HL Deb 21 July 1977 vol 386 cc548-64

7.37 p.m.


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 Winter-bottom.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]

Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 18, at end insert— ("(4) This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed.")

The noble Lord said: We have before us tonight a short Bill and, had it not been for the publication yesterday of the Carter Report, we may not have been involved in this Committee stage—at least with not the same vigour as I hope and believe we shall be. The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate an experiment in industrial democracy in the Post Office. Why the Post Office was selected it is not for me to say. However, the fact that they have a large majority of their employees in union membership may have been one factor in the Government's mind. The fact that it is a nationalised industry was no doubt another. Both those are good reasons.

The purpose of this Amendment, however, is to insert a new subsection at the end of Clause 1. I want to emphasise that it is not my intention, if the Committee is persuaded to agree to this Amendment, to delay the final passage of the Bill, let alone to kill it. I see no difficulty in this Bill, amended if that be your Lordships' wish, returning to the other place and for them to consider the amended Bill and return it to us before the end of the Session.


Is the noble Lord not moving to leave out Clause 1? Has that disappeared by now? Are we just talking about the starred Amendment?


No. I apologise for not explaining that point. I was advised before the Committee stage began that the two Amendments were printed the wrong way round on the Marshalled List and that it was incumbent upon me to move the Amendment first. Then we will consider whether to include the clause, amended or otherwise. However, I should say in parenthesis that the fact that the two Amendments are to be considered in a different order will enable me to telescope my two speeches together. I hope to cover most of the points that I would have made on the question of whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill in my speech now, and I will speak only formally—if at all—to the question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

First, I hope to persuade the Government to reconsider the merits of this experiment. Secondly, I hope to persuade them to allow the House of Commons another opportunity to consider the principle of the Bill. We might be questioned as to why we should do this because the Bill has only latety been through all its stages in the Commons, and we had a Second Reading only last week when I spoke and did not indicate at that stage my intention to move an Amendment such as this. I wish to explain that only yesterday the Report of the Carter Committee was published and that report impinges directly upon the content of the Bill. It seemed to me and my colleagues that an Amendment such as this ought to be inserted in the Bill this evening. I was only just able to table an Amendment yesterday evening so that it could be printed for today.

With reference to the report of Mr. Carter's Committee, we have not yet heard the Government's conclusions. Indeed, I imagine that the Government have not yet reached any conclusions. Yesterday, the right honourable gentleman Mr. Kaufman gave a Written Answer to a very opportune Question about this report from Mr. Wrigglesworth. Mr. Wrigglesworth wanted to know what action it was proposed to take in this connection. The Written Answer no doubt will have been read by some of your Lordships, and one of the points made is that the issues raised in the report are to be considered both by Parliament and by the country as a whole, and a period of approximately six months is to be allowed for representations to be made to the Secretary of State in the Posts and Telecommunications Division of the Post Office. The Written Answer went some way towards telling us where the Government stood, and it was clear that they had reached no conclusion on the content of the report and its recommendations.

My objections to the scheme of industrial democracy now proposed by the Post Office are objections not of principle but of detail. For example, I am anxious that the consultation procedures, and indeed the selection of worker-members, should apply equally to those employees of the Post Office who are not members of a union. I recognise that most Post Office employees are union members, but none the less about 10 per cent.—which is nearly 50,000 people—are not members of a union, and no provision is made in this experiment for consultation with them.

I am also concerned because it seems that consumer representation on the new Board is hardly adequate. Apparently there are to be only two consumer representatives out of 19 Board members, and we do not yet know how they are to be selected. I am equally concerned that there seems to be too much power vested in the Secretary of State, because he has to approve all the appointments to the new Post Office Board. However, as I have said, I would emphasise that these are objections of detail rather than of principle.

What of the Carter Report itself? It refers specifically to this legislation, and it does so in what can only be called derogatory and unsatisfactory terms. Apparently, the Committee members learned of the decision to introduce legislation only at a late moment in their deliberations, but nevertheless there was sufficient time for them to include their thoughts and comments in the report. I do not want to quote great tracts of what they have said, but if your Lordships care to refer to paragraphs 9.15 and 9.16 on page 68, you will see, from those paragraphs and others, that their views are very clear. For example, they say in paragraph 9.15: Had we been consulted, therefore, we would have recommended the Government to be cautious in encouraging developments in the superstructure of worker representation". Later, they say: We are strengthened in the view that the action taken was not well considered". There are many more quotations from subsequent paragraphs which f could use which are in a similar vein. So much for the timing question. I believe that an experiment in industrial democracy is desirable, particularly if it is an operation which is Well thought out and well timed; but I believe that neither of those descriptions can apply to this experiment.

I should now like to refer to the general points which, had we taken the point first, I would have raised on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? By doing so at this point, I shall spare your Lordships having to listen to a second speech from me later in these proceedings. If, in the fullness of time, an experiment such as the Government have described, and broadly as they have indicated, comes to be tried in the Post Office, I am anxious to know what procedures are to be used to determine who shall be the five independent members of the Board. We are already aware that two of them are to be consumer representatives, but I am anxious to know how the five independent members are to be chosen and what part the Secretary of State will play in their selection.

We know that the worker representatives are to be chosen by the Post Office unions. I wonder whether or not the Government are satisfied that the procedures used by the Post Office unions to select their officials, which are the procedures to be used for selecting their Board representatives, are equally suitable for the new selection process. I would not, of course, normally wish to interfere in the internal electoral affairs of the Post Office unions while those procedures were confined to the election of union officials; but now they are to be used for the selection of members of the Post Office Board, and therefore I believe we are entitled to know what procedures the Post Office unions use—for example, whether secret ballots are involved, or whether there is some less satisfactory procedure such as procedures we have thought fit to criticise in the past from this side of the House. What procedures will be used to consult with those workers who are not members of a union but who constitute some 10 per cent. of the workforce of the Post Office which, as I said earlier, must be nearly 50,000 people?

I am also anxious to know the scale of salaries to be paid to these new part-time directors. Will they be in line with the recommendations of the Boyle Committee? After all, the noble Viscount, Lord Boyle, and his Committee recommended a scale of salaries some two years ago, and those salaries have not yet been implemented, even in part—


If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he is understating the case: it is very nearly three years ago. These recommendations were made in December 1974.


I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. I was anxious not to overstate the case, and in my anxiety I seem to have understated it. Then, it is clearly even more important that the Government should state quite clearly what part of the Boyle increase, which was due in 1974—never mind 1977—the new part-time directors will be paid and, if these salaries are to be restricted in any way, whether the Government are satisfied that they will be in a position to attract representatives of sufficient calibre.

May I now briefly return to the Amendment on the Marshalled List? I am firmly convinced that the proposals contained in the Bill are defective, and it is for that reason that I invite your Lordships to amend the Bill so that the other place may have a further opportunity to consider it. I would also say that, since the Government's proposals are diametrically opposed to the proposals contained in the Carter Committee's Report, which, as I said, was published only yesterday, the Government, too, ought to think again.

It is not possible to dismiss the Carter Committee's Report as anything other than good and reliable, particularly from the point of view of the trade unions. The membership of the Carter Committee included a distinguished representative from the trade union movement, a Mr. Buck, and there was no dissenting voice from him on any of the recommendations in the report. Furthermore, there were 10 or more trade union bodies which were consulted by the Carter Committee and whose views are no doubt contained in the final report. It is for those reasons that I invite your Lordships to include the Amendment that I have put on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.

7.52 p.m.


The noble Lord opposite has paid tribute to Professor Carter and his report dealing with the Post Office. I join him in that, and I believe that the report itself is deserving of commendation and of the most detailed study. I would not normally have participated in this debate—and in the not too distant future this House will probably have an opportunity to give far more detailed consideration to the whole question of the Carter Committee's report—but in effect, the noble Lord is inviting the Committee to reject the present proposal to increase the number on the Post Office Board, merely because of his support for the Carter proposals. I do not think that that in itself justifies the steps that he is asking the Committee to take.

He said that he has no objection in principle to the arguments advanced by this Bill or to its basic purpose, but he has some objections to the method. I ask him to consider what would be the effect if the Committee accepted his proposal, and if we were able to defer the operation of this Bill. At once, we would exacerbate the whole situation. We would create added difficulties, so far as the trade unions were concerned. We would throw it all into a state of turmoil. I may go along with most of his arguments, but I am concerned that this Bill lays down quite clearly that there is to be an experimental period of two years. Surely the Carter proposals and the operation of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, can run in parallel. We would gain from the experiment, at a time when the Carter proposals are being considered.

I am sure that no one in this Committee believes that there will be final decisions on the Carter proposals in the next six months. There will be a far longer period than that, and I would express no personal criticism if it were a longer period, because we are dealing with very fundamental matters which affect not only the Post Office but every nationalised industry. So I hope that the noble Lord opposite will withdraw his Amendment, because, although he is entitled to his point of view, it would worsen the situation. It would create added difficulties in the proper, fair, full and frank consideration of the Carter proposals.

This will be an experiment, and we must not throw a spanner into the works now, after discussions over a long period of time, and say, "No, we are going to stop it, because of Carter." Rightly or wrongly, the Government decided to go along with this idea when the Carter proposals were being formed. I share the view that that was probably a mistake, but it is now done and the whole Post Office situation could be worsened, and the whole relationship between the staff in the Post Office, the unions in the Post Office and even users of the Post Office, could be undermined if we adopted this suggestion.

While I have full sympathy with the noble Lord's point of view, which urges detailed consideration of the Carter proposals, I do not think this is the way to proceed. This could have very serious and difficult consequences, and could make it increasingly difficult for a fair consideration of the Carter proposals. Therefore, I sincerely hope, in the interests of the Post Office—which I know the noble Lord has at heart—that he will withdraw his Amendment. If it is not withdrawn, I sincerely hope that this House will reject it.

7.57 p.m.


The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has argued that, since we now have the benefit of the Post Office Review Committee's thoughts on industrial democracy in the Post Office, we should postpone the implementation of the Bill for six months. While I think he is right to draw attention to the Committee's views on this subject, I think, for a number of reasons, that it would be profoundly undesirable to delay this experiment because the Carter Committee has taken a slightly different view of how it should work.

Let us consider the practical effects of this Amendment. It is the intention of the Government to appoint the members of the new Board as soon as possible after the Bill has been passed and the arrangements have been ratified by all the unions. We certainly hope to reach this situation in less than six months. If this Amendment were accepted, it would delay the procedure. Not only that, but if the experiment were to run for two years the period allowed at the end for review would be reduced. Surely, the importance of an experiment is in the analysis of its results.

The Amendment tonight will not stop the Bill from getting on to the Statute Book. All it will do is cut down the period of study of the results of the experiment, and such study is, perhaps, the object of the exercise. I am sure noble Lords will agree that to reduce this all- important period of review would be wholly undesirable; and I do not think it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that this should be the case. These are the reasons why I think that the Amendment has grave practical disadvantages. But I recognise that the noble Lord's main concern is that we should allow time for reflection upon the recommendations of the Carter Committee, and it is to that point that I shall direct my attention.

First, I must make clear exactly why the Government did not wait for the report before introducing this Bill. The Post Office management and unions were considering the possibility of an experiment in industrial democracy even before the Carter Committee was appointed by the Government. I believe that the Committee's reaction to the decision to go ahead with the Bill was an overreaction. They must have known that the subject was under discussion when they started work. It was clear from an early stage that there were excellent prospects of management and unions reaching agreed proposals, and these were presented to the Government in February of this year.

Recognising the degree of commitment which lay behind these proposals, the Government were convinced that this would be a worthwhile experiment and that it would be most undesirable to risk losing momentum by delaying its start. To have waited for the publication of the Carter Report would have ruled out the possibility of any Bill this Session. The Government decided that the opportunity for an early experiment in industrial democracy in a major nationalised industry was not lightly to be cast aside, and the Government therefore decided that they should proceed with the Bill.

At this point I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Peddie for the very concise and important statement which he has made on the results of the Bill. He is quite right in saying that study of the Carter proposals and the experimental period during which the Bill will run can take place in parallel; the experiment and the consideration can go along side by side. With the interchange of information arising from the experiment, the final decisions on Carter will doubtless be a great deal better than if the experiment were not to take place.

When we speak about delay, the noble Lord must remember the practicalities of the situation. If it is decided to implement Carter, the legislative load that will arise from it will be substantial. The Post Office Act 1969 is a massive document. It would have to be split into two and rewritten. I believe that it would be at least a two-year job before the Carter proposals could be introduced in the form of legislation. I beg the noble Lord—and, indeed, noble Lords on all sides of the House—to consider the disruption caused to the various parties concerned with the Bill, all of whom are now prepared to make it work, if suddenly they find that a period of unexpected delay is imposed upon them. It would cause a great deal of bitterness and concern and could be damaging in the future.

To underline the point that I am making, we are speaking here about a set of proposals which have been worked out by the Post Office management and the unions—the people who will be carrying out the experiment. The arrangements which they agreed upon, after long and detailed negotiations, represent, in the Government's view, a sensible and constructive approach to industrial democracy in the Post Office. They have been designed by those who have the closest possible familiarity with the needs of the Post Office—by people who have lived with the Post Office and not just looked at it. The Government believe that a scheme to which both sides are fully committed, as is the case with the Post Office, has the best possible chance of success.

There are areas of agreement between the proposals which are contained in the Bill and the decision as to how it should be implemented and the Carter Committee itself. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the views of the Carter Committee and has compared their ideas with the agreed proposals for the experiment. The Committee take the view that industrial democracy should start at the level of the Head Post Office or Telephone Area. As I understand it, they are speaking about organic industrial democracy, with which your Lordships' House is already familiar. The Government also believe that this experiment must not simply be restricted to the Board level arrangements which we have discussed. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister of State said at the first tripartite meeting last July that representation on the Board does not of itself create industrial democracy. It must be much wider and extend to all levels of the enterprise". At this moment it may be convenient to comment on the missing 10 per cent. which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would like to be consulted, although they are not in the unions. The percentage of employees in the Post Office unions is much nearer full representation than 90 per cent. When one takes the statistical picture on a given day, one finds that contained in the figures of employees there are a number of people who have just joined the Post Office and who have not yet got around to joining a union. At the other end of the scale there are the part-time workers who, by the very nature of their employment, are not desirous of joining a trade union. So of the established, full-time workers in the Post Office, the figure could be closer to 100 per cent. membership of the unions than to 90 per cent. That is the reason for the apparent gap between membership of the unions and the number of employees in the Post Office.

At this point may I draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 14 of the Joint Study Group Report, which is available in the Library of the House; The Joint Study Group has given priority consideration to the question of an experiment at the level of the Post Office Board because only at this level would new legislation be required. However, consideration is also being given to the Possible scope for extending industrial democracy at regional and local levels, and the parties have already agreed in principle to an experiment involving 'new style boards' at regional level". Since their report was presented, the Joint Study Group have been devoting a great deal of attention to the arrangements below board level, and I understand that they have now reached agreement on all but the final details of the arrangements which will operate at local level. These will involve the establishment of joint area policy committees which will enable staff to participate in the formative stage of decision-making on policy and planning matters of local concern. This is precisely what the Carter Committee has recommended. It is not diametrically opposed to the Carter Committee's views, as the noble Lord has suggested. I may have misunderstood him, but I believe that is what the noble Lord said.

Discussions of the arrangements for indistrial democracy at regional level are also well advanced, and I understand that the Post Office and unions hope that the participation structure covering all levels of the Post Office will be finalised and agreed soon. It was always intended that industrial democracy below Board level should form an integral part of the Post Office experiment, but priority consideration was given to the arrangements at Board level because it was clear that legislation would be required to implement the kind of scheme which the Post Office and unions had in mind. I would submit that this is a sensible course of action. It has meant that while the Bill was going through, management and unions could concentrate on the arrangements below Board level. Also, it made it possible for the full scheme to go ahead, without a long wait after it was finalised.

I have made a long speech because I am very deeply concerned that your Lordships should not accept this Amendment. We have before us a Bill which will allow to go ahead an experiment in industrial democracy in the Post Office, agreed by the Post Office management and the unions. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, believes that we should hold it all up while we consider the report of the Carter Committee. I believe that this would be entirely wrong. We would delay an experiment with which the management and the unions are eager to proceed and which was welcomed by all sides in another place. Moreover, as I have said, the experiment is limited to two years, at the end of which it will be reviewed. That review will examine the report on the experiment and will also take account of the views expressed by the Carter Committee. Also, by that time the Government will probably have come to conclusions on the Carter Report as a whole, and will be in a position to examine the whole question of the structure of the Post Office.

All we are asked to do today is to allow this experiment to go ahead. During the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, drew attention to a remark I made about moving out of the theory of industrial democracy into its practice. She said, "It is a very murky theory". I submit that we must not allow this Post Office experiment to slide back into the murk of theory for another six months. For this reason, after replying to one or two of the points which have been made by the noble Lord, I shall ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment.

The noble Lord has very kindly said that in order to facilitate business he would ask me the question which he would have asked on what was to have been his first Amendment. I have answered the question about the missing 10 per cent. He started by saying: "We have not heard the conclusions of the Government on Carter", Of course not; it appeared last night and, although expressions of opinion have been asked for, it is quite clear that the Government will need substantial time to collect voices and then consider whether a consensus has been reached.

The noble Lord has expressed the view that consumer representation is not adequate; but we cannot overload the Board. I think it may be too big anyway and two individuals who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are qualified to speak for the consumer would, in my view, have sufficient power to influence the Board as a whole. The noble Lord has said that the power of the Secretary of State is excessive. I do not think it is; the powers of Secretaries of State in general may be regarded as excessive, but the power of the Secretary of State in this case is no different from that of a Secretary of State in any other nationalised industry, because it is the Secretary of State who is responsible to Parliament for the overall performance of an industry and for that reason he must be allowed to reach final decisions on the individuals who will in fact exercise power in his name for the successful operation of a major industry.

The noble Lord also asked questions about the procedures for the choice of the five independent members, including of course the consumer members, and I think I answered that in the Second Reading debate. He asked whether the Government were satisfied with the union procedures. The Government are satisfied; in fact the procedures are already in operation because one of the major unions has already reached its decisions on the basis of the existing procedures.


Do the electoral procedures of the unions include provision for secret ballots?


The procedures which are going to be used are the ones that I mentioned on Second Reading. It may be the wish of the unions on certain occasions to use a secret ballot, but in this particular case some unions are using their established procedures for choosing union officials. It is absolutely clear; the noble Lord knows how it works, and we believe that because it starts at local branch level considerable power lies in the hands of the individual to be informed and then to express an opinion as to the type of man who will represent him on the Board of the Post Office after the National Executive of the unions has heard the views of its branch members.

Finally, turning to the question of salaries, I have nothing to add to what said in my Second Reading speech. Perhaps I could say it rather more clearly: the question of whether future salaries for full-time Board members will be sufficient to attract people of the calibre required is of course not specific to the Post Office experiment. The Government are aware of this problem and I am sure they will bear it in mind in reaching decisions on the report of the Top Salaries Review Body. It is a little early to decide on this matter.

I have tried to reply as best I can to a rather pungent idea injected into our discussions. I believe that whereas no one is questioning the noble Lord's view that perhaps a further period of thought might be valuable, nevertheless I believe, and I hope the Committee will support me in this, that a disruption caused by a sudden change of course at the last moment can only be extremely damaging to a circle of individuals and organisations far wider than the Post Office itself.

8.13 p.m.


I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and I will not repeat his arguments, with which I agree. I suggest to the Government that there is another reason why a delay of this sort—and I am not sure that six months is long enough—would be very wise in this important experiment. I hasten to add that to me this is a serious and worthwhile experiment which needs to be encouraged, but all the thinking and such experience as there has been so far in businesses of all sorts—and, after all, the Post Office is a business, and a very big one at that—is that one really must start the experiment from the lowest levels of the organisation and build it up to the top. I rather gather from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that there was at the same time a concurrent introduction of a Board at the top. All the evidence we have been able to gather in industry—and I have been looking into this for five years, and other people who are much more knowledgeable than I support it—is that you must get your roots thoroughly established before you bother with what happens at Board level.

It would seem to me, therefore, that there is every reason to delay the Board level experiment to make sure that the roots are properly established. This is neither the time nor the place to go into all the arguments about this and they are not superficial; they relate to such things as the difficult position of trade union members on top Boards retaining the authority within their union that they had before. They relate to the knowledge and experience required to run a big business, and such things as that. I rather feel that the Government rushed into this. They took the bull by the horns and rushed at it—at least that was the impression one got, although the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is shaking his head. I should have thought there was for that reason a great deal to be said for the delay, coupled with the main one put forward by my noble friend, that the Carter Report, if it is effective in any way, will make in any case a major difference in the top management structure of the Post Office, and that it is at the lower levels, where the differences will not occur, where the ground work can be laid for a really solid experiment. I genuinely believe that in order to make a success of the experiment the Government would be wise to hesitate and think again about this Board level introduction. For that reason I support this Amendment very strongly indeed.

8.18 p.m.


The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, answering most courteously, as he always does, the points that were made to him, said that in his view the delay would be damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, said that there would be union trouble, but I am not sure how that would arise. After all, if we succeed in including this Amendment in the Bill it will have to be approved by the other place; and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is saying that the unions would not be satisfied with anything passed by the other place. One of my most important purposes in moving this Amendment was to give the other place a chance to reconsider this matter. We can only do that by moving an Amendment because the Bill has already been through the House of Commons and, unless we pass an Amendment to it, it will not return there.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, did not persuade me at all. The noble Lord seemed to think that the alternative to this—what he called "modest proposal"—was a

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

8.24 p.m.

House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

Then, Standing Orders No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 13th July), Report received, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

massive new Post Office Bill. I agree that when, and if, we come to implement all, or the majority, or whatever part of the Carter proposals as take our fancy, it will indeed need a major piece of legislation; but if, in the meantime, having re-thought through the matter, the Government chose to introduce another Bill to implement only the industrial democracy recommendations of the Carter Committee, then it would not be a major Bill; it would be like this one, just a clause or two. As I have said, I believe that the important effect of this Amendment is to give the other place a chance to consider the matter again, and I hope your Lordships will agree with me.

8.20 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37; Not-Contents, 20.

Abinger, L. Denham, L. [Teller.] Newall, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Drumalbyn, L. Northchurch, B.
Alport, L. Elton, L. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Auckland, L. Falkland, V. Spens, L.
Avon, E. Hanworth, V. Strathclyde, L.
Belstead, L. Hawke, L. Swinfen, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Hornsby-Smith, B. Trefgarne, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Kinnoull, E. Vivian, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Long, V. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Colwyn, L. Lyell, L. Westbury, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Young, B.
de Clifford, L. Monck, V.
De Freyne, L. Mottistone, L.
Champion, L. Murray of Gravesend, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Collison, L. Oram, L. Stone, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.) Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Kirkhill, L. Peddie, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Ritchie-Calder, L. Winterbottom, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Segal, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Melchett, L. Shepherd, L.