§ 3.23 p.m.
§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]862
Lord Mishcon had given notice to move Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
§ ("Preparatory steps before registration of
§ .—(1) Application shall not be made for registration of a company under the 1948 Act or for re-registration under that Act or the 1980 Act until 21 days after notice of intention to apply has been published in the Gazette, stating the proposed name of the company.
§ (2) Any person, being a body the name of which is entered on the index of names kept by the registrar in pursuance of section 23 of this Act, may make to the Secretary of State an objection in writing within 21 days after the publication in the Gazette of notice of intention to apply for registration or re-registration, but such objection shall be limited to an objection on the grounds that the proposed name of the company is so similar to the name of the person making the objection that confusion is likely to be caused.
§ (3) The Secretary of State shall take account of any objection under subsection (2) above before deciding whether to permit the registration or re-registration of a company by a name to which objection has been made.").
§ The noble Lord said: Those Members of the Committee who were in attendance at a very late hour on Tuesday night heard from all sides of the Committee an expression of view that to rob the Registrar of Companies of the power to disallow a similar name was wrong, and the amendment now before the Committee is a long-stop to that amendment. In view of the attendance of the Committee at that time and the number of organisations which supported the amendment, quite apart from its looking as though it were an all-party amendment from the speeches then made, the amendment was then withdrawn so as to be dealt with at the Report stage. I think it would be an inconvenience to your Lordships' Committee, therefore, if I were to make a speech or to move an amendment which deals with this long-stop position. That is the reason why I shall not be moving this amendment this afternoon.
§ Clause 23 [Index of names]:
§ [Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 62:
§ The noble Lord said: I have the privilege to submit this very important amendment, which appears, from the names that are appended to it in the Marshalled List, also to be on an all-party basis. It is an amendment to Clause 23 of the Bill, which gives instructions to the Registrar of Companies to keep an index of the names of various bodies; and the object of this amendment is to restore the Registration of Business Names Act 1916 into this Bill so that the Registrar of Companies has to maintain a business names register. This register of business names, in spite of certain deficiencies, is and has been for over half a century an important source of information about business activities of firms. As those of your Lordships who are concerned with international business will well know, piracy in the field of business names and trade marks is a very profitable international growth business in this Elizabethan age. This piracy is more subtle, no doubt, than the piracy occurring in the first 863 Elizabethan age, but it is just as extensive and is very profitable internationally.
§ The operation of the Registration of Business Names Act 1916 and of the registry certainly helps to prevent the fraud and malpractices now so rampant in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, in the export trade and, of course, in the business activities of many foreign companies. So far the Government seem to have remained obdurate in their proposals to repeal the Registration of Business Names Act in the face of many representations from outside bodies concerned with trade internationally. I say at once that the Government have endeavoured to put in alternative steps to deal with this matter, but the suggestions put into this Bill by the Government are totally inadequate to deal with the position and certainly offer little protection to business creditors in this age.
§ In your Lordships' House at Second Reading many of your Lordships made strong representations to the Government in favour of retaining and strengthening the present business names system. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, dealt with this important matter in his winding-up speech quite shortly and with his usual charm and persuasiveness.
§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
I am much obliged to have that support. He indeed suggested that noble Lords who were opposing the Government's proposals were (to use his words) overlooking,perhaps naturally, the deficiences of the existing system".—[Official Report, 26/2/81; col. 1202.]His use of the phrase "perhaps naturally" as an aside in all these circumstances would, if I had the time and real incentive, tempt me to indulge in a careful analysis of its likely significance. "Perhaps naturally" does not apply to me, because I am well aware of the deficiencies and the advantages of the register in the course of my experience in international trade mark matters. The noble Lord went on to say, however, thatthe Government recognise the reality of confusion in the current situation".That certainly seemed to me to be a step forward. It may therefore be—and I am always an optimist—that the phrase which he used, "perhaps naturally", indicated that the Government may be willing to think again, perhaps quite naturally in the face of the furore aroused from and on behalf of industry in regard to their proposals to repeal this Act.
Confusion of trade names is of great commercial significance. This confusion can arise accidentally; and remarkable coincidences arise in the course of trade where a new company adopts the trade name of another one which has been in business for some time. I have personally been concerned with a large number of these cases; but the confusion is often caused deliberately and fraudulently. I think I can say positively that there is an international industry today where people set out to trade under names deliberately chosen to be like the trade name and trade marks of some well-known businesses. They deliberately set out to deceive and cause confusion so as to mislead potential customers into the belief that their goods are connected with the business of another person or firm. 864 This is known as trading on the goodwill of another company, and is a well-known fraudulent business operation.
The business names register affords a source of information as one means of helping to limit confusion in the course of trade, as well as fraud and malpractices. I hope your Lordships will allow me on this important matter to go into some detail about the Registration of Business Names Act. Your Lordships may not, all of you, be familiar with it. I apologise if I take up a certain amount of time, but I have here in my hand—and I must confess an interest here—the 38th volume of Halsbury's Laws of England, edited by a Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, the late Lord Simonds. It is dated 1962 and I am very familiar with it.
Your Lordships will allow me to say that I am the author of the several hundred pages in Volume 38 dealing with trademarks, trade names and design section. May I say at once that the book cannot be an authority because, under the legal jargon, a legal textbook can only be an authority if the author of it is dead. Now that I have confessed that I have in my hand a book largely written by myself, I am quite sure from the smile and the look of happiness on the face of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, remembering his distinguished career at the Bar, that he is happy to find that he has another opponent who has written a book. We all at the Bar are delighted if we come on to a case where the opposing counsel is the author of a book. May I turn to page 627? I shall be brief about this.
§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
This is a very important matter. If your Lordships' applause means that you are unanimously in my support then I shall sit down immediately; but I am not so sure that the applause was as great from the Front Benches of the Government; and it is to them and not to other Members of the House that I am directing my attention.
Under this Act, every firm having a place of business in the United Kingdom and carrying on a business under a business name which does not consist of the true surname of all partners who are individuals and the corporate names of all partners who are corporations, without any addition, must register with the Registrar of Companies. There is a similar duty to register imposed on every person having a place of business in the United Kingdom. The duty to register is also imposed on every company carrying on business under a name which does not consist of its corporate name without any addition—and so it goes on. There is a procedure for registration. It is very simple. The remarkable thing in this age is that the fees for registration and the fees associated with the registration are minute by present-day standards: £1 for registration; 25 pence for certain other formalities. It is about time that realism in some monetary sense was introduced into the finances of registration.
There are set out penalties for default of registration; and I say at once that there have been deficiencies in the system because there have been many defaults, hundreds who have not registered; and these have not been pursued. There is a penalty for false statements, for the disability of defaulters; and then it goes on to say how appeals can be made from the decision of the 865 registrar—not to the High Court, the expensive High Court, but to what is known in the section as the "Board of Trade" but which is now the Department of Industry. Then there can be the removal of the name from the register by the registrar. It is a simple procedure and it should be self-financing. In my view, it would be simple to make it self-financing.
May I give another example which has not yet been raised where the absence of a business register of this kind can affect United Kingdom trade? It is desirable for a trader before selecting a business name or a trade mark to make a proper search through all the available sources of information to see whether he is free to proceed. Business names, therefore, are potential obstacles to proposed new trademarks, and clearance searches would be less effective if the functions of the business names register were to disappear. It would definitely increase expense and may increase delay and produce frustrations which could damage the export potential. Again, the absence of a business names registry would mean that large companies would have to maintain a watching service for new names—which is expensive and time consuming. The proposals put by the Government as to how they can deal with this problem are, in my view, quite futile. This would not help industry to keep down prices.
Several commissions or inquiries during the past 20 years have reported to the Government on this matter. There is the well-known Jenkins Committee on Company Law in 1962, which recommended the reorganisation of the business names registry by increasing the fees. Then there was the Mathys Committee in 1973 investigating trade names and trademarks, which emphasised that the services in the registry were of considerable help to industry. The gentleman who chaired this committee was a distinguished chartered patent agent and deputy chairman of Courtaulds. To conclude: to abolish the business names register will leave companies with virtually no protection against a new business using a name confusingly similar to their own, whether this name has been adopted accidentally or deliberately. Overwhelming commercial arguments for retaining this registry have been presented to the Government. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to reconsider their proposals. I beg to move.
§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in moving this amendment. It is a paving amendment for the deletion of Clauses 28 and 29 and the substitution of Clause 29 by Amendment No. 102 and also for Amendment No. 158, which deletes the reference to the repeal of the Business Names Act. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has given a lawyer's point of view of the effect of the abolition of the registry. I think it can be said clearly that if the registrar is abolished there will be no central register of unincorporated businesses. This means there will be no access to information about a business other than from the business itself. The point has been made already that there is no reason why the registry should not become self-financing, and there have been many indications from businesses themselves that there would be no objection to a considerable increase in the size of the registration fee and a considerable increase 866 in the amount of search fee which at present is only five pence and could easily be substantially increased.
One may well ask why the Registry of Business Names is so important. One comes to look at the sort of problems which the consumers face. For example, one can take the case of somebody who has paid a deposit of £100 for the re-covering of a three-piece suite. This is an actual case reported by the Consumers' Association. When the customer returned to the shop the shopkeeper said that the business had changed hands, that he had no record of the deposit and would not accept the previous owner's receipt. The shopkeeper demanded full payment for the work before he would return the suite. The customer appealed to the local consumer advice centre who consulted the Register of Business Names. This enabled the customer to prove that the business was still owned by the same person. The customer was then able to take action to get her suite back in return for payment for the work, less a deposit. This is the sort of case which is well documented, where there is very real use for, and protection for the consumer provided by, the existence of the Registry of Business Names.
Great concern has also been expressed in many other quarters that people register a name, such as the name of a whisky, and then use it as a trade name. This can cause great confusion and many problems. We know that in the past there has been a low level of compliance with existing requirements of the registrar, but this has been considerably improved over the past few years now that banks demand that registration certificates be produced by those opening accounts. I understand that the level of compliance is up from some 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. I do not wish to take too long in speaking in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but I am sure that the proposal to retain the registry is something worthy of the support of this House.
§ Baroness Elliot of Harwood
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has said that this is an all-party amendment. Certainly I am speaking from these Benches with great conviction and experience in this subject, having been a chairman of the Consumer Council. I can also speak for the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who unfortunately could not be here. He and I were together on the original Consumer Council and I do not think that he would disagree with anything I have to say. In this amendment, and on this occasion, we have a group of all-party people. How many people on this side of the Committee are going to support me I cannot tell until the vote, but I am speaking with absolute conviction when I say that I do believe that what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is absolutely correct.
Since the Second Reading, when I spoke on behalf of the Consumer Council, I have received a mass of correspondence and information from a variety of societies; from the consumer groups, of course, because they were the ones I was speaking for—but also from the Law Society, complaining about the abolition of the Register of Business Names. I have also received documents from the Consultative Committee of Accounting Bodies, from the CBI, from a company named Dun and Bradstreet which is a firm dealing 867 with business information services. There are a great many organisations deeply concerned about this.
The Consumer Association runs a service based on giving help and advice to people with consumer problems, and at least half the inquiries which come before it have involved tracking down the company through the Register of Business Names. Another point is that a great deal of direct selling goes on involving goods bought by the consumer direct from a small company or trader, and, without the Register of Business Names, certain transactions could not take place. If the trader is dishonest the only way that the consumer has of tracking down the company is through the Register of Business Names. I believe one of the most important things of all is that anybody who wishes to start or run a small business and who wants to open a bank account has first to obtain a registered number. All these things are absolutely necessary.
I think it is quite unnecessary for this service to cost the Government any money at all. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has pointed out that only a ridiculously small sum of money is asked for at the present time. I would say that this register is so important that an assessment should be made of what it really costs, and any company that wishes to be registered and wants to open a bank account would be able to do so if it pays the fee. If we all had to pay, as we do now, £70 to licence a motor car, I am perfectly certain that most people would pay for a licence for their business without any difficulty at all.
I should like to quote from two letters, the first from the National Federation of Consumer Groups:We represent voluntary consumer groups in towns throughout the country, whose members are well aware that it can be extremely difficult but absolutely crucial for an individual consumer to find out who is the responsible person in a firm with which he or she is in dispute. It must be made as easy as possible for consumers and for those who act on their behalf to enforce the rights which have been given to them in both civil and criminal laws. While this register is by no means perfect, abolishing it would not improve the situation. We would very much like to see it centralised using modern technology, made self-financing and enforced".Another letter I have received makes the point:If it were not for this register, there would be no central register of unincorporated businesses. There would be no access to information about a business other than that available from the business themselves, yet objective information is vital to trade creditors in protecting themselves from the risk of dealing on open credit terms with a business they know nothing about".I do not think that this need cost the Government anything if they will look at it in a perfectly straightforward manner and charge people what it is going to cost. Certainly I think that anything which makes it impossible for honest people to deal with dishonest traders is something we should not allow. If we do insist on this and improve it—and of course there is room for improvement—it will provide a vital service to both consumers and traders, and to the whole business conception in this country. I hope very much that all will support this amendment and that we shall not do away with what is a vital matter.
§ 3.47 p.m.
§ Lord Davies of Leek
I shall take only two minutes. It must be realised that this on no account imposes a burden on small businesses. If that argument is being 868 put forward, it does not hold water. Somebody who knows a little about the commodity market and the modern use of telex will know that that can—as it does in the case of commodity prices—increase the word of a man; his word in a telex, and on the telephone internationally, is his bond. It makes it much easier to maintain the integrity of companies when the register is there and available as it has been up to now. Anyone who has listened to BBC radio on Monday morning will have heard the Checkpoint programme, which looks into fraudulent cases all over the country in which cowboy firms, without setting up business names and everything else, diddle people and destroy their happiness, sometimes even leading to suicide; these are people of small means who have been involved with bogus companies. I hope to heaven that the noble Lords opposite do not see this as a piece of "clean legislation" which will improve business. Here they can help by insisting that the register is kept. I said that I would take only two minutes and I have!
§ Lord Trefgarne
May I first deal with the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has moved and then come to the more general point of the register itself, which really hes at the heart of the noble Lord's amendment. The amendment itself would involve an enormous extension of the controls on names which have been applied in the past under the Companies Acts and the Registration of Business Names Act. It has never been unlawful, nor indeed has it ever been considered undesirable, to allow a company to be registered by the name of an unincorporated business. The index which the registrar maintains at present, and against which the names of new companies are checked, includes about 860,000 entries covering the names of those bodies which it is proposed in future to cover in the statutory index. This index has never included business names registered under the Registration of Business Names Act, of which there are now some 2,600,000.
A business name is no more than a trading convenience. Throughout the country there must be countless instances in which different businesses are trading under the same name. For example, the Castle Tea Shoppe or Phoenix Garage. The Registrar of Business Names has power to refuse to register an "undesirable" business name, but has never held that a name of this sort is undesirable simply because it is already in use. The broad purpose of the Registration of Business Names Act 1916 was to enable the public to identify the true owners of a particular business, whatever the name it used. It was not, and has never been, the effect of that Act to preclude two businesses from using the same name.
In the same way, there has been no legal obstacle to the registration of a company by a name on the Register of Business Names. There is no cross-check between the two indices. The name of a company, on the other hand, identifies its corporate personality. As such, it is important in legal processes and the registrar has always sought to secure that no two companies are registered by the same name, and under the Government's proposals this will be prohibited by the combined effect of Clauses 22 and 23.
I am afraid that the noble Lord's proposal would be quite impracticable without considerable investment 869 and extra staff. To start with, it would involve a combination of the existing indices of companies and of business names, to produce a massive index of upwards of 3½ million entries. Thereafter, the noble Lord is proposing that on a continuing basis the user of any business name should be required to send it to the registrar. How could such an obligation be enforced in the absence of a registration requirement? Even under the present system, we know that the Register of Business Names is largely defective. The outcome would be a vast and unreliable index. It would severely restrict the area within which companies are free to select their names and it would not serve the purpose of either of the registers which are at present maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, made it clear that the amendment relates only to the names of businesses within the meaning of the Registration of Business Names Act; it does not require that that register be maintained. The present Registry of Business Names does not seek to avoid confusion. Many names are duplicated, as I have already said, solely to identify who owns which business. It must not be confused with the Companies Registry or the Trade Marks Registry. Putting all these names on the companies register would merely confound the position.
May I turn now to some of the more general points in relation to the Register of Business Names? The reason for closing the registry is that since its operation cannot be made wholly effective under legislation, the Government, in assessing their priorities, have decided that it is preferable to admit this fact and, by the closure, save 65 staff and put public spending in line with Government policy to reduce their demand on national resources.
Clause 28 defines the circumstances in which persons will be considered to be carrying on a business under a business name, and specifies the conditions under which certain business names cannot be used without the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government, while believing that a central registry can no longer be maintained, recognise the need for details of the ownership of a business, particularly for the purpose of legal proceedings, to be available to the public. A consultative document published by the Department of Trade in April 1980, accordingly proposed that a new legal requirement should be introduced; namely, that the names and addresses of the proprietors of businesses carried on under a name other than that of the owners should be displayed at the place or places of business and on business communications. In addition, customers should be given a legal right to require such information in writing in cases where they would not normally have access to the firm's place of business; for example, in the case of doorstep sales.
My noble friend Lady Elliot made a number of points, particularly on the financial implications of these proposals. Other noble Lords (I think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby) referred to the possibility of putting up the cost of the present registration arrangements. That matter was also referred to at Second Reading. Several noble Lords have suggested that if the charge were raised to, say, £6 or a higher figure, that would cover the present costs. So it might; but the fact is that the scale of operation which is presently 870 relied upon is wholly inadequate. I have referred to the number of staff who are presently employed on this business. The fact of the matter is that if the system is to be made effective, we should have to increase the number of staff very substantially. Thus the figure of £6 or so, to which noble Lords referred, would be wholly inadequate to cover what we believe would be necessary if the scheme, as noble Lords envisage it, were to be made to operate on the present basis.
It is the case that 40 per cent. or so of the entries in the present Register of Business Names are thought to be defective for one reason or another. If we were to eliminate all those defects, that means something upwards of 1 million of the present entries would need to be investigated, their errors rectified and, if necessary, the perpetrators of those errors taken to court. Is it really thought that the cost of all that operation should be placed upon the shoulders of the small businesses involved? Remember, we are dealing only with the owners of small businesses who are trading under names other than their own. It is the case that the Register of Business Names has never sought to be a comprehensive register of unincorporated businesses, it is only a register of unincorporated businesses trading under a name other than that of the proprietor himself. The suggestion that we are doing away with what is a comprehensive register is not one that can be sustained. I believe that these difficulties and drawbacks are sufficient to justify the Government's policy in this matter, and I hope that your Lordships will reject this amendment.
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
May I pick up a point raised by the noble Lord? On the basis of 65 staff it would appear that the average staff costs would be, approximately, under £500,000. In 1980 there were 144,504 new registrations. On that basis, a fee of £3.50p would cover the staff costs, and that is not taking into account any additional income from inspection charges which could raise a considerable additional amount.
§ Lord Trefgarne
The noble Lord is no doubt quite right. The present level of staff could be covered in terms of cost by increasing the fee to £4 or £5, whatever the figure may be. What I have endeavoured to explain is that the present level of staff is wholly inadequate for the purpose which we see as being contained in the thoughts of the Opposition in this matter. They seek to maintain this register as it is—as an effective register. I have sought to suggest that the present register is not effective. At least 40 per cent. of the present entries are believed to be in error in one way or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the case of somebody who had paid a deposit on the repair of a piece of furniture. When he took his receipt back to the shop, the shop had changed hands and it was not possible to locate the old owner because the new owner disclaimed reponsibility for what happened to the deposit. Under our proposals, the receipt which the householder had received for his deposit would bear the names of the previous shop owner. Thus it would be unnecessary to institute a search at the Register of Business Names. If our proposals had been in force at the time the affair, which the noble Lord related, 871 occurred, then that customer would have been much better protected than he was.
§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
I do not propose to keep the Committee much longer in view of the important business to follow, particularly as, when moving the amendment, I addressed the Committee at length. The reply from the noble Lord the Minister once again emphasised that the Government do not fully appreciate the value of the registry's function which I outlined. We have talked about fees and administration. The administration, as was so ably pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, can easily be done under modern technology, which would save an awful lot of time, trouble and staff. I could not understand the Minister's reference to certain figures but, if I may detain the Committee for a few moments more, I understand that a number of new registrations in the Registry of Business Names dealt with so ably by the registry in 1980 was of the order of 144,000. That was an increment of about 7.5 per cent. over the previous year. The number of changes that arose as a result of the operations of the registrar were just over 5,000. The number of cessations was 4,000—
§ Lord Trefgarne
I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene? He referred to, I think, 5,000 changes of particulars recorded last year. I referred only to the fact that there were 2,600,000 entries. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that only 5,000 of those had changes to report to the registrar?
§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
I am not sure whether I can answer the noble Lord the Minister on that. All I know is that they made in that year 5,000 changes. The registrar must have considered, and indeed certainly did consider, the large number of names that were on the register at that time: he must have done in order to make those changes in relation to the new registrations. Again, he issued 50,000 copies of certificates; there was an inspection of 34,000. Therefore the total activities in regard to copies of certificates and inspections were of the order of 100,000. This is quite a large matter and therefore the operation of this business registry cannot be so difficult to administer as the noble Lord has suggested. I do not propose to delay your Lordships any further, and I beg to press the amendment.
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 90.873
|Adeane, L.||Blease, L.|
|Airedale, L.||Bowden, L.|
|Amherst, E.||Briginshaw, L.|
|Ampthill, L.||Brockway, L.|
|Amulree, L.||Brooks of Tremorfa, L.|
|Ardwick, L.||Bruce of Donington, L.|
|Avebury, L.||Caradon, L.|
|Balogh, L.||Collison, L.|
|Banks, L.||Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.|
|Belhaven and Stenton, L.||Cudlipp, L.|
|Beswick, L.||Darling of Hillsborough, L.|
|David, B. [Teller.]||Mishcon, L.|
|Davies of Leek, L.||Monson, L.|
|Denington, B.||Nathan, L.|
|Diamond, L.||Oram, L.|
|Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.||Paget of Northampton, L.|
|Elliot of Harwood, B.||Peart, L.|
|Elwyn-Jones, L.||Phillips, B.|
|Gaitskell, B.||Polwarth, L.|
|Galpern, L.||Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.|
|Gladwyn, L.||Rathcreedan, L.|
|Goronwy-Roberts, L.||Richardson, L.|
|Gosford, E.||Ritchie-Calder, L.|
|Greenwood of Rossendale, L.||Robbins, L.|
|Grey, E.||Rochester, L.|
|Hale, L.||Sainsbury, L.|
|Hampton, L.||Seear, B.|
|Henderson, L.||Seebohm, L.|
|Hooson, L.||Segal, L.|
|Houghton of Sowerby, L.||Somers, L.|
|Jacobson, L.||Stamp, L.|
|Janner, L.||Stedman, B.|
|Jeger, B.||Stewart of Alvechurch, B.|
|Kaldor, L.||Stewart of Fulham, L.|
|Killearn, L.||Stone, L.|
|Kilmarnock, L.||Strabolgi, L.|
|Kirkhill, L.||Underhill, L.|
|Leatherland, L.||Wallace of Coslany, L.|
|Listowel, E.||Wedderburn of Charlton, L.|
|Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.||Wells-Pestell, L.|
|Lloyd of Hampstead, L.||Whaddon, L.|
|Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller.]||White, B.|
|Lovell-Davis, L.||Wilson of Langside, L.|
|McGregor of Durris, L.||Winterbottom, L.|
|Mackie of Benshie, L.||Woolley, L.|
|McNair, L,||Wynne-Jones, L.|
|Milford, L.||Young of Dartington, L.|
|Alexander of Tunis, E.||Gowrie, E.|
|Alport, L.||Gridley, L.|
|Armstrong, L.||Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.|
|Avon, E.||Hawke, L.|
|Balfour of Inchrye, L.||Henley, L.|
|Barnby, L.||Hornsby-Smith, B.|
|Bellwin, L.||Hylton-Foster, B.|
|Belstead, L.||Ilchester, E.|
|Bessborough, E.||Ironside, L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, L.||Kinnaird, L.|
|Brentford, V.||Long, V.|
|Burton, L.||Luke, L.|
|Caccia, L.||Lyell, L.|
|Campbell of Croy, L.||McAlpine of Moffat, L.|
|Carrington, L.||Mackay of Clashfern, L.|
|Chelwood, L.||Macleod of Borve, B.|
|Clancarty, E.||Mancroft, L.|
|Clitheroe, L.||Mansfield, E.|
|Clwyd, L.||Marshall of Leeds, L.|
|Cockfield, L.||Mersey, V.|
|Colville of Culross, V.||Milverton, L.|
|Cottesloe, L.||Montgomery of Alamein, V.|
|Craigton, L.||Newall, L.|
|Daventry, V.||Noel-Buxton, L.|
|Davidson, V.||Nugent of Guildford, L.|
|Denham, L. [Teller.]||Renton, L.|
|Derwent, L.||Rugby, L.|
|Drumalbyn, L.||St. Davids, V.|
|Ebbisham, L.||St. Just, L.|
|Eccles, V.||Saint Oswald, L.|
|Effingham, E.||Sandys, L. [Teller.]|
|Ellenborough, L.||Savile, L.|
|Elles, B.||Selkirk, E.|
|Falkland, V.||Skelmersdale, L.|
|Ferrers, E.||Slim, V.|
|Ferrier, L.||Spens, L.|
|Fraser of Kilmorack, L.||Strathcarron, L.|
|Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.||Strathclyde, L.|
|Glasgow, E.||Strathspey, L.|
|Glenkinglas, L.||Sudeley, L.|
|Swinfen, L.||Trumpington, B.|
|Terrington, L.||Vaux of Harrowden, L.|
|Teviot, L.||Vivian, L.|
|Trefgarne, L.||Wise, L.|
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.