HL Deb 12 February 1996 vol 569 cc397-408

3.13 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Direct payments]:

Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 10, leave out from ("services,") to the end of line 12.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for repeating the proposals for changes to this Bill by one deletion—Amendment No. 1—and one new clause—Amendment No. 12—in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and which I tabled also at Committee stage.

I thought the sweet reasonableness of what I proposed would win immediate acceptance, as indeed it did from almost everyone except the Minister. The passage of time has not persuaded me that the changes I propose are other than reasonable. I am happy to note that People First, in the briefing it supplied, support me in my attempt to deprive the Government of the opportunity to behave unreasonably and stress the need to allow people with learning disabilities to have as great a say as possible in their own lives with appropriate support when necessary.

I say "Amen" to that. But I harbour an unworthy suspicion that the Minster will be minded to respond by pleading the incomplete consultation exercise to which I referred at Committee stage. Your Lordships will be aware that those who manage those matters on our behalf have not been minded to let us have our debate after the consultation period which, ironically perhaps, has the advantage that we are again contributing to the consultation.

As I should not like to think that your Lordships are debating matters today to no purpose, I shall remain optimistic. After all, this is a House in which reason tinged by passion is thought by some to have the edge on politics tinged by passion. My aim is now, as it has been from the outset, to ensure that those people with learning disabilities for whom direct payments are an appropriate means of securing community care services should not be denied that opportunity because local or central government are prejudiced against them. Moreover, I want those who are to be covered to be covered from the beginning and not to be considered some way down the line once others have had the new option for a year or two.

I note all that has been said about festina lente—testing the waters before plunging into them—but I am bound to say that, since local authorities will have complete discretion in regard to introducing schemes and discretion on an individual basis as to who is admitted to a scheme, a rush to destruction seems highly improbable. We are, I would guess, talking about a relatively small group and not, certainly in the shorter term, about a huge change in the services available.

We are all anxious to get this right. Given the experience already developed I suggest that the best way of getting it right is to allow the inclusion of modest numbers from a wide range of disabilities. I share the view of People First that there is a certain illogicality in testing a scheme on one group of people to see whether it works for other totally different groups of people. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, briefly, Amendment No. 1 touches on one important fact. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is talking about the rights of an individual, regardless of the label, to receive benefit and to direct that benefit to wherever he or she chooses to receive care and support.

It is true that the consultation period is not over; it is true also that we shall not be in a strong position at the end of that period to he able to make a realistic contribution to the Bill. Thus I recommend that the House listens to what is being said. All we are doing is trying to ensure that groups are not excluded. Surely that is something which is beneficial to all groups and will not be damaging to the general thrust of the Bill.

Lord Hayhoe

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was brief in his proposal of this amendment, as he had already spoken at Committee stage in like vein. I too hope to follow his excellent example.

We are seeing one of the inexorable laws of politics; that is, if a sensible, widely agreed and desirable reform is introduced, the Opposition could not possibly oppose it and say that either it was too little or too late. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, used both arguments: "too little" because at the moment the scope of the Bill is limited, as we acknowledged when debating this matter at Committee stage; and, if the sort of group that he has particularly in mind comes in at a later stage as a result of consultation and fully in accordance with the provisions of the Bill which allow such extensions to take place, the "too late" argument is used.

I therefore reiterate that the Government have brought forward a useful and good piece of legislation. It would be right for us to give it a run as a new scheme, starting slowly in a modest and seemly fashion with proper monitoring. We should allow the monitoring to take place always with the possibility that, following on from the consultation and monitoring, the Government—without any primary legislation and within the provisions of the Bill—will be able to make provisions for the sort of extensions which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has in mind. In those circumstances, the arguments are persuasive in supporting the Government, maintaining that flexibility and taking a sensible small step forward rather than perhaps trying to take too large a leap at this stage which could in the long run be against the interests of the Bill itself.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I support the Government on the Bill, although in some ways I am sorry to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who does such splendid work for people with learning difficulties. With any new Bill, particularly a Bill like this which takes us into strange waters where we have not been before, there are bound to be difficulties. In fairness to those with learning difficulties, it is far better to know what those difficulties are so that people do not feel they have made a mistake in purchasing whatever it is they need and want. When working in a social services department I often found that someone with learning difficulties would come to me and say, "Why don't you help me?" One feels that one wants to help people with learning difficulties but one does not want them to make mistakes. There are bound to be mistakes at the beginning. It is far better for us to know what mistakes have occurred before giving them the opportunity to purchase these services.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, the amendment seeks to avoid restricting the payment of money for the provision of services in advance and confining it exclusively, as the Government intend, to physically disabled people under the age of 65. That would mean that by category those with learning difficulties or adults over 65 with physical handicaps would be excluded from receiving direct payments. Whether they wished to or not, they would instead receive only services.

What is the nature of the Government's objection to the amendment? Local authorities, voluntary organisations and disabled people wish to see the possibility of direct payments being made to all disabled people. What is the nature of the Government's argument? It cannot be that the Government oppose the proposal on financial grounds. It is clear from all the research that for local authorities direct payments are cheaper than services. The average cost of direct payments is around £5 an hour; the cost of services, with overheads, is around £8 an hour. Direct payments are cost neutral and certainly far cheaper for local authorities than the alternative of offering residential care. So the Government cannot resist the proposal on financial grounds. Direct payments are likely to be cost neutral and may very well save us all money. So the argument is not one of cost.

What is the next government argument? It appears to be the floodgates argument, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, touched. The argument is that local authorities would be overwhelmed and that therefore we should start slowly and gradually build up. That assumes that all local authorities are coming new to the issue of direct payments. They are not. Some schemes have been in operation for 14 years and already extend to far wider groups of disabled people than the Bill envisages. Without the amendment, in some local authorities fewer people will he eligible for direct payments as a result of the Bill than they are today. That is what it means. Some people will lose direct payments which they are currently receiving through third-party agencies and may have to go back to residential care—certainly the evidence of Kingston suggests this—even though they arc currently enjoying and experiencing direct payments from a well-run and well-managed scheme funded by the local authority. Far from the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, being right, he is profoundly wrong. The Bill will narrow and take away opportunities which disabled people are currently enjoying.

Is it true, nonetheless, that if the amendment were passed the floodgates would open? All the research shows that only a small proportion of disabled people are likely to want and to take advantage of the scheme. The suggestion is that only around 100 of every thousand physically disabled people under 65 are likely to take up direct payments. The number could be more—I hope very much that it will be—but that is the evidence so far. Far from local authorities being overwhelmed, the problem is much more that unless we have adequate support and advice systems in place they will be underwhelmed and will need to build up the confidence of disabled people to take up these packages. The Government need not fear the floodgate factor any more than they need fear the cost factor.

The third argument the Government have adduced has been repeated by the Minister's supporters on the Back Benches. It is that local government must go slowly and build up confidence. Local authorities are already running such schemes. There are 60 in existence. Most have a remit to help far wider groups of people than the Bill envisages. I have every confidence that directors of social services who are starting direct payment schemes from scratch will not seek to extend them to people beyond the capacity of their authority to deliver them. The directors of social services are not stupid. They will not arouse expectations which they cannot deliver. They will not try to encourage demand which they cannot meet. Being professional, skilled and highly responsible people, they will want to ensure that people's needs and people's demands and authorities' ability to cope are aligned.

What does the Bill as it stands do? What it does is stereotype. The noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, are exactly right. The Bill says that irrespective of the needs, the abilities, the desires or competences of the individual person, the Secretary of State will say, "Certain categories of disabled people will be discriminated against. They will not be eligible to receive direct payments even though some of them are receiving them now." That is ruling out direct payments, not by assessment, not by judgment, not by demand, not by need, but by category and by discrimination. That is not proper. It is right that the local authority should exercise its professional judgment in conjunction with the needs and views of the disabled person. We do not need the Secretary of State double thinking the local authority. Trained professional social workers are always making fine and difficult judgments on issues like child abuse. We trust a social worker to make a judgment about child abuse but the Bill is saying that we do not trust a social worker to make a judgment about direct payments to disabled people who may already be enjoying them. We do not need the Secretary of State to prejudge the situation in advance when local authorities wish to extend direct payments, when disabled people wish to receive them, and when it is at no additional cost and may very well save money for the taxpayer and council tax payer alike.

Let us not have discrimination by category. Let us recognise the human potential of every disabled person to be at the centre of the care system by organising services. Let us respect the local authority's professional judgment. Let us ensure that all disabled people who in the judgment of the local authority can benefit from direct payments and so take autonomy and control over their own lives are enabled to do so. Let us support the amendment today.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I and I believe others understand the principle that the Government follow in introducing a totally new system, except in Scotland, and taking certain categories to start with: that is to say, they do it gradually. No doubt that is what my noble friend will say in reply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised a point to which I hope my noble friend will reply. Unless I misunderstood her, she indicated that the present local authority schemes, which were carried out through third parties, would come to an end. My understanding is that during the introduction of the new system local authorities will not have to bring to an end schemes that they have operated up to now. I should be grateful if my noble friend could comment upon the point. Is the noble Baroness right to suggest that at a certain stage the existing schemes will have to come to an end or, as I had supposed, will they continue while the new direct payments schemes are brought into effect? If that is correct, there should not be a situation where there will be fewer disabled people who receive payments than there are now.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I did not understand one point in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She placed responsibility on directors of social services to decide whether or not somebody should have something because he fell into a certain category. Since this a new scheme, is it not rather unfair to place that responsibility on directors of social services?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. Local authorities will be in very different situations under the terms of this Bill. Many local authorities have no experience of direct payments; others have run schemes for up to 14 years for categories of people which are wider than those currently envisaged by the Bill. When directors of social services come to construct schemes for direct payments within the framework of the Bill, they will extend it to such categories as they believe their local authorities are competent to handle. If there are currently third party schemes that give direct payments to people with learning difficulties, or people over 65, there is absolutely no reason on this earth why they should not feel competent to continue to do so. But, if they are new to the area and this is the first time that they have put their feet into the water, they may well wish to start with a more narrowly focused scheme. That is a judgment that must be made locally in the light of local experience rather than predetermined at arm's length by the Secretary of State, who does not know what the local situation is.

Baroness Hamwee

My Lords, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has no wish to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I have no wish to disagree with her, but I think I do. Quite rightly, she refers to protecting people from making mistakes. I do not suggest that she says that in any paternalistic fashion. I know that she has the best of intentions to help those individuals to progress. However, at the last stage your Lordships considered whether the provision in Clause 1(1) for local authorities to make payments should be discretionary or mandatory. It is discretionary. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and later by my noble friend Lord Addington, will not affect the discretion of the local authority to judge the individual case. It deals with discrimination against groups of people, to which this amendment is addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, makes an interesting point. If local authorities are able to continue their current payments to individuals who may not fall within the categories that are to be approved, is it not ironic that others who are within those categories cannot be paid, if by their current actions those local authorities have shown that they are capable of dealing with categories of that type?

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, can we be assured that anyone who is currently in receipt of a direct payment can continue to receive it? Will that not cover the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis? I believe it has been said that these people receive the money from third parties rather than from local authorities. That tends to complicate the issue. I am not sure how that will affect the position. It seems to me that in many situations in life to put in a "no worsening" provision would cover it.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, when we discussed this clause at Committee stage I suggested that it might be incompatible with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am glad to say that my noble friend the Minister has written to say that expert opinion is that this Bill is compatible with that Act. Despite the legality of it, I have a feeling that the way in which this Bill is proposed to be put into effect is definitely against the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. There will be discrimination if the payment of direct grant starts only for a certain category. What of the position of two cousins, one who receives a direct grant because he is just under the age of retirement and the other who will not receive it because he is just over the age of retirement, possibly by only a few days? I understand that once the grant has been agreed it will go on into the old age category. The Independent Living Fund and the Independent Living (Extension) Fund have operated for a number of years, and have given direct grants. The lessons have been learned and can quite easily be disseminated to local authorities without direct experience. Local authorities talk to each other. Social security directors are in constant touch and talk of different problems and ways to overcome them. They learn lessons from each other and from their authorities. I believe that it would be for the benefit of disabled people and those in receipt of community care as a whole if everyone were to be included at this stage. The Bill is discretionary. It is up to local authorities to decide whether or not to make grants. It is also up to the individual whether or not he or she wishes to accept the grant. I strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Seccombe

My Lords, this is an exciting new scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said, all of us are anxious to get it right. Many authorities have wide experience but others do not. There will be a need for monitoring, which can be very time consuming. Although my heart says that in due course I should go with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, my head tells me that I should support the Government now.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has said. I hope that the Minister will answer her question.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)

My Lords, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I reiterate the views expressed by my noble friends today that direct payments are a new and a largely untested development. The Government want to see them introduced on a limited scale so they can see how they work and so local authorities have the best chance to make them a success. We propose to limit the scale by restricting the size of the potential client group. Amendment No. I would remove the power to do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that some local authorities had been operating schemes through which payments were made to individuals and that they would find that experience useful. But the noble Baroness has also said that not all local authorities have that experience. Even those that do may find that the making of direct payments as part of mainstream community care brings new challenges for which they are not prepared. We cannot assume that local authorities are ready to hit the ground running. If we remove the power to limit eligibility, that is what we are asking them to do. I am concerned that by removing the ability to limit the eligible client group we shall actually hinder the implementation of direct payments. Some authorities which would be happy to offer direct payments on a limited scale may not feel ready to offer them to all client groups. They may then decide that they would prefer not to offer direct payments at all in order not to appear discriminatory.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen mentioned the Independent Living Fund. That experience is useful hut it is not directly applicable. The role of local authorities in relation to the Independent Living Fund is very different from the role they will be taking on in making direct payments. The Independent Living Fund fulfils a different role, with a different target population. By starting relatively small, we will enable local authorities to focus their attention on making direct payments work well. We are making no assumptions about whether people outside the initial eligible group would be able to manage direct payments, given the opportunity. That is why the client group we propose in the consultation paper does not exclude people with physical disabilities who also have learning disabilities. That is why if there is an age restriction we do not propose that people who have been receiving direct payments should cease to be eligible when they reach the age of 65. This is not about discrimination.

Our aim is to select a group of an appropriate size who are keen to take on this new freedom. Within the eligible group, the discretion over whether direct payments are appropriate for each individual remains with the local authority. Local authorities will be able to get used to direct payments with the limited group and the Government will be able to see clearly how they are working. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said in Committee, we are entering something of a minefield. We believe that by starting cautiously we shall build a firm foundation for the long-term future of this important new venture.

We are not suggesting, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, believes, that making direct payments to a limited client group will give local authorities experience of every type of challenge they would face if eligibility were drawn more widely. But there are many aspects of managing direct payments which are the same whatever the particular needs or characteristics of the recipients. For example, local authorities will need to set up monitoring and accounting systems to keep track of the money. Limiting the client group will keep it on a manageable scale while people are getting used to the concept of direct payments.

We do not propose to reach a final decision on the client group before we have considered the responses we receive to the consultation paper. We have already said that we will consider carefully whether all people with learning disabilities should be eligible. Specifying the client group in regulations means that it can be adjusted without the need to amend primary legislation. I have given your Lordships an undertaking that we will keep the position under review once direct payments are available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that people on current schemes may lose the direct payments that they receive now. That point was also raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The Bill will not make existing schemes illegal. Those that are there now can continue. Therefore, there is no need to follow the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Gardner of including a "no-worsening" clause.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, does that mean that the Minister accepts in principle the argument that it is right for many disabled people (who are excluded on the face of the Bill) to receive direct payments but that she is asking local authorities, which she is trying to protect from bureaucracy, to have the additional bureaucracy of not only running their own schemes but funding extra clients through third-party schemes because they cannot include them in their own scheme? Is that a wise way of helping local authorities by making them fund direct payments through two systems simultaneously?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, the purpose of the Bill is not necessarily to legalise existing ultra vires arrangements. That is not right. The purpose of the Bill is to lay down a practical framework for the future. It is for local authorities to ensure that their schemes operate within the law, but the Bill will not make existing schemes illegal. Those authorities which already operate such schemes can continue to do so.

I understand the desire of the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, to see direct payments being made available to everyone who wants to receive them and is able to manage them. Amendment No. 12 shows that those noble Lords do not want to see local authorities deciding not to offer someone direct payments on the basis of the nature or extent of their disability. In determining whether to offer someone direct payments, local authorities must take account of all relevant considerations. That would automatically include a person's wishes and ability to benefit from a direct payment. In addition, the Bill already explicitly requires that a direct payment can only be made with a person's consent. We must take great care when imposing restrictions of the kind set out in Amendment No. 12 on the way in which local authorities make those determinations. If the nature or extent of someone's disability is not relevant—

Lord Rix

My Lords, I am sorry to have to interrupt the noble Baroness and I thank her for allowing me to do so. But does that mean that local authorities can make such payments to people with learning disabilities under the Bill when it becomes an Act?

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, that depends on the responses that we receive to the consultation document. It would be very wrong of the Government to put out a document for consultation and to decide, prior to receiving responses, on the action that they wish to take. Sadly, the noble Lord will have to be patient a little longer.

If the nature or extent of someone's disability is not relevant to the authority's judgment of whether direct payments are appropriate for them, the authority could not take that into account in any case. But if those matters are relevant at all, authorities should be able to take them into account and it would be wrong to prevent them from doing so by this legislation. It is not a matter of discrimination but of common sense. Along with my noble friends Lord Hayhoe, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seccombe, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.

Lord Rix

My Lords, I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have supported the amendments and perhaps not quite so grateful to those who have not. Perhaps I may respond first to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. As I said in my introductory speech, nobody is suggesting that people with learning disabilities do not receive support and advice, where appropriate, in pursuing the question of direct payments. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that he had wondered whether the provisions breach the Disability Discrimination Act which we passed only last November. He has been assured that that is not so, yet the Minister said that the Government will be limiting eligibility—I should have thought that that was discrimination; that people could be included who had physical as well as learning disabilities—I should have thought that that too was excluding people with learning disabilities alone; and that local authorities might well be able to make such payments in spite of the Bill going through in its current form—that seems slightly inexplicable.

In Committee I complained that the consultation period could extend beyond this Report stage and I asked whether the business managers could arrange for Report stage to take place after the consultation period; otherwise all of us are speaking in a vacuum. However, I received a very gentle rebuke from the Minister who said: That is a question for the business managers. I certainly would not dream of giving such an undertaking".—[Official Report, 15/1/96; col. 380.] I am afraid that we have seen the result today. There is a fairly even split on both sides of the House as to whether people with learning disabilities should be included in the provisions right at the beginning. There is no compulsion on local authorities to make direct payments, but that group of people must be included. I am speaking on behalf of a constituency of 1.2 million people with learning disabilities. That is a lot of people. I am not suggesting for one moment that they would all be in receipt of direct payments, but it is a very large constituency. Therefore, in view of my constituency and of those who have supported me, I have no option but to seek the opinion of the House.

3.49 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Acton,L Barnett,L
Addington,L.[Teller.] BirK,B
Allen of Abbeydale,L Blackstone,B.
Allenby of Megiddo,V. Borrie,L.
Annan,L. Bristol,Bp.
Archer of Sandwell,L. Broadbridge,L.
Avebury,L. Bruce of Donington,L.
Bancroft,L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.
Chapple, L. Mallalieu, B.
Clinton-Davis, L. Mar, C.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Mar and Kellie, E.
David, B. Marsh, L.
Desai, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Meston, L.
Donoughue, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Molloy, L.
Drogheda, E. Monkswell, L.
Dubs, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Eames, L. Nelson, E.
Falkland, V. Nicol, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Ogmore, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Oxford, Bp.
Fitt, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Gallacher, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Richard, L.
Glenamara, L. Ripon, Bp.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Rix, L. [Teller..]
Graham of Edmonton, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Gregson, L. Sainsbury, L.
Grey, E. St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich,
Halsbury, E. Bp.
Hamwee, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Hanworth, V. Shannon, E.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Haskel, L. Simon, V.
Hayman, B. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Healey, L. Southwell, Bp.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Stallard, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Stedman, B
Hollis of Heigham, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Holme of Cheltenham,L. Strabolgi,L.
Howie of Troon, L. Swinfen, L.
Hughes, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Jay of Paddington, B. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Jenkins of Hillliead, L. Tordoff, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Judd, L. Walton of Detchant, L.
Kilbracken, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Kintore, E. Wharton, B.
Lawrence, L. White,B.
Lovell-Davis, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
McIntosh of Haringey,L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Winchester, Bp.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Addison, V. Clanwilliam, E.
Ailsa, M. Clark of Kempston, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Coleraine, L.
Ampthill, L. Constantine of Stanmore, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Courtown, E.
Astor, V. Craig of Radley, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Cranborne, V.[Lord Privy Seal.]
Barber of Tewkesbury, L. Crathorne, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Cuckney, L.
Beloff, L. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Birdwood, L. Cumberlege, B.
Blaker, L. De Freyne, L.
Blatch, B. Dean of Harptree, L.
Boardman, L. Denham, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Denton of Wakefield, B.
Brigstocke, B Downshire, M.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Eden of Winton, L.
Bruntisfield, L. Ellenborough, L.
Butterworth, L. Elles, B.
Cadman, L. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Elton, L.
Carnegy of Lour.B. Faithfull, B.
Carnock, L Ferrers, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Father, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Fraser of Carmyllie, L
Chelmsford, V. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Gage, V. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Munster, E.
Geddes, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Goschen, V. Newall, L
Gray of Contin, L. Noel-Buxton, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Norrie, L.
Harlech, L. Northesk, E.
Hayhoe, L. O'Cathain, B
Hemphill, L. Orkney, E.
Hooper, B. Oxfuird, V.
Howe, E. Park of Monmouth, B.
Huntly, M. Rankeillour, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Rawlings, B.
Knollys, V. Romney, E.
Lindsay, E. St. Davids, V.
Liverpool, E. Seccombe, B.
Long, V. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Lucas, L. Shrewsbury, E.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Skelmersdale, L.
McConnell, L. Strange, B.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Strathcarron, L.
Mackay of Clashfern,L. [Lord Chancellor.] Strathclyde.l.[Teller.]
Terrington, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L. Teynham, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Thatcher, B.
Merrivale, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Mersey,V. Trefgarne, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Trumpington, B.
Milverton, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Mountevans, L. Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.