Lords Amendment: No. 13, in page 8, line 1, leave out Clause 10.
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.It may be to the convenience of the House if, with this amendment, we take Lords Amendment No. 54, in Schedule 6, page 35, leave out lines 1 to 12. These amendments remove the provisions in the Bill as introduced for the termination of general decontrol by reference to rateable value. In doing so, they destroy one of the essential components of this Bill and also attempt to undermine a pledge given in our manifesto that houses without basic amenities will not be taken out of control. It is clearly unacceptable that these amendments should go through. It is also somewhat curious that we should be faced with Lords Amendment No. 13 since when this clause went through Standing Committee not only was no vote cast against it but no word was said against it. The clause was accepted on the nod without a single word in Standing Committee. It is, therefore, somewhat bizarre that another place should wish to delete this essential provision from the Bill. The Government are not prepared to see the automatic change from rent control to rent regulation regardless of the state of repair of the dwelling and the amenities provided. We regard it as indefensible that tenants, many of whom are not well able to fend for themselves, should face rent increases of several hundred per cent. for a dwelling without the standard amenities, which represents a very basic level, and which may be in bad repair. We therefore cannot accept the amendments.
May I draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to columns 281 onwards in the Official Report of the Standing Committee, from which it is clear that my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) and for Melton (Mr. Latham) and myself vigorously opposed this clause. I cannot understand how the Under-Secretary should be unaware that in Standing Committee we opposed Clause 8, which is now Clause 10.
I too wish to refer to the extraordinary statement by the Under-Secretary.
Quite bizarre. Those of us on these benches who were involved in the Standing Committee were bitterly opposed to Clause 8, as it then was, which represents a substantial attack on any sensible rent policy. It represents a scheme which will bring about far more slums in this country by holding down rents to an unreasonable level. We opposed it so strongly that when the noble Lord Middleton was moving the amendment in another place which resulted in the deletion of this clause, he was called to order because he quoted a particularly brilliant speech in the Standing Committee by, in his own words, "Mr. Michael Latham".I hope my hon. Friends will press this amendment to a Division not only because of the great importance of this matter but because of the completely erroneous remarks of the Under-Secretary.
Not completely erroneous—relatively erroneous.
Order—by leave of the House.
By leave of the House, relatively erroneous. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) for giving me the opportunity to give him the opportunity to draw attention to the speech which he made on that occasion. I was so swept away by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) during the Committee stage when he congratulated us warmly and sincerely on this clause. The fact is that this clause, which went through relatively on the nod in the Standing Committee, is a clause upon which we must insist as an important item of Government policy.
It appears from my record of the proceedings that in Committee there was a Division. It can hardly be said to have gone through on the nod.
I will invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose this motion and to vote in support of their Lordships in this matter. I do so on the basis that this is a shabby, mean and spiteful little piece of Labour Party legislation. Let us see what is the subject matter of this Clause 10 which their Lordships took out of the Bill.It concerns those tenancies which remained in control under the 1957 Rent Act, that is properties with rateable values £40 and under in London or £30 and under outside Greater London. Those were properties at the lower end of the market. In 1969 the then Labour Government realised that great injustice was being caused to many landlords who, in that sector, were having their rents fixed to what was twice the 1939 letting value. By 1969 it was felt to be unjust that rents should be pegged to twice the 1939 value. Anthony Greenwood, as he then was, came to his House and told heart-rending stories of constituents of his, owners of properties of this kind. He urged us to embark on a programme of de-control, to remove those tenancies from that old control and make them into regulated tenancies so that fair rents could be fixed. The term used was "fair rents" upon the criteria laid down by the Labour Government. At the same time that Government appointed the Francis Committee to investigate the whole matter.
Tell us about Rachman.
I refer Labour Members, in case they have not read it, to the report of the Francis Committee. It said:
After giving examples of what the committee had seen in its inquiries round the country, where it carried out physical examinations, it came to this conclusion:"We have received a considerable amount of evidence … as to the injustice of perpetuating the present system of controlled rents, and as to the complexity and inadequacy of the Housing Act 1969 in this context …"
"It seems indefensible"—
What about Rachman?
"as a matter of equity"—
Order. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) desires to participate in this debate I would be grateful if he will wait and catch the eye of the Chair in due course and not interrupt from a sedentary position.
The Committee said:
After further argument it came to this conclusion:"It seems indefensible, as a matter of equity, that landlords of such premises—in England and Wales—should continue to be tied to the rent formula laid down in the Rent Act 1957 i.e. that the permitted rent shall not exceed twice the gross value obtaining in November 1956".
12.15 a.m. In other words, this type of legislation contributes to the housing shortage in the rented sector. It has contributed to the creation of slums because it is precisely in that area of lower rated property that landlords will not spend money upon the property because the return is ridiculous since it is tied to 1939 values. The properties deteriorate and become uninhabitable. It is a scandal that the Government should wish to perpetuate this system. They do so not out of concern for the tenants—that is sheer hypocrisy. The truth lies in statements made repeatedly—"the controlled system … has undoubtedly created an acute sense of injustice among landlords of controlled premises, and has on the one hand produced an attitude of indifference to the state of repair of those premises, and on the other hand has engendered a determination to have nothing more to do with letting them but rather to sell them as soon as they become vacant."
Will the hon. Member give way?
I will not give way.
What are you afraid of?
Order. If an hon. Member does not wish to give way he must not be pressed.
I shall not give way to an hon. Member who addresses me discourteously from a sedentary position. If the hon. Member had chosen to get to his feet earlier I would have given way, but not now.
May I ask the hon. Member to consider what he is saying? He is suggesting that landlords who will not put a bath or hot water or an inside lavatory into their tenants' property should be allowed to take that accommodation out of control. That is scandalous and it is to the shame of the Conservatives to suggest it.
The hon. Member is digressing. This is a chicken and egg situation. The landlord will not spend the money on this kind of property unless he has an income which allows him to do so.Experience of the 1969 Act has been to show that the original system of requiring a qualification certificate before a rent could be put up would not work. I deliberately did not go into the whole detail of this area because of the time and because I know that hon. Members are anxious to get home. If the Minister turns to page 96 of the Francis Committee Report he will see that it says:
The disincentive is such that these properties become slums and eventually put an enormous burden upon the public purse which has to put them into good order."We saw controlled houses in tenement blocks in good repair but lacking one or more standard amenities, e.g. a bathroom. It seemed to us that it would be quite impracticable to install bathrooms in the smaller houses without depriving the tenants of essential living accommodation, and also to carry out the work of installing a bathroom, even if there was spare living accommodation, except at enormous cost."
Will the hon. Member refer to page 98 of that report in his consideration of the value of its recommendations? We have had quite a lot of grounds for doubting the wisdom of the elders who advised us in that report. Page 98 gives a sample:
Does the hon. Member not agree that the facts have not borne out the views of the Francis Committee on many matters, and on the question to which the hon. Member is referring it also expressed some doubts about some contrary points and these have not come out in the hon. Member's argument."the Tenants' Survey confirms us in the view that many landlords … accept a rent below the fair rent level.… No doubt, there are grasping landlords, but we believe there are far more who are not."
The hon. Gentleman quarrels with the Francis Report, because he does not agree with the statement that not all landlords are grasping. The conclusions of the Milner Holland Report, the result of an investigation ordered by a Conservative Government into what was known as Rachmanism, were the same—that most tenants were happy with their landlords. There was a small percentage of black sheep among the landlords, as there are in every section of the community, that exploited a situation of control. But it is the control that creates the Rachman, just as it is rationing that creates the black marketeer. But that is something that a Socialist, wedded to the whole concept of State intervention and control cannot begin to understand.The Government are not concerned with the welfare of tenants. They are not concerned with the provision of housing accommodation. The whole of their legislation acts contrary to that. They wish to smash the private landlord, as the Minister has said time and time again. They gloat over the fact that the rented sector has diminished over the years. They introduced measures such as the Act on furnished rent to make it uneconomical and impracticable for landlords to let, so that they withdrew the accommodation from the market. Today we see hundreds of constituents, young people in particular, unable to find homes. The Government make it uneconomical for landlords to remain in business, and at the same time make it possible for local authorities to have vast public sums at their disposal, our money, taxpayers' money, to buy up these properties on the cheap.
The indicative evidence so far coming to the Department is that during the past year there has been a smaller decline in rented accommodation than in the previous year, when the Tory Government were in power.
I should like the Minister to place that evidence in the Library. It is not the evidence I have received in speaking to my constituents, week in and week out, and it is not the evidence of my hon. Friends.The Bill is a cynical measure, like all the measures of this Government, to seek to use the hardship of people in order to carry out their strategy, the social engineering of our society, the changing of our society into a Socialist State. As long as we have the power to resist, we shall resist. I ask my hon. Friends to support me.
With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.It is like old times for the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) to be swapping quotations from the Francis Report with us. All devils will quote that scripture for their particular purpose. I regret that the hon. Gentleman found it necessary to use the kind of language he did in accusing us of not having the welfare of tenants at heart. One of the most satisfying moments for me since the last election was when I met a group of old-age pensioners living in run-down controlled property and was able to tell them that because of the Bill their rent would not go up and that their houses would not go out of control unless the landlord carried out repairs. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. We insist on certain standards from landlords. The clause is an integral part of our attitude. The hon. Gentleman omitted to point out that the Bill allows an increase in rent provided the landlord carries out repairs. He is asking for the landlord to be allowed to take his property out of control without so much as doing the tiniest repair to any houses which he owns. He talked about our creating a Socialist State. If a Socialist State means a landlord doing repairs, I am a Socialist any day of the week.
I did not refer to Clause 11 because I did not think I should be in order to do so. It provides for 12½ per cent. of the cost of repairs and maintenance, but that is spread over eight years. The Minister is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he thinks that a landlord will spend £500 or £1,000 today, borrowing the money at 14, 15, 16 or even 17 per cent., to have it repaid to him over a period of eight years. Landlords simply will not do it, and these houses will not be repaired. The hon. Gentleman just does not understand human nature. That is why he will not solve the country's housing problem.
What the House has to decide is whether the dukes and the marquesses in the other place have some knowledge or idea of the problems which ordinary people in, for example, Greater London have to face with regard to their accommodation and whether it is justified in giving help to someone who might be a very good landlord—normally associated with the Conservative Party—who is prepared to put money into an exercise to rid the property he owns of rats and mice.We on this side are almost saying that if the landlord does that in some of these vile slums he will, therefore, be entitled to increase his rent. I am bound to say I am not sure whether I agree with this side of the House or with the opposite side, but I have to say this. If there has ever been an example of total hypocrisy, we have had it tonight from the Opposition benches, particularly from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen who supported Conservative legislation which did not allow people in London who happened to be bus drivers, gas workers, electricians or bracklayers to have an increase in their salaries which might then have reflected their possibility to pay their landlords extra money for the rents they were trying to impose. We all know full well of the tragedy that afflicted the capital city of our country. I ask some right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have a little more understanding, and some of whom are involved in local government, to realise that some of us were involved with people living in vile, rat-ridden slums five miles from Buckingham Palace and the House of Commons. They would say to us "It is quite unreasonable that on the one hand we should not be allowed to apply for wage increases, but it is quite all right on the other hand for the faceless people who own these disgusting slums to attempt to put up our rents." Both sides of the House know full well what sort of people would want to cash in on that situation. I suggest that there are Conservative Members, as well as Members on this side, who would not like the sort of people who might want to cash in on that sort of situation to win the day. What is required, therefore, is a realisation on both sides of the House that it is very difficult to tell ordinary people who might live in Hammersmith, Fulham, Bermondsey or Acton that houses which they have lived in, and in which in some cases their forefathers lived—[Interruption.] I know this is a difficult argument for Opposition Members. Where those tenants have paid in rent over and above the entire cost of the house there should now be a rational, reasonable and civilised assessment of their position. Conservative Members will never be able to convince ordinary people that the dukes and the earls in the other place have a right to tell tenants that the other place has a right to affect legislation to impose an unjust burden on them. This is not so much a question between the two sides of the House of Commons, but it gives us a chance on behalf of the ordinary people of the nation to unite in asserting the superiority of the House of Commons.
The longer I hear some Labour Members the more deplorable I believe their case to be. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) may know the London situation, but I hope he will accept that in many rural constituencies there are good private landlords. Recently an old lady of 98 in my constituency wrote to me saying that she owned two properties in the Isle of Wight which brought her in about £1 a week. She was hoping to have a little money before her days were at an end.I suggest that the hon. Member for Ealing, North should read the debates which were held in the other place, and particularly the speech of Lord Middleton. We are talking of properties right down at the bottom end of the scale, not of Rachmans charging rents up in the clouds. We are talking of figures as low as 50p and as high as £2 only. We are hoping that if people can get a proper return on their properties they may be able to put them in order. If not, the local authorities can step in and buy them. But local authorities certainly are not buying up properties in my constituency at the moment. Indeed, the situation goes from bad to worse. We have supported the Government generally on this Bill. We felt it right that local authorities should control the fixing of rents. We thought that it was imaginative to have tenant co-operatives. We also think that the idea of rehabilitation areas is correct within these provisions. But do not let us bury our heads in the sand. Let us give a chance to private landlords to earn money with which to put their properties in order. I believe that we should accept the Lords amendment.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 216.
Division No. 105.]
|Abse, Leo||English, Michael||MacFarquhar, Roderick|
|Allaun, Frank||Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)|
|Anderson, Donald||Evans John (Newton)||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Archer, Peter||Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Maclennan, Robert|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Faulds, Andrew||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)|
|Ashley, Jack||Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Madden, Max|
|Ashton, Joe||Flannery, Martin||Magee, Bryan|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mahon, Simon|
|Atkinson, Norman||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Marquand, David|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Ford, Ben||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel||Forrester, John||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Bates, Alf||Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Meacher, Michael|
|Bean, R. E.||Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Freeson, Reginald||Mendelson, John|
|Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Millan, Bruce|
|Bishop, E. S.||George, Bruce||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Gilbert, Dr John||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)|
|Boardman, H.||Ginsburg, David||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)|
|Booth, Albert||Golding, John||Molloy, William|
|Boothroyd, Miss Betty||Gould, Bryan||Moonman, Eric|
|Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur||Gourlay, Harry||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Boyden, James (Bish Auck)||Graham, Ted||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Bradley, Tom||Grocott, Bruce||Moyle, Roland|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King|
|Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)||Hamling, William||Newens, Stanley|
|Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)||Hardy, Peter||Noble, Mike|
|Buchan, Norman||Harper, Joseph||Ogden, Eric|
|Buchanan, Richard||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Hart, Rt Hon Judith||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Hatton, Frank||Orbach, Maurice|
|Campbell, Ian||Hayman Mrs Helene||Ovenden, John|
|Canavan, Dennis||Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Owen, Dr David|
|Cant, R. B.||Heffer, Eric S.||Padley, Walter|
|Carmichael, Neil||Horam, John||Palmer, Arthur|
|Carter, Ray||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Park, George|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)||Parker, John|
|Cartwright, John||Huckfield, Les||Parry, Robert|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Pendry, Tom|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Perry, Ernest|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N)||Phipps, Dr Colin|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Coleman, Donald||Hunter, Adam||Prescott, John|
|Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Price C. (Lewisham W)|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Radice, Giles|
|Corbett, Robin||Janner, Greville||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Craigen. J. M. (Maryhill)||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Cronin, John||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Cryer, Bob||John, Brynmor||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Rooker, J. W.|
|Cunningham, Dr J, (Whiteh)||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Roper, John|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Judd, Frank||Ryman, John|
|Davies, Ifor (Cower)||Kaufman, Gerald||Sandelson, Neville|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Kelley, Richard||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Deakins, Eric||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Selby, Harry|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Kinnock, Neil||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Lambie, David||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lamborn, Harry||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Lamond, James||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Dempsey, James||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Doig, Peter||Leadbitter, Ted||Silverman, Julius|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lee, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)||Small, William|
|Dunn, James A.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lipton, Marcus||Snape, Peter|
|Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth||Luard, Evan||Spearing, Nigel|
|Eadie, Alex||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Edge, Geoff||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||McCartney, Hugh||Stott, Roger|
|Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)||McElhone, Frank||Strang, Gavin|
|Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Swain, Thomas||Ward, Michael||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Watkinson, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Weetch, Ken||Woodall, Alec|
|Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)||Weitzman, David||Woof, Robert|
|Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)||Wellbeloved, James||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Thorne, Stan (Preston South)||White, Frank R. (Bury)||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Tierney, Sydney||White, James (Pollok)|
|Tinn, James||Whitehead, Phillip||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Tomlinson, John||Whitlock, William||Mr. Laurie Pavitt and|
|Torney, Tom||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick||Mr. David Stoddart.|
|Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Adley, Robert||Glyn Dr Alan||Moate, Roger|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Goodhart, Philip||Monro, Hector|
|Alison, Michael||Goodhew, Victor||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Goodlad, Alastair||Moore, John (Croydon C)|
|Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Gorst, John||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral|
|Baker, Kenneth||Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)|
|Banks, Robert||Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Beith, A. J.||Gray, Hamish||Morrison, Hon Paler (Chester)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)||Grieve, Percy||Mudd, David|
|Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)||Griffiths, Eldon||Neave, Airey|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Grist, Ian||Nelson, Anthony|
|Biffen, John||Hall, Sir John||Neubert, Michael|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Newton, Tony|
|Blaker, Peter||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Nott, John|
|Body, Richard||Hampson Dr Keith||Onslow, Cranley|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hannam, John||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Osborn, John|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Hastings, Stephen||Page, John (Harrow West)|
|Brittan, Leon||Havers, Sir Michael||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Hayhoe, Barney||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Heseltine, Michael||Penhaligon, David|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hicks, Robert||Percival, Ian|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Higgins, Terence L.||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Budgen, Nick||Holland, Philip||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Burden, F. A.||Howell David (Guildford)||Raison, Timothy|
|Carlisle, Mark||Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Hunt, John||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Channon, Paul||Hurd Douglas||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||James, David||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Clegg, Walter||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Cockcroft, John||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Jopling, Michael||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Cope, John||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Corrie, John||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Costain, A. P.||Kimball, Marcus||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Critchley, Julian||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Crouch, David||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Shepherd, Colin|
|Crowder, F. P.||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Shersby, Michael|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Lamont, Norman||Silvester, Fred|
|Dodsworth, Geoffrey||Lane, David||Sims, Roger|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Durant, Tony||Lawrence, Ivan||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Lawson, Nigel||Smith, Dudley (Warwick)|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||Le Marchant, Spencer||Speed, Keith|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Elliott, Sir William||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sproat, Iain|
|Emery, Peter||Luce, Richard||Stainton, Keith|
|Eyre, Reginald||Macfarlane, Neil||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||MacGregor, John||Stanley, John|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Steel, David (Roxburgh)|
|Farr, John||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey||Mates, Michael||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Mather, Carol||Stokes, John|
|Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Mawby, Ray||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Fox, Marcus||Mayhew, Patrick||Tebbit, Norman|
|Freud Clement||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Fry, Peter||Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Mills, Peter||Townsend, Cyril D.|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Trotter, Neville|
|Tugendhat, Christopher||Warren, Kenneth||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.||Weatherill, Bernard||Younger, Hon George|
|Vaughan, Dr Gerard||Wells, John|
|Viggers, Peter||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wakeham, John||Winterton, Nicholas||Mr, W, Benyon and|
|Walder, David (Clitheroe)||Wood, Rt Hon Richard||Mr. Adam Butler.|
Lords amendement disagreed to.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance about the correcting of Hansard when an error has been made, although undoubtedly in good faith? The Under-Secretary said that the clause that we have just discussed went through Committee on the nod. In fact, the debates on it filled many columns of Hansard and there was a Division. It may be possible for the Under-Secretary to say whether it will be possible for him to make that correction.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish me to make heavy weather of it. Everybody makes an error from time to time. I made an error on this occasion, and I ask the House's indulgence.