HL Deb 25 May 1976 vol 371 cc126-41

2.58 p.m.

Read 3a, with the Amendments.

Clause 3 [Implementation of reserve powers]:

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, line 2, after (" Agreement ") insert (" to take emergency measures in connection with the reduction, or threatened reduction, of fuel supplies ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in moving an Amendment to Clause 3(1), expressed concern about the present drafting of Clause 3(1)(a). I undertook to look into the matter and the present Amendment is the result of the Government's reconsideration. The noble Lord was concerned that the circumstances in which an Order in Council could be made under paragraph (a) should be clearly linked to the implementation of obligations relating to an energy emergency. As I explained at Report stage the Government consider it essential to retain a certain degree of flexibility. However, I believe that this Amendment would meet the Opposition's main point by making it clear on the face of the Bill that Clause 3(1)(a) is concerned only with the fulfilment of those international obligations which might arise in the event of an energy emergency. That has always been the Government's intention, as was explained at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, and I hope that by writing it into the Bill we shall allay any concern about the scope of the circumstances in which these powers would be invoked. I beg to move.


My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, this Amendment very largely meets an Amendment which I argued at the Report stage. He has, as foreshadowed, put it down. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for having arranged a two week interval rather than the original one week between Report stage and Third Reading because, looking at the Marshalled List before us, it has enabled the Government to bring forward Amendments in your Lordships' House to meet points which we have raised at earlier stages in the Bill.

We are particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House because he has clearly made good use of that time and must have been active in getting improvements to the Bill on the lines we had been suggesting. Although the Government have not met all the points, as will become apparent during our debates today, I must start by thanking the noble Lord for the great trouble he has obviously taken in getting the Government Amendments on the Marshalled List today.

This is not a matter for one or two industries but for the whole of British industry; the Bill affects the nationalised industries and the whole area of manufacturing and service industries which are dependent on the products of the petrochemical industry. It therefore also affects everybody who works in British industry. We feel that the improvements to the Bill have been well worth while and I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the correspondence which has been passing between us since the Report stage.

On this Amendment, I pointed out on Report that there was no provision in the Bill when an international emergency had ended. Under the arrangements of the International Energy Agency, the IEA, an emergency does not have to he declared, nor does its termination have to be declared; a state of emergency arises automatically when supplies drop below a certain level for any member country or group of members and it was that position which we felt should get rectified. I also mentioned that although the EEC had not so far made similar arrangements, it was expected that before long there would be a situation where an emergency automatically was registered where the EEC was concerned, too. Lord Shepherd asked for time to bring forward an Amendment. We welcome the Government's move in this direction but we do not believe that their wording is quite as good as the wording we had on Report, because as the clause will read with the Amendment it still will not set a time limit. However, it will tie the exercise of emergency powers loosely to the need to comply with international obligations and to take action in the United Kingdom in times of existing or threatened shortage, and this appears to imply that the powers should cease when the shortage of supplies ceases, so I commend the Amendment to the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.3 p.m.

Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) Subject to subsection (2A) below, neither the power of the Secretary of State to make orders under section I above nor his power to give directions under section 2 is exercisable unless an Order in Council under this section is for the time being in force. (2A) The power under section I to make orders regulating or prohibiting the use of any substance mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, or of electricity, is exercisable at any time, but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy. Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I think it would be convenient to the House if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 4 which stands in the names of noble Lords opposite. On Report there was a good deal of unanimity among us: first, that the Bill should contain provisions relating to energy conservation; secondly, that there should be a form of permanent power to make orders to control the use of energy; and, thirdly, that we should write into the Bill our declared intention to use the powers only for conservation purposes, and to consult widely before making an order. In moving an Amendment in rather briefer terms than those of the Opposition Amendment, No. 4, I would emphasise that I am in no way retracting the commitments to your Lordships on Report. This Amendment clearly incorporates the commitment to full consultation.

Noble Lords will see that while Amendment No. 2 would create a requirement for consultation with those who will be affected by an order, it avoids naming the energy industries, consumers, or particular advisory bodies. First, I believe that there is no point in consulting representative bodies unless the people they represent are affected. Secondly, we must recognise that in the course of time a need may occur to modify titles or terms of reference of such bodies. But having set up advisory bodies like ACORD and ACEC, naturally the Government will listen to their advice. I hope that it is not necessary for me to repeat all that I said on Report, either in welcoming in principle the spirit of a number of the provisions of the then Amendment No. 10, most of which we see before us today, or in pointing out our objections, both minor and more serious, to the provisions in that Opposition Amendment. All that I said then still stands.

One provision in Amendment No. 4 is, of course, new. That is the provision which would exempt from control, under the conservation provisions of the Bill, such natural gas as is already subject to a requirement for consent under Clause 8. I take it that the provision seeks to avoid overlapping controls on the use of gas. To that extent it deserves study. But it seems to the Government that we ought to recognise that there may come a time, perhaps years after a consent has been given, when it becomes plain that there is a need for conservation of gas to a greater extent than was allowed for when that consent was granted. It may he apparent to all, with hindsight, that the consent took insufficient account of the need for conservation. In those circumstances, I think the Government should have the power, subject to full consultation, to make an order about the conservation of gas and that the use covered by the consent should not he exempted from the order.

Amendment No. 4 again puts forward the idea that the energy conservation power should be taken out of Clause 3 and be quite separate, with its own controls. I share the desire that the Bill should be clear. May I explain the principle of the present drafting. Clauses 1 and 2 define the powers and Clause 3 sets out the limitations on the use of those powers. So, from a structural point of view, Clause 3, and only Clause 3, is the right place to set out which powers can and cannot be used for energy conservation and the limitations which should apply to any such use. The limitations which we write into the Bill on the way in which the conservation powers are to be used will be just as effective if they are exercised through Clause 3 as any other clause or any other part of the Bill. I hope I have said enough to persuade noble Lords opposite that we have not only gone as far as we could to meet the general spirit of their earlier Amendment, but that they will feel disposed to support the Government in their Amendment and will not press their own.


My Lords, it is in many ways a pity that we have to argue about the subject of energy saving, but of course it is one of the main declared purposes of the Bill; indeed, it was forewarned in the Queen's Speech that this is what the Bill would be introduced for. Let me say right away that 1 entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Government have honoured the commitments which they gave on Report and that they have gone a very long way, in introducing their Amendment, to meet a great many of the points which we made at that time. It was only after very careful thought and with a good deal of reluctance that, having read the Government Amendment, we decided to table a slightly modified version of the very long Amendment which we tabled on Report. They have written conservation into the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord rightly said, and this is the necessary justification for exercising the very far-reaching powers which the Bill is giving to them, and they are now undertaking to consult with " such other organisations as he ", the Minister, " thinks appropriate This is a slightly grudging provision which I think we have had to prise out of the Government.

In subsection (3) of our Amendment we have attempted to be rather more specific about whom we feel should be consulted. The degree of consultation—or the lack of prior consultation—has been one of the issues between us; and this was before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, intervened in the handling of the Bill. But I hope that he will not think me provocative if I say that the actual process of consultation leading up to the Bill has not been wholly reassuring. It has not been a terribly reassuring precedent, and the evidence of this is the number of Amendments which the Government have felt they had to introduce during the passage of the Bill through this House. So I hope that we shall not be accused of being unreasonable if a degree of suspicion persists about this matter. We also recognise that Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are alternatives; there is no getting away from that fact. I shall he sorry if, at the end of the day, we are in the position of having to suggest that the House should reject an Amendment which, taken by itself, represents a considerable advance over anything which has happened heretofore.

I now wish to deal rather more specifically with some of the points between us here. First, the noble Lord dealt (with greater clarity than has ever emerged so far) with the position in the Bill of the conservation powers. This is not at all an easy matter—it is not at all an easy Bill. What we have sought to do—and here we clearly do not agree with the noble Lord—is to disentangle the permanent conservation powers from what to me are the rather complicated convolutions of double and treble negatives which run through the first three clauses of the Bill. So the principle involved there, so far as we are concerned, is one of clarity and intelligibility.

We are saying that if a person is concerned about what are the Government conservation powers, he will be able to take the Bill, turn to the clause dealing with conservation, and there find the powers which the Government have taken to themselves to exercise in pursuing their conservation policy, whatever that may he. I do not believe that, Faith the best will in the world, it can be said to be at all easy for an ordinary person to unravel from the Bill as it stands just what these permanent powers are. As we have said several times, we are seeking here to distinguish the powers which are needed in international emergencies and domestic crises from those powers which the Government need to have on a continuing basis for the purpose of exercising energy saving.

The Government proposal is that one of the powers to deal with emergencies should be permanently exercisable; this is the power to control by order the use of energy for conservation purposes. I continue to believe that this is inherently rather a confusing way of setting about doing the job. The second point which we have attempted to drag in here, again pursuing the same philosophy, is to set out quite clearly the criteria which the Government might be expected to follow in exercising their conservation powers. Our Amendment sets out clearly that the power is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. This is obvious enough, and it also means that these powers have to be used constructively in the national economic interest, and that the orders to be implemented have to be fully evaluated before they are moved.

In our amended version of the Amendment we have said that the Secretary of State no longer has to lay before Parliament details of his calculations of these economic benefits. He has only to disclose the reduction in the consumption of energy which the order is designed to achieve. He also has to enumerate the advice he has received during his consultations. We think that this would make the administration procedure rather simpler than under our original Amendment.

In referring to our Amendment I must deal with one point under subsection (5) in relation to which there was a certain degree of confusion at Report stage. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd slightly misunderstood what it was we were seeking to do here. I think I ought to quote what he said as reported at column 757 of the Official Report: I am bound to say that I find ill-conceived the proposal that orders should be confined to persons or undertakings generally. He then went on to make various points about the lighting orders, and he ended up—and here I think that we were back agreeing with each other again—by saying that when all have got to be " clobbered ", when you are dealing with a narrow field, then all should be " clobbered ". He is saying what we are trying to do in this part of our Amendment. We are merely trying to say that an individual undertaking or person must not be singled out. but that if an order is being issued it must cover all the people in that general area. Did the noble Lord want to come back on that point?


My Lords, what the noble Lord has said teaches me the lesson that I ought to read my own speeches in Hansard. What the noble Lord quoted was certainly not my intention. What I was seeking to say on that occasion was that you did not " clobber " everybody merely to be able to deal with a specific problem in the field of conservation.


My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord said, and I must say that there is no more unrewarding activity that I know than reading one's own speeches, so I totally forgive him if he has not gone through that speech. I agree with the noble Lord that we would not want to introduce a regulation which meant that you had to " clobber " everybody in order to " clobber " a specific area or group of people. But equally if one goes the other way about it, one does not want to single out a particular person or a particular company and have the power to " clobber " them. I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this, but this is not something which one would want the Government to have the power to do. This is what that particular subsection of our Amendment is about. I have a feeling that we agree about that, even if we disagree about one or two other matters.

The other, perhaps the most difficult, issue in our Amendment is the question of introducing an element of Parliamentary control. We have now suggested that the Negative Parliamentary procedure would be sufficient for considering the introduction of orders under this clause. But what we have then gone on to say is that if the orders are to be continued, then that should be subject to the Affirmative procedure. The point there is a general administrative one and, I admit, also one of Parliament against Government. Obviously, this is a point which an Opposition find easier to agree to than do a Government. But what we are saying here is that if a series of orders is introduced, and if these orders are of a very wide-ranging nature which can have a great effect on a large part of the industry of the country, is it not quite a good idea, annually, to dust off the orders, have a look at them, see whether they are still necessary and justify their continuance?

My Lords, if one can be specific about the kind of situation we are in at the present time, I wonder whether we want to continue the specific ban on the use of electricity for advertisements: and I wonder whether we really think that the speed limits are any longer justifiable on the ground of energy-saving. There are many other reasons why one may want them, and this is precisely the kind of danger one wants to guard against. More debatable, perhaps, is the fact that there are still in force—though I have not ever heard of anybody actually enforcing them—regulations about the temperature at which you are supposed to keep your house. It seems to us that if you are going to have wide-ranging regulations of this kind there is quite a good case for saying that these things should be reexamined by Parliament on an annual basis, and that the Government should have to find time for Parliament to give consideration to such regulations as these.

Those are the basic principles underlying the reason why we would seek to reject Amendment No. 2 and hope that the House would agree to Amendment No. 4, although we recognise that Amendment No. 2 is a great step forward from anything we have seen from the Government up until now.


My Lords, I am going to leave it to your Lordships' House to decide whether the noble Lord is being reasonable or unreasonable. I thought he was less than fair to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis. They have always been available to the noble Lord for consultations in this matter, and I am well aware of the continuing discussion, consultation, that goes on between the Department of Energy and industry, whether it is oil or gas. Therefore, to suggest that consultation in regard to this Bill has been in any way limited does not, I think, bear any relationship to the facts.

The noble Lord himself admitted—did he not?—that I had gone a great way towards the spirit of consultation before an order is made, so let us look at the Amendment to which the noble Lord has spoken. Let us take subsection (2), which says: The purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. Is it conceivable that the Government or Parliament would accept an order when it was contrary to the economic advantage of the United Kingdom? I therefore suggest that we do not need to insist upon the Amendment to get that provision on the Statute Book.

Then, take subsection (4), which says: £shall also include a statement of the advice received£from each of the persons or bodies consulted£ We are asking the Government to enter into consultations with private and public industry. Surely the experience of the noble Lord—certainly the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—is that when one enters into consultations of this sort, particularly in sensitive areas of commercial practice, scientific knowledge and technological advance, one does so on the basis of confidentiality. Is it possible that Shell or ICI will disclose the amount of information that they now disclose to the Government when there is a provision that that information has to be disclosed to their competitors? Because if this Amendment is passed, it will be required that the Government shall include a statement of the advice received. I really cannot imagine that your Lordships' House would agree to that. I think it is fair to say that a Minister should give an indication of the reduction in consumption of energy that may arise from an order, but in this field the figures are hound to be speculative. When you put a provision of this sort into a Statute there is certainly a need for precision and accuracy, and I have to say to the noble Lord that I doubt very much whether any Secretary of State in this particular field could in any way he precise. He could give an indication, but he could not he precise as to what would be required if such a measure was put on to the Statute Book.

My Lords, in regard to subsection (5), 1 stand by what I said, or at least what I thought I said, at Report stage, and that is that when one makes an order for conservation one should seek to direct it where it will have the most effect from the point of view of conservation but one should not "clobber" everybody. I think that was the phrase I used. But this is what subsection (5), as I see it, would mean. In any case, subsection (5) is defective because for proper drafting you would need to include the word " classes ". You can apply a section only to classes of persons, classes of premises or classes of undertakings. But that is a minor matter.

My Lords, we come now to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I have never hidden my belief that Parliament should be very careful in its relationship with the Government and the Executive, whatever Party it may be, and should he able to exercise control, to interrogate Ministers and to put pressure upon them. I do not know how many orders may he made under this particular provision over a long period of time, but what the noble Lord is saying is that you can bring an order into being by the Negative Resolution procedure, but when you want to continue it you must have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. He is saying that you must have a debate in the House of Commons on every order that is made after it has been in existence for 12 months. I know that in this House we have a fair amount of time for this sort of examination, but one of the great problems of another place is shortage of time. I suspect that another place would much prefer to he able to decide what it wished to examine. It would not wish to be required to consider whether these orders should continue. They might want to discuss something of far greater importance.

It is true that if you do not have the Affirmative Resolution procedure then you have to adopt other ways in which such matters can be raised, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, knows that Question Time is perhaps the most effective way of raising these matters. If there is sufficient pressure, particularly from the Opposition of the day, then Governments can always find time; and if Governments do not find time then the Opposition itself has time in which these matters can be raised. So I would say to the noble Lord that if this provision is put in here merely to provide an opportunity for the matter to be considered, this Amendment is not necessary because it lies within the power of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House for these matters to be debated. to be considered, and for Ministers to be quizzed and pressed upon them. But I think that is quite a different thing from saying to another place, with all its shortage of time, " You must consider these matters willy-nilly ".

I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. I have gone nearly all the way with him in the spirit and the intention of his Amendment. All I have done is to deal with the problems that arise on it, not only in terms of the Bill and of what we are seeking but particularly concerning Parliament and the use of Parliamentary time. I hope that the noble Lord, on fresh consideration of what we have done in Amendment No. 2, will consider that we have met him in spirit. We have put our intention quite clearly into the Bill; and. wherever this particular matter may be put, the law is the law. We suggest, based on Parliamentary practice and the construction of Acts of Parliaments, that where you have powers you put powers into the clauses, and where you put limitations on those powers, you put them into a separate clause. That is what we have done in Clause 3. I assure noble Lords that the mere fact that this is included in Clause 3, as I am suggesting, does not in any way inhibit or reduce the power of that Amendment. I. hope that the House will agree to Amendment No. 2.


My Lords, may I ask my noble friends whether they have any precedent for the substance of subsection (4)? I cannot recollect any such precedent in legislation.


My Lords, I am in difficulty because I am not supposed to speak again; but, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be regarded as moving Amendment No. 4 rather than answering Amendment No. 2. I am bound to tell my noble friend that I cannot cite a precedent because I do not know of one. 1 am not saying there is not such a precedent. To the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have to give an accolade for his advocacy—


My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord, but I have been calling attention to the procedure on Report and Third Reading stages and in this I suggest that we stand by the rules of the House: that is, that we speak only once except when moving an Amendment or, in a particular case where a Minister can help by intervening he should do so by speaking a second time. On this occasion I suggest that we keep to the rules.


My Lords, could I then deal with that point and say that we agree with that, but it means that there Will be occasions when we will not want to agree to one Amendment being discussed with another. Had we not agreed to our Amendment being discussed with this one—which makes sense—my noble friend would have been able to move and to speak at the end. We must try to find the best balance between these two courses.


My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and, I think, the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, both raised the point about the conservation side of the Bill being kept. separate from the other part of the Bill. I agreed with them: but I think that this Amendment (No. 2) has gone a long way to meet the whole point raised. I think that we are now in the position when it is fairly clear that the Government are setting down the conditions under which conservation should be carried out.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has suggested that there ought to be a good deal more in the way of restriction on what. the Government may do; but, surely, the whole purpose of conservation of energy is to make certain that energy is conserved. If one is going to put the biggest number of impediments in the way of conserving energy then we are going to find that every advantage will be taken of making ineffective the proposals for conserving energy. Surely, it should be clear that the conservation of energy can be carried out in a way which has been proposed by the Government in the Bill and in this Amendment without infringing the rights of individuals. If we come to what various companies may wish, I think that is rather a different matter. I think that they might be prepared to use any procedure in order to block things; but I do not believe that they would really, under normal conditions, proceed to block things when we are dealing with the problem of conservation, unless the opportunity is almost wilfully put in their hands.

I would hope that we would not use this procedure of allowing every single order to lapse at the end of twelve months unless it was passed positively by both Houses of Parliament. In my opinion, this is totally unnecessary and would not really help the principle of conservation with which we must all be very highly concerned because, without that, we shall find ourselves desperately short of energy.


My Lords, perhaps I may now address myself to the Amendment, my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal having spoken earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised the question of the Affirmative Resolution procedure and the Negative Resolution procedure and referred to me and to my knowledge of the other place. I would say this. The other place is often pressed for time; but, also, Members of the other place are very often jealous of their right to have the opportunity of discussing certain subjects, and they pressed for the Affir-

Airedale, L. Clwyd, L. Hankey, L.
Arwyn, L. Crowther-Hunt, L. Hanworth, V.
Avebury, L. Darling of Hillsborough, L. Henderson, L.
Aylestonc, L. Davies of Leek, L. Henley, L.
Balogh, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Banks, L. Douglas of Barloch, L. Hoy, L.
Bradwell, L. Douglass of Cleveland, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Briginshaw, L. Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) Jacques, L. [Teller.]
Brimelow, L. Energlyn, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Brockway, L. Fisher of Camden, L. Kirkhill, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Fletcher, L. Lcatherland, L.
Burntwood, L. Gaitskell, B. Lee of Asheridge, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Gordon-Walker, L. Lee of Newton, L.
Champion, L. Grey, E. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Chorley, L. Hale, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
mative Resolution procedure in order that matters will come back to them in a certain way. I would suggest that this could be left as it is in our Amendment. The Bill is going to another place and it could be left for them there to address their minds to this point as well.


My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether lie will be prepared to withdraw subsection (4) from this Amendment, because I think it is a most undesirable Amendment, and one which would lead to a breach of business confidentiality. The Minister is asked to consult with " persons who appear to him to be representative of the energy industries." The type of advice (which they know is going to be published) that they will give to the Minister is not necessarily the type of advice that they will give to him when they know it is not to be published. I should prefer the latter as good advice rather than the former.


My Lords—


My Lords, I am sorry, we are at Third Reading. I did ask leave of the House to address myself to Amendment No. 4. The question is whether your Lordships accept Amendment No. 2. If you reject my advice, then it is open for the House then to consider Amendment No. 4. I feel I must safeguard the House in terms of procedure; although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, is trying to help in this matter.

On Question. whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Non-Contents, 79.

Loudoun, C. Redcliffe-Maud, L. Stamp, L.
Lovell-Davies, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Rochester, L. Stow Hill, L.
Maybray-King, L. Rusholme, L. Strabolgi, L. [Teller]
Norwich, Bp. Sainsbury, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Ogmore, L. Samuel, V. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Pargiter, L. Segal, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Peddic, L. Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal) Wells-Pestell, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Shinwell, L. Williamson, L.
Platt, L. Slater, L. Winterbottom, L.
Popplewell, L. Soper, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Porritt, L. Southwark, Bp. Wynne-Jones, L.
Rathcreedan, L.
Aldenham, L Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Norfolk, D.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Goschen, V. Northchurch, B.
Allan of Kilmahew, L. Greenway, L. Northesk, E.
Ashbourne, L. Gridley, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Balerno, L. Grimthorpe, L. Rankeillour, L.
Barnby, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Rathcavan, L.
Belstead, L. Harvington, L. Redesdale, L.
Berkeley, B. Hatherton, L. Reigate, L.
Birdwood, L. Hornsby-Smith, B. Romney, E.
Brookes, L. llchester, E. Ruthen of Freeland, Ly.
Campbell of Croy, L. Inglewood, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Carrington, L. Ironside, L. St. Helens, L.
Coleraine, L. Kinnaird, L. St. Just, L.
Cot tesloe, L. Lansdowne, M. Sandford, L.
Daventry, V. Lauderdale, E. Sandys, L.
de Clifford, L. Long, V. Selkirk, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sharpies, B.
Dormer, L. Lyell, L. Strathclyde, L.
Dundee, E. Mansfield, E. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Ebbisham, L. Marley, L. Strathspey, L.
Eccles, V. Merrivale, L. Teviot, L.
Effingham, E. Milverton, L. Vivian, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Monck, V. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Elton, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.] Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Willingdon, M.
Exeter, M. Munster, E. Young, B.
Ferrers, E. Newall, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.