to lay

Division No. 85.]

AYES

[6.28 p.m.

Abse, LeoAshley, JackBarnett, Rt Hon Joel
Allaun, FrankAtkins, Ronald (Preston N)Bates, Alf
Anderson, DonaldAtkinson, NormanBidwell, Sydney
Archer, PeterBarnett, Guy (Greenwich)Blenkinsop, Arthur

down a time scale. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and any member of the SNP who has a mandate to speak on this matter will reconsider the position. If this provision goes to the House of Lords the Government will probably have another thought about timing, but I believe that we should now say clearly that the House of Commons believes that this is a principle that should be contained in the Bill.

We all know that many people on large incomes find it difficult to pay their bills. That is why they use bankers' orders to pay their mortgages and other monthly instalments. It makes life more tolerable, and enables people to cope more easily with their daily lives. Families on supplementary benefit are in a more difficult situation, for they have nothing to spare. If they get behind one week they have difficulty in making it up the next. Therefore, if their rent falls behind by a month or two months, it may be the beginning of the slippery slope, and may land a family in distress, with family break-up, children in care, and all the rest of it. We should do all we can to avoid that situation. It is worth while going ahead with this provision, even though we may save only one family break-up or prevent one family tragedy.

Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park and other labour Members who shared our views in Committee will stand firm and support the principle of direct payment of rents. We are prepared to leave the details to be worked out by the Government in the proper way, but surely this is a principle which, for the sake of humanity and to avoid any further family trouble and distress—and there are more families who find themselves in difficulty every year—we should support. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and that the House will reject the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 183.

Boardman, H.Heffer, Eric S.Perry, Ernest
Booth, AlbertHooley, FrankPrescott, John
Boothroyd, Miss BettyHoram, JohnPrice, William (Rugby)
Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurHoyle, Douglas (Nelson)Radice, Giles
Bradley, TomHughes, Mark (Durham)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Bray, Dr JeremyHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Richardson, Miss Jo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Hughes, Roy (Newport)Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Buchan, NormanIrvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)Robertson, John (Paisley)
Buchanan, RichardJackson, Colin (Brighouse)Roderick, Caerwyn
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Campbell, IanJay, Rt Hon DouglasRooker, J. W.
Canavan, DennisJenkins, Hugh (Putney)Roper, John
Carter-Jones, LewisJohn, BrynmorRose, Paul B.
Cartwright, JohnJohnson, James (Hull West)Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Clemitson, IvorJohnson, Walter (Derby S)Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)Rowlands, Ted
Coleman, DonaldJones, Barry (East Flint)Sandelson, Neville
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Jones, Dan (Burnley)Sedgemore, Brian
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Judd, FrankSelby, Harry
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Kaufman, GeraldShaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Crawshaw, RichardKelley, RichardSheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Dalyell, TamKerr, RussellShort, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)
Davidson, ArthurKilroy-Silk, RobertSilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Lamborn, HarrySillars, James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Lamond, JamesSilverman, Julius
Davies, Ifor (Gower)Lee, JohnSkinner, Dennis
Deakins, EricLewis, Arthur (Newham N)Small, William
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Delargy, HughLipton, MarcusSpearing, Nigel
Dell, Rt Hon EdmundLitterick, TomSpriggs, Leslie
Dempsey, JamesLoyden, EddieStallard, A. W.
Doig, PeterLuard, EvanStewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)
Dormand, J. D.Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)Stoddart, David
Douglas-Mann, BruceMabon, Dr J. DicksonStott, Roger
Duffy, A. E. P.McElhone, FrankStrang, Gavin
Dunn, James A.MacFarquhar, RoderickSummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Dunnett, JackMcGuire, Michael (Ince)Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Eadie, AlexMackenzie, GregorThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Edge, GeoffMaclennan, RobertThomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)McNamara, KevinThorne, Stan (Preston South)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)Madden, MaxTinn, James
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)Marks, KennethTomlinson, John
Evans, John (Newton)Marquand, DavidUrwin, T. W.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Faulds, AndrewMarshall, Jim (Leicester S)Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.Mason, Rt Hon RoyWalker, Terry (Kingswood)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)Meacher, MichaelWard, Michael
Flannery, MartinMellish, Rt Hon RobertWatkins, David
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)Mendelson, JohnWatkinson, John
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelMikardo, IanWeitzman, David
Ford, BenMillan, BruceWellbeioved, James
Forrester, JohnMiller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)White, Frank R. (Bury)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)Whitlock, William
George, BruceMorris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)Wigley, Dafydd
Ginsburg, DavidMorris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Golding, JohnMurray, Rt Hon Ronald KingWilliams, Alan (Swansea W)
Gould, BryanNewens, StanleyWilliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Gourlay, HarryNoble, MikeWilliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Graham, TedO'Halloran, MichaelWilson, William (Coventry SE)
Grant, John (Islington C)O'Malley, Rt Hon BrianWise, Mrs Audrey
Grocott, BruceOrme, Rt Hon StanleyWoodall, Alec
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Ovenden, JohnWrigglesworth, Ian
Hamling, WilliamPadley, WalterYoung, David (Bolton E)
Hardy, PeterPalmer, Arthur
Harper, JosephPark, GeorgeTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)Parker, JohnMr. James Hamilton and
Hatton, FrankPavitt, LaurieMr. John Ellis.
Hayman, Mrs HelenePendry, Tom

NOES

Adley, RobertBrittan, LeonClark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Brotherton, MichaelClarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Awdry, DanielBrown, Sir Edward (Bath)Clegg, Walter
Bain, Mrs MargaretBryan, Sir PaulCockcroft, John
Beith, A. J.Buchanan-Smith, AlickCooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Bell, RonaldBudgen, NickCope, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Bulmer, EsmondCorrie, John
Benyon, W.Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Costain, A. P.
Biffen, JohnCarlisle, MarkCrawford, Douglas
Biggs-Davison, JohnCarr, Rt Hon RobertCritchley, Julian
Boscawen, Hon RobertChalker, Mrs LyndaCrouch, David
Braine, Sir BernardChannon, PaulCrowder, F. P.

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)King, Evelyn (South Dorset)Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)King, Tom (Bridgwater)Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Dodsworth, GeoffreyKnox, DavidRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesLamont, NormanSainsbury, Tim
Drayson, BurnabyLane, DavidScott, Nicholas
Durant, TonyLangford-Holt, Sir JohnShelton, William (Streatham)
Dykes, HughLatham, Michael (Melton)Shepherd, Colin
Eyre, ReginaldLawson, NigelShersby, Michael
Fairgrieve, RussellLester, Jim (Beeston)Sinclair, Sir George
Farr, JohnLewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Skeet, T. H. H.
Fell, AnthonyLloyd, IanSpeed, Keith
Fisher, Sir NigelMcAdden, Sir StephenSpence, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)MacCormick, IainSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Fletcher-Cooke, CharlesMcCrindle, RobertSproat, Iain
Fookes, Miss JanetMacGregor, JohnStainton, Keith
Freud, ClementMacmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardiner, George (Reigate)McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Stanley, John
Glyn, Dr AlanMcNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Goodhew, VictorMarshall, Michael (Arundel)Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Gorst, JohnMather, CarolStokes, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)Maudling, Rt Hon ReginaldTapsell, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)Mawby, RayTaylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Gray, HamishMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove)Tebbit, Norman
Grimond, Rt Hon J.Mills, PeterTemple-Morris, Peter
Grist, IanMonro, HectorThatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Grylls, MichaelMorgan, GeraintThompson, George
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Hall, Sir JohnMorrison, Peter (Chester)Townsend, Cyril D.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.Mudd, DavidTugendhat, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Neave, AireyVaughan, Dr Gerard
Hannam, JohnNelson, AnthonyViggers, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)Neubert, MichaelWainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Hawkins, PaulNewton, TonyWakeham, John
Hayhoe, BarneyNormanton, TomWalder, David (Clitheroe)
Henderson, DouglasOnslow, CranleyWarren, Kenneth
Holland, PhilipPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)Watt, Hamish
Hooson, EmlynPaisley, Rev IanWeatherill, Bernard
Hordern, PeterPardoe, JohnWells, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyParkinson, CecilWelsh, Andrew
Howell, David (Guildford)Penhaligon, DavidWhitelaw, Rt Hon William
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)Percival, IanHunt, John
Hunt, JohnRathbone, TimWilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Hutchison, Michael ClarkRawlinson, Rt Hon Sir PeterWinterton, Nicholas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)Wood, Rt Hon Richard
James, DavidRees-Davies, W. R.Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Jessel, TobyReid, GeorgeYounger, Hon George
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRidley, Hon NicholasTELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Kaberry, Sir DonaldRidsdale, JulianMr. John Stradling Thomas and
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRifkind, MalcolmMr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.