HL Deb 02 August 1982 vol 434 cc532-44

3.36 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 37: Page 16, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37 and, with the leave of the House, will speak to Amendment No. 38. Amendment No. 38 is the substantive amendment. In paragraph (b) the first words of the second line read, "the manner encouraged"; they should read "the manner envisaged". There is a big difference.

Clause 11 would make it unlawful to make trade union membership a condition of any contract. As the noble Earl pointed out, Clause 12, with which this amendment deals, is a mirror of the provisions of Clause 11. It goes further. It would make it unlawful to insert into any contract a condition that a contractor shall recognise a trade union for the purpose of negotiation on behalf of the workers employed by the contractor, or even to negotiate or consult with any official of a trade union.

In Committee I supported those noble Lords who objected to new Clause 11. I, and other noble Lords who supported that objection, wanted the right to ensure that contractors observed trade union conditions. Among other points, we put the view that the Government's proposals could open the way to industrial troubles, particularly where non-union contractors came to a job which had full trade union conditions and recognition. Those of us who took this view also wanted the continuance of a fair list, which will be outlawed by the Bill.

I was, in effect, taken to task by the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who put certain points to me. But my position was made absolutely clear at col. 149: … what the noble Baroness has just said is what I want, because I do believe that public contracts should not go to firms which do not observe trade union conditions and which oppose trade union agreements."—[Official Report, 13/7/82; col. 149.] The Committee did not accept those views. Hence, today we have an amendment that is worded absolutely differently. Before explaining the amendment, I must refer to another amendment proposed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. My noble friend expressed surprise, to use his words, that there was no flicker of interest by the Government in the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, in particular in relation to safety representatives and safety committees. That reference relates to the amendment now before us. Today's amendment is more precise and more limited than the points urged in Committee. I emphasise that the amendment does not seek to insist on a condition of trade union membership in a contract. Neither does it seek a condition of trade union recognition, nor even a condition of consultation with the official of a trade union. Further, it makes no reference whatever to the right to issue a fair list. We may still hold those views, but that is not the point. Nor is it the point that any one of those conditions is not included in this present amendment.

The amendment is limited to two points. First, that it shall not be unlawful to refuse a contract on the ground that a contractor does not observe minimum terms and conditions of employment prevailing for that industry or provided for in a relevant order of a wages council or statutory Joint Industrial Council; or, secondly, that a contractor fails to consult with representatives of his employees in accordance with the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Surely no noble Peer would object to the first condition. There is no reference in any way to trade unionism. It is confined solely to the observance of minimum terms and conditions of employment. I am certain that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Surely no noble Peers can vote against that. Otherwise, they will be branded as people who want to cut wages and conditions of work, and I am certain that no noble Peers would wish to do that.

I am sure that no noble Peer would advocate that it would be wrong for any contract to insist upon the observance of minimum conditions. Not to do so would surely be to encourage industrial unrest. On the second condition, I cannot believe that any noble Lord would hold that it is wrong for a person to make it a condition that a contractor must make provision to consult his employees on safety conditions. No person given a contract, surely, would wish services to be provided in a way that contravenes safety requirements. Surely no person given a contract would wish to obtain goods which were produced by workers who may be denied safety provisions? This amendment is drawn up in a way by which it should secure the unanimous support of this House. It will help to make for good industrial relations and I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I hope that I will be relevant because it is certainly my intention so to be. Noble Lords with long memories will recall the Second Reading of this Bill when I dissented from my noble friends on their attitude towards Clause 11. In the course of my speech then, I said that especially as far as the construction industry was concerned—which is the industry I know much better than most others—the union-only labour sub-contractors were not necessary because they were protected by the fair wages resolution of, I believe, 1947 which appears in most public contracts and which is a very great safeguard for the terms and conditions for which my noble friend Lord Underhill has very properly asked in the first paragraph of this amendment, which I support entirely.

As I recall it, during the course of Committee stage my noble friend Lord Oram raised the question of the fair wages resolution. He asked whether the Bill we are now considering diminished the effect of that resolution. So far as I recall it, the Government answered, No; the effect of this legislation was to leave the fair wages resolution intact and thereby protect the wage conditions in exactly the way that my noble friend Lord Underhill, and most people in this House, would wish to see them continued. However, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek indicated earlier this afternoon, there has been some intimation that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Employment in another place to have the fair wages resolution rescinded. It may be that I am wrong—I sometimes am.

Lord Davies of Leek

You are not wrong on that.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, if it turns out that the fair wages resolution is to be rescinded, all the objections I have to my noble friends' attitude are removed, because the fair wages resolution makes their attitude towards the union-only labour contracts unnecessary. If the fair wages resolution goes, their position becomes necessary and supportable.

I really want an undertaking from the Government that the Secretary of State for Employment was misunderstood in some way, or that the action I have mentioned is not in fact his intention. This is a very important matter. If the Secretary of State merely objects to the union-only labour contracts because they are a method of dragooning people into unions against their will, he can be supported. But if he is attacking fair wages and fair conditions, he cannot be supported. If he is intending to rescind the 1947 fair wages resolution, then, as I see it, that can only be construed at the moment as an attack on reasonable wages and reasonable conditions.

I want a very straight and very clear explanation from the Government because I am a very simple man and I understand very simple things. If the Government wish to rescind the fair wages resolution, they cannot be supported. If they do not wish to rescind the 1947 fair wages resolution, then they must tell us now. They must not allow us to pass this Bill and then later on—as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has said—during the Recess pop up with the rescinding of the fair wages resolution after this Bill has passed. They cannot be allowed to do that. I hope that the noble Earl the Minister will explain this to me, as a simple man, and to other simple men and women in this House.

3.47 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, we too would like to support this amendment and to express our great concern that the fair wages resolution has been abolished since we met here earlier and discussed the clause which had to deal with union-only labour contracts. Your Lordships may remember that on that occasion I made the point that one did not have to have union-only contracts in order that decent standards of employment should obtain in organisations to which local authorities and others give contracts. I made the point that that was so because there was a fair wages resolution. Since that time, that has been abolished. I feel that, to some extent, we supported the Government on that occasion somewhat under false pretences.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, supports this amendment because it was in a sense designed for her personal satisfaction. It is what I call the argument from IBM, because the noble Baroness made the case last time that there might very well be employers who were paying union rates, and who may be paying more than union rates, and who in every way could be regarded as excellent employers—except that they did not recognise trade unions.

Our amendment at that time did not deal with that because as we said at that time, we felt that in practice many people—and it is not just in the area of wages councils and in the area of fair wages—felt that with the sort of things which was being struck at under Clause 12 and to some extent under Clause 11, they supported these things because it was a way of getting decent terms and conditions; that supporting trade union terms and conditions was for them a convenient shorthand way of supporting what they regarded as decent terms and conditions. But the point was put to us that if one wants to do this in terms of maintaining minimum terms and conditions and such factors as, for example, legal stipulations in the Health and Safety at Work Act, then that needs to be done in a way that does not bring in trade unions. That is precisely what this amendment is designed to do.

I want to make one other point, that although this is, of course, very closely related to minimum wage legislation, and to what the Government intend to do through the wages council and fair wage resolutions, it is not quite true to say that so long as there is minimum wage legislation and as long as there are wages councils and things of that kind, we do not need such an amendment as this, because that operates in the area of public provision. The fair wages resolutions defend terms and conditions in those areas where governments, either local or national, are giving contracts. It does not deal with the private sector; and as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, knows very well, the wages councils are far from comprehensive, and there are significant areas of low pay where the wages council resolutions and instruments do not apply. Therefore, there is a need for something to protect people, individuals and groups who feel that they want to seek to maintain minimum terms and conditions and do not want to put their contract out to people who do not observe Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. There is a need for something to protect them which will make that action quite lawful irrespective of what the Government intend to do on these other matters. Therefore, we hope the whole House will support this amendment.

Lord Hawke

My Lords, the amendment is obviously put forward from very worthy motives, but I see some appalling difficulties in practice in implementing it. Let us take municipal contracts, for instance. Who is to get the job if the No. 2 immediately puts in an allegation that the No. 1, the lowest tenderer, has not observed the minimum wages provisions throughout his business, or has failed to consult on health and safety matters in some section of his business? The manufacturer who is going to make the goods cannot get on making them; the buyer cannot get on with receiving them, while the lawyers have a picnic arguing whether or not he has complied with the amended clause. For that reason, however worthy the amendment, I feel that it is impracticable.

The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, in discussing these amendments it is important that we should keep in mind the purposes of Clause 12, which was added to the Bill at Committee stage, as your Lordships have just been hearing. It is particularly important to do that, and to remind your Lordships of what Clause 12 is about, when it is suggested that in some way the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons is relevant to this debate. Clause 12 is designed to prevent companies from imposing upon contractors requirements that they should recognise and negotiate with or consult trade unions or trade union officials. It is designed to protect non-union firms and their employees from having unions and union membership forced upon them from outside by commercial pressure. This does not mean that we are opposed to employers recognising trade unions, or are seeking to prevent them from doing so.

If an employer decides to recognise one or more trade union for the purpose of negotiation on behalf of his employees, there is nothing in the Bill to stop him from doing so. All Clause 12 is saying is that the decision to recognise them is for him and his employees to take. It is no one else's business, and certainly it should not be the subject of requirements in commercial contracts with other people. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, his amendment raised two separate concerns on the effect of Clause 12. His first concern is that that clause may prevent employers from requiring contractors to observe minimum terms and conditions of employment which have been negotiated for a Ministry or district or, for example, are contained in a wages council order. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, repeated the point made at the Committee stage that the clause may cut down the provisions of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 with regard to consultations with safety representatives.

I should like to deal with each of these arguments separately and in turn. As regards the observance of minimum terms and conditions of employment, I had hoped that what I said on this point in our debate at the Committee stage would have satisfied your Lordships. However, since that apparently has not happened I am happy to repeat it here. There is nothing in Clause 12 to prevent an employer or other person from imposing upon contractors detailed and specific requirements about terms and conditions of employment. If, for example, there is a nationally negotiated agreement or wages council order specifying the minimum rate to be paid to workers in an industry, and an employer decides to award contracts only to those who agree to observe that rate, then he is perfectly free to do so, and Clause 12 does not make this action unlawful.

Of course, if requirements about terms and conditions of employment are part of a more general recognition requirement, or have the effect of requiring a contractor to recognise a trade union, then Clause 12 will affect the position. If we add to the minimum conditions that are wanted some conditions which require recognition of a trade union, then Clause 12 will affect the position; but there is no reason that the requirement that a contractor should pay a certain rate of pay to his workers should be regarded as a requirement that he recognises a trade union unless, of course, that is its clear intention and effect. So the fears that have been expressed on the effects of Clause 12 on the requirement of minimum standards and conditions are in our view quite clearly misplaced, and we believe that this part of the amendment which is designed to deal with the problem is unnecessary.

Something has been said about the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons and I must say I am slightly surprised to hear it suggested by a noble Lord with knowledge of what happens there that a fair wages resolution of the House of Commons could be set aside in the Recess of that House. What has happened is that, in answer to a Question, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has indicated that he proposes to invite the House of Commons in due course to rescind that resolution; but certainly that cannot happen, as must be obvious, in Recess, and it cannot happen without the agreement of the House of Commons.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just said, that in due course the Secretary of State would consult the Commons. That was the phrase and the information given to me in a Written Answer and that information was in The Times. But would it be consulting the House of Commons after they are presented with a fait accompli? Is that true? I have had no answer on that. In other words, the opportunity may be taken to rescind it in the Recess and then get the House of Commons to confirm it. I want to be clear on that.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, as I have said, the resolution which is in question is a resolution of the House of Commons and it seems reasonably plain that no one but the House of Commons can rescind that resolution. Accordingly, until the House of Commons does so the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons will stand. It is only an intimation from the Secretary of State of his decision to put this matter before the House of Commons that has been given so far as the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons is concerned.

Lord Oram

My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, he will recall that it was at the Committee stage that I raised this question of the resolution of the House of Commons, and indeed I read it out. I believe he and I agreed that that was not outlawed by the provisions of what is now Clause 12; but I would be interested to know whether the noble and learned Lord knew at that point that it was the intention of the Secretary of State to ask the House of Commons to rescind that resolution. If he did know, was not that an opportunity which he apparently missed to inform your Lordships' House?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, certainly I would think it inappropriate for me to make any intimation in relation to what the Secretary of State proposes with regard to a matter which is peculiarly within the province of the House of Commons, namely, affecting its own resolution. The Secretary of State intimated that to the House of Commons immediately it was appropriate for him to do so, in answer to a Question which was then put. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for confirming that the stance that I took in relation to this matter when we debated it at the Committee stage was that this clause does not affect the position with regard to fair wages. Therefore, it appears to me that the question with regard to the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons is a different matter and is one which will be properly debated in due course in that House.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves this point, may I say that if in following my noble friend Lord Davies I made the same mistake as he about the Recess, I obviously withdraw, because the noble and learned Lord is clearly correct; I cannot remember whether I did or not. The noble and learned Lord is quite right about this being a resolution of the House of Commons and therefore within the province of the other place to deal with, though we were, I think, if not misled at least lulled by the replies given to my noble friend Lord Oram earlier in the discussions on this Bill. Let me ask the noble and learned Lord one question: what would happen if we have a fair wages resolution of the House of Lords after the House of Commons has gone so far as to rescind their fair wages resolution? That would seem to me to be a very sensible and sound thing to do. Would it constitute a constitutional crisis of some kind?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, it is usually good advice to lawyers not to advise on hypothetical questions. This looks like a fairly hypothetical question and 1 certainly would not think it right to offer advice about it. The position so far as this clause is concerned, and it is that which is relevant, is that it in no way impinges on the right of one contractor to put into his contract a clause defining the conditions under which the people who work under the contract should work. It was on that basis that I said at Committee stage, and I repeat now, that this clause in no way affects the question of conditions that may be imposed by one contractor on the other party to the contract.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I beg the House's indulgence. I do not wish to pursue this matter at undue length.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to intervene, may I point out that this is about the third time he has spoken during the course of this amendment. We should be grateful if, apart from asking the leave of the House, he also phrased his remarks in a very short question.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I am not speaking again; I am asking a question and it will be very short. The House will know that I do not take up too much of its time in matters of this sort. The noble Lord has now driven out of my head what I was going to ask and prolonged the agony. I was interested in the reply made by the Minister in which he seemed to speak of the contractor putting something into the contract. The whole of this part of the Bill, Clauses 11, 12 and 13, deals not with the contractor putting something into the contract but with the authority or with the purchaser putting something into the contract.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. As he knows, at Report stage one can speak again by leave of the House, and it is possible sometimes to ask a question "before the noble Lord sits down". I think he is extending the capacity of the Report stage if he makes three interventions in my noble friend's speech. If my noble friend could continue with his speech he could possibly answer the noble Lord in the best way he thinks fit, and if the noble Lord, Lord Howie, will contain himself I think that would be the best course.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, the leading provisions of these clauses deal with terms in contracts, and of course there are later provisions founded on these with regard to matters which may be unlawful; but the leading provisions in these two clauses relate to terms in contracts. What I am saying, with some confidence, is that there is nothing in Clause 12 which in any way prevents a person who desires to do so from putting into his contract conditions regarding fair wages or fair terms as he sees them. It is a term which requires the recognition of a trade union or requires someone to consult with or negotiate with an official of a union—thereby, of course, implying some form of relationship with the union official—that this clause is dealing with. Accordingly, I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons has nothing whatever to do with the terms of this particular clause and is not affected by it in one way or the other.

Let me turn to the second matter, the matter of safety. It is important to emphasise at the outset that there is nothing in Clause 12 to prevent an employer from imposing the most stringent and rigorous conditions of safety on his contractors. We are all agreed that an employer must be free to inquire into the standards of safety observed by a contractor, particularly if he is coming on to a site to do work alongside the employers' employees. There is nothing in Clause 12 to prevent him from doing so, or to force him to award contracts to firms which he regards as unsafe. I must therefore reject, in the strongest terms, any suggestion that this clause, or any other clause in the Bill, undermines safety standards which, under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, every employer has a duty to observe.

Now let me turn to the more particular question of safety representatives and safety committees. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in moving the amendment, has reminded us that under subsections (4) to (7) of Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and under the associated regulations and codes of practice, employers have an obligation to consult with safety representatives and safety committees about policies for the health and safety of their employees. I think the fear that underlies this branch of the noble Lord's amendment is that the provisions of Clause 12 are in direct conflict with these statutory requirements. We entirely reject this claim, for three reasons. First, it is important to emphasise that nothing in Clause 12 affects the obligations placed on employers by Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. This may seem an obvious point, but after what has been said it may be worth while reminding ourselves of it. The provisions of Section 2 as regards safety representatives and safety committees will continue to apply after this Bill becomes law. If an employer fails to consult with safety representatives he will continue to face the penalties provided in the Act and in the connected regulations. Nothing in the present Bill changes that.

The second point I want to make is this. Contrary to what has been suggested, Clause 12 does not prevent an employer from requiring a contractor to have a safety committee as a condition of obtaining a contract, so long as that requirement does not amount to a requirement that he also recognises a trade union. If the employer says to the contractor, "You must have a safety committee made up of representatives of recognised trade unions", then he may well be acting unlawfully under Clause 12, because he is imposing requirements about recognition. If he simply says, "You must have a safety committee, but of course it is up to you how it is organised", then he remains perfectly free to do so.

This brings me to the third and perhaps most important point on this aspect. If your Lordships look at Section 2 of the 1974 Act you will find a very singular fact. The only people who are given rights to appoint safety representatives under Section 2 are recognised trade unions. An employer has an obligation to consult with such representatives and to set up safety committees only where they are appointed by recognised trade unions. As regards such representatives and committees the section and the regulations do not apply to non-union firms and place no requirement upon them. This is not the result of anything this Government have done. It was the deliberate act of the Labour Government, which, in 1975, specifically removed from the Health and Safety at Work Act the provisions of Section 2 which would have allowed for the appointment of safety representatives in non-union firms. They did so because of the Labour Government's hostility to non-union firms and to non-union employees and because that Government could not bring themselves to accept the possibility of safety representatives who were not appointed by recognised trade unions.

Your Lordships will, I am sure, appreciate what that means. If the noble Lord's amendment were accepted it would continue to be possible for an employer to require contractors to consult with safety representatives as encouraged by or as envisaged by Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, but, of course, the only contractors who would be able to surmount this hurdle would be those who had recognised trade unions. Non-union contractors would have no chance of fulfilling Section 2, unless they were prepared to recognise trade unions, simply because in 1974 the then Government were not prepared to recognise the possibility of safety committees of employees in firms that were non-unionised.

In short, this amendment is concerned not with requirements about safety, but with requirements about recognition. If accepted it would provide an open invitation to employers to use references to Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to circumvent the provisions of Clause 12 and to continue to impose recognition requirements.

Therefore, its effect could be seriously to weaken the protection which this clause gives to non-union firms. In our submission, accordingly, the two branches of this amendment ought not to be accepted, and I hope that if the noble Lord sees the force of this argument he will accept this view; but if not I hope that your Lordships will not approve the amendment.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he perhaps make quite plain to your Lordships' House what the Government are saying about safety? Is it the case that the Government are saying that the prohibition in this Bill will prevent a person from requiring another, either by commercial pressure or by industrial pressure, to do his duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act and negotiate or consult with union representatives merely because they are trade unionists? Is it the case that this Bill will take away the operation of the safety legislation, which of course is not only the Act of 1974 but the regulations of 1977 and the code of 1978, none of which the Government have put forward for amendment? Is the noble and learned Lord saying that the Government, retaining the law of the land as it is, are now passing a Bill which will prevent someone from using ordinary pressures of commerce, or industrial argument and pressure, to require that that be carried out, as the statute requires and as the regulations require?

If that is the case, have the Government consulted with the Health and Safety Executive about a matter which concerns the life and limb of working people? Have they taken into account the fact that in their very recent annual report the Health and Safety Executive, in paragraph 9, had given a most encouraging account of the importance of involvement and consultation of representatives of both employers and work people throughout the development of safety policies which would prevent occupational hazards? As this is a matter of life and limb, if the Government are trying to edge out consultation on safety, or requirements to consult on safety, merely because the people with whom one consults happen to be trade union representatives, then it is a most extraordinary state of affairs.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern

My Lords, I think that I have explained already and I do not think that I can do so more clearly. All I can do is to repeat myself, which might not be regarded as particularly economical. I have already said that the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1974 stand completely unaffected by the provisions of this Bill. The provisions that are in issue are the provisions which require employers to consult with the committees there set out. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way takes away from the force of that provision, and the result, in my submission, is that this particular amendment on that aspect of the matter is not acceptable and should not be agreed to.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am certain that all noble Lords will be pleased to have the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate regarding the provisions of Clause 12 in so far as they affect working conditions. However, I think that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that if he refers to our debate on this clause in Committee, the emphasis was on trade union membership; it was on trade union recognition; and it was on trade union negotiation. It is important that employers know what they can do and that the assurances which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has mentioned are actually written into the Bill. That seems to me to be essential.

I think that it is generally recognised that an employer, a businessman, will not go to another person who may wish to contract to him, with a list of all the wage rates, conditions and so on. He will say, "I want you to ensure that you do not undercut, that you do not break conditions; and if you do so I will not give you an order". If, in those circumstances, the man says, "Where do I get these from?" and the employer says, "You can get them from the union", then I presume that Clause 12 knocks him out. Therefore, it is not as clear as the noble and learned Lord suggests.

On the question of safety, in one breath the noble and learned Lord says—and I accept what he says—that there is nothing in here which will stop an employer from saying, "You must produce these goods, you must carry out the services according to the Health and Safety Act"; but Section 2 stops you from doing it. That is what the the noble and learned Lord is really saying. Therefore it is vital that these two conditions, which the Government say are acceptable, should be written into the Bill.

It may be argued by some noble Lords: Why should we put them into the Bill, seeing that we have had these two assurances, although the safety at work is a rather guarded assurance? If we look at the Bill we see clause after clause where there is a proviso which in effect says that "the above shall not be unlawful on the grounds" of so and so. So what we are trying to put into the Bill is that the above shall not be unlawful on the grounds of the two points which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is prepared to accept should operate. Therefore, I believe that we ought to insist that these two points go into the Bill. There seems to be general acceptance of that view in other parts of the House, and therefore I wish to press the amendment.

4.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 105.

Airedale, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.—[Teller.]
Amulree, L.
Ardwick, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Aylestone, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Balogh, L. McCarthy, L.
Banks, L. McNair, L.
Beswick, L. Molloy, L.
Bishopston, L.—[Teller.] Oram, L.
Blease, L. Paget of Northampton, L.
Blyton, L. Peart, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Phillips, B.
Brockway, L. Plant, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Rathcreedan, L.
Byers, L. Rhodes, L.
Collison, L. Roberthall, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Rochester, L.
David, B. Seear, B.
Davies of Leek, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Diamond, L. Segal, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Stedman, B.
Elystan-Morgan, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Gaitskell, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gladwyn, L. Stone, L.
Glenamara, L. Strabolgi, L.
Gormley, L. Strauss, L.
Hampton, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Underhill, L.
Hooson, L. Wade, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hunt, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Jacques, L. Whaddon, L.
Jeger, B. White, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Wigoder, L.
John-Mackie, L. Willis, L.
Kagan, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Winstanley, L.
Leatherland, L. Wynne-Jones, L.
Listowel, E.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Craigavon, V.
Adeane, L. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Daventry, V.
Allerton, L. Davidson, V.
Ampthill, L. De Freyne, L.
Auckland, L. Denham, L.— [Teller.]
Avon, E. Drumalbyn, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Ebbisham, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Ellenborough, L.
Bellwin, L. Elles, B.
Belstead, L. Elton, L.
Bessborough, E. Energlyn, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Erroll of Hale, L.
Caccia, L. Faithfull, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Ferrers, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Forbes, L.
Chelwood, L. Fortescue, E.
Cockfield, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Cottesloe, L. Gainford, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. O'Neill of the Maine, L.
George-Brown, L. Orkney, E.
Glanusk, L. Penrhyn, L.
Glenarthur, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Radnor, E.
Rankeillour, L.
Hankey, L. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Hawke, L. Redcliffe-Maud, L.
Henley, L. Reigate, L.
Holderness, L. Renton, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Romney, E.
Hylton-Foster, B. Rugby, L.
Ilchester, E. St. John of Bletso, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Sandford, L.
Lauderdale, E. Sandys, L.— [Teller.]
Lawrence, L. Selkirk, E.
Long, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Lyell, L. Soames, L.
McFadzean, L. Somers, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. Spens, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Stamp, L.
Mancroft, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Marley, L. Strathspey, L.
Marsh, L. Swinfen, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Trefgarne, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Trumpington, B.
Merrivale, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Milverton, L. Vickers, B.
Morris, L. Vivian, L.
Mottistone, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Mountgarret, V. Westbury, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Wynford, L.
Norfolk, D. Young, B.
Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]