Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
(2) In schedule 3 to the 1980 Act (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) paragraph 3 shall be omitted and after paragraph 2 there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
- "2A. A tenancy granted after the commencement of Part I of the 1983 Act is not a secure tenancy if—
Premises provided for members of police forces
- (a) within the period of three years immediately preceding the grant the dwelling-house has been let on a tenancy falling within paragraph 2 above;
- (b) the tenant has not been a tenant of the dwelling-house for more than three years; and
- (c) not later than the date of the grant the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant of the effect of this paragraph.
- 2B. A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the tenant is a member of a police force and the dwelling-house is provided for him free from rent and rates.".'. —[Mr. Gow.]
We are proposing in the new clause and the amendments grouped with it that county council tenancies should be brought within the broad scheme of the security and right-to-buy provisions of the 1980 Act. That proposal is subject to most important safeguards in respect of the operational requirements of county councils. The legislation, as amended, will apply to all right-to-buy landlords. The amendments are designed to replace the current special provisions for new town housing and district council dwellings held under other than housing powers.
I shall explain the reasons for my concern about the current position of county council tenants. Most county council tenants hold their properties on tenancies let by councils for purposes closely related to one or other of their functions. Obvious examples are accommodation provided for police officers, wardens and caretakers' housing and dwellings let on a short-term basis pending redevelopment. County councils were not included in the 1980 legislation because of the specialised nature of the lettings that I described, where a right to buy would clear), not be appropriate.
However, we have become increasingly concerned about the position of county council tenants whose homes are no longer required by their landlords for strictly operational purposes. [Interruption.] There are significant numbers of tenants in county council properties originally acquired for development, but where development plans—
I was saying that there are significant numbers of tenants in county council property originally acquired for development, but where development plans have since been abandoned.
There are county council dwellings that have been declared surplus and let to families from the district council's housing waiting list. There are other categories of dwellings with sitting tenants, which the landlord no longer needs for operational purposes. I receive a regular flow of representations from the tenants of county councils occupying such property, both from hon. Members and from the tenants direct. Those tenants do not understand why they should be denied the right to buy simply because their landlord happens to be a county council rather than a district council. They are right to question the equity of the current rules.
At present, we rely on voluntary arrangements with county councils. Under the general consents for council house sales, county councils have powers to sell surplus dwellings to sitting tenants at right-to-buy levels of discounts, but few councils have, in practice, taken advantage of that discretion. Of those which have done so. many have done so in a selective way—selling only to particular categories of sitting tenants, or selling at discounts less generous than those under the right to buy. Security of tenure and the right to buy are issues which, judging by my postbag, are of increasing concern. I cannot continue to defend a situation where certain tenants are denied the rights and privileges offered to most public sector tenants simply because their house is owned by a county rather than a district, or because it lies on one side of a local authority boundary rather than the other.
Taking county and district council tenancies as a whole, we have at present three different regimes governing security and the right to buy. District council tenants in part V housing—that is, housing provided under part V of the 1957 Act to meet general housing needs—have all the rights and protections afforded by chapters 1 and 2 of the 1980 Act. Non-part V district council tenants were brought within the scope of the right-to-buy provisions as a result of the Housing (Extension of the Right to Buy) Order made earlier this year, but subject to certain exceptions. In practice, county council tenants have at present no statutory rights or protections under the 1980 Act. These amendments will provide for the common treatment of county and district tenants.
New clause 12(1) is the basic provision that adds county councils to the list of landlords whose tenancies are governed by the security of tenure provisions of the 1980 Act. Of course, it does not follow that every county council tenancy will become secure, nor that every county council tenant will have the right to buy. The 1980 Act provides that certain types of tenancy are excluded from security and hence from the right to buy.
As county councils were not incorporated in the original legislation. certain of their operational requirements are not fully provided for. We, therefore, need to refine the exceptions to security and the right to buy incorporated in the existing legislation. That is what the remainder of the amendments is about.
The exceptions will affect three types of tenancy. The first is police housing, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has tabled a later amendment. The Police Regulations 1979 require that a member of a police force who is not paid a rent allowance shall be provided with a house or quarters free of rent and rate. New clause 12(2) proposes that accommodation provided by police authorities in pursuance of this requirement shall be exempted from security and from the right to buy.
The second exception is for dwellings within the curtilage of buildings held for non-housing purposes. It may be important for a landlord to retain control over the occupation of dwellings within the curtilage of schools, libraries, and fire stations. We are, therefore, proposing that the right to buy should not arise in relation to such dwellings where they are let to employees in consequence of their employment. We are also proposing that there should be a new ground for possession enabling a landlord to gain possession of such a dwelling where it is required for letting to a new employee—subject to the safeguard that suitable alternative accommodation is provided. These provisions are designed to replace paragraph 3 of schedule 3, which is to be repealed. That paragraph provides protection for the landlord's interest only where the building is held for social service or educational purposes.
The third exception that we are proposing is for dwellings normally reserved for occupation under contract of employment but exceptionally let otherwise on a short-term basis. "Short term" is defined as being for less than three years. Dwellings normally reserved for occupation by a warden or caretaker may exceptionally be let on a temporary basis to another person when the warden or caretaker has alternative accommodation conveniently situated. We do not want to discourage short-term lettings. New clause 12(2) proposes that such tenancies should not be secure, provided that the tenant has been informed of his position prior to the commencement of his tenancy.
This group of amendments will remove the present anomaly. It will give appropriate county council tenants the rights and protection that are already available to district council tenants. It will provide landlords with additional protection where operational interests are at stake, and it will rationalise the legislation governing part V and non-part V tenancies under a single set of provisions.
I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.
(Norwood): I hope that it will not be considered out of place if I begin my speech with a protest. The Government tabled new clauses 12 and 13 on Monday of this week for debate on Wednesday. That does not give much time for long and detailed clauses and consequent amendments to be studied not only by the Opposition, but by people outside the House.
I hope the Minister will note that 48 hours' notice for important clauses such as new clauses 12 and 13, dealing with the sale of houses of pensioners, especially new clause 13, is not enough. It is not fair to the conduct of our proceedings or to the ability of people outside, particularly at this time of the year, to comment to Members of Parliament — nor, indeed, is it fair to Members of Parliament—to table substantive clauses so late in the day. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I do not intend to be a churlish comment. It simply asks for enough time to give us as members of the Opposition and other people in the House the chance to do our job.
I accept the Minister's apology in the spirit that it was given. I hope that this will not happen again.
Mark Twain once said of one of the guests at his house party that the more the man talked of his honour the more they counted the spoons. The more the Minister for Housing and Construction talks about housing, the more we recognise that houses in public ownership will diminish in number. This new clause, in a small way, is no exception to that.
The Opposition have no objection to security of tenure being given to the tenants of county councils, with the exceptions that the Minister has now sensibly put in the Bill. As I understand them, they work in this way: if a person is employed by a county council—for example, as a school caretaker or as a police officer — on a service tenancy, where the occupation of a dwelling is a necessary consequence of the job, unless he lives within the curtilage of the building, once he has been in the job for more than three years, he has security of tenure. If the person is living within the curtilage of the building, that is a different matter. A school caretaker, for example, needs to live within the curtilage of the school. It would defeat the object of providing that accommodation if after three or four years that caretaker was able to have both security of tenure and the right to buy his home. I understand that there have to be exceptions in such circumstances.
The Opposition support the proposition contained in the new clause that the tenants of county councils should have security of tenure. However, we differ from the Government about extending the right to buy to those given security of tenure. Apart from specialist employees, those who live in county council owned accommodation as tenants in a sense will be there accidentally. They will be the tenants of houses which have been bought by a local authority in advance of a school building programme or a road widening programme or in anticipation of some other exercise of the county council's functions. They will be in that accommodation only until the county council wants to use the land for the prime purpose for which it bought it. The tenants will be occupying that accommodation as council tenants simply by accident.
Although the Opposition support the extension of security of tenure, we have reservations about the right to buy. In general, the right to buy has proved popular amongst some tenants. It is not popular amongst all, but it is popular amongst those who live in the more popular dwellings. That is how it has panned out. The better housing has been sold. The less attractive housing—flats especially—remains in council stock.
Throughout the Bill the Opposition have not sought to reverse the rights granted by the 1980 Act. But we have sought to take a much broader view of housing than simply the Government's fetish about public asset stripping. Their concern is not about the provision of more accommodation or about improving the condition of accommodation. Their obsession and fixation is about getting rid of the better housing accommodation to those who wart it and often at extravagant and absurd discounts.
In housing it is not tenure which is the most important matter. It is not even the type of dwelling. The two golden principles are adequate supply and adequate choice. The object of housing policy should be that every person and every family is able to choose to rent or to buy a home of reasonable size at a price which it can afford and that the exercise of one person's right to housing is not a denial of another person's right.
The objection which comes from some areas of the country to the right to buy is not an objection to owner-occupation or a demand for any kind of restraint on the legitimate desire of many people to own their homes. It is a concern about the broad objective of housing policy to ensure that one person's exercise of a right is not the interference in the exercise of a right of another person.
The clause illustrates that the Government do not take any broad or rounded view about housing policy or about local government policy. It is concerned largely with stripping public assets and financing their present housing programme on the proceeds of those sales.
We have a major crisis in housing at the moment with 1·5 million people on the waiting lists and thousands homeless. But I warn the House that that crisis will get very much worse in two or three years. If we look at the HIP allocations published only a few weeks ago we see that virtually one half of all housing capital expenditure is being financed from the sale of council houses. Earlier today hon. Members were told in answer to a question that about 600,000 dwellings had been sold, and about 40,000 in the housing association sector. That was simply the first flush of the operation of the 1980 Act.
This Bill is about reviving a dying trend. The tendency of people to buy their homes is dying off. Those who wanted the best homes and had the ability to buy them have opted to do so, and those houses have passed into private ownership. Those purchases are now dying away. If in the year 1984–85 one half of all housing capital expenditure is coming from the receipts of sales of council houses, what happens when the sale of council houses has died away altogether? Will the Treasury provide the other £1,500 million or so for council capital expenditure on housing, or is the present catastrophically low figure of new construction to die away even further? If this policy continues, in two or three years there will be an even greater catastrophe than we have at the moment.
I come to the objectionable details of the clause. I have no quarrel with the proposal to give general security of tenure to the tenants of county councils. However, the clause also gives the right to buy in circumstances which could be absurdly costly to local authorities. A local authority could buy land with housing on it in advance of the construction of a school or the widening of a road. If it let those premises to a tenant for more than a temporary period, the tenant would receive security of tenure. When at some future date the authority wanted to go ahead with its school building programme or its road widening programme, it would have to buy back the house from the tenant at a price at least 50 per cent. higher than the selling price to the tenant.
If a house cost £20,000 and the letting was for more than three years, it could hardly be said that it was exempted by schedule 3 of the 1980 Act, paragraph 4 of which provides:
A tenancy is not a secure tenancy if the dwelling-house is on land which has been acquired for development … and … is used by the landlord, pending development of the land, as temporary housing accommodation.
If the local authority buys land and lets the accommodation on it for three, four or five years, that can hardly be described as a temporary letting. The tenant will not only become secure but will have the right to buy. The house will pass into the hands of the tenant. If the local authority wants to acquire the house back again for the purposes of its proposed development even a month or two later, it will have to pay at least 50 per cent. more than the price at which it sold that house.
That is absurd. It is the sort of proposition illustrated by this legislation. It is wasteful and an absurd incursion on good planning by local authorities in buying land in advance and making it available for letting. That is why the Opposition oppose the new clause.
There is another way out for the county council. It is to leave the premises vacant. But, given the scale of housing need, to leave housing vacant is quite unjust and an absurd use of housing assets. We suggest that security of tenure should be given to those who occupy county council accommodation. But if the land is needed for further requirements, the way in which the 1980 Act is drafted is not wide enough to protect the county council. That being so, the right to buy should not go along with the security of tenure, which we welcome.
In my constituency there are certain properties which were acquired by the then Kent county council for the purposes of the Land Settlement Act. To each property was attached a smallholding. Subsequently a number of the smallholdings were amalgamated, leaving the buildings available for ordinary housing purposes. At least one of my constituents has been living in such a house as a tenant for more than 20 years. He was a policeman when he first became the occupant, although that was not part of his terms of service. He wished to purchase his house under existing legislation, but was told by Kent county council that, although it was entitled to sell it to him, it would not do so on preferential terms. If passed, will this new clause mean that such a tenant would be entitled to buy his premises on preferential terms?
(Bootle): I rise to oppose the new clause, mainly for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). The Government would apparently prefer properties to stand empty rather than allow them to remain in the municipal sector.
The Government's paranoia about council property is adequately illustrated by the new clause. It proposes that properties acquired by county councils for road widening schemes or other purposes, and which they want to let to tenants until they are required, should come under the right-to-buy provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood said, a local authority that has purchased such a property, and does not want it to stand empty, can let it. The person living there can then exercise his right to buy and purchase the property back from the council, even though the council has just bought it for the road widening scheme. If the road widening scheme then goes ahead after a delay that is due perhaps to cuts in central Government's funding to local authorities, the local authority will have to buy back the house from the very person to whom it has just sold it. If that is economic sense, I do not represent Bootle.
I have continually campaigned against Labour, Conservative and Liberal-controlled local authorities that keep properties empty unnecessarily. The new clause is a recipe for councils to keep such properties empty and to board them up when they could be used during the interim period. It is also a recipe for a local authority to let the property on a licence, which would destroy the good part of the clause, which provides security of tenure. I urge the Minister to reconsider the issue and to rephrase the new clause so that it achieves some of his aims for providing security of tenure, and for meeting the problem of properties in county council ownership that are not at first required for their original purpose.
I regret that the new clause was tabled at such short notice. When we debate new clause 13, I shall express my view about how that has been dealt with, and about the Government's intention in tabling it so late in the day. However, I hope that the Government will reconsider this recipe for leaving properties empty. After all, the Minister attacks local authorities, and particularly Labour-controlled authorities, for leaving properties vacant.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) referred to the total housing provision. The total housing provision for next year is slightly higher, in cash terms, than for this year. I expect a new boost to be given to the policy of selling council houses—and now, with the limitations to which I referred, to the sale of county council houses—when the Bill reaches the statute book. It is the Government's intention to ensure that all those upon whom rights are conferred by Parliament will be made aware of them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) described the situation of one of his constituents. I do not know the details of the case, but his county council will now be able to sell houses to his constituents, under the terms of the general consent. Under the new clause county council tenants will have the right to buy. However, I cannot be specific about the case that he mentioned, without knowing all the details.
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) when he said that the Government were obsessed with the public sector. The new clause seeks to remove an anomaly whereby a tenant who, by historical accident, happens to be the tenant of a county council rather than of a district council feels aggrieved. It is anomalous that a district council's tenant should have the right to buy while a county council's tenant does not.
The Labour party does not seem to understand that this legislation seeks to respond to the preferences of the people. The preference of the overwhelming majority of those who are tenants of district and county councils is for home ownership. The new clause offers that opportunity and removes the anomaly. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept it.
The background note to the new clause has a heading that is something like "Sales of county council housing that is surplus to requirements". If that was the effect of the new clause, it would not be quite as bad as we think it is. However, paragraph 4 of schedule 3 of the 1980 Act exempts from secure tenancies only lettings of a temporary nature. Perhaps the Minister will answer the specific point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and me. Let us suppose that land is bought in advance of requirement for a road widening scheme and that the Scrooge-like attitude of the Treasury and of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport leads to a delay of about five years. If the county council sensibly lets the premises during that period, it must surely be more than a temporary letting. If the tenant buys the house, and the county council then wants to go ahead with its scheme, it will have to buy back the house a second time. Am I not right?
|[Division No. 115]||[4.45 pm|
|Adley, Robert||Budgen, Nick|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Bulmer, Esmond|
|Alexander, Richard||Burt, Alistair|
|Amess, David||Butterfill, John|
|Ancram, Michael||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Ashdown, Paddy||Chalker, Mrs Lynda|
|Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.||Chapman, Sydney|
|Atkinson, David (BM'th E)||Chope, Christopher|
|Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)||Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)|
|Baldry, Anthony||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Beggs, Roy||Clegg, Sir Walter|
|Bellingham, Henry||Cockeram, Eric|
|Benyon, William||Colvin, Michael|
|Berry, Sir Anthony||Conway, Derek|
|Best, Keith||Coombs, Simon|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Cope, John|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Couchman, James|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Crouch, David|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Body, Richard||Dicks, T.|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.|
|Bottomley, Peter||Dover, Denshore|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)||Durant, Tony|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Eggar, Tim|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Bright, Graham||Evennett, David|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Eyre, Reginald|
|Brown, M. (Brigg & Crthpes)||Fallon, Michael|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Favell, Anthony|
|Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Fletcher, Alexander||Lyell, Nicholas|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||McCurley, Mrs Anna|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)|
|Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)||MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)|
|Forth, Eric||Maclean, David John.|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Norman||Maclennan, Robert|
|Fox, Marcus||McQuarrie, Albert|
|Fraser, Peter (Angus East)||Major, John|
|Fry, Peter||Malins, Humfrey|
|Gale, Roger||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)|
|Galley, Roy||Mates, Michael|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)||Mayhew, Sir Patrick|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Meadowcroft, Michael|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Miller, Hal (B'grove)|
|Goodhart, Sir Philip||Morris, M. (N'hamptcn, 5)|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Moynihan, Hon C.|
|Gow, Ian||Murphy, Christopher|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Needham, Richard|
|Grant, Sir Anthony||Neubert, Michael|
|Greenway, Harry||Newton, Tony|
|Gregory, Conal||Nicholson, J.|
|Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)||Owen, Rt Hon Dr David|
|Ground, Patrick||Parris, Matthew|
|Grylls, Michael||Patten, Christopher (Bath)|
|Gummer, John Selwyn||Patten, John (Oxford)|
|Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)||Pawsey, James|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Penhaligon, David|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Pollock, Alexander|
|Hargreaves, Kenneth||Porter, Barry|
|Harris, David||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Harvey, Robert||Powley, John|
|Hawkins, C. (High Peak)||Renton, Tim|
|Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Hawksley, Warren||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Hayes, J.||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Hayward, Robert||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Henderson, Barry||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Hickmet, Richard||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Hirst, Michael||Rowe, Andrew|
|Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Hooson, Tom||Ryder, Richard|
|Hordern, Peter||Sackville, Hon Thomas|
|Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Hubbard-Miles, Peter||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Shepherd, Richard (A'dridge)|
|Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)||Shersby, Michael|
|Hunter, Andrew||Silvester, Fred|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Sims, Roger|
|Jackson, Robert||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfeld)|
|Jessel, Toby||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Speed, Keith|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Spence, John|
|Jones, Robert (W Herts)||Spencer, D.|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Key, Robert||Squire, Robin|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'field)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Knight, Gregory (Derby N)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Knox, David||Steen, Anthony|
|Lamont, Norman||Stern, Michael|
|Lang, Ian||Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)|
|Latham, Michael||Stevens, Martin (Fulham)|
|Lawler, Geoffrey||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Stokes, John|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Lester, Jim||Sumberg, David|
|Lightbown, David||Taylor, Rt Hon John David|
|Lilley, Peter||Taylor, John (Solihull)|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant)||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Ward, John|
|Temple-Morris, Peter||Wardle, C. (Bexhill)|
|Terlezki, Stefan||Warren, Kenneth|
|Thomas, Rt Hon Peter||Watson, John|
|Thompson, Donald (Calder V)||Watts, John|
|Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)||Wells, Bowen (Hertford)|
|Thorne, Neil (IIford S)||Wheeler, John|
|Thornton, Malcolm||Whitney, Raymond|
|Thurnham, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Tracey, Richard||Wolfson, Mark|
|Trippier, David||Wood, Timonthy|
|Twinn, Dr Ian||Woodcook, Michael|
|van Straubenzee, Sir W.||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Waddington, David||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Waldegrave, Hon William||tellers for the Ayes|
|Walden, George||Mr.David hunt and|
|Walker, Bill (T'side N)||Mr. Douglas Hogg|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Cunningham, Dr John|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Dalyell, Tam|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)|
|Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)||Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)|
|Barron, Kevin||Deakins, Eric|
|Beith, A. J.||Dewar, Donald|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Dixon, Donald|
|Blair, Anthony||Dobson, Frank|
|Boyes, Roland||Dormand, Jack|
|Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)||Douglas, Dick|
|Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)||Dubs, Alfred|
|Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.|
|Caborn, Richard||Eadie, Alex|
|Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)||Eastham, Ken|
|Campbell-Savours, Dale||Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)|
|Clarke, Thomas||Evans, John (St. Helens N)|
|Clay, Robert||Fatchett, Derek|
|Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)||Faulds, Andrew|
|Cohen, Harry||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Coleman, Donald||Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)|
|Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.||Fisher, Mark|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton North)||Flannery, Martin|
|Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Corbett, Robin||Foster, Derek|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Foulkes, George|
|Cowans, Harry||Fraser, J. (Norwood)|
|Craigen, J. M.||Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald|
|Crowther, Stan||George, Bruce|
|Godman, Dr Norman||Nellist, David|
|Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)||O'Brien, William|
|Hardy, Peter||O'Neill, Martin|
|Harman. Ms Harriet||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Park, George|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Pike, Peter|
|Haynes, Frank||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Prescott, John|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Radice, Giles|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)||Randall, Stuart|
|Holland. Stuart (Vauxhall)||Redmond, M.|
|Home Robertson, John||Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)|
|Hoyle, Douglas||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Robertson, George|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Rogers. Allan|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport East)||Rooker, J. W.|
|John, Brynmor||Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Rowlands, Ted|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Sheldon. Rt Hon R.|
|Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Lamond, James||Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Silkin, Rt Hon J.|
|Leighton, Ronald||Skinner, Dennis|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & Fbury)|
|Lewis, Terence (Worsley)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)|
|Litherland, Robert||Soley, Clive|
|Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Strang, Gavin|
|McKay, Allen (Penistone)||Straw, Jack|
|McKelvey, William||Thomas. Dr R. (Carmarthen)|
|McNamara, Kevin||Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)|
|McTaggart, Robert||Tinn, James|
|McWilliam, John||Torney, Tom|
|Madden, Max||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Marek, Dr John||Wareing, Robert|
|Martin, Michael||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Mason, Rt Hon Roy||Williams,Rt Hon A.|
|Maxton, John||Winnick, David|
|Maynard, Miss Joan||Woodall, Alec|
|Meacher, Michael||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Michie, William||Milian, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Tellers for the Noes:||Miller. Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)|
|Mr. James Hamilton and||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|