HL Deb 30 March 1981 vol 419 cc11-22

3.7 p.m.

Lord Denham

My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Bellwin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Protection of wild birds, their nests and eggs]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 10, leave out second ("or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission and, I hope, to the contentment of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 25, 26, 29, 33, 35 and 37. These are the first of a number of amendments to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. These amendments remove a number of superfluous "or"s. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 43, leave out ("or").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 8, leave out from ("of") to ("the") in line 9 and insert ("Woodcock (except in Scotland)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 73, 110 and 113 at the same time. When this matter was raised on Report, there was practically no valid argument against the amendment; indeed it was supported all round the House and a number of noble Lords told me that they were sorry I had not pressed it. That is the reason why I have put these amendments down again. I have made two slight alterations. One alteration is that I have added this to one of the clauses where it should bave been included before, and the other is altering the season slightly, to meet one of the objections.

The only possible argument against these amendments was that they increased the open season by one month in the summer. This would in fact have had no effect; I did it only to regularise the dates to 1st September, which applies to a lot of other birds. However, to meet the objection, I have altered it so that the season is exactly as at present. What is not appreciated is that, although it may seem an anachronism to make a bird or a beast a quarry species, it is one of the best means of protection one can give it. If partridges had not been game birds, there would be practically none left in the north of Scotland; they would probably all have been wiped out by predators. The reason why there are so many foxes in England and Wales is because they are a quarry species. Therefore, to make these birds game birds would give them the best possible protection.

The only other argument produced was that another Act of Parliament would be opened up. But many Acts of Parliament have already been opened up in this Bill. If one looks at the end of the Bill, one finds that no fewer than 17 Acts of Parliament have been opened up. Therefore, I think that argument is really a very poor one; it will not make any difference. I believe that the Government, rather than change this Bill, will maintain that all that is desired by these amendments can be secured by licence.

Surely it ill becomes this Government unnecessarily to increase bureaucracy with form-filling and possibly with a payment for the form as well? Do they intend to cut the public sector or not? My amendment, albeit in a small way, seeks to restrict unnecessary bureaucracy. I think that all those noble Lords with a knowledge of capercaillie supported me on Report. Indeed, I had so much support that I regretted that I did not press the amendment, and a number of noble Lords said that they wished that I had done so. Therefore, I hope that the Government have re-thought the matter since then. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I, too, would like to speak to the same amendments. I am surprised that my noble friend thought that there was no valid argument against his case last time. I thought that I presented a valid argument, but perhaps he failed to understand me. Although I appreciate that as the capercaillie is a grouse there is a superficial attraction in including it with them in the Game Acts, the Government do not believe that this would bring any conservation benefit. Indeed, it could be detrimental to the conservation status of the species.

Let me explain again. The Bill provides ordinary protection for the species, and should it be thought necessary this could be increased by, for example, reducing the shooting season under the powers in Clause 2(5) or by taking it off the sale list—that is, Schedule 3, Part III. It could also be given protection in particular localities. None of this is possible under the Game Acts. I understand that the only area where the Game Acts might be considered to have better powers than this Bill is as regards penalties where a prison sentence is available. However, it was the general feeling in this House that while protection of our wildlife heritage was of prime importance, offences against wildlife were not of the order of gravity for which imprisonment would be appropriate, and that is the reason why the prison sentence penalty for offences has been removed from the Bill. Therefore, this, too, goes against the feeling of the House. The Government are also, as my noble friend is aware, unwilling to see amendments to the game laws in this Bill. I remind the House that the Bill is still to be considered in another place. We are most reluctant to accept piecemeal revision of the law in this area which is already confusing enough.

The amendments are also deficient in that they make no provision for the capercaillie in Scotland—where most of the birds are—and the part of the Game Act which my noble friend seeks to amend does not apply to Scotland. They would therefore be without protection there, and unless I have misunderstood my noble friend that is the opposite of his intention. I really do not think that this is a matter upon which I should delay the House any further and I hope that my noble friend will accept my reasoning.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, at the last stage of the Bill when this matter was discussed we on this side of the House agreed with the Government in their objections to the amendment, and I must say that I would strongly agree with everything that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, has just said and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend was not advised that the amendment was faulty at the Report stage because we might have corrected it. But clearly, if the amendment is faulty, I cannot sustain it, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 34, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("him").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is a simple drafting amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Exceptions to ss. 1 and 3]:

3.14 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6: Page 5, line 27, leave out ("or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is a drafting amendment to remove another surplus "or". However, I should explain that this "or" was inserted in Committee as a result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I am taking advantage of his offer, at that time, to delete it if necessary when we were tidying up the drafting. I hope the House will accept that in this matter it would be sensible to take the advice of the experts. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:

Page 5, line 39, after ("was") insert ("urgently")

Page 5, line 39, leave out ("and urgent").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 en bloc. Noble Lords have wrestled with the problems of how to make it clear that the defence in Clause 4(3) is for emergencies and not appropriate for situations where the prudent man would have sought and obtained a licence. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, moved an amendment which this House accepted which added the word "urgent" to the word "necessary" as the justification for action to protect crops.

The guardians appointed among other things to watch over the syntactical and etymological purity of this House have suggested that "urgently necessary" is better than "urgent and necessary". On the basis that we are grateful for all the help we can have in our difficult task, I beg to move.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I am quite happy to accept the superior wisdom of which the noble Earl has had the benefit, and I am grateful to him for moving these amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 9: Page 5, line 43, after ("livestock") insert ("foodstuffs for livestock").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55 which makes identical provision in Clause 16(1)(l). My noble friend Lord Sandys said on Report, when speaking to the amendment moved on Report in the names of my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Burton to reinsert the words "any other form of property" in Clauses 4(3) and 16(1)(l), that we had written to the European Community Commission about the matter.

We have heard unofficially that they agree that the term "any other form of property" would be contrary to the directive as at present written. However they regard "crops" as intended to cover animal feed-stuffs, but may need to amend the directive to make this clear. As we see it, our amendment clarifies the European Community's intention; other areas troubled by birds such as food factories and grain stores are covered by the "public health" purposes.

It may also be a suitable moment to mention that there has been some understandable but unjustifiable concern because some lawyers have held that "fisheries" would not include "fish farms". That is as may be—however, we still believe "fisheries" covers them, but if it does not then the fish in them are covered by the word "livestock" and can therefore be protected. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that statement, and also to thank him very much for the letter that he wrote in the intervening period explaining the problem which I think is now resolved.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds]:

3.17 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 en bloc:

Page 6, line 8, leave out second ("or")

Page 6, line 13, leave out ("or")

Page 6, line 28, leave out ("or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 when I moved Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 6, line 28, at end insert— ("(ix) any air weapon; or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 and, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 71. All these amendments refer to airguns, and this time I am very pleased to have the support of not only my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but of the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have discussed this matter in detail in your Lordships' House and I would just summarise the argument by saying that we should like to prevent the use of airguns on animals and mammals except for what is colloquially known as the "pest" species. I think that the arguments which we have put forward are substantial. I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend at the Home Office has said. He has been very kind and we had a long meeting with him on Friday. However, I am afraid that I am not convinced by his arguments and I think that the amendments as drafted would only help the situation.

I ought to mention Amendment No. 71 in a little more detail. That amendment classifies the words "air weapon". It does not refer to those that are already covered by the Firearms Act and thus is not causing any complications to the legal system at the moment. I think that the best thing I can do now is just to move the amendment. I beg to move.

3.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for briefly moving the amendment and I shall try to be reasonably brief, although perhaps just a little longer than my noble friend. First, on the general merit of the case to which my noble friend has spoken, I appreciate the humane considerations which lie behind this group of amendments. The problem of air weapon misuse is, of course, one which extends beyond misuse against wildlife and embraces damage to property and, indeed, sometimes danger to the public. This is more a problem of enforcement than a result of any inadequacy in the existing controls.

The misuse of an air weapon in nearly every case involves the commission of one or more offences under existing law. Indeed, I would put it to your Lordships that the power already exists to control misuse of air weapons by unauthorised persons in the way which my noble friend who tabled this amendment would wish to see. I mean that it is already an offence to carry a loaded air weapon in a public place or as a trespasser on private land without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he has no plans to strengthen the controls in the Firearms Act 1968. I say to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment that this does not mean that the Government are complacent about the problem of misuse of air weapons. We should prefer to proceed by consent. As I said to your Lordships at a previous stage of the Bill, it seems that a good way forward would be to seek to heighten public awareness and sense of responsibility about the general dangers of air weapons misuse, and consideration is now being given to the possibility of mounting a campaign on these lines. The misuse of air weapons against wildlife could form part of that campaign. The whole question of what should be done would then be reviewed when the outcome of any campaign has been evaluated and, of course, the order-making power in subsection (3) could be used for that purpose.

Therefore, the problem with which we are dealing is one of enforcement against unauthorised persons and one of good sense to be shown by authorised persons. It seems right to try to proceed by consent in order to solve this problem. Legislation exists to deal with misuse of air weapons and we would hope to make the general public more aware of it. It would be our intention to seek the views of the British Shooting Sports Council and other interested bodies on the form and nature of any campaign against air weapon misuse.

So the policy of the Government is to try to move by agreement. I am bound to say that, before moving an amendment of this sort into a Bill, it would have been desirable to talk to the police and to the gun trade in order to explain what is being proposed, to see whether they believe this is the right way to proceed. For those reasons and given the assurances that I have attempted to give the House, I hope that my noble friend will think again and not press these amendments, but rather might lend us support in proceeding in the way that I have outlined.

In conclusion, I think that there may be a misprint in this group of amendments; Amendment No. 15 is correct and the following amendment ought to have been printed as Amendment No. 15A. I must apologise to the House for my oversight; I have also spoken to Amendment No. 72, which is purely consequential.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, when small measures of reform are put forward Governments frequently have two reasons for not accepting them. One is that they want to do more, and the other is that they want to do nothing or something different. Why is it that Governments cannot see that progress is gradual, that one thing leads to another and that if you do not make a beginning, you do not get any further anyway? In one place or another I have been listening to this kind of argument for 30 years, and it is extraordinary how even the new generation of Ministers put forward the same excuses as their predecessors, who grew old and grey repeating this kind of formula.

When the noble Lord says that we ought to consult the gun trade, what he is really doing is letting the cat out of the bag. It is the gun trade that is his worry. Who got us into this muddle anyway? Earlier on the noble Earl, Lord Avon, gave us an assurance about the airgun. He had received a clearance that morning from the Home Office and he was so joyful over it; we joined in his glee. We thought that at last we had won something on this Bill and then lo and behold! he had to write a long letter to say that all sorts of reasons could be given for not following up what almost amounted to a promise that he gave.

Just now the noble Lord said that the problem of airguns goes much further than the birds listed in Part II. Of course. Noble Lords may have read the article published in the Guardian on 24th March on a very sad case; it was that of a man who said that a cat was raiding his pigeon loft so he shot it with an airgun. He hit it in the eye; poor pussy was blinded. The owner took proceedings against the man and the magistrates fined him £30 with £65 compensation for damage to the cat. So the case was then taken to the Crown Court and the Crown Court decided that the gentleman who had done the shooting had not caused unnecessary suffering to the cat. Whether this case will go from the Crown Court to the High Court and eventually come to your Lordships' House, I do not know. However, quite obviously, it is a very important case of, as the Guardian put it, "the cat among the pigeons".

This is an indication of how wide the problem of airguns goes. Two things are important: first, that the man who did the shooting said that he aimed between the cat's eyes and he intended to kill the cat; and then his defending counsel said that if the conviction stood, pigeon fanciers would be unable to protect their pigeons. You see what a mess we are in with this wretched airgun. Apparently a man can freely shoot a cat between the eyes, blind it in one of them, be convicted by the magistrates, the conviction can be quashed by the Crown Court, and his counsel can make the silly remark that if the conviction stands no pigeon fancier will be able to protect his pigeons.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, tell the House in what way the present amendment prevents a cat from being shot at with an airgun?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, not at all. I was merely confirming what the noble Lord said, that the problem of the airgun goes much wider.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I have been at great pains to tell the House that those problems are already covered by existing legislation.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I am suggesting that there is a wider problem of the use of the airgun. The serious point about the airgun is that it is a weapon. It was really intended to be a target weapon; the sort of weapon that was used at fairs, rifle ranges, and so forth. I am illustrating the fact that some people are using the airgun as a weapon to kill mammals and certainly birds. Earlier we tried to get a wider ban upon the use of the airgun. Now my noble friends on the other side—the mafia led by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—have put forward a fresh amendment which comes within the rules of order. I am merely trying to start off on an entertaining note for the afternoon and urge your Lordships to disregard the advice of the Minister and accept the amendment.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words. We have had debates on the abuse of air weapons at every stage of the Bill. I should like to reinforce what my noble friend has said about the abuse; it certainly goes much wider than that which would be controlled by the amendments. I had two letters this morning from parents, both of whom had children who had been hit in the eye by airgun pellets, and both of whom had lost the sight of that eye as a result. One was from Wales and one from England. It is a widespread and serious problem.

These amendments will not of themselves do anything to prevent people breaking the law by shooting children in the eye with airguns, and I do not think that any of us who have our names to the amendment claim that it would. The argument goes like this. This Bill, particularly in Clause 11, already prohibits a number of things which would be offences under existing legislation. For example, the use of explosives to kill wild mammals. I am not aware that it is possible without a licence and without complying with all sorts of rules and regulations in existing laws to go around blowing up wild mammals in the countryside. There are already laws which cover that, but the Bill repeats the prohibition, and quite rightly.

It controls a number of other things which would be offences under cruelty to animals legislation, like the use of crossbows, of live decoys tethered, and a number of other things—gas, smoke and so on; a number of things which are already covered by existing rules, regulations, or laws. Nobody, including the Home Office, has complained to your Lordships' House about all of that, presumably because it was put in by the Government and was therefore all right. Now noble Lords on all sides of the House want to put in a similar prohibition on air weapons and we are told we should not do it. I do not think that that is any more acceptable today than it was when the noble Lord came to the House and said it at Report stage.

I am surprised at the new point the noble Lord made. He said that before moving this amendment the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others should have talked to the police and the gun trade. We all imagined that during the Committee stage of the Bill that is exactly what the Home Office had done before the Home Office said that it would be all right to have an amendment of this sort in the Bill and the Government would do it. If they did not, before they gave that clearance, I would suggest to the noble Lord that it is a bit rough on us several weeks later, when the Home Office has had about a month or six weeks, or something, to talk to the gun trade and the police, for the noble Lord to come along and say that we should have done it.

The Home Office said at Committee stage that this amendment was quite all right and the Government would do it. I know the Home Office have since had second thoughts, but I do not think that your Lordships' House has had second thoughts. I hope we will now get these amendments, which do not go nearly as far as my noble friends and I would have liked but nevertheless are an agreed compromise which all of us who have taken an interest in this feel that we can support. I hope we shall now put them in the Bill.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, when my noble friend on the Front Bench said that consideration would be given to an inquiry, does that mean consideration will be given and then nothing will happen, or does it mean that consideration will be given and the inquiry will then be actively pursued? If that second one is the case, one would be very happy to support my noble friend. If it is what my relations call the "bug letter", which is an excuse for doing absolutely nothing, then my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Melchett, have much more string to their bow, if I am excused mixing metaphors appallingly.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, to accept what the Government have said this afternoon is to hand a ready-made excuse to those who already misuse air weapons. I cannot believe that the police in any police force in the country would not welcome the amendment as it stands. One of their difficulties is in identifying the misuse, and in explaining the misuse, of air weapons to people who are misusing them. It is clear here that everybody who is interested in wildlife, and the question of conservation, control and management, is for this amendment.

I cannot see why the Government should go on resisting this amendment when clearly it is in the interests of the welfare of animals, the conservation of wildlife, and the safety of everybody, to make this point clear and not to leave a vague area of excuse, "Oh, I was only shooting at a few birds" for those who misuse air weapons. I support the noble Lords whose names are down to this amendment.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, may I add my support from this remote Bench? I hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, before I sum up I wonder whether my noble friend could answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Onslow?

3.35 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, perhaps I may briefly reply. May I also say that the onus of replying to amendments on this difficult Bill seems to have been too much for me, and I attempted to move Amendment No. 72 which has in fact got nothing to do with this clutch of amendments under the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness and other noble Lords. Amendment No. 72 we come to in a moment, and is in the name of my noble friend Lord Bellwin.

I was a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should have talked about winning something. It is a pity when country pursuits, and indeed the use of weapons, is put into the context of thinking that in Parliament people are going to win something or lose something. I have lived in the country all my life and have always been brought up to believe that sport in the country is something for responsibility, for bringing young people up to realise what are the joys and the dangers, and is not set in the context of winning or losing points concerning discussions upon those subjects.

May I say in all friendliness to the noble Lord who referred to the strange case of the cat which was shot between the eyes, and indeed thereby encouraged the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with all his experience of this Bill, none the less to take the same line about general safety, that this amendment, with respect, has nothing to do with general safety. The misuse of an air weapon in nearly every case at the moment involves the commission of one or more offences under the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, fairly said, the effect of this particular clutch of amendments is limited in its scope.

The problem with which the amendments are trying to deal, I have been suggesting to your Lordships, is better dealt with by two ways: one by the enforcement of existing legislation, and the other by a voluntary campaign to try to heighten public awareness and to increase public responsibility. I therefore end by answering my noble friend Lord Onslow that it would be the intention of the Government, if your Lordships agreed that that would be the way forward, to run a public campaign to bring home to members of the public the dangers of the use of air weapons, part of which would be the subject-matter of these amendments, namely, shooting at birds which, arguably, should not be shot at by airguns. Then, as a result of that campaign, it would be perfectly possible for the Government to bring into effect by order under subsection (3) subordinate legislation in order to do what it was deemed right to do. It seems a great pity to move into the Bill legislation which people may misinterpret, and not, first of all, try to carry people along in a voluntary way.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, my noble friend has persuaded me, but only on one point, and that is that I will lend support to his proposed advertising campaign. He of course slightly misinformed the House about the intention of the amendments. These amendments draw the net a little closer as to what species may be shot. That is the point that he has not put over to your Lordships. It reduces the species that may be shot to the pest species. Under present law you may shoot at many more species, and I think it is wrong.

It would be much easier for the police to know that there are ten birds in Schedule 2 Part II that may be shot. As for any other bird that somebody shoots at, that creates an immediate offence. That is not the case under the present law. My noble friend did not give a satisfactory answer to my noble friend Lord Onslow. In fact, we have been waiting since the Green Paper in 1973 for something to be done about airguns and nothing has been done. A recommendation of that paper was that there should be further restriction on the use of airguns. This is a small step in the right direction. I beg to move.

3.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Gaitskell, B.
Adeane, L. Gladwyn, L.
Airedale, L. Goronwy-Roberts, L.
Amulree, L. Gosford, E.
Ardwick, L. Granville of Eye, L.
Avebury, L. Greenwood of Rossendale, L.
Balogh, L. Hale, L.
Banks, L. Halsbury, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Hampton, L.
Birk, B. Hanworth, V.
Blyton, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Briginshaw, L. Hayter, L.
Brockway, L. Henderson, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Henley, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hooson, L.
Burton, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.—(Teller.)
Byers, L.
Caithness, E.—(Teller.) Hunt, L.
Caradon, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Clancarty, E. Ilchester, E.
Collison, L. Jacques, L.
Craigton, L. Janner, L.
Cranbrook, E. Kinloss, Ly.
David, B. Leatherland, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Listowel, E.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Denington, B. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Loudoun, C.
Dulverton, L. Melchett, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Mersey, V.
Fortescue, E. Newall, L.
Northfield, L. Spens, L.
O'Brien of Lothbury, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Oram, L. Stedman, B.
Paget of Northampton, L. Stone, L.
Pargiter, L. Strabolgi, L.
Peart, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Phillips, B. Thurso, V.
Richardson, L. Underhill, L.
Roberthall, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Sainsbury, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
St. Davids, V. Wheatley, L.
Sandford, L. White, B.
Sefton of Garston, L. Wigg, L.
Shinwell, L. Wigoder, L.
Sligo, M.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E. Hornsby-Smith, B.
Allerton, L. Ironside, L.
Auckland, L. Kemsley, V.
Avon, E. Killearn, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Lauderdale, E.
Barnby, L. Long, V.
Bellwin, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Belstead, L. Lyell, L.
Brentford, V. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bridgeman, V. Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Chelwood, L. Mansfield, E.
Clitheroe, L. Margadale, L.
Clwyd, L. Morris, L.
Cockfield, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cottesloe, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Northchurch, B.
Davidson, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
De Freyne, L. Onslow, E.
De La Warr, E. Peel, E.
Denham, L.—(Teller.) Penrhyn, L.
Derwent, L. Portland, D.
Digby, L. Reigate, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Renton, L.
Dundee, E. Romney, E.
Eccles, V. Runciman of Doxford, V.
Effingham, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Ellenborough, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Elles, B. Sandys, L.—(Teller.)
Enniskillen, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Faithfull, B. Soames, L.
Ferrers, E. Strathclyde, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Strathspey, L.
Gainford, L. Swansea, L.
Gibson-Watt, L. Swinton, E.
Gridley, L. Terrington, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Trenchard, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Vivian, L.
Hawke, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Wynford, L.
Hood, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.