HL Deb 04 April 1968 vol 290 cc1326-41

3.25 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Local authorities for the administration of the Act

1.

(2) The local authorities for the purposes of this Act shall be county councils and the councils of large burghs within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; and any small burgh within the meaning of that Act shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be included in the county in which it is situated.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "large burghs" and insert "counties of cities". The noble Marquess said: This is the first of no fewer than 236 Amendments on this Bill, and I think your Lordships will agree—at least I hope you will—that it is one of the most important ones. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will look at it in a sympathetic light. Its purpose is quite clearly, in dealing with the new administrative areas set up in the Bill, to exclude the large burghs. This matter was exhaustively discussed during the Second Reading, although owing to the lateness of the hour it was understandably not possible to have a very detailed or lengthy answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes.

Briefly, my colleagues and I who are moving this Amendment—and I am sure we have wide support for our view in many areas in Scotland, certainly among professional bodies interested in this matter—believe that the vast majority of these large burghs are simply not big enough to sustain an efficient and viable social work department of their own. They have not the funds to attract first-rate staff. Career prospects for such staff will therefore not be encouraging. For myself I feel that, as a result, the welfare of the community, for both young and old, is bound to suffer. I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from a letter I have had from a child care officer, which says very much the same thing. He points out that the inability to compete for good quality staff is an inability which is not just a matter of salary but of providing training officers, case work, consultation and staff development programmes which stimulate and attract staff to give the best service. Without these there is a real fear that the large burghs may become professional backwaters in which a person in need can only hope for an inferior service. I personally agree with that, and I hope that your Lordships will also agree with it.

I cannot, I must confess, quite understand why the Government in this Bill on the one hand are opening the way for and encouraging the amalgamation of local authority functions, and thereby rightly, in my view, cutting down on costs and waste, and, at the same time, seem so keen to preserve in this particular respect the administrative independence of these burghs, which, with a few notable exceptions, one must agree, are not equipped to use it. In addition, as your Lordships know, we are expecting the Report of the Wheatley Commission on Local Government, and I myself suspect that what will come out of that Report is to a large extent a recommendation for larger and fewer administrative areas. This seems to be another argument in favour of not increasing the number at this particular moment. I recognise that if this Bill is altered in this way it may mean additional amending clauses dealing with the transfer of functions, and that kind of thing, but I feel that this is something which could be left for the experts to deal with. What I am primarily concerned with to-day is the principle involved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out ("large burghs") and insert ("counties of cities").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

3.29 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

In supporting the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Marquess, I feel it is worth while mentioning the position of the County of Lanark, in which I live; and, as the noble Marquess has touched upon the question of cost, I think it is safe to say that in terms of cost, so far as Lanark is concerned, this splitting up of the authorities and increasing the numbers of the units of the social services, as this provision would mean, would entail increased cost. I touched on this matter in my speech in the debate on Second Reading [col. 834, 21/3/68] so will say no more than that.

However, there is another point I wish to raise. I feel, as many noble Lords said on Second Reading, that it is important that we should not move too rapidly in the face of the possibility of change ahead. An additional reason for disturbing existing arrangements as little as possible is the prospect of the publication of the Seebohm Committee's Report, which may be expected, I believe, in early June. Admittedly, this Committee's terms of reference are confined to England and Wales, but I have reason to believe its findings will produce a great measure of new thinking, and as such it will have, in its way, as important a bearing on the whole subject as the Kilbrandon Report had in Scotland. If, as I believe, your Lordships are all agreed that we should do our best to make something of this Bill, we should do as little as possible to upset existing arrangements, while at the same time not delaying the developments which are so urgently needed.

LORD SALTOUN

There is one thing that we should bear in mind in connection with the burghs. We are discussing places like Arbroath, and to an extraordinary degree the people there know all about one another. The knowledge that people in places like Arbroath, Peterhead and Fraserburgh have of their neighbours is out of all proportion to what usually occurs in the case of the larger cities, and I believe that to be a great advantage.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

The one thing that is a common factor among all the various bodies which have been at me—I do not know why, but they have—and the one thing they are all decided upon universally, is that they do not want the large burghs in this scheme in any form whatever. I should like to read part of a paragraph, and if the noble Lord tells me I am taking it out of context I am quite willing to read more. This is part of a letter which I received from the Aberdeen and North East Counties Social Workers' Group. I think that is a non-official group but it might be described as being rather like the teachers' unions, possibly as a social workers' trade union. So far as I know, it is not official; nevertheless, it represents the thinking of the men on the ground who have to carry out the provisions of any legislation that is passed.

What they say is this: while recognising that reorganisation of local authority areas is at present under consideration, we regret the proposal that the councils of large burghs in addition to those of counties of cities he local authorities for the purposes of the Bill. We accept the arguments advanced in the Government White Paper Social Work and the Community, viz., 'Small units do not provide satisfactory career opportunities for keen and progressive staff'."— this is in the White Paper— 'They can offer few opportunities for the professional consultation which is valued highly by social workers. With so few staff, they find it very difficult to release staff for training and to offer supervised practical training to students. In a small staff, the range of experience is usually limited, and there can be little flexibility in dealing with particular types of problem. Partly for these reasons, very small departments do not easily attract well qualified staff. This weakness and their limited financial resources aggravate their difficulties'. We regret this Bill does not follow the White Paper in this matter. That is exactly the same as the sheriffs have said, and also the probation officers. I frankly admit that the Social Workers' Group has an element of Parkinson behind it, because the bigger the scope the bigger the job; but, taken at its face value, this is an honest appreciation of the position as the social workers see it.

May I just add a little more in regard to the difficulties of a small unit? Our particular county, of which I happen to have the honour to be Vice-Convener, is a good deal smaller in population than a large burgh. We have to overcome our problems by joining, on a voluntary basis, with Aberdeenshire, and we produce a service in that way. Under this Bill we could not do that. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head. I am not quit; sure about that and I hope he will tell us the position later on. However, I should like to point out one difficulty in regard to units, which is that in a large unit, particularly of probation officers, there will be representatives of both sexes. If there is only one probation officer that officer must be male or female—he or she cannot be both. I think that is apparent to everybody.

The difficulty I have in mind may be exemplified by a distressing case with which we have to deal. This case concerned a girl whose father was convicted of incest and put into gaol for four years. The week after next this man will come out on parole. The daughter is now 15 years of age. If this Bill were on the Statute Book, do noble Lord: consider it would be right that such a man, coming out with these obvious tendencies or disease or misfortune or whatever it may be, should return to this family, with the girl still there, and still fond of her father in spite of everything, but unsupervised by any really skilled person—in fact supervised by what I can only describe as more or less an amateur? Possibly that is a little beside the point, but it underlines the difficulty with regard to small units, and the problems one encounters in a county such as ours, with a population of 20,000. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, derided me the other day when I said that under the cuts in the Civil Defence we should be left with possibly three, but probably one Civil Defence officer. I checked up yesterday and we shall be left with one man.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

I should like to support this Amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he was speaking on Second Reading put every point with his accustomed fairness. He drew our attention to the fact that the White Paper stated that the Government think that on balance it will be best to place responsibility on the counties, including, of course, the counties of cities. The noble Lord told us that we must recognise the existing welfare functions of the large burghs, and then, more or less to clinch the point that the large burghs should be entrusted with this responsibility in the future as they have been in the past, he continued by saying that it has been made clear from their comments on the White Paper that the large burghs want to retain those functions. That did not seem to be an adequate reason—just because the large burghs wanted to retain these functions—why, after the finding of the White Paper, they should be allowed to do so.

I would rather think, from my reading of the White Paper (which of course may be wrong) that, on balance, paragraph 52 is made rather wider by the concluding words, where it says: should encourage counties with the smallest populations to join with other authorities to form joint departments serving their combined populations. It seemed to me that that brought in a larger population than was contained in at least some of the large burghs. I hope the noble Lord will be able to persuade his right honourable friend to reconsider this particular provision in what is otherwise an excellent Bill.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I should perhaps apologise for taking part at all in this debate, because in spite of my name I do not live in Scotland and have no personal experience of the ways in which the judicial and local authority systems differ from the English. But the National Association of Probation Officers does represent the interests of probation officers throughout Great Britain, and that is perhaps my excuse. It seems to me that this proposal, if it is as I understand it, will particularly affect the probation services, since in many areas they have already combined areas, and been formed into larger groups than is now proposed. If I correctly understand the proposals in the Bill, these combined areas will be broken down into smaller pieces than exist already. The new social works departments will be very much smaller than the existing combined areas in which the probation services work, and it will be a greater disadvantage for them than for other forms of social work.

3.42 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, concluded his remarks by saying that he hoped I should be able to persuade my right honourable friend to change his mind. On the contrary, I hope that I shall be able to persuade noble Lords who support this Amendment to change their minds. I do not put that forward as a jocular remark: I believe that what the Government decided on this matter is the right course to follow. It is true that the White Paper decided that, on balance, this matter should rest with the counties, and that of course includes cities which are counties of cities. But it was only on balance. The arguments were fairly finely divided. After the White Paper had been published there were many consultations, and in the course of those consultations very strong arguments were advanced in favour of continuing to entrust these welfare responsibilities to large burghs. I completely agree with the remark that that in itself is not a good reason for change, but while it is perfectly true that most, if not all, large burghs want to retain these functions, and most of the counties, if not all, wish it to be confined to the counties, the second argument is no more convincing that the first. It is only when one looks at all the arguments put forward that one can arrive at what seems to be the best conclusion.

Having said that, I cannot pretend for one moment that all the arguments in favour fall firmly on one side or the other. We have come to the conclusion that, given the fact that we are legislating in advance of the reorganisation of local government which one presumes will follow from the Report of the Wheatley Commission, we must inevitably, whichever way we do it, be creating an organisation different from that which will ultimately emerge. We have a very long debate in front of us, and I hope that the pattern will be for short speeches. But this is one of the more important subjects that will be discussed, and I want to make it perfectly clear that on this matter (I am not setting the pattern for my own remarks throughout the debate) I intend to speak at greater length than perhaps on any other item we may be discussing, with one possible exception.

I would remind noble Lords that the Bill embodies the decision in the light of all the comments that have been made by all the authorities who have been consulted, both statutory bodies and voluntary bodies, since the White Paper has been published. I would not pretend, and my right honourable friend would not pretend, that it has been easy to arrive at a decision on this matter. It would have been, I think, irresponsible to take the easy way out and just, as it were, sweep the problem under the carpet by deferring action until we knew the form which local government reorganisation was going to take. I expressed those views briefly during the Second Reading debate, and I think I can content myself with re-stating them briefly. It is not a problem which can be solved readily when the Commission's Report is received. That is only a stage of a very long journey. We shall not get the final answer within a few months of the Commission's Report. Their recommendations will require considerable discussion with the local authority associations and in public, and only after that stage has been completed will the Government be in a position to reach final decisions as to the form which reorganisation should take. After it is enacted, there must he quite a long period while the new authorities are formed. If I may refer to the reorganisation of London government, I would point out that the new bodies came into existence, if I remember rightly, a year before they assumed their functions; the new body and the old body were in existence for a year at the same time.

A Bill will have to be drafted and brought before Parliament. It is easy to see, therefore, that it may be 1973 before the new authorities will be in a position to organise the new social work departments. The Bill to authorise this would necessarily follow the Local Government Bill, and it might well he 1975 before the new children's panels, which require the support of the new departments, could be set up. The problem of increasing juvenile delinquency was brought forcibly to the attention of Parliament in 1961. It was then stated that it urgently required attention, and to wait for the Commission's Report would mean we should in fact be accepting a delay of almost fifteen years before taking action; and that is something which we do not think would be justified. We therefore must proceed in anticipation of reorganisation and work on a basis which can be adaptable to the structure that will emerge. I think there will be fifty-six authorities under the Bill as it stands. If the Amendment were carried there would be thirty-five; that is, if we assume that every authority which has the power to set up a separate department in fact accepts it. This will be done only against the strongest advice of the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, pointed out that I was shaking my head at one point. That was when he said they would not have power under the Bill to combine with Aberdeen for this purpose. Undoubtedly they would have the power and one hopes there will be even more combination. It does not follow that because fifty-six authorities have a right to set up welfare departments they will do so.

May I deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, about probation committees? The fact is that in Scotland at the present time the burghs are authorities for the organisation of the probation service, but with the exception of the large burgh of Kirkcaldy no large burgh has ever organised op that basis. They have accepted the advantage of getting together with their neighbours, and that is an advantage which will exist just as much under this Bill as it ever did in regard to probation. The Secretary of State will feel that he has failed in his intention if there is not a voluntary get together. The important thing that the service should be organised in units sufficiently big to enable them to carry out their functions reasonably, and I think that is the point which has lain behind the remarks of all those who have spoken in this debate.

It is a fallacy to talk in terms of a large burgh being a small unit and a county a very big one. I wonder how many Scottish noble Lords are aware of the fact that the Burgh of Coatbridge, which for size is in the middle of the list of large burghs, has a rateable value which is greater than that of l4 of the 31 counties, and has a greater population than 22 of the counties. It is a mistake, therefore, to think that all the large burghs are small units. Arbroath is right at the bottom of the list. There was a special provision back in 1929 which enabled Arbroath to be made a large burgh. So we are in fact helping to create bigger units by making it possible for the large burgh to be a welfare authority. We think, therefore, that for the time being, until reorganisation reshapes the whole pattern, the comparison of size is not one which acts to the detriment of the large burghs.

I would repeat, however, that we think that in the long term the organisational units should be bigger. That is why, even under the Bill, existing counties are to be encouraged to combine; and we will give the same encouragement to burghs to combine with the counties, so that for this purpose there will not be any more separate authorities than are necessary to do the job. If time were unlimited, I could go into detail on a whole series of the arguments, but I think it is fair to say that the objection to the Bill is on the basis that the units will be too many, and will include too many which will be too small. I believe that under the Bill, even with the large burghs, with the encouragement to reorganisation we shall not have many authorities which will be providing an inadequate service because they are working from too small resources.

3.52 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation in this matter, but I must say that I think it will leave some of my noble friends, as it leaves me, distinctly puzzled. He says that we must proceed with this Bill. For my part—I think I speak on behalf of at any rate a number of my noble friends—I would not contest that. I think that at least we should get the structure going now. Then the noble Lord dealt with the question of the size of the unit. He has indicated, I think fairly clearly, that he would like to see larger units; and he said that the Secretary of State is going to give the strongest advice and encouragement to authorities under the Bill to combine. He thinks that there will be a good deal of voluntary getting together.

Perhaps I ought to ask the noble Lord this question. Is it not the case that some of the combinations that took place—for example, the combination of probation authorities in Lanarkshire—were brought about by compulsory order? I think that was so in 1945. I think we are also bound to ask him this question. Assuming that he does not intend to exercise compulsory powers in regard to combinations but is simply going to encourage them to get together, does he think that he will get these combinations under the Bill if large burghs are left with the responsibilities for social welfare? After all, presumably the purpose in opposing their inclusion is quite simply because the large burghs want to retain their responsibilities. Therefore, what reason is there to suppose that they will combine voluntarily? No doubt many of the counties will, as many of the counties have done already. If the noble Lord could persuade the Committee that the Government would be more likely to get combinations such as they want to see if the large burghs were to be left with their responsibilities than if counties alone were to be the authorities under the Bill, then I think that noble Lords would be inclined to agree with him. But I am bound to say that there is no evidence of that at all; and the very fact that the large burghs have opposed this proposal must be because they want to retain their own responsibilities in this regard.

I think we would agree with the noble Lord that the arguments are fairly evenly divided in this matter. On the other hand, the Wheatley Commission is sitting at the present time, and I should think that the Government must have some idea of the direction in which the minds of the Commission are working at present. I should also think, based on experience of previous White Papers which have been put out, that it is most unlikely that the outcome of their deliberations will be to recommend that at any rate some of the smaller of the large burghs should continue to exist as islands in a landward area. That seems most unlikely, and it is also something that is undesirable in the administration of social welfare in Scotland. Therefore, what I think my noble friends on this side feel, and certainly what I feel, is that under this Bill, so far as administrative areas are concerned, we ought to begin as we intend to go along; and if it is the case that at any rate the smaller of the large burghs will be extremely unlikely to remain as islands, then under this Bill we should see that they do not do so from the word "Go".

I have seen a statement that there is one large burgh with a population of 21,000, which had one part-time children's officer, one welfare officer and no children's home. That is the kind of situation that no one would want to allow to continue. If the only powers of the Secretary of State are to be powers of advice and encouragement to combine, then there is every chance that that situation will continue, and I think my noble friends on this side of the Committee feel that they have a duty to see that it does not. That is the view we take.

3.57 p.m.

LORD HUGHES

If I may briefly answer some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made, may I say that I find it difficult to disagree with the general tenor of his remarks. There is nothing strange about that, because we are both seeking to accomplish the same object. All noble Lords who have spoken are seeking to achieve the same object as the Government; that is, to have the most efficient units. It is true that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have to rely on persuading authorities to get together voluntarily. But I would remind noble Lords that this is one pattern in which the Government have taken an example which the Opposition set during their many years in power, that the usual way in connection with local authority combinations is to endeavour in the first instance to do it by agreement. A combination which is agreed is generally much better than one obtained by using compulsion.

It is not very long ago that we had a debate in your Lordships' House on the merits of compelling local authorities to get together for particular purposes, and it was not then argued that it was authorities which were large and viable which should be allowed to remain out. It was for other, perfectly good, reasons that they sought to keep out. I would agree that, on the face of it, it appear: to be against the Government's argument to give these powers to large burghs, some of whom the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, suggested will not survive the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission. I was in the company of Lord Wheatley yesterday at a meeting in Edinburgh but I did not discuss then—nor have I on the many occasions when I have met him—the Wheatley Commission. I am in no better position than anybody else to guess at what it is doing, and it would be wrong for the Government to act on what they think the Commission may do until the Commission itself decides what it is going to do. After all, it is not so long ago that the Commission heard the last of the evidence presented to it. Furthermore, perhaps it would be wrong far the Commission to say that it has finally made up its mind on what it is going to do. We all have our own ideas about what is desirable in this matter.

Without in any way claiming any knowledge on this matter, because I have none, it is just as likely that some of the smaller counties—and it might go a good deal further than that—have even less chance of surviving than some of the burghs. So in putting in the Bill only the counties, we are entrusting functions to local authority organisations which in some cases may not survive reorganisation. Therefore, we have a choice of giving it to bodies, some of which will survive and others of which will not, or of waiting until we know what the final pattern is going to be and doing nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has joined with me in rejecting that last argument as a reasonable alternative, when we have waited all these years.

I would remind your Lordships that the Secretary of State will be bringing in different parts of the Act at different dates on appointed days. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that before any of these appointed days are fixed, we shall know the Wheatley Commission recommendations. There will be a fairly considerable inducement to some of the authorities to see "the writing on the wall" and from the beginning to get a good department organised, even on a voluntary basis. There is a big difference between a large burgh getting together voluntarily with a county on a basis on which they can ensure that they have a reasonable say in the way in which the combined service is going to be worked, and going into a compulsory scheme where they may have a limited representation through their members on the county council, as, for example, on the education side of a large burgh. I think that in some cases the large burghs have at the back of their minds the idea of a voluntary arrangement which they can work out and which will be much better than something which is forced upon them; the power is placed firmly in the hands of the counties.

I have done the best I can. If I have not been completely convincing, it is simply because of the fact that there is no answer which convinces entirely on one side. The Government's case is that, taking all the factors into account (the time factor of which is the most difficult), this is one which is most likely—I can put it no stronger than that—to give us the best working units. We are creating an entirely different welfare service from anything which has existed before in Scotland or anywhere else. The degree of willing co-operation between authorities will be a very valuable feature in this matter. We think that bringing the large burghs in is not necessarily taking anything away from the counties, but that in some cases it will make it easier for the counties to provide an even better service than if they had the burghs with them under compulsion.

I hope that in these circumsances noble Lords will not press this Amendment, but will take the opportunity to withdraw it, perhaps to think further about it, and then, if they still feel very strongly about the matter, they can retable the Amendment on Report stage. The Government have considered this matter for so long that I am not basing my request on the basis that the Government will reconsider the matter. We have come to a firm conclusion on this, and we must abide by it. We hope that a further period of reflection will persuade noble Lords opposite that, although the Government are not perhaps 100 per cent. right in this matter, they are certatinly not 100 per cent. wrong.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his fair and interesting arguments, and I should also like to thank the noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken in favour of this Amendment. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, this is a question of balance. I am afraid that despite the eloquent plea by Lord Hughes he has not impressed me that the balance is on his side in this argument. I feel that it would be as well to put this Amendment into the Bill now. The Bill is at an early stage and, despite the noble Lord's remark that the Government will not consider this matter very much further, I hope that if we can amend the Bill in this way it might persuade him and his colleagues to reconsider it.

4.10 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Cromartie, E. Gridley, L.
Albemarle, E. Daventry, V. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Allerton, L. Denham, L. [Teller.] Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Dilhorne, V. Hives, L.
Amulree, L. Drumalbyn, L. Horsbrugh, Bs.
Ashbourne, L. Dudley, L. Howard of Glossop, L.
Balfour, E. Dundee, E. Ilford, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Ebbisham, L. Inglewood, L.
Bessborough, E. Effingham, E. Jellicoe, E.
Blackford, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs. Jessel, L.
Conesford, L. Falkland, V. Kilmany, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Ferrier, L. Lambert, V.
Craigavon, V. Forescue, E. Lothian, M.
Cranbrook, E. Greenway, L. Loudoun, C.
Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Ruthven of Freeland, Ly. Stonehaven, V.
Mar, E. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.] Strange of Knokin, Bs.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. St. Helens, L. Strathclyde, L.
Merrivale, L. St. Oswald, L. Swinton, E.
Milverton, L. Salisbury, M. Teynham, L.
Molson, L. Sanderson of Ayot, L. Trefgarne, L.
Mottistone, L. Sandford, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Sandys, L. Vivian, L.
Moyne, L. Selkirk, E. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L. Sempill, Ly. Windlesham, L.
Oakshott, L. Somers, L. Wolverton, L.
Rathcavan, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addison, V. Granville of Eye, L. Morrison, L.
Beswick, L. Granville-West, L. Moyle, L.
Birk, Bs. Hall, V. Peddie, L.
Bowles, L. [Teller.] Hill of Wivenhoe, L. Phillips, Bs.
Brockway, L. Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.] Platt, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hughes, L. Raglan, L.
Burden, L. Iddesleigh, E. Rowley, L.
Champion, L. Kirkwood, L. Sainsbury, L.
Citrine, L. Latham, L. Segal, L.
Douglass of Cleveland, L. Leatherland, L. Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)
Faringdon, L. Lindgren, L. Silkin, L.
Fiske, L. Listowel, E. Stonham, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L. McLeavy, L. Stow Hill, L.
Gaitskell, Bs. Maelor, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.) Mais, L. Wootton of Abinger, Bs
Garnsworthy, L. Mitchison, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

House resumed.