HL Deb 01 July 1980 vol 411 cc229-45

3.5 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Reduction of compulsory up-rating of certain benefits]:

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 10, after first ("sum") insert ("and that sum is not chargeable to income tax").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has been detained for a short while and therefore I am taking over this particular amendment. This amendment would ensure that the 5 per cent. cuts in future years are not applied to benefits which have been brought into the tax net. It is apparently the Government's intention to tax unemployment benefit at least from April 1982. Yet Clause 1(4) gives power to make 5 per cent. cuts in November 1982, even though the benefit would already be taxed by then. The purpose of this amendment is to prevent this. I beg to move.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has explained, this amendment would ensure that no further abatements could be applied to a benefit once it is brought into taxation. In discussing this matter, we are going over fairly well-trodden ground. I hesitate to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who was so concerned at the Committee stage that we constantly referred to the need to make reductions in public expenditure, that that is the reason for the first five clauses of this Bill. They are reductions which we believe are an essential part of the Government's economic strategy.

In order to achieve these reductions, we have to make savings in the social security budget which presently costs some £20 billion each year and is equal to about one quarter of all public expenditure. As I have explained, the provisions in Clauses 1 to 5 of the Bill are being introduced to enable us to obtain these vital savings. All the other factors are secondary to this particular end. They indicate where savings can best be made, they are not reasons in themselves for the introduction of a particular proposal.

This is as true for Clause 1 of the Bill as it is for all the other clauses, with the exception of course of Clause 6. The primary reason for the abatement proposal in Clause 1 is the contribution it will make to savings in social security expenditure which we estimate to be about £130 million net in a full year. The fact that the benefits affected are not taxable was an important factor in deciding that these savings should be made in this way, but it was not the reason for proposing the abatement. It seems right to us, that, when savings in social security expenditure have to be made, part of those savings should fall on those benefits which ought to be taxable but are not.

My Lords, the clause will allow us to make further abatements in 1981 and 1982 but, as I have said before—and I reemphasise on this occasion—no decisions have been taken about this. We have at present no intention of abating any of the benefits once they are brought into taxation. But we must not lose sight of the fact that what we are concerned about in this Bill is the need to make savings in public expenditure, not the arrangements for taxing benefits. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that, no matter what the economic circumstances, further abatements could not be made once the benefits had become taxable. In view of all that I have said, I do not believe that your Lordships would expect me to say other than that the Government cannot accept this particular amendment.

I should like to make one final point. That is to stress that Clause 1 does not give the Government the power automatically to repeat the abatement proposals. It gives them the power, in subsection (4), to put such proposals to Parliament through an Affirmative Resolution. I have said that we have no intention of continuing the abatement once the benefits are brought into taxation. So we would only consider laying an

order under subsection (4) in the most critical economic situation. Such an order would have to be approved by both Houses, and your Lordships would therefore have an opportunity to decide whether the economic circumstances justified the order. We believe therefore that the Bill already contains adequate safeguards. I hope that, in view of the explanations I have given of the Government's policy in this matter, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, I should thank the noble Baroness for that detailed explanation, which is all right as far as it goes. The point here is—and this is the point of dispute between us—that we object to the present 5 per cent. abatement and the Government can rive no guarantee whatever that there will not be further abatements. We feel this is quite unjust and that to continue abatements in this field is not acceptable and therefore should not be continued.

The Government give no guarantee. They say the economic circumstances "may not permit", which shows a rather grim outlook as far as Government policy is concerned. If they are so confident about the effect of their economic policy they should not be afraid to say: "No further abatements": but they have no confidence in their own policy and we are faced with further abatements. We cannot accept the explanation and I will ask the House to divide.

3.11 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Bruce of Donington, L. Elwyn-Jones, L.
Amherst, E. Burton of Coventry, B. Evans of Claughton, L
Amulree, L. Byers, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Aylestone, L. Caradon, L. Fulton, L.
Bacon, B. Chitnis, L. Gaitskell, B.
Balogh, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Gladwyn, L.
Banks, L. Collison, L. Gordon-Walker, L.
Beswick, L. Crook, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L.
Birk, B. Crowther-Hunt, L. Henderson, L.
Blease, L.[Teller.] Darling of Hillsborough, L. Hunt, L.
Blyton, L. Davies of Leek, L. Janner, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Davies of Penrhys, L. Kaldor, L.
Bowden, L. Diamond, L. Kilmamock, L.
Brockway, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Leatherland, L.
Lee of Newton, L. Peart, L. Stone, L.
Leonard, L. Phillip, B. Strabolgi, L.
Listowel, E. Pitt of Hampstead, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.] Plant, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Rhodes, L. Underhill, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Ross of Marnock, L. Walston, L.
MacLeod of Fuinary, L. Sainsbury, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L
McNair, L. Seear, B. Wells-Pestell, L.
Maelor, L. Shinwell, L. White, B.
Milford, L. Simon, V. Willis, L.
Milverton, L. Stamp, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Ogmore, L. Stedman, B. Winstanley, L.
Oram, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Parry, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Alport, L. Faithfull, B. Newall, L.
Ampthill, L. Falkland, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Auckland, L. Fortescue, E. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Avon, E. Gage, V. Orkney, E.
Barnby, L. Gainford, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Bell win, L. Gisborough, L. Porritt, L.
Belstead, L. Glenkinglas, L. Reigate, L.
Berkeley, B. Gridley, L. Renton, L.
Bessborough, E. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Robbins, L.
Bridgeman, V. Rochdale, V.
Brookeborough, V. Hankey, L. St. Aldwyn, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Han worth, V. Saint Oswald, L.
Chelwood, L. Hayter, L. Salisbury, M.
Clancarty, E. Henley, L. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Hillingdon, L. Sharpies, B.
Clitheroe, L. Home of the Hirsel, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Clwyd, L. Hood, V. Soames, L. (L. President.)
Cottesloe, L. Hylton-Foster, B. Somers, L.
Craigavon, V. Ilchester, E. Spens, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Kemsley, V. Strathclyde, L.
Davidson V. Kilmany, L. Sudeley, L.
De Freyne, L. Kimberley, E. Swansea, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Kinloss, Ly. Swinton, E.
Derwent, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Trefgarne, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Long, V. Trenchard, V.
Dundee, E. Loudoun, C. Vaizey, L.
Effingham, E. Lyell, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Ellenborough, L. Macleod of Borve, B. Vickcrs, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Mancroft, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Ely, M. Marley, L. West bury, L.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Merrivale, L. Wise, L.
Energlyn, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L. Young, B.
Exeter, M.

The Question is that Amendment No. 2 be agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.20 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and such further increase as may be necessary in order to make good a shortfall in the previous up-rating").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which I beg to move, would require the Secretary of State, before making a 5 per cent. cut, to make good any shortfall in the previous year's up-rating. I do not want to rehearse everything that we said on this side of your Lordships' House during the Committee stage, but, as your Lordships will know, we do feel it is grossly unfair that some of the benefits, instead of going up in line with prices which for the coming November will be 16½ per cent., will in fact be reduced by 5 per cent. to 11½ per cent. As your Lordships know, they affect unemployment, sickness benefit, maternity allowance, invalidity pension and a whole host of other benefits. It is true that the Government have given an undertaking eventually to put the invalidity pension back to where it should be, but there is no undertaking as far as these other benefits are concerned. As it is customary —and if I may say so, it is laid down in the Social Security Act, 1975—for all benefits and pensions to be reviewed in time for a November up-rating, we are going to have a situation where there will be an eventual 5 per cent. cut in certain benefits.

However, what exercises our minds at the present moment is that the pensions, which are due to go up next November by 16½ per cent., will be going up at a time when there is every indication that the inflation rate will be anything but 16½ per cent. and is much more likely to be 20 per cent. or more. What we are saying is that, if the rate of inflation for the 12½ months up to this year's up-rating turns out to be more than 16½ per cent., the shortfall in the up-rating would have to be added on to next year's up-rating if the Government wanted to make another 5 per cent. cut. In other words, if the shortfall were 2 per cent.—and it will certainly, in our view, be as much as that—then the Government ought to make a cut in the following year of only 3 per cent. This seems to us to be very reasonable indeed.

These are benefits that are going to those members of the community who are more hard-pressed than anyone else. We have to bear in mind that the next up-rating on 24th November will be 12½ months since the last up-rating, and beneficiaries will lose two weeks of the up-rating which, in our view, should take place every 52 weeks. We do not feel it unreasonable to ask your Lordships to accept this amendment. That this shortfall should be made up is reasonable and if there is to be, as I said a moment or two ago, a shortfall of any degree, then it should be taken off the cut which is to be made in the following year in relation to certain benefits that will receive 5 per cent. less. I ask your Lordships to support this amendment which I think is reasonable. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.25 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this amendment. We have made it clear from these Benches on a number of occasions in the past that we think that a shortfall in the estimate of the increase in prices ought to be made good. If the Government's forecast is wrong, it does not seem to us that the recipients of these benefits should be the people to be penalised. As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has put it, it seems likely that this year the Government's forecast will be wrong and that inflation will be higher than 16½ per cent. so that, unless this amendment were passed, the loss to the recipient would in practice be much greater than 5 per cent.; it would be somewhere between 8 per cent. and 9 per cent. So for these reasons we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that this amendment is reasonable.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, there is only one other way to give equity and justice to the people who are most likely to suffer from the kind of transition from which the whole of society all over the Western world is suffering at the moment. The Government should have the courage, as we did after the war, to get a restriction on the prices in our shops. Even in our London hotels, the prices are destroying our tourist industry. In other words, will the Government do one thing or the other? Will they either agree to this amendment or do something about the rapidly rising and "rip-off" prices that are new seen in all our cities in this country, as well as in parts of the Western World? We here could do something about it, if we tried.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about the economy that is proposed at the expense of the maternity benefit. At the age of 82, I have no personal interest to declare, but it is generally known that keeping a family in these days is expensive, and as each week goes by it will become more expensive still. There are many very heavy household expenses to be borne at the time when a new baby arrives, so everything that has to be purchased for that occasion is now more expensive than it used to be and becomes more expensive with every month that passes. This is rather a miserable economy, so could not the Government drop it and just make an exception to their economy drive in this respect?

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that we again have this curious wording "compulsory up-rating". We then refer to a decrease in up-rating. It is to me rather like the chairman who said "There has been a noticeable falling-off in the lack of apathy". In other words, we have this confusion of the double negative. If we had an honest statement in the Bill of what we are really doing, which is making it impossible for people who have benefits to keep up with the increase in the cost of living, we should know exactly what we were talking about. After all, the benefit is up-rated only in order to keep people in the same position; it is not meant to give them any more.

It seems extraordinarily unfortunate that of all the groups in the community this group—whether it be somebody who is handicapped, somebody who is receiving maternity benefit and so on—is the one selected for not being able to keep up with the cost of living. We appreciate that there are to be economies made by the Government, but this, of all, seems to be the one which will fall most heavily on those who are least able to bear it. I feel that the Government will regret the passing of a Bill of this kind. Many of their Acts of Parliament will bring real sorrow and discomfort, but this is a very vulnerable group in the community.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that there is a great deal of difficulty in understanding the terminology of this Bill. I find it difficult myself. One can, indeed, describe the effects of Clause 1. One might say, of course, that everyone will get an increase although some people's increase will not be as large as others. That is perhaps not a way that the noble Baroness would agree with, but it is at least one way of describing it.

I am very glad that the noble Baroness said that she accepted that some economies have to be made. The fact is that the abatement of the up-rating next November for certain groups of people is for those groups of people who currently do not pay tax, unlike retirement pensioners, who do, and I think there is general agreement on both sides of the House that these groups ought to be brought into taxation. As I have already indicated, once that happens my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has said that, given that the economic circumstances will allow, he will make good the shortfall on the invalidity benefits.

Baroness PHILLIPS

My Lords, I wonder if the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. As I read this, it includes maternity allowance. Surely that is taxed. It is taxed as part of the family income.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, my understanding is that this is a short-term benefit, and these are short-term benefits that are not taxed. If I am wrong about that, I will certainly let the noble Baroness know later on in the proceedings, but that is my understanding of the position.

The intention of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is to introduce a requirement that any shortfall—that is, the difference resulting from an estimate of price movements between the up-ratings which turns out in the event to be too low—would have to be made good at the following up-rating. It does this by applying the 5 per cent. abatement to the amount produced by inflation-proofing and making good the shortfalls. It would therefore apply to those benefits which are to be abated as a consequence of this Bill. The term shortfall" is unknown to social security legislation, and is not defined anywhere in the Bill.

This amendment would not affect the forthcoming November 1980 up-rating at all, since in November 1979 all the benefits were increased by more than enough to maintain their value in relation to price movements over the period from November 1978. The amendment would be effective at future up-ratings only if a combination of hypothetical circumstances arose, that is, if the provisions of this Bill to abate benefits were used in subsequent years, which is possible under the provisions of Clause 1(4), and if at the same time there were a shortfall in the amount by which these benefits had been increased the previous year. It would be necessary to define the shortfall so that it did not include the effects of abatement. For example, next year this amendment would apply at the November 1981 up-rating only if the abatement provisions were used in 1981 and if at the same time there had been a shortfall in the November 1980 up-rating. If both these circumstances should arise, the Government would be in the best position to decide what action to take, in the light of all the relevant factors, including the economic situation prevailing at the time. In making that decision the Government would have in mind retirement pension and other benefits, and not just the abated benefits.

The noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, both asked what would happen if there was to be a shortfall this November. I would simply like to say at this time that the Government will consider what action needs to be taken were that situation to arise. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who is in favour of price controls and believes that the Government should either agree to the amendment or deal with higher prices by price control, is that price controls have not been successful in the past in keeping down the rate of inflation. And because various other methods, including price controls, have not been successful the Government have embarked on a different economic course which we hope will be successful. We hope very much that it will enable us, if we do get the economy right, to be able to be far more generous to all these groups of people affected by Clause l as well as in other parts of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, made a reference to maternity benefit, and I can confirm now to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that I was right. Maternity allowances are not taxed. I am glad to confirm it also to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. The point about these particular benefits, applied to Clause 1, is that they are the group that are paid that are not taxed, whereas of course the other benefits that are outside it are taxed.

I realise the concern that has been expressed in all parts of the House over this clause. It is not a clause that I think any of us finds easy, and we would all prefer to do without it. We believe that it is only the very difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves that make it necessary. We have been living beyond our means, and as a Government we are taking steps to cut back on our expenditure. We believe as a matter of principle that it is better that the Government should decide to do that rather than that some outside organisation comes in and tells us, as had to be the case in 1976, that we have to economise. That is why we are taking a conscious decision over all these measures. I hope I have said enough to enable the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to withdraw his amendment. The Government cannot accept it.

Lord BANKS

Before the noble Lord replies to what the noble Baroness has said, I should like to put a question to the noble Baroness. It is this. What is the argument in favour of not making good shortfalls? If one has made an estimate and it is one's intention to get the estimate correct and then to link the benefit to it, and that estimate proves to be wrong, what is the argument in favour of not making good the shortfall? Surely the only argument can be that the Government are saving money. But then one is bound to ask this. Is there anything which the Government would not do in order to make savings? That in itself, surely, is not a good enough argument. There must be another one.

Lord DRUMALBYN

May I point out to the noble Lord that this is the Report stage?

Lord BANKS

I apologise. I should have asked the permission of the House, and I apologise.

Lord UNDERHILL

I should like to comment on one or two things that the noble Baroness said. She made it clear that the reason for the 5 per cent. abatement is the question of the benefits not being taxed. There is no argument about that, at least as far as I am concerned. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am not going to argue figures again. But once again we must face the fact that a very large proportion of these short benefit claimants either do not pay tax or will not pay anywhere near the 5 per cent. abatement. Therefore, that makes the position of the shortfall of even greater concern to those people. I hope that point is going to be considered when noble Lords vote upon this. The noble Baroness also commented about the Secretary of State's assurance. I may be wrong on this—if I am, no doubt the noble Baroness will correct me—but I believe the Secretary of State's assurance in another place was in respect of the invalidity benefits and not to all the short benefit claimants. If that is correct, I hope it will be kept in mind when noble Lords vote on this issue.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I understand the statement has been cleared in the Commons. Would it be the wish of the House that I should put the Question now or await the Statement now?

Lord ELWYN-JONES

My Lords, there is a notable absence from the Government Front Bench of the person responsible for dealing with it.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry, my Lords. I thought my noble friend Lord Sandys was going to repeat the Statement. He had a document in his hand.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, from time to time the Government have relied upon this question of people not paying tax. The noble Baroness said only a few minutes ago, "like the pensioners do". I wonder whether the noble Baroness is in a position to say what percentage of pensioners in this country pay tax. My understanding of the situation is that a very small percentage of them pay tax. A good number of them, though not as many as should be, are in receipt of supplementary benefit. It seems to be only a question of finding the right kind of phraseology.

In recent weeks we have had many Bills from the Government that have been very complex and that in many respects have been drafted very well, so it cannot be beyond the competence of either the Government or draftsmen to draft a phrase which will establish beyond all reasonable doubt what we mean by "shortfall". After they have made an assessment of what they think the rise in prices will be by the following November, I think there is a moral obligation on the Government to make up the shortfall if their assessment was wrong. It seems to be a reasonable thing to expect them to do. I realise that so far as the short-term benefits are concerned, or any other benefit, they would not take effect from this November. They would take effect only from November twelve month. I do wish that the Government would look again at this matter because I believe it to be of vital importance to a large number of people.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, the noble Lord said that very few pensioners pay tax, but I am wondering what is his definition of the word "pensioner". All of us who receive an old age pension are pensioners. Those who have retired from their job, whatever it may be, may receive a pension. They are also pensioners, and they all pay tax on their pension. I should have said that the majority of people pay tax on their pension.

Several noble Lords: Not all do.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I can speak only by leave of the House. When I speak of pensioners I am thinking in terms of the 10 million people, or thereabouts, who are in receipt of state retirement pensions. That would include women over 60, either in their own right or as a result of their husband's contributions, and certainly men over 65. I do not think that we ought to assume that because there may be members of your Lordships' House who are in receipt of a state retirement pension and pay tax, this goes for a large number of the 10½ million.

3.43 p.m.

Baroness YOUNG

My Lords, by leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether there were any lengths to which the Government would not go to save money. When we were looking for savings in Government expenditure, we had to look at all aspects of Government policy. As I indicated in my answer to the first amendment, the social security budget stands now at £20 billion annually. We believe that it was right that this should not be exempt but should be looked at. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has, in an area where there will always be difficulties, looked at those parts which he believes will cause the least harm.

Regarding the noble Lord's point about the shortfall, he asked whether it was wrong not to up-grade and make good the shortfall, should it occur from year to year. As the noble Lord will know, there is no legal obligation at all to make good the shortfall. Indeed, the last Labour Administration got into some difficulties over this. It is a matter for the Government, when the time comes, to consider the matter. Governments of both parties have recognised that this is a matter of choice rather than a matter of law. That is the legal position.

What we should like to do is to be sure that we can make good the shortfall, whenever it arises. Indeed, in November 1979 we made good the shortfall. Retirement pensions were put up slightly more than the rise in prices to make good the shortfall. I hope that the House will take this as an assurance that when it is possible to do so we shall make good the shortfall, wherever it may arise.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill I hope that I made it quite clear, on the question of making good the shortfall and any loss, that this will apply to invalidity benefits in particular, once they are brought into taxation. I should like to make that clear. If, however, the economy improves we should want to look at all other matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked me how many retirement pensioners pay tax. I do not have the figures in front of me, but it is thought that perhaps half of the retirement pensioners pay tax. If this is not the correct figure I will write to the noble Lord. The point I was making is that retirement pensioners who are eligible for tax will pay tax. In the case of the other people in Clause I, no matter what their other income they

would get the benefit without having to pay tax.

We on this side of the House have admitted and agree that there is a measure of rough justice because some people will be affected. However, no matter what your income, if you are at present drawing an invalidity pension you will get the whole pension without having to pay tax upon it. That is the difference between that particular benefit and a retirement pension, and I think we are all agreed that that should be brought into taxation.

As I have already explained, it is entirely for technical and administrative reasons that invalidity pensions cannot be brought into taxation before 1982. I understand that it has to do with putting it all on a computer, and various other such administrative changes. This is being worked at now. It is a matter of regret that it cannot be done earlier. That is the best information I have and the reason why invalidity pensions cannot immediately be brought into tax.

I hope that I have said enough, overall, again to show the Government's good faith in the matter and to show that we have gone into it with very considerable care. We believe that it is right that this very large proportion of Government expenditure should not be shielded from all cut-backs but should take a share of them, of which Clause I is a part.

3.48 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 107.

CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Burton of Coventry, B. Gladwyn, L.
Amulree, L. Caradon, L. Gordon-Walker, L.
Ardwick, L. Chitnis, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L
Aylestone, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Hale, L.
Bacon, B. Crowther-Hunt, L. Halsbury, E.
Balogh, L. Darling of Hillsborough, L. Henderson, L.
Banks, L. Davies of Leek, L. Hunt, L.
Barrington, V. Davies of Penrhys, L. Ilchester, E.
Beswick, L. Diamond, L. Janner, L.
Birk,B. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Kaldor, L.
Blease, L. [Teller.] Elwyn-Jones, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Blyton, L. Evans of Claughton, L. Leatherland, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Fisher of Rednal, B. Lee of Newton, L.
Bovvden, L. Fulton, L. Leonard, L.
Brockway, L. Gaitskell, B. Listowel, E.
Bruce of Donington, L. Gardiner, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Strauss, L.
McNair, L. Rhodes, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Maeloi-, L. Ritchie-Calder, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Milford, L. Ross of Marnock, L. Underhill, L.
Milverton, L. Sainsbury, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ogmore, L. Seear, B. Walston, L.
Oram, L. Segal, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L
Parry, L. Shinwell, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Peart, L. Simon, V. Willis, L.
Phillips, B. Stamp, L. Wilson of Radcliffe, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Stedman, B. Winstanley, L.
Stone, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Exeter, M. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Faithfull, B. Newall, L.
Alport, L. Falkland, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Amory, V. Fortescue, E. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Ampthill, L. Gage, V. Orkney, E.
Auckland, L. Gainford, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Avon, E. Geoffrey-Lloyd, L. Porritt, L.
Barnby, L. Gisborough, L. Redmayne, L.
Bellwin, L. Glenkinglas, L. Reigate, L.
Belstead, L. Gridley, L. Renton, L.
Berkeley, B. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.) Robbins, L.
Bessborough, E. Roberthall, L.
Bridgeman, V. Hankey, L. Rochdale, V.
Brookeborough, V. Hanworth, V. St. Aldwyn, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Hawke, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Cathcart, E. Hayter, L. Salisbury, M.
Chelwood, L. Henley, L. Sandford, L.
Clancarty, E. Hillingdon, L. Sandys, L. [Teller.]
Clitheroe, L. Home of the Hirsel, L. Selborne, E.
Clwyd, L. Hood, V. Sharples, B.
Cork and Orrery, E. Hylton-Foster, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Craigavon, V. Kemsley, V. Soames, L. (L. President.)
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Kilmany, L. Spens, L.
Davidson, V. Kinloss, Ly. Strathcarron, L.
de Clifford, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Strathclyde, L.
De Freyne, L. Long, V. Sudeley, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Loudoun, C. Swansea, L.
Derwent, L. Lyell, L. Swinton, E.
Drumalbyn, L. McAlpine of Moffat, L. Trefgarne, L.
Dundee, E. Macleod of Borve, B. Tryon, L.
Effingham, E. Mancroft, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Ellenborough, L. Marley, L. Vickers, B.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Merrivale, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Ely, M. Mills, V. Westbury, L.
Emmet of Amberley, B. Morris, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.