Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page II, line 47, leave out '1' and insert '11A'. — [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 33 to 35.Amendment No. 152, in clause 20, page 13, line 40, leave out 'any of the grounds in' and insert 'Ground 1 of.'. Government amendments Nos. 36 and 78. Amendment No. 10, in schedule 5, page 52, leave out lines 23 to 31. Government amendments Nos. 79 and 81. Amendment No. 12, in page 54, leave out lines 23 to 30. Government amendments Nos. 82 to 86. Amendment No. 133, in page 55, line 23, at end insert—
Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect.
The following conditions are fulfilled—
Both at the date of the service of the notice under section 19 of this Act relating to the proceedings for possession and at the date of the hearing, at least 3 months rent lawfully due from the tenant is in arrears.
Whether or not any rent is in arrears on the date on which proceedings for possession are begun, the tenant has persistently delayed paying rent which has become lawfully due.'.
I am not surprised that the Minister does not want to say too much about this. The debate on this group of amendments gives the House an opportunity to discuss the extension of the threat of eviction that is inherent in the Bill. Amendment No. 32, as I understand it, simply introduces some minor concessions on the part of the Government to extend the discretion of the sheriff whether to grant a possession order against a tenant under the new assured tenancy system.The Bill started life with 11 mandatory grounds and a further six discretionary grounds for eviction. The Minister has freely acknowledged that the undermining of tenants' security is a deliberate feature in the Bill, the objective being to encourage private landlords. Apparently the desire to evict tenants is one of the prime motivating forces for private landlords, and it is obviously a motive that the Government are happy to encourage. They clearly want to give them a free rein. We highlighted the worst aspects of schedule 5 in Committee and secured undertakings from the Government to reconsider the threat of mandatory eviction for assured tenants on several grounds, which were wide open to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. Accordingly, we tabled a number of amendments which are in this group which was moved by the Minister. Amendment No. 9, which subsequently became Government amendment No. 78 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, provided for mandatory eviction where a landlord has made suitable alternative accommodation available for the tenant. Amendment No. 10 provided for discretionary rather than mandatory eviction if the tenant was evicted because the landlord defaulted on a loan secured on the house in question. Amendment No. II, which became Government amendment No. 81 when the Secretary of State for Scotland added his name to it, dealt with ground 7. Where the tenant had given notice, we felt that there should be certain circumstances in which that should be discretionary rather than mandatory. Amendment No. 12 deals with grounds 10 and 11 concerning rent arrears. We felt that it would be deplorable that a minor lapse on the part of a tenant in paying his rent, which may have arisen as a result of delays in the payment of housing benefit, could lead to mandatory eviction by the sheriff because he would have no choice but to grant possession to the landlord. All those mandatory grounds for possession should have been replaced by discretionary grounds for eviction if the sheriff thought that such action was justified. We believe that there should be the important exception of ground 10, because a tenant's security should not be subject to the whim of the landlord's creditors. The Government amendments deal with some, but not all, of those points. In particular, Government amendment No. 79, relating to ground 3 of part I of schedule 5, is pitifully inadequate. Under that amendment, it will still be possible for a landlord's creditor to evict a tenant if the landlord defaults on a loan secured against the house. The amendment would mean that either notice was given in writing to the tenant not later than the start of a tenancy and that possession might be recovered on this ground, or the sheriff was satisfied that it is reasonable to dispense with the requirement of the notice. In those circumstances, if that notice has been given, the sheriff will have absolutely no option but to evict the tenant. That is wide open to abuse. It will simply mean that some small print will be included in lease to make it very easy in certain circumstances for a tenant to be evicted. That is particularly open to abuse in connection with the landlord's right to acquire public sector property under part III of the Bill. I want to give an example of what might happen. A landlord could acquire a property at a low valuation and the tenant would therefore lose his secure tenancy. The landlord might have financd that transaction with a loan from another speculator company secured against the property. Indeed, that might be done under the business expansion scheme, heralded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. The other speculator company might be very closely associated with the institution or individual who is the private sector landlord. The landlord would simply have to default on the loan to allow the other institution—perhaps closely associated with the landlord —to spring the trap and secure mandatory eviction of the tenant and thus obtain vacant possession and a substantial increase in the value of the investment. That is a serious possibility and the Government's amendments make no attempt to block such an abuse of the system. Small print in the lease will be no consolation for the tenants who have to face the risk. Indeed, I suspect that the small print could easily turn into a standard part of the drafting of leases under the new system of assured tenancies. The Government's proposals for so-called assured tenancies give very little assurance to the tenants. They are specifically intended to undermine the security of the tenants in Scotland today and to increase the threat of eviction. This spectre of dispossession and homelessness will coincide with a dramatic reduction in the availability of public sector rented housing, which might be available, to come to the aid of the homeless in Scotland. The Government's concessions fall considerably short of what Scottish tenants should be entitled to expect from the House.
Amendment No. 152, standing in my name, seeks to leave out
"any of the grounds in"
One of the great concerns about the Bill is its failure to address the growing problems of homelessness in Scotland. Amendment No. 152 seeks to ensure that there will be no evictions unless suitable accommodation is available, thus avoiding the problem of homelessness or adding to it. The amendment deletes the wordsand insert 'Ground 1 of".
and inserts"any of the grounds in part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act,"
Schedule 5 provides for the adjournment of proceedings, or sisting or suspension of a court order for possession or postponement of the date of possession. However, it does not apply such an adjournment where the grounds for seeking possession are any of those in part I of schedule 5. In other words, it ensures that alternative accommodation will be available. Since district councils, under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, have a duty to provide accommodation for persons with a priority need, the amendment seeks to ensure that only where alternative accommodation is assured will immediate possession be granted by the sheriff, thus removing an undue burden from district councils in providing priority need housing where any grounds stated in part I of schedule 5 would apply. By concentrating on ground 1, the amendment really says that there must be no eviction if no council house or other accommodation is available, and that should be seen as part of my other amendment relating to the plight of the homeless. It insists that possession can be taken only when alternative accommodation, either public or private, is available. Eviction can only take place when those evicted can be housed. The amendment seeks to guarantee some form of social conscience and responsibility on the part of landlords, since the onus would shift towards proving that alternative accommodation exists rather than creating homelessness and thereby causing another problem for local authorities which may not have suitable accommodation or resources. The court order would not be made unless suitable accommodation was available. That should mean that accommodation was truly available, not just in theory. For example, the alternative housing should be adequate, suitable and affordable for the people involved. There is no sense in claiming that a family could move to other premises if the cost would be beyond their means or the premises were clearly inadequate for their needs. The amendment seeks to stop people being thrown on to the street by unscrupulous landlords. It would give protection to the poorest and most vulnerable families and ensure fairness in allowing them the right to suitable housing without overburdening local authorities. Homelessness is obviously a growing problem throughout Scotland. I understand that last year an estimated 26,000 Scottish families were made homeless. That does not include the single homeless and it masks the chronic overcrowded conditions endured by 1,250,000 people in Scotland. Waiting lists in the district and islands councils of Scotland are growing and house building numbers are falling. All those are factors in the increasing problem of homelessness, especially when one adds changing demographic and social customs and the rising numbers of the young single homeless as a category. All those factors will exacerbate homelessness. The amendment is an attempt to do something to meet that problem and assist local authorities in so doing. Surely the object of housing policy is simply to house people, not to make them homeless without a reasonable expectation of being rehoused. The Government have turned down amendment after amendment, but I hope that they will look seriously at my attempts to help the homeless. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and ensure that the courts are used to protect vulnerable families, to house those most in need and not throw yet another impossible burden on to the shoulders of local authorities."Ground 1 of part 1 of schedule 5 to the Act."
The Government amendments arise out of a commitment that I gave in Committee in response to representations. I promised to consider whether an element of discretion should be introduced to any of the mandatory grounds for possession in schedule 5. I said at that time that I thought the best case for such discretion related to grounds 1 and 11 — those that provide for repossession when suitable alternative accommodation is available or when the tenant is persistently in arrears with his rent.My consideration has confirmed me in the view that those grounds should be discretionary, but it has also convinced me that ground 7—where a tenant issues a notice to quit but does not act on it — should also become discretionary. All the Government amendments relate to the transfer of those three grounds to the discretionary category. Amendments Nos. 79 and 82 also arise from commitments that I entered into in Committee — that the notice to be served on a tenant under ground 3 must be served at or before the beginning of the tenancy, and that ground 10 should be amended to make it clear that it applies only when a full three months' rent is in arrears. 12.30 am Perhaps I could also refer briefly to the Opposition amendments which would make one more ground discretionary—when three months' rent is in arrears. In this case, I remain convinced that there should be a mandatory right to repossession. If a tenant is three months in arrears, both when the landlord serves notice and when court proceedings start, he must be deliberately withholding rent, and the landlord should not be expected to carry such a loss indefinitely. If a tenant has no money, presumably he would be entitled to housing benefit. Opposition amendment No. 10 would prevent ground 3 from being a ground for possession. So if a landlord defaulted on his mortgage payments, his creditor would he prevented from selling the house to obtain payment, whatever the circumstances. I appreciate that that is a matter of considerable concern, but it would he unreasonable. It would mean that there would be no lenders on the security of rented property, which is the reverse of what we want to see — greater private investment in such property which would help the homeless, directly or indirectly. Amendment No. 152 is unacceptable, because it is at variance with the intention behind having mandatory grounds for possession in part I of schedule 2 to the Bill. That intention is that, in the interests of fairness, there should be grounds on which the landlord must be certain of getting possession, and of getting possession within a reasonable time. If a landlord has established to the court's satisfaction that he is entitled to possession on one of the mandatory grounds, it is unfair that he might be denied that repossession indefinitely, until the tenant has found somewhere else to live. That could mean, for example, that a tenant with an out-of-season holiday let might not actually have to leave until the holiday season was over. In my view, that would not be an appropriate outcome. There needs to be certainty of possession under the mandatory grounds, and the amendment would destroy that certainty. I therefore resist the Opposition amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 33, in page 12, line 4, leave out 'or Ground 11'.
No. 34, in page 12, line 6, after 'than', insert
'Ground 11 A or Ground 11B or'. — [Lord James Douglas- Hamilton.]
I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 12, line 8, at end insert
(c) where a defender in an action would, in the event of an order for possession being put into effect, become a person with a priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, notice of the proceedings has been served on the District Council within whose area the house is.'.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 151, in clause 18, page 12, line 14, at end insert—
No. 153, in clause 30, page 17, line 29, at end insert—'(8) Where notice has been given in terms of subsection (6)(c) above, the sheriff shall not make an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council on whom a duty is placed by section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 can provide suitable alternative accommodation.'.
No. 154, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—(d) that the defender in any action for possession would not become a person requiring accommodation to be provided as priority need accommodation in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.'.
`(4) Where a case of priority need in terms of section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 would arise in respect of any tenant against whom recovery of possession is sought in terms of this section, the sheriff may, on the making of an order for possession of a house—
(a) list or suspend execution of the order, or (b) postpone the date of possession, for such period or periods as the Court thinks fit.'.
The amendments deal generally with homelessness, but the clause lays down preliminary procedures regarding grounds for possession in circumstances where local authorities, as the authorities responsible for provision of accommodation for homeless persons in priority need, should have reasonably early notice of the possibility of a demand being placed on their services. The amendment should be read in conjunction with the additional amendment adding a further clause 8 which would ensure that local authorities had reasonable notice and would be given the opportunity to be heard when they had an interest as authorities responsible for the provision of such housing.The amendments are about notifying district councils of homeless persons or persons likely to become homeless. District councils have a statutory duty to house the homeless. Therefore, it would be absolutely stupid to allow court proceedings to put people on to the streets without letting the local district or islands council know about potential homelessness as an automatic part of any legal proceedings. No delay should be caused by such statutory notification if the landlord does his or her job properly. The amendment should ensure a speedier system in helping to prevent homelessness. No tenant should ever be put onto the streets. The amendment would put the onus on the landlord to notify the district or islands council about possible homelessness. The sheriff will not be able to give an order in favour of the landlord unless such notification has been given. It adds one more reasonable stage to the eviction process, positively to prevent unnecessary homelessness, prudently avoiding a very avoidable situation. If councils know the dates involved in the legal proceedings, they can provide for the smooth transfer to accommodation of otherwise homeless persons. The amendment is designed to help people and to help councils create a smooth transition out of legal proceedings and conflict. It should prevent the risk of sudden or unexpected increases in homelessness from the private sector. It should help people and councils to plan ahead. Amendment No. 151 has to be read in conjunction with subsection (6)(c) and lays on the sheriff a duty to consider the circumstances in which homelessness might arise. Section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 lays a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation in cases where there is a priority need. It is reasonable that the sheriff should be entitled to be informed whether the provision of such accommodation would lay an undue burden on a local authority. Ground I of schedule 5 provides a mandatory ground for a possession order : that suitable accommodation should be provided. Amendment No. 153 provides for mandatory orders for repossession, which may lead to requests for priority need housing being made on the district council. Taken together with amendment No. 154, a duty would be imposed on the landlord to provide a certificate of alternative accommodation in such circumstances, or to assure the court that suitable alternative accommodation exists. That would avoid an unfair burden being placed on district councils as housing authorities which would require them to meet demands for rehousing, where short tenancies could be created as a means of priority entry to local authority housing lists. The amendment would prevent eviction unless alternative accommmodation is proved to be available, and it would protect the handicapped, families and the elderly. It is a last-resort amendment if the other amendments that I have moved fail. It is the minimum possible that should be done to protect those who are most vulnerable. When the Bill becomes law, it is crucial that the most vulnerable members of the community should be protected. To a buyer, housing will be cheap with a sitting tenant, because the district valuer's price will apply. Large profits could be made if the sitting tenant were chucked out. Profit will be a very powerful motive for unscrupulous landlords to evict. The amendment is designed to protect tenants in such circumstances. It offers a measure of protection through the courts, because it would prevent exploitation. Amendment No. 154 would bring the powers to be exercised by the sheriff into line with those given in clause 20 and would enable the sheriff to take into account other circumstances when cases of priority need arise. The amendment would allow time in which solutions could be found if there were no immediately available alternative accommodation. The courts would step in to protect citizens who otherwise would be vulnerable to unscrupulous, uncaring landlords. Housing policy should be about housing people. The amendments would prevent homelessness and would place the onus on both central and local government to solve problems, not simply avoid them. I regret that the Minister said earlier that he is protecting the landlord by means of making people homeless, thus creating a major problem for the district and islands councils. The amendments would do what the Bill in general does not do. They would provide protection for the most vulnerable members of society and would prevent homelessness.
We have already debated at length the evil of homelessness. and we have tried to impress on the Minister our belief that the Government have a duty to protect people in Scotland from homelessness. The amendments provide some protection for people who face homelessness. It would ensure proper consideration of their needs by central Government, local authorities and the sheriffs. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendments, but I am afraid that his track record is not very good.
I listened with great care to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Certainly, top priority should be given to reducing the number of homeless in Scotland, but the statutory obligation is on local authorities.Amendment No. 150 would prevent a sheriff from making an order for possession if the defender would become a person with a priority need unless notice of proceedings had been served on the district council. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. Persons threatened with homelessness are able to apply for assistance from their local authority. They do not have to wait until they are actually homeless before placing their case before the authority. In my view, defenders in actions for repossession will make their circumstances known to the local authority at an early point in the proceedings and there is therefore no need to make provision on the face of the Bill for authorities to receive formal notification of repossession actions. I feel that amendment No. 151 is defective. It refers to the duty of the district council to provide suitable alternative accommodation. The duty, of course, is to secure that accommodation is made available. To some this may seem a small point of difference — the difference between providing and securing — but we should not forget that authorities are expected to fulfil an enabling role, rather than necessarily act as providers. The amendment refers to section 29 of the 1987 Act. This section relates to the interim duty of an authority to secure accommodation in cases of apparent priority need while it carries out inquiries to establish the applicant's position. The amendment seeks to prevent the sheriff from making an order for possession unless he is satisfied that the district council can provide suitable accommodation. As I have said, the duty placed on the authority by section 29 is to secure that accommodation is made available. Should it fail to discharge that duty the authority would run the risk of an action for default. This is also generally the case as regards its duties to persons found to be homeless through no fault of their own and in priority need. In short, the authority cannot avoid its obligations to homeless persons. I do not believe that either amendment No. 150 or amendment No. 151 is necessary, and I ask that they be rejected. Amendment Nos. 153 and 154 seek to cover similar cases in short assured tenancies, but are even less acceptable. The whole purpose of the short assured tenancy option is to allow landlords to let property for a limited period with the knowledge that they will be certain to get it back at a certain time. Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 would work entirely against that principle. Since, as I have explained, local authorities have a duty to arrange for the provision of accommodation for those who are homeless and in priority need, these two amendments are also unnecessary. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not accept the amendments.
Can the Minister explain to us exactly what is meant by "sist"? What is the difference between sisting and suspending?
There are a number of lawyers all round me who would be only too happy to correct me if I am wrong. To sist proceedings is to have a break in the proceedings. It means to bring them to an end for a period, at any rate. That is my understanding of it.
(Mr. Harold Walker): I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not insist and persist; otherwise, the Minister will doubtless desist and resist.
The hour is late and I shall not prolong the proceedings, but I deeply regret the Government's response to these amendments. They are reasonable amendments which meet a very acute problem that local authorities will face if and when the Bill becomes law. They are reasonable amendments designed to protect tenants and at the same time allow local authorities to perform their statutory duties. Local authorities will have to face the practical reality of persons made homeless thanks to this legislation and will be given no extra resources so to do. These amendments would allow at least extra warning and reasonable time for them to adjust and to perform their statutory duties.I regret that the Minister has not been able to accept the amendment, and I wish to press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 194.
Division No. 240]
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Barron, Kevin|
|Alton, David||Battle, John|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Beggs, Roy|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)|
|Buchan, Norman||McAllion, John|
|Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Macdonald, Calum A.|
|Canavan, Dennis||McFall, John|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||McLeish, Henry|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Madden, Max|
|Cryer, Bob||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Darling, Alistair||Maxton, John|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Michael, Alun|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)||Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)|
|Dewar, Donald||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Dixon, Don||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Dobson, Frank||Moonie, Dr Lewis|
|Doran, Frank||Nellist, Dave|
|Douglas, Dick||Pike, Peter L.|
|Eastham, Ken||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)||Robertson, George|
|Faulds, Andrew||Rogers, Allan|
|Fisher, Mark||Ruddock, Joan|
|Foster, Derek||Salmond, Alex|
|Foulkes, George||Skinner, Dennis|
|Galbraith, Sam||Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Spearing, Nigel|
|Gordon, Mildred||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Graham, Thomas||Stott, Roger|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)|
|Haynes, Frank||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)|
|Home Robertson, John||Wall, Pat|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Wallace, James|
|Illsley, Eric||Wai ley, Joan|
|Ingram, Adam||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)||Wilson, Brian|
|Kennedy, Charles||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Worthington, Tony|
|Litherland, Robert||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Livsey, Richard||Mr. Andrew Welsh and|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Mr. Archy Kirkwood.|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Allason, Rupert||Chope, Christopher|
|Amess, David||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Amos, Alan||Cope, John|
|Arbuthnot, James||Cormack, Patrick|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Couchman, James|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Ashby, David||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Baldry, Tony||Durant, Tony|
|Batiste, Spencer||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Fallon, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Forman, Nigel|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Bottomley, Peter||Fox, Sir Marcus|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Freeman, Roger|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Gale, Roger|
|Bowis, John||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Gow, Ian|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Brazier, Julian||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Bright, Graham||Gregory, Conal|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Burns, Simon||Grist, Ian|
|Burt, Alistair||Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn|
|Butcher, John||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Butler, Chris||Hannam, John|
|Butterfill, John||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Harris, David|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hawkins, Christopher|
|Carttiss, Michael||Hayward, Robert|
|Cash, William||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Heddle, John|
|Hind, Kenneth||Page, Richard|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Holt, Richard||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Howard, Michael||Portillo, Michael|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Raffan, Keith|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Rathbone, Tim|
|Hunter, Andrew||Redwood, John|
|Irvine, Michael||Renton, Tim|
|Jack, Michael||Riddick, Graham|
|Jackson, Robert||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Janman, Tim||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Ryder, Richard|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Knapman, Roger||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Knowles, Michael||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Sims, Roger|
|Lang, Ian||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Latham, Michael||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Speller, Tony|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Squire, Robin|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Steen, Anthony|
|Lilley, Peter||Stern, Michael|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Lord, Michael||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Sumberg, David|
|Lyell, Sir Nicholas||Summerson, Hugo|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Maclean, David||Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Tracey, Richard|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Tredinnick, David|
|Mans, Keith||Trippier, David|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Trotter, Neville|
|Mates, Michael||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Mellor, David||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Miller, Hal||Walden, George|
|Mills, Iain||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Waller, Gary|
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)||Ward, John|
|Moate, Roger||Wheeler, John|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Whitney, Ray|
|Morrison, Hon Sir Charles||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Morrison, Hon P (Chester)||Wilshire, David|
|Neale, Gerrard||Wolfson, Mark|
|Nelson, Anthony||Wood, Timothy|
|Neubert, Michael||Yeo, Tim|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Mr. David Lightbown and|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Mr. Alan Howarth.|
Question accordingly negatived.