Skip to main content

New System Of Rents For Public Sector Housing

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. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4.

This is a drafting amendment. It is fairly insignificant and needs no further explanation.

The Minister proposes to leave out the words:

"have regard to the terms of their rebate scheme under section 15 of the 1972 Act".
Section 15(1) of the 1972 Act states:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to bring into operation not later than 1st October 1972 a scheme for granting to persons who occupy as their homes houses to which the local authority's housing revenue account relates and which are let to them by the local authority rebates from rent, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the scheme by reference to their needs and their resources."
The important words are:
"by reference to their needs and their resources".
Surely local authorities should have regard to the needs and resources of those paying rent—for example, those who are disabled or persons on very low incomes who may not be able to afford the rent in question. Surely local authorities should not allow the cases of those in special need to go by default. Why does the Minister wish to omit these words?

5.15 p.m.

It is never wise to argue with a lawyer. However, this is still a drafting amendment. No particular category of people is involved. The amendment is designed to tidy up a possible misinterpretation of the 1972 Act, where the fact that there were rent rebates available could be used in determining rent levels.

This technical drafting amendment in no way affects the eligibility of any person or groups of persons—disabled or otherwise—as to how they will be treated under the rebate scheme.

I hope that with that technical explanation the amendment will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 7, at end insert:

'(c) having regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations'.
This is an important amendment which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. Because of the amendment the Minister has introduced, the Bill now provides
"In determining standard rents for houses … a local authority shall … (b) subject to section 33 of the 1972 Act … take no account of the personal circumstances of tenants."
In other words, a local authority just has a general obligation to charge reasonable rents.

There is no indication of what the Government have in mind by "reasonable". We know from experience that there is no indication of how often rents should be reviewed. What does "from time to time" mean? We suggest that, to avoid a recurrence of a situation which developed last time, local authorities should be under an obligation in fixing rents to
"have regard to the general level of rents charged by comparable housing authorities and by the Scottish Special Housing Association and by new town development corporations".
We want to avoid what was a most unjust situation which existed before we introduced our 1972 Act whereby the rent paid for a council house depended not on ability to pay, not on the category of house, but simply on the area one happened to live in. In an area such as Saltcoats the rents would be very low, in some cases absurdly low. In another area the rents would be very high. This was unreasonable and unfair.

It is only fair and reasonable that the rent should be determined first by the tenant's ability to pay—by his personal circumstances—and by the rate demands on other members of the community and not simply in accordance with the place where one lives.

There is no doubt that in the past the Government used the SSHA, which they largely control, and the new towns as pacesetters for rent increases. This brought great injustice on people who lived in new towns and on tenants of the SSHA. Although there have been considerable moves to try to equalise the situation, the last information we got about rents in local authority houses and in new towns and the SSHA was that on 28th November 1974 the average rent for a Scottish local authority house was £138 per annum; for the SSHA house it is £144 and for the new town house it is £193. This is the result of development in which new towns and the SSHA were used by Labour Governments as pacesetters for rents.

Surely the hon. Member would accept that there is a marked similarity between the rent figures for the SSHA and the local authority. The disparity is with the new town figure, and surely the hon. Member accepts that new town rents are that much higher because most of the houses have been built in the last decade and, therefore, to meet historic costs the rents must be high.

If the hon. Member thinks that historic costs are the basis of fixing rents he will support our 1972 Act because in it we tried to introduce the principle that pooled historic costs should be the basis for fixing rents and that there should be a gradation towards that. That is the principle of the Act which is being destroyed by the Bill. I am astonished to have an indication from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) that he supports the principle of the 1972 Act.

We know exactly what will happen if we pass the Bill without making the amendment. It will mean that certain local authorities, for blatant political purposes—for vote catching—will keep rents artificially low. In other areas they will go up reasonable amounts and elsewhere they will probably be a bit higher.

Our 1972 Act was an attempt to take housing out of the political scene and to ensure that tenants moved to a situation of a pooled historic cost rent by gradual easy stages of 50p a week over a period of years. In some cases the rent for council houses has reached almost an economic level. All the scare stories about £6, £7 and £8 rents which would result from the Tory Act have been shown to be nonsense. Therefore, if we do not make the amendment the crazy situation will exist throughout Scotland of rents varying from one region and from one district council to another. This will be unfair and unjust, and it will simply permit the Labour Party to distort the housing market by using cheap rents as a simple means of buying votes.

I was astonished when I first read the amendment, but then it dawned on me that its object is not to bring rents on to an equal basis but to raise them. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) had introduced the amendment in order to remedy some inequitable process I should be inclined to agree with him and appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the amendment.

It is not good enough to say that rents in new towns are £50 a year higher than the rents of local authority housing. The cost of building these houses is so much higher because of increasing interest rates and the general increase in costs in recent years. This does not happen in areas other than new towns where houses are being built now at increased cost. There is an equalisation process now going on. I would rather see an equalisation of house rents throughout Scotland, and merely because some people were unlucky enough to go into the house at a later date should not mean that they have to pay a higher rent.

I ask my hon. Friend to pay no regard to the amendment which seeks a substantial increase in local authority rents, but to take a sympathetic attitude to the view of hon. Members who, like me, represent new towns where tenants have to pay a much higher rent than tenants of comparable housing—and I stress the word "comparable"—in other parts of Scotland. I accept that my lion. Friend will not regard the amendment with any great favour, but will he consider creating an equalisation process so that rents in new towns are not markedly higher than local authority rents in other parts of Scotland?

I am interested in what the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said. He has asked his hon. Friend the Minister to bring in an equalisation scheme for cases where there appears to be a different charge for the same house in a different area. He is not willing to concede, however, the effect of this principle, which is the basis of the amendment. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that the rent is determined not according to where one lives but according to which party is in control in that area. If the hon. Member for East Kilbride wants an equalisation grant he should support the amendment, the basis of which is that there should be an equality of rent for an equality of house whatever its age and position and whoever is in power in the area.

This is the first time that I have had the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), and he is wrong. Even by looking at the housing statistics of local authorities it is sometimes difficult to determine their political flavour. I do not think that anyone could draw a specific conclusion on that score.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that I am not accepting, or asking the House to accept, the amendment. In general terms I agree that it is desirable that a comparable house should command round about a comparable rent. But there are qualifications. New towns do not have a rate subsidy and a rate contribution. Amenity and all the other environmental factors come into play. Provided we compare like with like, who can deny the logic and justice of my hon. Friend's argument? I therefore have sympathy with it.

The amendment is a new idea. It suggests that the system which operated before the 1972 Act did not work. There have been no representations from any local authority objecting to what we are proposing, which is to make that system the basis of the review of rents from time to time. There is, therefore, no support for the amendment from anywhere on the Scottish housing scene.

The amendment is an elegant testimony to the belief, which underlay the Opposition's approach to the Bill in Standing Committee, that local authorities cannot be trusted. We differ completely from the Opposition on that score, and we are proud to do so, especially when dealing with new authorities. They have not yet had an opportunity to perform but already the Conservatives have so little faith in them that they want to tie things up for those authorities tighter than we would wish.

5.30 p.m.

I cannot dispute that in the past a number of authorities failed to review rents as often as they might have done, or as the courts decided, should have done. It is a matter of debate whether they did any service to their tenants, because an undue preoccupation with low rents sometimes detracted from the need to improve standards and manage- ment, matters of which we are all now aware and perhaps the new authorities will pay more attention to them. For these reasons, we should reject the amendment.

The amendment raises a specific question, which I do not want to dodge, about the SSHA and new town development corporations. The rents differential has been narrowed, and, hopefully, will continue to narrow.

It is all right for my hon. Friend to say "Good", but if that requires local authorities to raise their rents—

Does the Minister accept that one way in which we could achieve this desirable objective is to reintroduce the 1972 Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act?

I have been long enough in this busines to be suspicious of simple solutions, especially when one of them is the 1972 Act. However, I concede that if it had eliminated all rate contributions and all housing deficits, as it was intended to do, we should ultimately have reached the position desired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. But that is not the way in which any of us would have chosen to arrive at that happy situation.

That is why we rely on the good sense of local authorities. In an inflationary period, I can see no hope of any authority—local authority, SSHA or new town—reducing rents. But I hope to be able to avoid giving the impression that any Government deliberately uses the SSHA or the new towns as trend-setters for increased rents. I have already said that in the current climate rents are likely to increase, but it is not fair to the SSHA or new town corporations deliberately to use them as whipping boys to encourage local authorities to do something.

Is it possible for my hon. Friend to indicate to the new town development corporations that it is not incumbent on them continually to increase their rents in order to keep the differential between their rents and local authority rents? There is no God-given reason why that differential should remain. It it is possible for the rents to equalise themselves, let it happen. But do not let the development corporations imagine that they must keep the difference between the rents of their houses and the local authority houses.

My hon. Friend is taking me too far along the road that he wants to travel. I have said that I accept his proposition as a general principle. We must equally recognise that under the present system new towns are working under different constraints and financing arrangements. Therefore, I would not like to undermine the responsibilities that the House has placed on them. But I have made clear the direction in which I think we should proceed as a general principle.

Of course, there are differences. For example, some authorities will still have no SSHA houses or new town houses within their area of responsibility, so comparisons are difficult. Some other authorities could have practically no deficit in their housing account and still have relatively low rents. Saltcoats is a good example. [Laughter.] Conservative Members always laugh. I was going to pay a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), but I see that he is not here.

Although the rents in Saltcoats are relatively low, the local authority's housing costs are also relatively low, because the bulk of its building was done when costs were relatively low. It was fortunate and far-seeing enough to acquire a large amount of housing land in advance of need. Therefore, whatever arguments Conservative Members may put forward in attacking authorities such as Saltcoats, people such as ex-Provost Lambie and the Lambie dynasty must be complimented on their wisdom in buying up land in those days. Perhaps other authorities did not have the same opportunity, but we should accept that Saltcoats has done a good job.

We think that we have the measure about right. We believe that the interpretation of "reasonable" is understood, and that all the factors that hon. Members think should be taken into account will be taken into account by the new district authorities.

The House should not accept the amendment, which merely introduces an additional complication without clarifying the duties that will be placed on local authorities.

I cannot let the occasion pass without commenting on the amendment, because the amendment, in the name of six Conservative Members, is to try to get rents increased. Drawing red herrings across the Notice Paper in the form of the SSHA and new towns will not do. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) who represents a tremendous number of council tenants, should stand up and say so if he wants the rents increased, and should not cloak that desire in the type of amendment we have before us.

The hon. Gentleman knows, I know, and my hon. Friend the Minister knows, because we all represent Glasgow constituencies, that Glasgow has the highest average council house rent in Scotland. We also know from debates in Committee that the average rent of a comparable SSHA house is not as high. As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly says, there are one or two unusual examples, such as Saltcoats in Ayrshire, where, because of the foresight of people who were in command of the local authority in the past, who bought up land very cheaply and took on a building programme within their limits, the housing revenue account is much healthier than that of many larger authorities. But it is not fair to take one or two isolated examples.

Housing is now a district function. We gave a promise that we would put the control of rents back into local authorities. Freedom for local authorities was one of the planks of the Conservative platform in 1970, but they did not give freedom back to the authorities. They introduced the 1972 Act, which they know was one of the worst pieces of class-ridden legislation ever to pass through the House.

When the hon. Gentleman uses the words "worst pieces of class-ridden legislation", do I understand him to mean that he greatly regrets that those less able to pay their rent were most helped?

That is not the argument, because the Labour Government were the first Government to introduce subsidies. We have always been concerned about the inability of certain people to meet the rent levels of certain houses. [Interruption.] I give the hon. Gentleman the point on the allowances for private tenants. But this discussion centres on council tenants, and we are comparing their position with that of tenants of the new towns and the SSHA. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister takes the point.

I am glad that my hon. Friend advises us to reject the amendment, which is an attempt to make council house rents rise as fast as possible. That has always been the Tories' attitude. We have only to look at the figures which the Minister presented to each member of the Committee considering the Bill to see that council house rents have reached a dangerous level. If they continue to rise, good wage-earning families, virile young families, will move out of large council estates, because they will find it much cheaper to obtain a mortgage and buy a flat or a house.

We must be careful in the application. We should be concerned not only with rent levels but with the social composition of the large housing estates that we have created. We could end up with a situation in which those estates will be occupied by low-paid workers, the unemployed, the pensioners and the disabled. That would create a dangerous situation. The rent that is being paid is not the only criterion that we should bear in mind. As legislators we have a social as well as a fiscal responsibility.

The new district authorities also have regard to the difficulties that people face in paying council rents. That is why they have suggested weekly rents or other forms of paying their rents—for example—the Giro system. In my opinion the rent levels for council houses are extremely high. I think that I speak for admost all of the council tenants that I represent. I hope that my hon. Friend will see that the amendment is a sham and that he will reject it.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say how much the average council tenant in his constituency pays in rent and how much he pays in rates?

The hon. Gentleman receives a copy of the Glasgow housing manager's report and the figures are available at the Table Office. I do not carry all the figures. I believe that the average rent was roughly £167. I accept that the rates are at a high level in Glagow, but that is not the point. The argument about the amendment is that in the opinion of the Conservative Opposition council rents are not high enough. That has always been the attitude of Conservative Members. They should come clean and tell the House that that is their attitude. I am glad that my hon. Friend has rejected the amendment.

With respect to the Minister, we are not satisfied with his reply. I must say straight away to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) that he does not interpret our amendment as we would wish.

Of course not. What does the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) expect?

I must make the point firmly that what we want is to have rents throughout Scotland which are, roughly speaking, comparable. We feel that if the amendment is not accepted that will not be the position. We are suggesting that there will be a feeling of injustice throughout Scotland if the Government pass legislation which causes certain areas to have large housing deficits owing to low rents while in other areas there will be no deficits because the rents are of a different level. I have mentioned that the average rent in Saltcoats in November 1973 was £66 whilst in Bishopbriggs it was £119. Anyone who transferred his home from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs would find that his rent would nearly double overnight. We believe that that would cause a feeling of injustice and unfairness to be felt by many people throughout Scotland.

We wish to avoid a situation in which some local authorities will be charging high rents and others very low rents.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. Apart from other considerations, when comparing Saltcoats and Bishopbriggs it must be remembered that one area is obviously Conservative—that is the area in which the rents are high—and that the other area is Labour dominated. Surely the argument must be based on the housing revenue account. Anyone who has studied the Saltcoats housing revenue account over a number of years will have seen that it is in a much healthier position than many other like accounts. That is the main reason for the rents being low in Saltcoats.

I know that for the current year £171·28p is the average annual rent in Glasgow. I suggest that in comparison with Saltcoats that is a high figure. I can well imagine the attitude of persons living in Saltcoats who might wish to transfer to Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is fair for persons living in Saltcoats to be charged one level of rent and those living in Glasgow to be charged a different level of rent, I suggest that that is not the view that will be taken by many people in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman is making two entirely different points. I agree that there should be some kind of equalisation, but if he is trying to put forward the example of someone moving from Saltcoats to Bishopbriggs, finding

Division No. 84.]


[5.46 p.m.

Adley, RobertCarlisle, MarkDrayson, Burnaby
Amery, Rt Hon JulianCarr, Rt Hon RobertDurant, Tony
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)Chalker, Mrs LyndaDykes, Hugh
Awdry, DanielChannon, PaulEyre, Reginald
Bell, RonaldClark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)Fairgrieve, Russell
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)Farr, John
Benyon, W.Clegg, WalterFell, Anthony
Biffen, JohnCockcroft, JohnFisher, Sir Nigel
Biggs-Davison, JohnCooke, Robert (Bristol W)Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Boscawen, Hon RobertCope, JohnFletcher-Cooke, Charles
Braine, Sir BernardCorrie, JohnFookes, Miss Janet
Brittan, LeonCostain, A. P.Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Brotherton, MichaelCritchley, JulianGlyn, Dr Alan
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)Crouch, DavidGoodhew, Victor
Buchanan-Smith, AlickCrowder, F. P.Gorst, John
Buck, AntonyDavies, Rt Hon J. (Knutaford)Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Budgen, NickDean, Paul (N Somerset)Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Bulmer, EsmondDodsworth, GeoffreyGrant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)Douglas-Hamilton, Lord JamesGriffiths, Eldon

that he has to pay a higher rent and not liking the situation, and somebody moving from Bishopsbriggs to Salt-coats—

Order. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) has addressed the House earlier on this amendment. He may seek to ask a question but he cannot make a second and further point by way of a further intervention.

I am merely asking whether it is not the case that somebody moving from Bishopbriggs to Saltcoats will find great relief in the foresight of the people of Saltcoats.

5.45 p.m.

The point must be made that it should not matter where a person lives in Scotland or where he goes to live. We believe that he should be charged approximately the same type of rent for living in the same type of house. We think that it is grossly unfair to have any form of situation which differs from that. That is why we are pressing the amendment.

On 28th November 1974 the average annual standard rent in Scotland as a whole was £138·20p. For new town development corporation houses the average was £193·68p and for Scottish Special Housing Association houses the average was £144·72p. We feel that that differential is much too wide and that no harm can possibly come from comparing the figures.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 241.

Grist, IanMcNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)Shepherd, Colin
Grylls, MichaelMarshall, Michael (Arundel)Shersby, Michael
Hall, Sir JohnMather, CarolSilvester, Fred
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.Maudling, Rt Hon ReginaldSims, Roger
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)Maxwell-Hyslop, RobinSinclair, Sir George
Hannam, JohnMiller, Hal (Bromsgrove)Skeet, T. H. H.
Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)Mills, PeterSpeed, Keith
Hawkins, PaulMoate, RogerSpence, John
Hayhoe, BarneyMorgan, GeraintSpicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Higgins, Terence LMorrison, Charles (Devizes)Sproat, Iain
Holland, PhilipMorrison, Peter (Chester)Stainton, Keith
Hordern, PeterMudd, DavidStanbrook, Ivor
Howe, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyNeave, AireyStanley, John
Howell, David (Guildford)Nelson, AnthonyStokes, John
Hunt, JohnNeubert, MichaelTapsell, Peter
Hutchison, Michael ClarkNewton, TonyTaylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)Normanton, TomTebbit, Norman
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)Onslow, CranleyTemple-Morris, Peter
James, DavidPage, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Jessel, TobyPaisley, Rev IanTownsend, Cyril D.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithParkinson, CecilTrotter, Neville
Kaberry, Sir DonaldPercival, IanTugendhat, Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRathbone, TimVaughan, Dr Gerard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir PeterWakeham, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Lamont, NormanRees-Davies, W. R.Walters, Dennis
Lane, DavidRenton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)Warren, Kenneth
Latham, Michael (Melton)Rhys Williams, Sir BrandonWeatherill, Bernard
Lawson, NigelRidley, Hon NicholasWells, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)Ridsdale, JulianWiggin, Jerry
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)Rifkind, MalcolmWinterton, Nicholas
Lloyd, IanRippon, Rt Hon GeoffreyYoung, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
McAdden, Sir StephenRoberts, Wyn (Conway)Younger, Hon George
McCrindle, RobertRossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
MacGregor, JohnSainsbury, TimTELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)Scott, NicholasMr. Hamish Gray and
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)Shelton, William (Streatham)Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


Abse, LeoDavies, Ifor (Gower)Hardy, Peter
Allaun, FrankDeakins, EricHarper, Joseph
Anderson, DonaldDean, Joseph (Leeds West)Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Archer, PeterDelargy, HughHatton, Frank
Ashley, JackDell, Rt Hon EdmundHayman, Mrs Helene
Ashton, JoeDempsey, JamesHeffer, Eric S.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)Doig, PeterHenderson, Douglas
Atkinson, NormanDormand, J. D.Hooley, Frank
Bain, Mrs MargaretDouglas-Mann, BruceHooson, Emlyn
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)Duffy, A. E. P.Horam, John
Barnett, Rt Hon JoelDunn, James A.Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Bates, AlfDunnett, JackHoyle, Douglas (Nelson)
Beith, A. J.Dunwoody, Mrs GwynethHughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Bidwell, SydneyEadie, AlexHughes, Mark (Durham)
Blenkinsop, ArthurEdge, GeoffHughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Boardman, H.Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Booth, AlbertEllis, John (Brigg & Scun)Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Boothroyd, Miss BettyEllis, Tom (Wrexham)Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Bottomley, Rt Hon ArthurEvans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Bradley, TomEvans, Ioan (Aberdare)Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Bray, Dr JeremyEvans, John (Newton)Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Ewing, Harry (Stirling)John, Brynmor
Buchan, NormanFaulds, AndrewJohnson, James (Hull West)
Buchanan, RichardFernyhough, Rt Hon E.Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)Fitch, Alan (Wigan)Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Campbell, IanFitt, Gerard (Belfast W)Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Canavan, DennisFlannery, MartinJones, Barry (East Flint)
Carmichael, NeilFletcher, Ted (Darlington)Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, LewisFord, BenJudd, Frank
Cartwright, JohnForrester, JohnKaufman, Gerald
Clemitson, IvorFowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)Kelley, Richard
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)Freud, ClementKerr, Russell
Coleman, DonaldGeorge, BruceKilroy-Silk, Robert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)Ginsburg, DavidLamborn, Harry
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)Golding, JohnLamond, James
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)Gould, BryanLee, John
Crawford, DouglasGourlay, HarryLewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Crawshaw, RichardGraham, TedLewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cronin, JohnGrant, John (Islington C)Lipton, Marcus
Dalyell, TamGrimond, Rt Hon J.Litterick, Tom
Davidson, ArthurGrocott, BruceLoyden, Eddie
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)Luard, Evan
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)Hamling, WilliamLyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Mabon, Dr J. DicksonPhipps, Dr ColinTaylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
MacCormick, IainPrescott, JohnThomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
McElhone, FrankPrice, William (Rugby)Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
MacFarquhar, RoderickRadice, GilesThomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)Thompson, George
Mackenzie, GregorReid, GeorgeThorne, Stan (Preston South)
Maclennan, RobertRichardson, Miss JoThorpe, Rt Kon Jeremy (N Devon)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)Tinn, James
McNamara, KevinRobertson, John (Paisley)Tomlinson, John
Madden, MaxRoderick, CaerwynUrwin, T. W.
Marks, KennethRodgers, George (Chorley)Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Marquand, DavidRooker, J. W.Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)Roper, JohnWalden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)Rose, Paul B.Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Meacher, MichaelRoss, Stephen (Isle of Wight)Ward, Michael
Mellish, Rt Hon RobertRoss, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)Watkins, David
Mendelson, JohnRowlands, TedWatkinson, John
Mikardo, IanSandelson, NevilleWatt, Hamish
Millan, BruceSedgemore, BrianWeitzman, David
Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)Selby, HarryWellbeloved, James
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)Welsh, Andrew
Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)White, Frank R. (Bury)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcasle C)Whitlock, William
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald KingShort, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)Wigley, Dafydd
Newens, StanleySilkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Noble, MikeSillars, JamesWilliams, Alan (Swansea W)
O'Halloran, MichaelSilverman, JuliusWilliams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
O'Malley, Rt Hon BrianSkinner, DennisWilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Orme, Rt Hon StanleySmall, WilliamWilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Ovenden, JohnSmith, Cyril (Rochdale)Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Padley, WalterSpearing, NigelWise, Mrs Audrey
Palmer, ArthurSpriggs, LeslieWoodall, Alec
Pardoe, JohnStallard, A. W.Wrigglesworth, Ian
Park, GeorgeSteel, David (Roxburgh)Young, David (Bolton E)
Parker, JohnStewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Pavitt, LaurieStewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Pendry, TomStott, RogerMr. David Stoddart and
Penhaligon, DavidStrang, GavinMr. James Hamilton.
Perry, ErnestSummerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Question accordingly negatived.