HL Deb 03 July 1972 vol 332 cc1153-69

3.2 p.m.

LORD POLWARTH

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

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Polwarth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 5 [The rent rebate subsidy]:

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 33: Page 8, line 2, leave out from ("be") to end of line 3.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 35. The effect of these two Amendments would be to alter the wording on page 8 to the following: Subject to subsection (3) below, the amount of rent rebate subsidy payable to a local authority for any year shall be the local authority's standard amount of rent rebates for the year as defined for the purposes of Part II of this Act. That is accomplished by leaving out the first set of words and then leaving out the table which follows. As it stands at the present time, rent rebates will attract subsidy at the rate of 90 per cent. in the year 1972–73, falling to 75 per cent. in the year 1975–76 and thereafter. In justification for these percentages rather than complete reimbursement of the amount of the rebates, the Minister said that the position in the Bill is a considerable improvement on anything that has gone before, because up to the present the whole cost of rent rebates has had to be borne by local authorities. That is perfectly true, but I would remind your Lordships of what I said on Second Reading: that until the action taken by the previous Government to encourage rent rebates, local authorities in Scotland operating rent rebate schemes were very much in the minority, and many of the schemes were, to put it mildly, far from satisfactory.

The attitude of the previous Government in encouraging rebates was that the first step of importance was to get as many rebate schemes as possible, and by 1970 the position had become that a majority of those living in council houses in Scotland were covered by a rebate scheme of some sort or another. I am distinguishing deliberately between the number of people living in council houses and the number of authorities owning these houses or renting these houses, because the proportion of tenants was much greater than the proportion of authorities. The larger authorities had all adopted some variety of rebate scheme by 1970, whereas many of the smaller authorities, whose tenants, in the aggregate, did not amount to a great deal, were still not operating schemes. But I think we had reached the position where from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of tenants in Scotland were getting the benefit of a rebate scheme of some sort or another. I would not pretend that all of these schemes were satisfactory. Some of them in fact were little more than schemes in name. Like the Government's high cost subsidy, it was very doubtful whether many people would ever get any benefit from them. If one searched hard enough one, of course, could find the usual widow with fourteen children who would benefit by even the most remotely satisfactory scheme.

But we are now coming into a different situation. Because so many of the houses are covered by the principle of rent rebate, whether good or bad, the time is ripe for extending, as the Government are doing in this Bill, and extending rightly, the system of rent rebate as a right to be available to all tenants of all local authority houses in Scotland provided they can meet the criteria laid clown in the scheme. It must be an essential of any type of rebate scheme that an entitlement to a rebate will depend entirely on fitting within the limits of the scheme. But once it has been extended in this way to all tenants, and particularly when it is accompanied by the following clause (to which I shall not speak at the moment) dealing with the system of rent allowances out of the local authority field, this definitely brings relief of poverty from a rent point of view into the national field. As I said on Second Reading, it was the view of this side of the House that once this stage was reached it was retrograde to go back to a position where part of the relief of poverty was something which was to be chargeable to the ratepayers.

The belief of many of my noble friends —a belief which I share—is that as rents rise under the Government's proposal, an increasingly large proportion of the tenants of council houses will be entitled to rent rebates. I think that this will be inevitable, because as rents rise to much higher levels than they are at the present time it will be obvious to many people that it is a much better bargain to buy a house than to rent a house at a very high level. As we know, the number of people owning in Scotland at the present time is appreciably less than half the corresponding figure in England and Wales, and there is obviously room in the near future for a considerable expansion in the demand for house ownership. That in itself is something to be encouraged, but it will be deplorable if it is encouraged only to the extent that those who remain in the council houses are going to be the poorest section of the community. I am afraid that that is what is going to happen, because it may be that an overwhelming majority of people living in council houses will recognise that to buy a house at a cost of, say, £7, £8 or £9 a week is a very much better bargain than renting a house at £4, £5, or £6 a week. But unless they come into the category of those who can obtain a loan from a building society, it does not matter how much they recognise the merits of ownership if they are unable, through financial circumstances, to take advantage of those benefits.

On the information presently available would not care to make any prediction as to the actual proportion, but I believe that in the course of time we will reach the position where a majority of council tenants will be in receipt of a rebate of some sort or another. Having regard to the proportion of houses in Scotland which are owned by local authorities, this must mean that at least a very large minority of tenants in Scotland are to be regarded as unable to pay the full rent which is levied on them. In that sense, they are therefore among those who are needing relief from poverty, and it is our firm conviction that now that this stage has been reached the proper course is for this scheme to take its place beside other benefits of that kind which are being given assistance at a national level.

Earlier this year I attended a conference of the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Institute at Peebles. A paper was given there by a very distinguished former Chamberlain in Scotland who. I believe, has in certain directions been acting as an adviser on these matters to Her Majesty's Government at the Scottish Office. He gave a very interesting paper following upon which he was asked a number of questions. He also had thrown at him a number of allegations, one of which was that he had proved to be a better apologist for the Government than had the Under-Secretary who had responsibility in that field. I did not share the view that that was the role which that gentleman had taken on.

But he was asked one question which had relevance to the way in which I think these rebates and, by the same token, these allowances should be dealt with. He was asked: Where would the Government go with rent rebates, if the possible inquiry by a Select Committee, which he had contemplated might take place into negative income tax, resulted in something like that being brought forward? If negative income tax is accepted as being a desirable possibility, it is obvious that, when all the other reliefs are lumped together for the purposes of negative income tax, there will be no justification for putting rent rebates or rent allowances in a different category on their own. The relief of poverty for housing purposes would become part of the negative income tax, in the same way as anything else, and, perhaps next year or the year after, the Government would be accepting our contention that that relief should be accepted as a matter of national policy. The effect of Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 is to bring about that situation, by making the whole cost of these rent rebates reimbursable to local authorities. I beg to move.

3.15 p.m.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)

The noble Lord has argued, as we could perhaps have anticipated, that once it becomes an obligation to do what people are already doing voluntarily in regard to assistance in housing, the whole operation should be taken over by the State and rent rebate schemes should be 100 per cent. paid for by the State. I cannot see that that in any way follows. Local authorities have always had a responsibility for the welfare of their inhabitants and of course, in many ways, for helping those who are less well off. One can take a number of examples, from the small case of the home help right up to educa- tion and the like. So there never has been any doubt that the local authorities are expected to pay, at any rate, a share towards meeting the needs of those who are less well off.

The noble Lord talked about the relief of poverty. What we are seeking to do by the rent rebate and rent allowance schemes is to give an appropriate measure of relief to those who are in work, as well as to those who are not in work. The noble Lord might have argued—and, perhaps, it was implicit in his argument —that because supplementary benefit is extended to those whose resources are inadequate to allow them to pay rent, the whole of the amount should in the same way be extended to those who are in work. There are really two answers to that argument. The first is that the scheme is very much more comprehensive—as I have already said, it deals with those who are in work as well as with those who are not in work—and the second answer is that it is a scheme not only for the relief of poverty, but for assisting those whose resources may be inadequate to pay the full rent in particular circumstances. When one considers that this scheme provides for a minimum of 40 per cent. of the rent or £1, whichever is the greater, to be paid, and that, on top of that, 17 per cent. of the difference between the resources and the income is available, one can see that this scheme goes very much further than merely the relief of poverty. It is a scheme to implement the Government's belief that houses should be available for all according to their need, and that nobody should be denied a house which they need merely because they cannot afford the full rent.

But, quite apart from anything else, there is the fact that a large number of authorities are now voluntarily running rent rebate schemes. I am informed that some 189 authorities out of the 234 in Scotland are, at the present time, running rent rebate schemes and for that they are getting no Government assistance whatsoever. So it does not seem unreasonable —in fact, some people might think it generous—that assistance from the Exchequer towards rent rebate schemes should start at 90 per cent. of the cost of the standard rent rebate, and should then come down to the regular level of 75 per cent. In all the circumstances, I should have thought this was a reasonable proposition.

I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord in saying that, because at some time in the future there may be a negative income tax scheme, we should from the start anticipate what that scheme will be and give towards rents 100 per cent. assistance from the Exchequer. I do not believe that that is a reasonable proposition. We must take matters as we find them now and, in the light of the circumstances that I have indicated, particularly the fact that a large proportion of authorities are already voluntarily running these rent rebate schemes without assistance, it is reasonable that the Government's new scheme should provide for a regular 75 per cent. of assistance towards rent rebate, and generous that it should provide for 90 per cent. at the opening stages. So I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD HUGHES

I will not pursue this discussion very much further, because it is quite obvious that no amount of talk will get the Government to change their mind at this stage. I think only bitter experience will compel them to reverse action on this matter, as bitter experience has compelled, or is compelling, reverse action in so many of the other things they have done since 1970. But before proceeding further, I wish to take up just one or two of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He said that this was not a scheme for the relief of poverty, and then went on to use some such words as, "It is a scheme for those whose resources are inadequate for the payment of the full rent". If one could put that into simpler language, I would interpret that as a scheme to help those who are too poor to pay the full rent, and those who are too poor to pay the full rent are suffering from poverty. It does not matter whether they are in work or whether they are getting assistance from the State under the social welfare schemes, for example. I intend to come back to this subject at a later stage, when I have had an opportunity to examine the document issued by the Department of Employment showing that a family needs £30.99. That is what is being spent on average by the 7,000 or so families which they interviewed; and one of the obvious things is that there is a considerable number of people who are in employment whose income is less than £30.99. So in the modern sense, poverty is not something which is confined to the unemployed, the elderly or the sick: it extends to those families in which the husband or the father is in full employment.

Then the noble Lord tried another interpretation of this. He said that the Government's policy was that nobody should be denied a house adequate for their needs merely because they cannot afford the full rent. Once again, he is using another form of words which means because they are too poor to pay the full rent. Then, as justification for requiring local authorities to continue to pay part of these costs, he said that 189 of the 250 or so authorities (I do not remember the second figure, though I noted the first one, but it is roughly of that order) are voluntarily applying rebate schemes at the present time for which they receive no assistance from the Government at all. It is doubtful whether the use of the word "voluntarily" in that connection is strictly accurate. There was a period during the time of the last Government when local authorities had to have consent from the Secretary of State in certain circumstances to increase their rents. It was my responsibility at that time to be operating in that field, and in every case where a local authority sought approval to increase its rent, if it did not have a rebate scheme I made it a condition of its getting that consent that a rebate scheme should be brought into operation; and it was during that period that there was the biggest jump forward in the number of authorities applying rebate schemes. But if at that time the Government had not forced the issue on many of these local authorities, they would not be operating a rent rebate scheme to-day. So not all of them are doing it because they themselves saw the merits of it.

I do not think that any useful purpose will be served in arguing further about what is or what is not poverty in this connection. We agree with the Government that if rents go up there will be in increasing numbers people who cannot afford to pay the full amount of the rent. We agree with the Government that in these circumstances it is right that up and down the country there should be the same entitlement to apply for a rebate, irrespective of in whose local authority area a family happens to reside. We depart from the Government on the basis that this should continue to be something, part of which should fall on the ratepayers. As I do not believe for one moment that there is the slightest chance of persuading the

3.33 p.m.

LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 34: Page 8, line 5, at end insert ("together with the amount of the local authority's cost of administering the rebate scheme for the year.")

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 34 and No. 35 stand together. Their occupants of the Front Bench opposite to change their mind, I therefore prefer that we should register exactly where we stand, and I invite the Committee to vote on this Amendment.

3.26 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Gladwyn, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]
Archibald, L. Granville-West, L. Platt, L.
Ardwick, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Royle, L.
Arwyn, L. Henderson, L. St. Davids, V.
Avebury, L. Hoy, L. Samuel, V.
Beswick, L. Hughes, L. Shackleton, L.
Brockway, L. Hurcomb, L. Shepherd, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Janner, L. Shinwell. L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs. Leatherland, L. Stocks, Bs.
Chalfont, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.] Summerskill, Bs.
Champion, L. Tanlaw, L.
Chorley, L. McLeavy, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Moyle, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Faringdon, L. Ogmore, L. Williamson, L.
Fiske, L. Pargiter, L. Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Derwent, L. MacAndrew, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Drumalbyn, L. Macleod of Borve, Bs.
Alport, L. Eccles, V. Mansfield, E.
Auckland, L. Effingham, E. Merrivale, L.
Balfour, E. Elles, Bs. Milverton, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Elliot of Harwood, Bs. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Emmet of Amberley, Bs.
Belstead, L. Ferrers, E. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Berkeley, Bs. Goschen, V. Northchurch, Bs.
Bridgeman, V. Gowrie, E. Polwarth, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Grenfell, L. Rathcavan, L.
Camoys, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Reay L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Reigate, L.
Coleraine, L. Hatherton, L. Rockley, L.
Colyton, L. Hawke, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Courtown, E. Hood, V. Sempill, Ly.
Cowley, E. Howard of Glossop, L. Somers, L.
Craigavon, V. Hylton-Foster, Bs. Stonehaven, V.
Crathorne, L. Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Thomas, L.
Daventry, V. Kilmany, L. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
de Clifford, L. Latymer, L. Vivian, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Limerick, E. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

purpose is to apply to the rent rebate scheme the same principles as the Government have accepted for the rent allowance schemes. The Government are allowing to be considered for subsidy purposes the cost of administering a rent allowance scheme; but when it comes to the cost of administering the rent rebate scheme, the Government expect the local authorities to bear the cost. I cannot see a justification for that other than the argument which has already been advanced as justification for resisting the previous Amendment; that is, that this is something which local authorities are already doing. The wording of Amendment No. 36 is that which the Government apply in Clause 6, the only difference being to substitute the word "rebate" for the word "allowance". I do not think this Amendment is something which needs to be argued at great length. I submit it on the simple basis that if it is reasonable that local authorities should have the expense of the allowance scheme brought into consideration, I can sec no possible justification for refusing to apply the same formula in relation to the rebate scheme. I beg to move.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord answered his own question when he said that he could see no reason for the arrangement whereby the local authority will pay for the cost of managing the rent rebate scheme other than the fact that they are already doing so. Bearing in mind the extent of the assistance they receive, quite distinct from the rent rebate scheme, and bearing in mind that these are rebates on the rents of their own houses (as distinct from rent allowances) I should have thought that there was a strong case for this arrangement. This is a matter of opinion. I do not think it can be argued very much further. The second Amendment, the wording of which he has taken out of the rent allowance context, is necessary only if the principle of the first Amendment is conceded. So there is no further argument required on that. This is a matter of principle and we believe it is reasonable in view of the arguments I have already given.

LORD TANLAW

Before the noble Lord sits down can he advise me on whether this Bill and this scheme will create the need for further mechanisation in local authorities? I do not know offhand what percentage of local authorities are using mechanised accounting methods; but the complexity to which the noble Earl and I referred on Second Reading appears to create a need for further mechanisation. If so, local authorities may wish to buy a computer of some sort for the job. This is quite an expensive item. I wonder whether the noble Lord could advise me on this matter.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

My own local authority, East Lothian, is getting a computer to work out the rent rebates and allowances. It was on order before I came South to your Lordships' House. Smaller authorities with only a few houses could do the calculations simply; but an authority having 600 houses or more would probably need a computer for this sort of thing. This I understand is being done.

LORD HOY

Before the noble Earl sits down, can he say what sort of computer this is, what is costs and who is going to pay for it?

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I am guessing, but I understand it costs about £2,000.

LORD SHACKLETON

That is an abascus.

LORD LEATHERLAND

If I interfere it is because I have had something to do with computers in local government. I would advise noble Lords who are in touch with local authorities in this matter not to buy computers but to hire them. A particular model that we hired was replaced or improved by a subsequent model within a year or two and then, a couple of years later, was replaced by another. I had a similar experience at the university of which I am treasurer. We had a computer offered to us free of charge, but were simultaneously given the opportunity of acquiring a more up-to-date one; and we took the latter course. There is a risk in local authorities buying computers outright.

I should like to say a word (although I am from South of the Border) on the general question arising in this Amendment. It has been argued by Lord Drumalbyn that local authorities are already bearing the cost of such rebate schemes as they have in operation. But the rebate schemes now in operation are very small indeed. I was connected with an authority which had 16,000 public housing tenants. Of those, only 300 or 400 applied for rebate. Under the new scheme, an authority with 16,000 tenants will probably have to "means test" 10.000 to 12,000 of them. That is going to be a very big operation. It will bear no relation to what might take place under the existing voluntary rebate scheme. All this means extra expense and more employees. As has been said, it means the provision of some mechanical accounting system in connection with the sifting of applications. When all is said and done, it is a big scheme and will mean a lot of extra work being forced on local authorities by the Government. Therefore we feel that the Government should take the financial responsibility. As it is, the extra expense will fall on the rates. Several extra expenses have fallen on the rates during the last two years. They are 25 per cent. higher than when the present Government came into Office. I plead with the Government not to force this extra burden upon the local ratepayers.

LORD DRUMALBYN

So far from thinking that he was interfering, we welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and we take note of his wise advice to local authorities in Scotland about buying and hiring. On his second point, when he says that these rebate schemes are small, I can tell him that the largest local authority in Scotland, namely, Glasgow, has a very satisfactory rent rebate scheme in operation. All the major authorities are at present running schemes of this kind with, I think, only two exceptions whose names both begin with "A". The major authorities are running rent rebate schemes now, and, as my noble friend Lord Balfour said, it might not be necessary for smaller authorities to have computers at all. Those that are running rent rebate schemes have already made up their minds whether this is something which may be dealt with appropriately by a computer, so I do not think that the very valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, alters the situation in respect of this Amendment. The fact remains that it will be for local authorities to judge how best to manage the schemes and whether or not to have computers, if they have not already got them. I do not think there is anything I need to add to what I have already said.

LORD HOY

I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, say that we have very satisfactory schemes operating at the present time.

If he is correct, why are the Government trying to impose a new scheme? He followed that up by saying that Glasgow has a good rent allowances scheme. If that is so, why do the Government wish to interfere with it? It will not be outside the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, last week, that there was a meeting held in Glasgow where 40 local authority representatives made clear to the Government that they found every objection possible to this piece of legislation. They will not have it under any pretext. One does not want to encourage people to break the law we are here to pass laws and see that they are enforced. But so incensed are local authorities with this legislation that they are threatening to break the law. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that Glasgow has a good scheme I do not see why he or the Government wish to interfere with it.

May I draw the other conclusion to be taken from what was said by the noble Lord? He said that many good schemes are being operated at present and that they are being operated voluntarily. But, as a result of this legislation, there will be a complete change, and voluntary effort will go out altogether. The Government will impose their will on the local authorities, and if local authorities are to be imposed on in this way, surely the Committee feel it only fair that the Government should pay for what they want done. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would turn his attention to questions of that sort, because they are the questions which are being asked in Scotland.

LORD DRUMALBYN

If I may reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said, I would say that he must settle his differences in this matter with his noble friends on the Front Bench. I understood his noble friend Lord Hughes to say that his Party supported the idea of a national scheme.

LORD HUGHES

Yes.

LORD DRUMALBYN

If that is so, there are great advantages obviously in having a single model scheme to form the basis of all relief of this character given in the country. But it does not follow in any way at all that it should be paid for by the Government—

LORD AVEBURY

Why not?

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has only just come into the Chamber and he knows the argument as well as I do.

LORD HOY

It is still a good question.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I have already answered the question. I have given what we think is the answer to the question. The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion but we cannot agree with him.

LORD HUGHES

I will not detain the Committee on this subject for much longer. I would say to my noble friend Lord Leatherland, that we very much welcome his intervention in these matters. His experience in local government on this side of the Border is so great that we can all benefit from his intervention, because very often the problems North and South of the Border are the same. If this Government go very much further along these lines we shall find North and South being almost identical in the extent to which they disagree with what the Government are doing. I am not certain whether I can carry my congratula-

tions to my noble friend any further. Frankly, I do not think that he has any business to be here to-day taking part in a Scottish debate. I understand that this is his Golden Wedding day, and I think that he could be very much better occupied than being here to help us with Scottish business. If it is not totally out of order, I would suggest that we extend our congratulation to my noble friend and our thanks for the sense of duty which he has revealed.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put his finger right on the difficulty that we have with noble Lords opposite. After all, with the argument that they advance, the proper thing is to say, "Why not?", and the noble Lord said it. It did not matter about what the Minister had said before; he was just as wrong at the end as at the beginning. And so, in order that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may have the opportunity of following his voice with his feet, I propose to divide the Committee.

3.48 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-contents, 70.

CONTENTS
Archibald, L. Hale, L. Royle, L.
Avebury, L. Hall. V. St. Davids, V.
Beswick, L. Henderson, L. Samuel, V.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hoy, L. Shackleton, L.
Burntwood, L. Hughes, L. Shepherd, L.
Burton of Coventry, Bs. Janner, L. Shinwell, L.
Champion, L. Leatherland, L. Slater, L.
Chorley, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.] Stocks, Bs.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Summerskill, Bs.
Douglas of Barloch, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Tanlaw, L.
Faringdon, L. McLeavy, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Fiske, L. Moyle, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Gaitskell, Bs Ogmore, L. Williamson, L.
Gladwyn, L. Pargiter, L. Willis, L.
Granville-West, L. Phillips, Bs. [Teller.] Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.
Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Popplewell, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Clwyd, L. Derwent, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Coleraine, L. Drumalbyn, L.
Alport, L. Colville of Culross, V. Eccles, V.
Auckland, L. Colyton, L. Effingham, E.
Balfour, E. Courtown, E. Elles, Bs.
Belstead, L. Cowley, E. Elliot of Harwood, Bs.
Berkeley, Bs. Craigavon, V. Emmet of Amberley, Bs,
Bessborough, E. Cranbrook, E. Ferrers, E.
Bridgeman, V. Crathorne, L. Gisborough, L.
Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs. Daventry, V. Goschen, V.
Camoys, L. de Clifford, L. Gowrie, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Denham, L. [Teller.] Grenfell, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Mancroft, L. Reigate, L.
Mansfield, E. Rockley, L.
Hatherton, L. Merrivale, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Hawke, L. Milverton, L. Sempill, Ly.
Hood V. Molson, L. Somers, L.
Howard of Glossop, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] Stonehaven, V.
Hylton-Foster, Bs. Thomas, L.
Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) Napier and Ettrick, L. Tweedsmuir, L.
Kilmany, L. Northchurch, Bs. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.
Latymer, L. Polwarth, L. Vivian, L.
Limerick, E. Rathcavan, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Macleod of Borve, Bs. Reay, L. Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to according.

LORD POLWARTH

My Lord I beg to move that this House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.