HL Deb 24 July 1978 vol 395 cc660-75

22 Leave out Clause 12.

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:

23 Because the Assembly should be required to review the structure of local government in Wales.

3.26 p.m.


My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23 but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 6, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert— ("(1) The Assembly shall not, unless authorised to do so by order made by the Secretary of State, review the structure of local government in Wales. (2) No such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and opposed by resolution of each House of Parliament")

Our reasons for seeking by our original Amendment to remove from the Assembly the duty of considering reorganisation of local government and of reporting thereon to the Secretary of State are quite simple and are two in number. We recognise that all is not well with local government in Wales—you have only to read the Press to be aware of that—but we doubt whether the time is yet right for either reorganisation or the review upon which such a reorganisation should be based. That was a view strongly held by Her Majesty's Government themselves in their own White Paper of less than two years ago.

It is not only a question of the recently reconstructed local bodies themselves not having got fully worked into their jobs. There is also the Welsh Assembly itself. Either it is to be a nothing—a mere gloss upon the unchanged text of Welsh affairs —or else it will have a very considerable bearing upon the whole working of the very authorities Her Majesty's Government would like to review. That being the case, there really are very sound reasons for getting the Assembly established and familiar with its own work and with its communications and with authority over local government before it puts its hand to such a delicate and important task—and, I might add, such a politically delicate task as well—as drawing up a blueprint for local government reform. Two or three years, I should have thought, would be necessary to achieve a balanced view in this respect. The Members of the Assembly would then be able to approach their task with rather more knowledge of the present situation than is now proposed—which is, that it should be done by people precipitately arrived in a brand new job and anxious to wield a brand new authority as justification for drawing their brand new and self-determined salaries. That is the first reason.

The second reason is this. Even if the time is right for a second reorganisation of local government in Wales, and even if the Assembly was a well-seasoned body of many years' standing, I do not think that it or any other purely Welsh body should be given this task to do, any more than any purely English body should be given the task of drawing up the blueprint for the reorganisation of English local government. Too many voices of too much experience have been raised for us to ignore the dangers in that. It may well be that the Principality and the Kingdom ought to have different systems one from another. That is open to question. What is not open to question is that these systems must be compatible and that, whatever body outlines their future arrangements, it should be made up of men who are not only wise and experienced but who come from both sides of the Border. That is our second reason.

Now the Commons may disagree with us on the first reason, and I dare say they should be allowed to and encouraged in it. We have therefore drafted our own, new Amendment to give them the means of so doing even after accepting it, because what that Amendment provides is that Parliament shall determine when the time is right to hold the review and to submit the report. If they wish to do so tomorrow, they can; but I think and believe that wiser counsels ought to prevail. They may also not accept the second reason, but in this I think they would be profoundly wrong. I must say that I cannot see that it was properly answered when this question was debated last week in the other place. But they can still initiate a review if they wish under our Amendment and if they persuade your Lordships to agree with them. The new clause differs from the original in requiring Parliament to initiate the review and the report at the time that Parliament sees fit. No doubt Parliament will be prompted on the matter by the Welsh Assembly.

I would make two further observations. One is that the original clause was a direct instruction to the Welsh Assembly. Whenever we on this side suggested such a direct instruction we have been told that such a suggestion is insulting the Welsh. Is it not odd how selective that principle has been in its application? But what we are now doing is, I trust, less contentious than what we did before. It leaves a way out of every difficulty which was raised against the previous Amendment, and I commend it to your Lordships.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23 but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:

Page 6, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert— ("(1) The Assembly shall not, unless authorised to do so by order made by the Secretary of State, review the structure of local government in Wales. (2) No such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and opposed by resolution of each House of Parliament.") —(Lord Elton.)


My Lords, on a point of order. I know that it is irregular to interrupt but there is a crucial and embarrassing misprint on the Amendment. If the noble and learned Lord was about to—


My Lords, I was about to deal with it. It is always difficult to know whether to do so from this position or from three paces to the left. If your Lordships have no overwhelming objection, I will do it from here. There is a misprint in line 2 of subsection (2) of this Amendment: Instead of "opposed" there should be the word "approved".

The Question is, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 22 (as now amended) to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof.

Viscount AMORY

My Lords, the Amendments which my noble friend Lord Elton has proposed I am quite sure ought to be passed. The original Motion to omit Clause 12, on the first occasion in another place, was narrowly defeated. Then the Amendment to exclude this clause was passed by this House and I am informed that its acceptance was defeated in another place by only one vote. Every Welsh county, as far as I can make out, was, and still is, violently opposed to the original proposal to give the Welsh Assembly power to initiate proposals for further major reconstruction of local government in Wales; first, because of the conviction that any further major reconstruction is thoroughly undesirable in present circumstances where local government is settling down after the last reforms and, above all, a period of stability is needed in which the authorities and the staff can get on with the job for which they have been trained; and, secondly, because if any further reconstruction is needed, the Assembly cannot be the right body to initiate it. The Assembly will itself have vested interests and will be too much involved in local government to be a suitable body to undertake an independent review.

We all hope that conflicts will not arise between the Assembly and the Welsh local authorities. We cannot be sure that that will happen. The only answer that we have had is the old answer that the Assembly will be a responsible body and can be relied upon to behave sensibly. It is an answer which from time immemorial we have had from Ministers. I feel that that response was really (in the picturesque words recently used by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran) "cocooned in the fly-blown phylacteries of a bygone age". The Amendments that my noble friend has proposed, while not so satisfactory as a simple exclusion of the clause, will be a very great improvement on the clause as it was originally drafted. I strongly support these Amendments and I trust that they will be passed by your Lordships with an appropriately large majority.


My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has been good enough to quote my ecclesiastical reference in this House, I rise merely to contradict him on one point. He said that the counties in Wales were always satisfied with their position. That is quite wrong. It is as quoted in the other place by the Secretary of State for Wales, who referred to the fact that the county of Dyfed, 80 miles across each way, set up by the Conservative Party, was so dissatisfied with the position that a resolution was moved that it should dissolve itself—that the county of Dyfed should dissolve itself because of the misfortunes of local government difficulties that had been imposed on them by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are the authors of many of the misfortunes of Wales. I agree that this question of reorganisation of local government is a very delicate matter and there is good sense in saying that perhaps any reconstruction of local government should be postponed. But why is that not left to the common sense of the elected Assembly in Wales? Why should this House dictate to the Assembly of Wales, elected as it will be, I hope, as to the time? Leave it for them to carry out the reform as and when they think it necessary—my Lords, I made a mistake. It is not for the Assembly to carry out the reform. All that the Assembly can do if it takes on this task is to report to the Secretary of State for Wales; and there are safeguards in respect to the decisions which the Assembly itself may have reached.

3.38 p.m.


My Lords, having spent about 42 years in local government in Wales f may tell the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I should know something about the situation in the Principality. When I spoke on Second Reading. I gave a clear indication that the eight Welsh counties of Wales, of which I am privileged to be the President, were opposed to the Assembly reorganising local government. They felt, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this Assembly was being established and had had no experience and would be in every sense self-interested. I listened with great interest about proportional representation. I have never heard anyone among the average working class in Wales who advocated that.

I believe that this Amendment at least is a reasonable Amendment. It has certain safeguards. I believe that the original one was lost in another place by merely one vote at a very late hour. One vote would have decided it. There was a clear division. In the first place it was lost by seven votes, and in the second place by one vote. That was a clear indication that there was a severe difference of opinion even in the House of Commons as to the merits of the Assembly for looking at the reorganisation of local government. I have been privileged in the last four years (until 12 months ago) to lead a new county, West Glamorgan, where we built a new county from scratch. There were no officials. I was privileged to be its leader. I want to say to everyone here that in four years, at least, we solved the question of nursery education; and as I said on Second Reading 85 per cent. of young children get nursery education in that county. So far as its statutory obligation is concerned to the people it represents in the field of education, in all its new philosophies, we are meeting that requirement. In four years that county established itself.

I was indicating to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, only this morning that in his report at least that county has accepted its responsibility in bringing the arts to the people. There is no virtue in any sense of the word in destroying a county carrying out its obligations to the people it represents. Therefore I say from my long experience that four years is too short to gauge or to ascertain the question of whether or not the authority is proper. In the Welsh counties, both North, South, Mid and Dyfed, they are completely opposed to the Assembly. Most of the local authorities are district councils and are opposed to a new body with no experience whatsoever. There are some people in the House of Commons who have no experience of local government but they seem to speak like experts about it. I believe that this Amendment should command the support of the House.

I shall be addressing the Welsh counties tomorrow and I hope that I shall be able to say that at least there has been some common sense shown in the House of Lords in respect of the question of local government reorganisation. There is no need at this moment for any form of reorganisation of local government in the Principality. In the early days of my contact with the Secretary of State, when we were negotiating there was no indication of the question of an Assembly for Wales. There was no question of whether local government was going to be involved by the Assembly in any kind of reorganisation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other speakers that this body must be given at least several years to establish itself as a body within the Principality so that it will be possible to command support and respect. I hope that this House will remit this Amendment to the House of Commons, with the clear indication to the Secretary of State that both Houses will have some say. Is local government to be altered in Wales, which has been linked historically to England since 1888? Is there any desire in any sense of the word that there should be any difference in local government structure and responsibilities? I am certain that I am expressing the opinion of most people in Wales that they do not want the Assembly to look at local government reorganisation. I hope that this House will support the Amendment that has been proposed.


My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, before he sits down, whether in fairness to his past history and great experience in Wales, when speaking to the county associations tomorrow, he will make it clear as a well-known Member of the Labour Party, that he totally disagrees with the views of the Secretary of State for Wales, and therefore in this matter the Welsh Labour Party is split from top to bottom?


My Lords, the Secretary of State is the Member for my own constituency and he knows precisely my opinion on this matter. There is no need for the noble Lord or anybody else to tell him. He already knows my opinion on devolution: I disagree fundamentally with it. In the referendum I will be speaking against it. I am privileged to he treasurer of the Secretary of State's constituency and he knows my opinion.


My Lords, looking at this Amendment, it appears to me to he rather worse conceived than the original one. The original Amendment from your Lordships' House was perfectly clear. It said that the Assembly should not be entrusted with a proposal to reorganise Welsh local government. This says specifically that they are the appropriate body to carry out the reorganisation of local government in Wales.


My Lords, will the noble Lord read out the sentence which says that it is the appropriate body? I cannot find it, and I drafted it.


My Lords, it says: The Assembly shall not, unless authorised to do so … which says they may be authorised to do so. In being authorised to do so it is an admission that it is an appropriate body to do this. That is a perfectly clear argument. It seems to me that this is the case that is there now. What one does is to begin to put the obstacle in the way. Not for one minute do I concede that this is the right moment to proceed with the reorganisation of Welsh local government. I believe it must be left for some time before being carried out. If the Assembly is to be the appropriate body, look at the obstacles that are put in its way. If the Secretary of State says "Yes", then a positive resolution from both Houses of Parliament is required. It may be that one House will approve and the other House disapproves. I cannot think of anything more discordant than that for the future of the Assembly in regard to local government in Wales.

3.46 p.m.


My Lords, I very much hope that your Lordships will not give support to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It seems to me that the proposal in Clause 12 of the Bill is really a very moderate one indeed. Some of the speeches that have already been made this afternoon in your Lordships' House suggest that we are debating whether there should now be some reorganisation of local government in Wales. We are not discussing that at all. The provisions of Clause 12 are that the Assembly should review local government and should report to the Secretary of State. Two questions are raised by the inclusion of Clause 12. The first question is whether there is a need for considering whether there should be any changes in local government. The second question is whether the Assembly is the appropriate body to make that review.

The first question therefore is simply: Should there be a review? The evidence, as it seems to me, is overwhelming that there is in Wales a considerable feeling of unease as to whether the system of local government as now obtaining is the best system. Surely that is a matter for inquiry? Is the Assembly the appropriate body to inquire? We have various methods in this country when a problem arises. Sometimes there is a Royal Commission. We are very fortunate in this country that we can generally find a body of people who are impartial and able to approach a problem with some detachment, hear all the evidence and give an opinion. That is not the only way to investigate a matter. What is wrong with the suggestion that a body elected from all over Wales and able to accumulate a vast amount of knowledge and a great deal of experience should not review local government in Wales?

My Lords, what are we afraid of? Having looked at the matter, supposing the Assembly came to this conclusion: "There has been a good deal of unease in Wales, but our view is that that unease is quite unfounded". Would it not be a good thing if that was their view? Why are we afraid of having a review of the matter? Supposing they came to this conclusion: "All is not well and there is much to be said for reorganisation, but the time is not yet". Supposing, without going into the past and without being involved in Party politics as to which Government did what, and who was responsible for the present state of affairs, they thought: "All is not well; but it would be a mistake, so soon after this new establishment of local government, to change it now". Is that not a view that they might well take? Who is afraid of that? Supposing, on the other hand, they said: "There is an unsatisfactory position in the present set-up of local government", and supposing they made certain proposals. I think it cannot be said too often, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that we must not stop the debate there and think that that involves a reorganisation of local government. The matter then goes to Parliament at Westminster, and Parliament is in supreme control. Unless Parliament decides that there is a case, there would be no change.

What is the proposal now put forward? The previous proposition was to cut out Clause 12 altogether. The proposition now is to still cut out Clause 12 but to substitute something else. Instead of saying, as it does in the Bill, "the Assembly shall review", we should say, "the Assembly shall not review, unless" —and there is a two-fold "unless". In good humour, we twitted the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on Committee stage; he was possibly showing some mistrust of the Welsh people. But that was disclaimed and the disclaimer was fully accepted. But what have we got now? Instead of a provision that "the Assembly shall review", the provision is that "the Assembly shall not review, unless"—and here I come to the "unless".

We thought we had weaned the noble Lord, Lord Elton, from any position of always curtailing the powers of a possible Welsh Assembly and tying it all up. It almost seems as though whenever the noble Lord sees the words "the Welsh Assembly", other words flash into his mind. Those words are "shall not". But there is a dual tying-up. The Welsh Assembly shall not consider this "unless". I do so agree with the noble Lord who said that in this Amendment there is a tacit admission that the Assembly is competent to look into this matter. I could have understood it if there had been a suggestion that the Assembly must have nothing to do with it; but the suggestion is now that the Assembly is to have a lot to do with it "if", and that it shall not consider it "unless", first, the Secretary of State lays a proposition before Parliament and, secondly, that that proposition is passed by Parliament.

Why not leave matters as they are in the Bill at present and give the Assembly power to review and to report? As I say, the Assembly may report in the way desired by the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, for whose opinion I and, I am sure, all your Lordships have the greatest possible respect. No one speaks with greater authority about the affairs of Glamorgan than does the noble Lord. But what is he afraid of? Why should not the Assembly express a view? Ultimately power is with Parliament, and I hope that your Lordships will not take the view inherent in this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Welsh Assembly must be curtailed and manacled and must have all its powers literally worked out. Surely we must trust the Assembly to take all the considerations into account that have been set out in the debate, and give a fair summary as to what should be done and when it should be done.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I feel a little nervous following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, because he is such a great expert. However, he kept on referring to the review of local government, yet the wording of Clause 12 refers to the review of the structure of local government. Surely that is quite different, and surely to review the structure of something is going far further than just an ordinary review. I would suggest that that is a point he might perhaps consider.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, because I think that the Conservatives made a mistake in most of the reconstruction. Your Lordships may know that I fought that Bill very strongly, and so I can speak with a clear conscience about this matter today. I also served for nine years on the London County Council and I realised, when the change came and we had the Greater London Council, that a great deal of work had to be done. But there was a stepping-stone to help towards this. There was the London County Council well and truly established, having taken over from the municipal councils in, I think, 1930. So there was a background against which to place their suggestions.

I hope this Amendment will be supported, because I do not think it will make much difference in many ways to what is in Clause 12, because in both cases—and I hope the noble and learned Lord will realise this—it has to be reported to the Secretary of State for Wales. In other words, whether you accept Clause 12 or whether you accept the Amendment, you still need the approval of the Secretary of State; and as to whether it is necessary to have a Resolution of each House, I should have thought that would be helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Heycock, has a marvellous chance of putting forward his point of view, because finally in the Bill comes this question: Do you want the provisions of the Wales Act 1978 to be put into effect? I should have thought that if the noble Lord does not like this Bill he could easily gather together his cohorts in the county councils and so on, and encourage everybody to vote against it. He has a really good chance there, because we do not know at all—except for what the papers say—what the real feelings of the Welsh people are. But tomorrow, when he addresses the county councils, the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, will have the opportunity of putting his finger on the pulse of the Welsh nation, and I wish him luck.


My Lords, may I add just one point: surely the essence of reviews of structures of important organisations is timing. To have a review before one is ready or before experts consider it opportune to act on the results of such a review would seem to me to be the height of folly and to he very bad for the morale of all concerned.


My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I am second to none in my admiration of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, to public affairs generally, not only in Wales but in wider areas, and in particular to local government in Wales. I have known that from experience over the last 35 years or so. Nevertheless, I am bound to tell him that I agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-yGest, that there is a feeling of unease as to whether the system of local government and its structure in Wales is the best system.

We have debated this matter previously. The original Amendment would have removed the obligation on the Assembly to carry out a review of local government structure. But, at any rate, under that Amendment the Assembly would be free to review of its own volition local government structure. Under the present Amendment, it is debarred from doing so of its own volition, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has pointed out, and that is a substantial difference, if the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, will permit me to say so. As I say, the new Amendment positively debars the Assembly from carrying out a review of local government of its own accord.

No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will say: "If it gets the approval of the Secretary of State and of Parliament, it can then proceed." It is grudging. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has nightmares to excess about this. He almost has "Beware the big bad Assembly" written over his bed, and I think we have not so far successfully weaned him away from this unworthy suspicion, either of its potential competence or of its motivation.

What I think has troubled my noble friend Lord Heycock is the fear that the Assembly will proceed in a slashing programme of abolishing county councils and district councils, and of arrogating powers to itself. I know that he is opposed to devolution, but I submit to him that there is no ground for those fears if what is proposed in Clause 12 is carried out. All that the Assembly could do would be to review and to report. If it were to review and make recommendations, it would then fall to the Secretary of State, to the Government and—if a change in the law was required—to Parliament to proceed. Its role would be no more than advisory, and I respectfully submit that the Assembly would be well equipped to perform that advisory function. It would have very substantial functions conferred upon it in relation to local government, and in relation to important services provided by local authorities. Accordingly, my submission is that this Amendment is even more objectionable than the previous one, and reflects even greater lack of confidence in the Assembly. I venture to invite the House to accept the ever sweet reasonableness of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, on this matter and to resist this Amendment.


My Lords, Clause 12 of the original Bill, which has started this argument, contains one of the principal instructions given to the Welsh Assembly. It has been suggested that if it is left in the Bill nothing may happen for quite a long time, and what then happens may be a little remote. Since this is the principal, and almost the earliest, instruction, to suggest that it will not comply with it at an early stage is unrealistic in the extreme. The only way to counteract that instruction is to remove the clause from the Bill, and at this stage of the proceedings to substitute another.

The requirement that it should report its findings to the Secretary of State clearly implies that something constructive should be done with the report when it is received. No provision has been made, either in this Bill or outside it in the form of a Government policy statement, for any other body, English or bi-national, to make a review and submit recommendations for the reorganisation of local government in Wales, in England or in England and Wales together. The inference, therefore, is clear, that there should be an early review, an early report and an early reorganisation. Otherwise, there is no point at all in the exercise. That report, this Bill states, shall be made by a wholly Welsh body within a United Kingdom.

That cannot be wise, for reasons I have already stated and will not bore your Lordships with again.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in a high good humour which I entirely share, said that we are always slapping prohibitions on the Welsh Assembly, and he went on to equate this habit, which he thinks a bad one, with distrust of the Welsh. I shall seek later to explain to him the error of his ways. In this case, I shall merely say that distrust of Assemblymen is no more distrust of the Welsh than distrust of politicians is distrust of the English. In each case, the first attitude is a virtue and the second a vice. This Amendment differs from the last in leaving the decision, as to whether and when the review should be carried out, in the hands of Parliament itself. The last Amendment was rejected in another place by one solitary vote. I do not know whose it was, but I hope that whoever cast it will read the report of this debate, and then reverse the balance in another place when they come to vote again.

4.6 p.m.

On Question, Whether the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 23 but propose the Amendments on lieu thereof?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 77.

Adeane, L. Donegall, M. Henley, L.
Amory, V. Drumalbyn, L. Heycock, L.
Ampthill, L. Dundee, E. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Auckland, L. Eccles, V. Hylton-Foster, B.
Avon, E. Effingham, E. Kilmany, L.
Balerno, L. Ellenborough, L. Kinnaird, L.
Belstead, L. Elles, B. Kintore, E.
Berkeley, B. Elliot of Harwood.B. Lauderdale, E.
Bessborough, E. Elton, L. Long, V.
Birdwood, L. Emmet of Amberley, B. Malmesbury, E.
Bledisloe, V. Exeter, M. Mancroft, L.
Bridgeman, V. Faithfull, B. Margadale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Marley, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. George-Brown, L. Mashamof Ilton, B.
Carrington, L. Glenkinglas, L. Merrivale, L.
Clancarty, E. Greenway, L. Middleton, L.
Cockfleld, L. Gridley, L. Monson, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Mottistone, L.
Cottesloe, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Hanworth, V.
Daventry, V. Harcourt, V. Newall, L.
de Clifford, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L. Northchurch, B.
De Freyne, L. Hatherton, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Hawke, L. O'Hagan, L.
Digby, L. Hayter, L. Penryhn, L.
Porritt, L. Skelmersdale, L. Thorneycroft, L.
Rankeillour, L. Sligo, M. Trefgarne, L.
Rawlinson of Ewell, L. Spens, L. Trenchard, V.
Redcliffe-Maud, L. Stanley of Alderley, L. Tweeddale, M.
Reigate, L. Stradbroke, E. Vernon, L.
Robbins, L. Strathclyde, L. Vickers, B.
Romney, E. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L. Vivian, L.
St. Aldwyn, E. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
St. Davids, V. Sudeley, L. Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Sandys, L. Swinton, E. Westburv, L.
Selkirk, E. Tenby, V. Willougliby de Broke, L.
Sharpies, B. Thomas, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Airedale, L. Gardiner, L. Norwich, V.
Amherst, E. Gladwyn, L. Oram, L.
Amulree, L. Gordon-Walker, L. Pannell, L.
Aldwick, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L. Pargiter, L.
Aylestone, L. Granville of Eye, L. Parry, L.
Birk.B. Greenwood of Rossendale, L. Phillips, B.
Blyton, L. Grey, E. Rhodes, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Hale, L. Roberthall, L.
Brockway, L. Harris of Greenwich. L. Sainsbury, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hatch of Lusby, L. Samuel, V.
Burntwood, L. Henderson, L. Seear, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Hughes, L. Shinwell, L.
Byers, L. Jacques, L. Snow, L.
Castle, L. Janner, L. Stedman, B.
Clwyd, L. Kirkhill, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Collison, L. Leatherland, L. Stone, L.
Crook, L. Listowel, E. Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Swaythling, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Denington, B. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Edmund-Davies, L. Lovell-Davis, L. White, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.) McCluskey, L. Wigg, L.
Evans of Hungershall, L. McGregor of Durris, L. Wigoder, L.
Fisher of Camden, L. Mishcon, L. Wilson of High Wray, L.
Fletcher, L. Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L. Winterbottom, L.
Gaitskell, B. Morris of Grasmere, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.