Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 24, line 24, leave out from beginning to "that" in line 1 on page 25 and insert—
(2) For the purpose of assessing the compensation it shall be assumed—
§ Read a Second time.
§ Amendment to the proposed Lords amendment made: In para. (b), leave out '(3B)' and insert '(3C)'.—Mr. John Silkin.]
§ Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 152, in page 25, line 20, at end insert—
(3B) The assumptions in subsection (2) above shall not be made where at the date mentioned in subsection 1(a) or (b) above, the interest in land is owned by a charity.
(3C) Where during the whole of the period of one year immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—
(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at that time, the charity—
§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move, that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.
Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to: In page 25, line 20, at end insert—
(3B) Where during the whole of the period of seven years immediately preceding the date as at which compensation is to be assessed—
(3C) The assumptions in subsections (2) and (3B) above shall not be made where—
(3D) For the purposes of subsections (3B) and (3C) above the interest in land shall be
treated as owned by a charity at any time if, at any time, the charity—
§ Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 155, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
(6A) (a) The assumptions in subsection (2) of this section shall not be made where—
(b)For the purposes of paragraph (a) above, the interest in land shall be treated as having been owned by an approved pension scheme at any time if that time the approved pension scheme has, or had, entered into a binding contract for its acquisition.
(c)In this subsection "approved pension scheme" means a retirement pension scheme approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under section 222 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 or a superannuation fund approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the purposes of section 208 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970".
§ Mr. Oakes
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The effect of the new subsection is that if the second appointed day occurs before the lapse of a period of 11 years from White Paper day, compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition during the balance of the 11-year period of an interest in land owned throughout the period since White Paper day by a pension fund would have to be on the basis applicable before the second appointed day, that is to say, at market value as opposed to current use value. In essence, the amendment puts pension funds on all fours with Churches and charities.
As we said on Report, we regard Churches and charities as separate and distinct from other institutions because of their nature. Therefore, I do not agree that they are on all fours with institu 1458 tions—particularly financial institutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) said, with Churches we are dealing with small pieces of land in inner city areas which become available as a result of a church having to be moved because the population has moved. That is quite different from the position that arises with pension funds.
There is little distinction between the investment of a pension fund as a company and other forms of corporate investment, so on philosophical grounds a distinction between pension funds and other institutional investors would be hard to draw. There are those general and wide reasons why there is a total difference between the Churches and charities on the one hand and pension funds on the other.
But there are a number of other matters. I hope that the House will bear with me at this hour of the morning, because some concern has been expressed about the investment level of pensions funds as a result of the Bill. There are therefore some things that I should like to spell out in looking at exactly how the Bill will affect investments by pension funds—indeed, how little it will affect them. I want to do so by looking at certain cases of both developed and undeveloped land and get rid of some misconceptions that have arisen in the financial Press and some journals interested in the Bill.
First let us take the case of sites which are already developed. Will they be acquired? So long as they continue in their current use, the position is unchanged from what it is at present. What then is the position if an existing property is to be rebuilt within the limits of an increase of 10 per cent in the floor space existing before rebuilding? Rebuilding on this scale would come within the scope of the excepted development regulations. The duty of local authorities to acquire will not apply to such rebuilding, the power to suspend planning applications will not apply, nor would compulsory purchase orders be approved unless they could be justified on special grounds.
So this leaves only development on a scale which is quite different from that of the present building. I am not aware that this is in fact the sort of investment which pension funds have been in the 1459 habit of making, but let us suppose that they have done so. In such circum stances, they will have a prior right to a leaseback which the Schedule 6 procedures will in practic provide.
Let us now take the second leg—the question of the valuation for purposes of compensation if the land is acquired. Current use value means just what it says—value in its current use as a developed site. It is a value that reflects—and which will continue to do so under the land scheme both before and after the second appointed day—the assumption that planning permission to rebuild within the tolerances set out in Schedule 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 would be granted.
What would not be within current use value after the second appointed day is an increase in value attributable to the expectation that a planning permission would be granted for a development in excess of Schedule 8 tolerances. In the case of the commercial properties which constitute the bulk of the pension funds' investments, the change will mean very little. Such expectations are already heavily discounted by the market. Thus, in practice, there will be little difference in the compensation payable before and after the second appointed day.
Having dealt with the case of developed sites, let us now consider a second type of case—where undeveloped land has been bought at a price reflecting the fact that it is ripe for development, or where a site with buildings on it has been bought at a price reflecting the hope of planning permission for early and major redevelopment. I stress, as I did in Committee and on Report, that the move to current use value will be gradual—the second appointed day cannot be brought in until the duty to acquire land for all relevant development has been applied to all authorities.
This is frankly some considerable time off and, unless the investment in the land was with very long-term purposes in mind, or highly speculative—which seems unlikely in the case of pension funds—it should be possible for the development to be achieved before the second appointed day is reached. If the land is acquired by a local authority prior to development, compensation will be on the full market value basis currently 1460 applying. If the authority grants planning permission and decides not to acquire, and the development has not yet been carried out by the second appointed day, that planning permission will still confer value for compensation purposes after the second appointed day. Again, therefore, there is no reason why the Bill should have any significant effect on the value of land acquired by pension funds before White Paper day.
Finally, I will deal with the more general allegation that it is not worthwhile for pension funds to invest in property at all in future. It follows from what I have said that there is no reason why the market in existing property should be affected by the scheme. As regards investment in new development on land which has passed through public ownership, it is true that freeholds will no longer be available, but investing institutions are well accustomed to leaseholds, and there has been no problem in the past for investors negotiating satisfactory terms in, for example, the new towns. There is no reason why their experience should be any different in future.
It has been made clear that leases of 99 years or more will be available, and this should allow ample flexibility for the negotiation of arrangements which will provide the necessary stability for investment portfolios, a satisfactory income, and an ability to realise the investment on satisfactory terms if desired.
I have gone to some length to discuss the question of pension funds in regard to their relationship with Churches and charities and the differences between them, and to dispel many of the rumours which have been circulating by showing in what a very limited way the Bill will affect the pension schemes, largely because, of course, their investment is not in the type of development which would be affected by the community land scheme.
I hope that the House, having heard my explanation of our belief in the difference between Churches and charities, which are highly exceptional cases, and pension funds, which are a much more commercial investment, and of the very limited way in which pension funds would be affected by the scheme at all, will disagree with the Lords amendment.
§ Mr. Rossi
The hon. Gentleman's explanation has indicated the appalling lack of appreciation there is of the problems of the pension funds under the Bill. He has sought to minimise and belittle the impact of the Bill on pension funds, but those intimately concerned, the pension fund managers, who have studied this Bill in depth and are fully alive to its consequences, take a wholly different view.
It is not for the hon. Gentleman to belittle these anxieties and to dismiss them as newspaper rumour. The people expressing them are professionals intimately concerned with the day-to-day management of pension fund assets. They know what they are about, this is their daily business, and if they say that the Bill is disastrous to pension funds, the hon. Gentleman can take it that it is.
The hon. Gentleman makes great play of the fact that if the site is to be rebuilt there is a 10 per cent. tolerance, and if the redevelopment takes place within that tolerance none of the dire effects of the Bill will be attracted to it. That 10 per cent. tolerance is not worth a row of beans because the current costs of demolition and reconstruction in inflation terms exceed the anticipated value and the extra revenue to be derived from that 10 per cent. It has already been overtaken and passed by inflation. The additional cost of demolition and reconstruction disposed of that great 10 per cent. concession that is being trotted out the whole time. It is not worth anything at all.
For a redevelopment to be viable today, it must be in excess of a 10 per cent. capacity, and, of course, it is at that point that the State starts dipping its hand into other people's pockets—in this case into the pockets of the pensioners who have invested money over their working lifetime in order to provide for their old age.
The hon. Gentleman said that pension funds do not look at long-term investment in property for redevelopment purposes—that that is highly speculative. It is the very essence of pension fund investment in property. The hon. Gentleman need not pretend that this is the first time he has heard of this, because we discussed this in some detail on Second Reading, in Committee and on 1462 Report stage. Various statements were made from this side of the Chamber as to the policy of pension funds in these matters.
The hon. Gentleman has had the time between Second Reading and now to check with the pension fund managers, and he need not merely check with those firms in the City providing pension funds as an adjunct to insurance company activity. He can check with the pension fund managers of the nationalised industries. They will tell him what is their investment policy for their retired miners, their retired electrical workers, their retired manual workers. We have had the figures trotted out at each stage of the Bill. We have been told of the quarter of a million miner pensioners whose pensions are at risk because of this measure. We have that on the authority of the pension fund managers.
The hon. Gentleman cannot come here and blandly dismiss the advice that we are receiving from those quarters, and read out to us a brief that says, "Do not worry about it. It is not going to affect these people at all." I do not know who writes these briefs for the hon. Gentleman, or what experience the writer of that brief has in pension fund work, or whether the gentleman who wrote that brief has spoken to the nationalised industries' pension fund managers and gone into the figures with them, or with the managers of private pension funds. I am sure that if, if he had, the House would not be treated to the nonsense contained in the brief read to us, because it does not accord with the information given to us by the professionals who work in this field day in and day out.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have already told him that the policy of a pension fund, investing the earnings and savings of people, and providing money against their old age, is to find Victorian and Edwardian commercial properties, looking 150 years ahead in regard to the potential of the site. Within a 150-year term investment such a site has the possibility of being redeveloped not merely once but possibly even three times. Each time a redevelopment takes place on that site, a building is constructed to meet modern requirements, so that modern rents can be obtained. The income basis of the pension fund is increased at each redevelopment.
1463 It is that increase in rental base at each redevelopment which enables the pension fund to pay out pensions which keep up with the level of inflation. That is not speculation. That is sensible, prudent investment in bricks and mortar on behalf of people who want pensions which will support them in their old age. That is what the hon. Gentleman is destroying.
I have been told by the pension fund managers that since their properties can be acquired after the second appointed day at current use value, the value of those properties in pension fund hands will be reduced immediately on the passing of the Bill and that, as the second appointed day approaches, they will continue to decline in value. It is obvious that if there is a decline in the value of the assets from market value to current use value—antiquated building value—on the second appointed day, that obviously reflects the value as of today because the value as of today must reflect the value ultimately to be obtained on the second appointed day, and, as we get nearer the second appointed day, the value goes down until it reaches that point.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has consulted the Treasury on the effect that will have and how it relates to present Government economic policy in requiring greater investment in industry. The hon. Gentleman may ask what is the relation between the two. I will tell him. If the asset value of a pension fund goes down, that asset value under the average pension fund trust deed has to be made up by the industry concerned out of its revenue. That is its obligation.
Whether it be ICI, Tate and Lyle or the National Coal Board pension fund, the effect of the passing of this Bill is to reduce the asset value of the properties, with a rapid decline in the value of those assets down to the second appointed day. Each year, or whatever the accounting period may be, that decline in asset value must be made up out of the revenue of that industry. If the revenue of that industry is making up the asset value of its pension fund, it has so much less for reinvestment in industry in order to expand our production and our economy. I shall be very surprised if the hon. Gentleman has given any thought to that possibility. It that matter had been considered, I am 1464 certain that a different view would have been taken of it.
I am not conjuring these thoughts out of the air. I have taken the best advice available to me. What I have said about asset values and about the impact that this will have on industry can be supported fully by those professionally concerned in these matters.
Is the Minister aware that already this year ICI has had to make up the value of its employees' pension fund by £30 million merely because of the effects of inflation? That sum will be increased immediately the Bill is passed and the £30 million, plus whatever will be charged to ICI, will mean that that much less money will be available to be invested in industry.
Who will be affected by these provisions? On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report we talked about the miners and electrical workers. We quoted the number of retired people whose pensions were subject to and put at risk by the effects of the Bill. However, I have been given another figure. At present there are 12 million people subscribing to pension funds. They, together with their dependants, make up one half of the total population of this country. Therefore, one half of the total population of this country will be affected. We are talking about a Bill which is intended to bring money to the community and which is meant to be for the benefit of the community, yet we are undermining the provisions which people are making for their old age.
What are we doing and how are we doing it? We are merely shifting the value of assets from one half of the population into the hands of the local authorities. The straight transfer of asset value into the hands of local authorities will be done by the town halls. The Minister must explain the position. He must obtain the views of that half of the population that will be affected.
Today we are discussing the Bill in hypothetical terms. However, after the Bill has been enacted and the immediate effects upon those pension funds become obvious, the chicken will come home to roost on the Labour benches. We shall see how many votes this measure is worth to the Opposition when the people realise what the Bill will do to their pensions and their insurance policies.
1465 We are making our case. We are not able to defeat these provisions, but we wish that we were able to do so. We know perfectly well that the Minister, having read the brief which was placed in front of him, without considering the matters which we are now putting to him will insist that all his hon. Friends are whipped into the Division Lobby. The Government will carry this measure, and then they will live to rue the day.
The Minister also mentioned that these pension funds were not analogous to charities and Churches. The dividing line between charities and non-charities is very fine, and difficult to define in legal terms. Is the Minister aware that, for example, the City of London General Pension Society, although a pension fund, is a charity and that it will escape what most of the pensions funds will have to undergo because it gets just inside the legal definition?
The real difference between a pension fund and a charity is that the beneficiaries of the pension fund have to enter into a contractual obligation to pay a proportion of their earnings into the fund. In consideration of that, their employers pay in a sum, and ultimately those people will benefit as the beneficiaries of the fund. The mere fact that it is a contractual obligation in law takes it outside the concept of charity and therefore it will not be accepted for registration by the Charity Commissioners. But a trust fund is non-profit making. Nobody makes a profit out of it. The only people who derive advantage are the beneficiaries in the same way as beneficiaries derive benefit from a charity. Therefore, the dividing line between charities and pension funds is very fine.
For the reasons that I have given regarding the appalling, not the minimal, impact that these measures will have on pension funds, that the dividing line between charities and pension funds is very fine, and that they are non-profit making enterprises, we, and the Lords in their amendment, ask that pension funds be treated similarly to charities.
That is not a tremendous deal in itself, because the original intention to give charities and Churches complete exemption from the legislation has been denied by the Government. Churches and chari 1466 ties are to get a miserly 10-year exemption from the worst affects of the Bill. At the end of 10 years their time runs out. The amendment seeks to give pension funds a similar 10-year exemption.
I do not want to detain the House too long at this hour of the morning. I hope that I have put the argument clearly and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendment.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross
I certainly rise in support of this Lords amendment because, apart from the Churches and charities, it is the most important matter that we have discussed since we started our deliberations yesterday afternoon.
The pension funds have already suffered from the Government's proposals, and there is no question that they will suffer substantially more in the years ahead. Both in Committee and on Report we suggested various methods to help the pension funds. We tried replacement development and other definitions which the Government felt unable to accept. This is the last chance, as I see it, for us to do anything for them.
I imagine that hon. Members have seen the handout from the group representing pension funds. In it they point out:Pension fund activities are similar to charities in the field of investment"—the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) also made that point—and it is here that the cases overlap. It is only in relation to compensation for acquisition of pre-White Paper Day investments that the pension funds are claiming a similar treatment to the charities. Thus, if the Church Commissioners or the Trustees of a University College Fund bought land pre-White Paper Day in order to use income and capital to provide benefits to clergymen or dons, it is difficult to see why they should receive a more favourable treatment in this respect than the trustees of a pension fund who bought land to provide benefits for workpeople in industry.That is a plausible case. We are only asking for them to be put on the same basis as are Churches and charities. The amendment is not asking for much. It is what happens when the investment runs out, when the reversionary interest falls due, which is the great problem for these funds.
The Government have not appreciated the Bill's effect on a large number of 1467 worthy trust funds. This is another instance in which the Government will have to help if these organisations cannot do the job themselves. I am sure that this appeal will fall on deaf ears, but I hope that even at this late hour the Government will see some sense.
§ 8.15 a.m.
§ Mr. Oakes
I am touched by the concern of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the effect of the Bill on the Labour Party and the Labour movement which he so vividly described. I am also impressed by the way in which he accepts so blindly, almost hysterically, anything that the investment managers tell him. When he was talking about the miners' pension fund, I expected some of my hon. Friends from mining constituencies to complain about the Government's action. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not here, perhaps because they do not have such touching faith in the investment managers as do hon. Members opposite.
But who is on the Front Bench with me, obviously feeling great concern about the hon. Member's remarks about the effect of the Bill on the Treasury and pension funds? The Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is not pulling me down, worried about the effect of the Bill.
There is a good deal of special pleading about the pension fund element of investment in property. As I have said before, I understand that the proportion of investment by pension funds in property—not only in property affected by the Bill—is 17 per cent. As I have said before in a long statement, only a fraction of that 17 per cent. will be affected. That is the position, and that is why my hon. Friends from mining constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are not here because they do not share the anxieties that the hon. Gentleman is trying to propagate throughout the country by spreading alarm, fear and despondency, in the interests not of the pension funds but of the general property investor and speculator whom he is truly trying to defend and represent.
|Division No. 404.]||AYES||[8.22 a.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Atkinson, Norman||Bishop, E. S.|
|Allaun, Frank||Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Boardman, H.|
|Anderson, Donald||Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)||Booth, Albert|
|Archer, Peter||Bean, R. E.||Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood||Boyden, James (Bish Auck)|
|Ashley, Jack||Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)||Brown, Hugh D (Provan)|
|Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)||Bidwell, Sydney||Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)|
§ Mr. Oakes
I accept the figure about the miners—I have no other figure—of 30 per cent. invested in property. What I do not accept is that 30 per cent. is invested in property of this nature. The hon. Member implies that 30 per cent. is invested in property which will be immediately and directly affected by the Bill.
§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)
Irrespective of the figures, can my hon. Friend assure me that these pensions will not be adversely affected by the Bill?
§ Mr. Oakes
That is precisely what I am trying to say to the House. That was also the burden of the rather long speech I made in the first instance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have answered. My hon. Friend is satisfied, and if he is not complaining I do not see why hon. Members opposite should complain.
It is far better that investment takes place in manufacturing industry and not in speculative ventures as it has done in the past. If the Bill goes some way towards redirecting pension funds into manufacturing industry, it will have a spin-off which will benefit the country.
§ Sir John Hall (Wycombe)
The Minister has not answered the question put by his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), or, if he did, none of us heard him. Will the measures in this Bill have an adverse effect on pension funds?
§ Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 233.
|Buchan, Norman||Horam, John||Parry, Robert|
|Buchanan, Richard||Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)||Koyle, Doug (Nelson)||Price, C. (Lewisham W)|
|Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)||Huckfield, Les||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Campbell, Ian||Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)||Radice, Giles|
|Canavan, Dennis||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Richardson, Miss Jo|
|Cant, R. B.||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hunter, Adam||Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)|
|Carter, Ray||Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis||Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)||Roderick, Caerwyn|
|Cartwright, John||Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)||Rodgers, George (Chorley)|
|Castle, Rt Hon Barbara||Janner, Greville||Rodgers, William (Stockton)|
|Clemitson, Ivor||Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Rooker, J. W.|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)||Jeger, Mrs Lena||Roper, John|
|Coleman, Donald||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)|
|Conlan, Bernard||John, Brynmor||Rowlands, Ted|
|Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)||Johnson, James (Hull West)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Corbett, Robin||Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Cox, Thomas (Tooting)||Jones, Alec (Rhondda)||Selby, Harry|
|Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)||Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)|
|Cronin, John||Judd, Frank||Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)|
|Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony||Kaufman, Gerald||Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)|
|Cryer, Bob||Kelley, Richard||Silkin, Pt Hon John (Deptford)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Kerr, Russell||Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)||Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Sillars, James|
|Davidson, Arthur||Kinnock, Neil||Silverman, Julius|
|Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)||Lambie, David||Small, William|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)||Lamborn, Harry||Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lamond, James||Spearing, Nigel|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Latham, Arthur (Paddington)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Leadbitter, Ted||Stallard, A. W.|
|Delargy, Hugh||Lee, John||Stott, Roger|
|Dell, Rt Hon Edmund||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Strang, Gavin|
|Dempsey, James||Litterick, Tom||Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.|
|Doig, Peter||Loyden, Eddie||Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley|
|Dormand, J. D.||Luard, Evan||Swain, Thomas|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lyon, Alexander (York)||Taylor, Mrs. Ann (Bolton W)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Dunn, James A.||Mabon, Dr J. Dickson||Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)|
|Dunnett, Jack||McCartney, Hugh||Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)|
|Eadie, Alex||McElhone, Frank||Thorne, Stan (Preston South)|
|Edge, Geoff||MacFarquhar, Roderick||Tierney, Sydney|
|Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)||McGuire, Michael (Ince)||Tinn, James|
|Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Tomlinson, John|
|English, Michael||Maclennan, Robert||Tomney, Frank|
|Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)||Torney, Tom|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Madden, Max||Tuck, Raphael|
|Ewing, Harry (Stirling)||Magee, Bryan||Urwin, T. W.|
|Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.||Mahon, Simon||Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.|
|Filch, Alan (Wigan)||Mallalieu, J. P. W.||Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)|
|Flannery, Martin||Marks, Kenneth||Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Marquand, David||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Walker, Terry (Kingswood)|
|Forrester, John||Maynard, Miss Joan||Ward, Michael|
|Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)||Meacher, Michael||Watkins, David|
|Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert||Watkinson, John|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mikardo, Ian||Weetch, Ken|
|Garrett, John (Norwich S)||Millan, Bruce||White, Frank R. (Bury)|
|Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)||Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)||White, James (Pollok)|
|George, Bruce||Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Gilbert, Dr John||Molloy, William||Whitlock, William|
|Ginsburg, David||Moonman, Eric||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Golding, John||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Williams, Alan (Swansea W)|
|Gould, Bryan||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick||Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)|
|Graham, Ted||Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Newens, Stanley||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Noble, Mike||Wilson, William (Coventry SE)|
|Grocott, Bruce||Oakes, Gordon||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hardy, Peter||Ogden, Eric||Woodall, Alec|
|Harper, Joseph||O'Halloran, Michael||Woof, Robert|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian||Wrigglesworth, Ian|
|Hart, Rt Hon Judith||Orbach, Maurice||Young, David (Bolton E)|
|Hatton, Frank||Ovenden, John|
|Hayman, Mrs Helene||Owen, Dr David||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Palmer, Arthur||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Park, George||Mr. David Stoddart.|
|Hooley, Frank||Parker, John|
|Adley, Robert||Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)||Beith, A. J.|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Awdry, Daniel||Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)|
|Alison, Michael||Baker, Kenneth||Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)|
|Arnold, Tom||Banks, Robert||Benyon, W.|
|Berry, Hon Anthony||Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)||Oppenheim, Mrs Sally|
|Biffen, John||Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss||Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Hastings, Stephen||Pardoe, John|
|Blaker, Peter||Havers, Sir Michael||Parkinson, Cecil|
|Body, Richard||Hawkins, Paul||Pattie, Geoffrey|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Hayhoe, Barney||Penhaligon, David|
|Bottomley, Peter||Heseltine, Michael||Percival, Ian|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)||Hicks, Robert||Peyton, Rt Hon John|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)||Higgins, Terence L.||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Holland, Philip||Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch|
|Brittan, Leon||Hordern, Peter||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Brotherton, Michael||Howell, David (Guildford)||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Hunt, John||Raison, Timothy|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick||Hurd Douglas||Rathbone, Tim|
|Buck, Antony||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)|
|Budgen, Nick||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)||Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)|
|Burden, F. A.||James, David||Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Carlisle, Mark||Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Chalker, Mrs Lynda||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Channon, Paul||Jones, Arthur (Daventry)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Jopling, Michael||Ross, William (Londonderry)|
|Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Clark, William (Croydon S)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Kershaw, Anthony||Sainsbury, Tim|
|Clegg, Walter||King, Evelyn (South Dorset)||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Cockcroft, John||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)||Kitson, Sir Timothy||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|Cope, John||Knight, Mrs Jill||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Knox, David||Shepherd, Colin|
|Costain, A. P.||Lamont, Norman||Sims, Roger|
|Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Crouch, David||Latham, Michael (Melton)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Dean, Paul (N Somerset)||Lawrence, Ivan||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Lawson, Nigel||Speed, Keith|
|Drayson, Burnaby||Le Marchant, Spencer||Spence, John|
|du Cann, Rt Hon Edward||Loveridge, John||Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)|
|Durant, Tony||Luce, Richard||Sproat, Iain|
|Eden, Rt Hon Sir John||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Stainton, Keith|
|Elliott, Sir William||McCrindle, Robert||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Emery, Peter||Macfarlane, Neil||Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)|
|Eyre, Reginald||MacGregor, John||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Fairbairn, Nicholas||Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)||Stokes, John|
|Fairgrieve, Russell||McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fell, Anthony||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)|
|Fisher, Sir Nigel||Madel, David||Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)|
|Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)||Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Marten, Neil||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Mates, Michael||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)||Mather, Carol||Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)|
|Fox, Marcus||Maude, Angus||Townsend, Cyril D|
|Fry, Peter||Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald||Trotter, Neville|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Mawby, Ray||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Gardiner, George (Reigate)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||van Straubenzee, W. R|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Mayhew, Patrick||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Godber, Rt Hon Joseph||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Viggers, Peter|
|Goodhart, Philip||Mills, Peter||Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Miscampbell, Norman||Wakeham, John|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Gorst, John||Moate, Roger||Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)|
|Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)||Monro, Hector||Wall, Patrick|
|Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)||Montgomery, Fergus||Walters, Dennis|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Gray, Hamish||Morgan, Geraint||Wells, John|
|Grieve, Percy||Morris, Michael (Northampton S)||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Griffiths, Eldon||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Grist, Ian||Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Grylls, Michael||Mudd, David||Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)|
|Hall, Sir John||Neave, Airey||Younger, Hon George|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Neubert, Michael|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Newton, Tony||TELLERS FOR THE NOES|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Nott, John||Mr. Michael Roberts and|
|Hannam, John||Onslow, Cranley||Mr. Fred Silvester|
§ Question accordingly agreed to.