Criminal Justice Bill

HL Deb 19 July 1982 vol 433 cc623-35

2.56 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [General restriction on custodial sentences]:

Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("or make a detention centre order.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, from noble Lords' departure the enthusiasm which the prospect of discussing the Criminal Justice Bill arouses in the House is manifestly apparent. However, the purpose of this amendment is to try to achieve the amalgamation of the custodial sentences for young offenders—that is to say, imprisonment, borstal and detention centres—into one youth custody system.

This proposal was recommended in 1974 by the Advisory Council on the Penal System in its report Young Adult Offenders. It recommended in that report that the three custodial sentences which I have mentioned should be amalgamated into one youth custody system. The matter was put in this way. The general concept of constructive training, pioneered by the borstal system, has won such wide acceptance that it is largely applied not only in borstals but throughout the young prisoners' centres and detention centres as well. The result is that the supposed distinctions, which were once real and significant, between prisons, borstals and detention centres as establishments offering alternative ways of dealing with young adult offenders in custody, have now become blurred and misleading.

The Green Paper of the previous Administration, Youth Custody and Supervision and New Sentence, of 1978 accepted this recommendation and the proposed merger. Unhappily, the present Government's White Paper, Young Offenders, published in 1980, while accepting that borstal training and imprisonment for young offenders should be combined, contended that the separate detention centre sentence should be retained. This is reflected in the provisions of the Bill.

One of the problems which does arise from keeping up separate custodial systems for young offenders is the difficulty of being able to relieve overcrowding in one part of the system by using vazancies which may arise in another. If we merge two of these sentences into one, as the Bill provides, this will help, as far as that goes, to achieve greater flexibility for the Prison Department in trying to minimise the effects of overcrowding. But if we went further, as the first amendment proposes, and incorporated detention centres also in the same youth custody system, the flexibility I have mentioned would be even greater.

The view that is strongly put by those responsible for these matters is the advantage that will be derived by making it possible to allocate more offenders to places near their homes, and so make it easier for relatives, families, probation officers, social workers and others to visit them. Incorporating the detention centres into the system would increase the scope of that still further. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree that it is very important in the resettlement of difficult offenders to maintain strong links between the offenders and their families and with persons such as probation officers and social workers who will have responsibilities in regard to them. Therefore we see considerable beneficial advantages flowing from what we propose, in the merger of the three types of sentence into one.

The Advisory Council on the Penal System said in 1974 that it should be an object of policy so to reorganise the pattern of location of establishments and the allocation of young adult offenders to them that periods in custody will normally be spent in establishments situated near to their home areas. My recollection from being a Member of Parliament is that one was being constantly approached by families faced with the difficulty of long and expensive travel to maintain a connection with members of their families held in one form or another of prison or borstal establishment.

The difficulty, I fear, in regard to this matter is the change of attitude which developed in Government thinking when the "short sharp shock" concept was developed. It may well be that that will be put forward as the explanation for keeping separate the régime of detention centres. It is extremely doubtful whether the Home Office hope for better results from shocking young people out of their delinquency has any basis in probability of achievement. Indeed, the opposite conclusion seems to be the view of those who write with some authority on these matters. At any rate, there is no evidence that "short sharp shock" régimes will prove any more beneficial in reducing crime than more constructive approaches. Indeed, the probabilities are that the results will be less productive.

Therefore, while we appreciate that the Government have admitted that the "short sharp shock" detention centres are now more or less on an experimental basis—and I believe there are only four of them at the moment—it will be important to learn from the Minister when the Government hope to derive some firm conclusions from their experience of these centres. I had handed to me just before coming into the Chamber a highly critical report from the Probation Officers' Association on the way in which these centres are being conducted and the effects of them, which leads to the association regarding what is taking place with dismay. With the Prison Officers' Association taking a similarly critical and pessimistic view, we consider it would be deplorable if, because of this experiment of uncertain consequence and probably adverse consequence in the attempt to deal with juvenile crime, the more constructive step which is embodied in this amendment were either totally frustrated or held back for an indefinite period. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, in support of the noble and learned Lord I would make only two points. The first point is that, as the noble and learned Lord said, there are only four "shock" detention centres. Let us at least merge the rest of the detention centres with the new arrangements, because we shall thereby achieve the most important of all advantages; closeness to family. Secondly, it seems to me perfectly clear from what the noble and learned Lord has said, and from what I myself have heard, that the experiment is not being sufficiently successful to bother about. My own advice would be to move all detention centres into the arrangements: but we should be content, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord would be too, to reserve the four experimental centres and move the rest. Having said that, I support the amendment.

Baroness Gaitskell

My Lords, may I ask why this "short sharp shock" exercise is being resurrected? When this exercise was first mooted, I remember reading that it was considered shocking and was rejected by every person who knew something about crime and punishment. Why is it being resurrected now?

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, I should like to support the noble and learned Lord on this amendment. We shall gain by pooling these various youth institutions, by the greater fluidity and the possibility, therefore, of placing more people because there are no blockages in the particular types of institutions. Moreover, there are the distinctions between borstal, for instance, and young prisoner centres. Originally, the borstal institutions were primarily training places, whereas the young prisoner centres were for more punitive cases. Those distinctions have worn out in the course of time and there is now great similarity between all the institutions of all types available to young offenders—except the four particular detention centres.

I agree with those who have already said that the "short sharp shock" detention centres have a very bad record for subsequent offences. If we left those out and brought in the other detention centres we should have a more or less flexible and homogeneous type of institution. Each institution could then mould itself in its own way, without having these rather outmoded distinctions between borstal and young prisoner detention centres.

Lord Soper

My Lords, the claim that the unifying process which has already taken place is a good one is a claim which is irrefutable—but I would invite your Lordships to think again about the "short sharp shock" sentence. That is much more complicated in its effect than the assumption that it will probably lead to an amelioration in the character of those who are subjected to it. My own experience over many years of having something to do with young offenders is that the initial incarceration process leads to all kinds of psychological difficulties and results, and I believe that only a few of them are necessarily beneficial. The danger of the short sharp sentence is that psychologically it is unsound, and therefore should be rejected on the grounds that it does not in fact produce the kinds of result now advertised as coming from it.

Baroness Bacon

My Lords, I agree with the amendment moved by my noble friend but I am not very happy about the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that it would be a good thing to leave out the four experimental centres—what are called, but are really not, short sharp shock detention centres. After all, when the original detention centres were first set up there, they were supposed to be for a short sharp shock. I know several of them. We are having the experiment now, in four of them, but there seems to be no difference between those detention centres which are not in the experiment and those which are. What I should like to know from the noble Lord, is where does the régime in the four experimental centres differ from the régime in the other detention centres? I have a feeling that there is not much difference at all, and, if there is not much difference, there is no point in leaving these out.

I do so agree with the amendment moved, that it would be much simpler, better, more convenient all round, if we left out the whole of the detention centres. I should like to hear a little more, In my local paper, which covers one of the so-called short sharp shock detention centres, it was said by the warden some time ago that he did not see what he was going to do in addition to what was being done, and that it meant very little to call these four different in any way as regards the short sharp shock, whatever that might mean. So, if we could have a little more explanation of this, it would be very helpful.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I think many of us approach this question of the detention centres and their new stringent régime from an empirical point of view, and are very anxious to know how the experiment is doing. The noble Lord the Minister at Committee indicated that he would try to give some information at this stage. I have had for a long time a suspicion that the Home Office computer is specially programmed so as not to be able to give information which might conceivably be helpful to anybody. If the noble Lord is able to give some information today as to how this new short sharp shock réegime is doing since it was restarted, and particularly what the reconviction rates are, it might assist many of us to make up our minds on this matter.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, may I rise briefly to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Eiwyn-Jones, and others who have supported him. The Government are now trying, so far as I can see, to have a new structure for trying to persuade young people not to re-offend. It is not necessarily punishment; sometimes it is rehabilitation, sometimes trying to persuade them not to re-offend. The young people in our country today are re-offending at a great rate, and they are committing, as we all know, very violent crimes. Dealing with the detention centre, the children sent to a detention centre would be there for a minimum of 21 days and a maximum of four months, from which is deducted remission. They have remission automatically. The length of time they stay at the detention centre is governed by the warden of that centre. He decides on their behaviour within the detention centre how long they shall stay. When we move on to the youth custody centres, which are almost in place of borstal, which will now be taken out of the system, children then will be encouraged to be rehabilitated; they cannot be within three months, which is the amount of time they will be in, with remission.

I feel that this part of the structure of sentencing is very important. If we carry on with this structure and this amendment is not agreed to, or indeed if it is agreed to, who is going to decide on the allocation? The structure now is that there are two systems, in that the children stay either for a short time or for a longer time. If it is an overall youth custody system and the magistrates can only say, "We cannot deal with you outside; you have got to be in a closed environment for a short time", who is going to decide where they go? Being near to their homes, I submit, is not always a very good thing. Some of our children come from very delinquent families, and sometimes it is a good idea, even for three weeks or a fortnight, to show them another side, not as a punishment, because that is not part of it, perhaps being taught to do what they are told. I am afraid I cannot agree with this amendment. I do not know what my noble friend is going to say, but for my part I cannot support it.

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

My Lords, as at Committee, so on Report, the debate has veered towards consideration of the experimental new régime in four of the 19 detention centres. I should point out to your Lordships, in case you have been distanced so far from the expert introduction of the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, that the amendment refers to all sorts of detention centre orders and not just to the special régime. Having said that, I do recall the undertaking I gave, of which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, reminded me, to be more explicit on a number of aspects of the régime in these centres, and that I propose to be, as far as is possible.

To start with I should say that the régime does differ from that of other centres in that the supervision by staff is closer, the periods of association or free time are shorter, there are more parades and inspections, there are formal drill sessions, there is more physical education, and there is not a full-time training course, because that would not be appropriate to the short duration of the custody.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, suggested that there would be advantages in the generic sentence, if the detention centres were retained within it. Leaving aside the difficult problems of sentencing policy which would result, it would, of course, only produce the advantages of proximity to the offender's home if every centre was able to cater for every sort of offender, and the treatment given in the centres would, therefore, have to be generic as well. What we are trying to do, as I said at Second Reading and again at Committee, is to tailor the treatment to the criminal, rather than to the crime, and in this case to the young offender, and that the result of this generic treatment would be that every centre would have to give the full range of treatment, and that would not lend itself to the specialist treatment with which we are now experimenting. The question of whether the detention centre order should be retained does not turn on decisions about the particular type of régime. That was made quite clear in the White Paper which the Government published over 18 months ago. I shall not quote it, but shall refer your Lordships to paragraph 14.

The second point that I should like to make in this connection is that young offenders serving short sentences have different needs from those who will be in custody for some time. Nobody can be properly trained or reformed in a matter of days or weeks. It is no good starting someone on, for instance, a six months vocational training course if he is going to be released after two months. The great danger is that those with short sentences could become the Cinderellas of a large amorphous system. In fact, young people with short sentences are probably those with whom we should take the greatest care: they are not too far gone in crime to be retrieved and we do not want them inside the system again. That is what the detention centre order is about. It is in practice not possible to operate a full training régime in less than four months. The question then is: what can we constructively do with these offenders? That is what the pilot project is about.

I said during earlier debates that I would give your Lordships some information about the progress of the pilot project and the way in which it was shaping up in terms of re-offending. However, such information as is available at this comparatively early stage is not very helpful or revealing, in spite of what noble Lords opposite attribute to it. The pilot project with a brisker réegime now operates in four establishments. It offers 398 places; there are 2,297 places in 19 establishments in the system as a whole, and it therefore applies to 17 per cent. of that system. The project started in one senior and one junior centre in April 1980, and was extended to two more centres—one senior and one junior—in September 1981. Up to and including 8th July 1982, the four centres between them had received 4,160 trainees.

An evaluation programme is being carried out into many aspects of the project's operation and its effects. The work is being done by the Young Offender Psychology Unit of the Prison Department with assistance from the Home Office Statistical Department. I do not think that there is a computer involved and if it were I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would not feel that it was programmed by the same hand that programmes the Ministers at the Department. This programme is under the oversight of a steering committee which includes members of the Home Office Research Unit, administrators from the policy divisions concerned, and two senior independent academic members. It is intended that the programme should assess as many aspects of the project as possible, including its effect on the morale and outlook of the staff as well as that of the offenders themselves. If that aspect of the inquiry surprises your Lordships, I think that I should say with some emphasis that the success of this type of programme depends very largely, as it does in any detention centre, on the relationships established between the staff and the inmates. It is proper to realise that if what is proposed is depressing to the morale of the staff, or if they feel unfulfilled or frustrated by it, then it is bound to affect the inmates adversely as well. The steering committee is also going to look at re-conviction rates and it was on that aspect that I was so strongly pressed in Committee.

Re-conviction rates are, of course, a fairly rough measure of the success of any sentence. But if they are not to be wholly misleading comparisons have to be made between comparable sets, like sets, of statistics. The period chosen is bound to be arbitrary, but our practice is to adopt a two year re-conviction rate after release from custody. The accumulation of statistics collected on this basis provides some kind of measure; they are the best yardsticks of comparisons that we have.

The most recent figures relate to offenders released in 1977. What we need for the pilot project is comparable re-conviction figures and not just statistics in a vacuum. That means collecting figures over another two-year period and the period, of course, can only start when the first substantial batch of trainees were released, and the last figures can only come to hand as a part of a massive annual statistical exercise when it is over, and they then have to be checked and processed. So with the very best will in the world, they could not be had for a quite a time yet. This is, I recognise, very tantilising and as an interim indicator we are at present actually collecting one-year re-conviction rates. All these figures are also returned from the courts on an annual basis as part of the exercise to which I have referred. We hope that the 1981 figures will be available later this year, and that if all goes well all the processing involved will be done by the middle of next year. But let me stress again, like must be compared with like and that is only a one-year span. One obviously cannot draw firm conclusions from a comparison of the rate of re-conviction of one group one year after release, with another two years after release, and get any firm and useful conclusions.

I can assure your Lordships that the Government are, if anything, more anxious that anyone else to have concrete information about the outcome of the project in terms of re-conviction rates. The close monitoring would, of course, give us an immediate warning of any obviously adverse effect of the new régime, but so far there has been none. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept that they now have the information which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I have. If we want more, we shall simply have to be patient.

I apologise for having spent so long on this aspect of the matter, but I thought it right to go to some lengths to fulfil the undertakings I gave in Committee in view of the considerable interest there was at that stage and the interest which has been reaffirmed at this stage. Although it is Report stage I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, would like to speak twice and if I can facilitate him by giving him a brief interruption I shall do so.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, I do not want to speak twice but I would like to ask a question before the noble Lord sits down, with is a convention to which we all agree. Would the noble Lord agree that figures for convictions for a year, it they were twice as bad as the figures over two years, would be indicative of anything—because he speaks as if they would not be?

Lord Elton

No, my Lords. I hoped to have given the impression that the monitoring process would set off an alarm bell if anything was going severely wrong and that, of course, would be a very loud alarm bell.

Lord Wigoder

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I promise not to make a practice of this. However, is the noble Lord really saying that in July 1982 he does not know what proportion of those who went on the stringent régime in April 1980 have been re-convicted, and how that compares with the re-conviction rates of those who in April 1980 went to other detention centres?

Lord Elton

My Lords, what I am saying is that the retrieval of the figures in an annual event and the figures for the year 1980–81 are, therefore, only coming out of the system now. They then have to be processed. That is what I am saying. Let me remind your Lordships that the amendment itself is not addressed to the pilot schemes or to the stricter régime itself; it is addressed to the whole concept of detention orders. The Government see very good reason for retaining these orders as a distinctive sentence. The minimum sentence will now be three weeks—which will mean two weeks in custody, as my noble friend has rightly said, in most cases—and the maximum will be four months. It is simply not realistic to try to provide a training régime within that period of time, but if most offenders with these very short sentences go to separate detention centre establishments which are specially geared to cater for them, it will be possible to provide a structured régime which can operate constructively within the short time available. Our efforts will be concentrated on finding out what is the best sort of régime.

Under the provisions in the Bill the detention centre order will, on the whole, be used for those who are reasonably fit and who have little or no previous experience of custody. It seems right that they should be held in separate establishments apart from those more serious offenders who have received longer sentences. We intend also to retain the distinction between junior and senior detention centres, so that juveniles are, whenever possible, held separately from older offenders. Under a generic sentence, such as the noble and learned Lord and his supporters favour, these advantages would be lost and the courts would have no idea, when sentencing a young offender to a short period in custody, where he would go or to what sort of régime he would be submitted. That is to hand to the executive a valuable function of the courts. It is valuable for two reasons. First, the function serves to ensure that the court examines the full implications of its sentencing policy for each individual offender and, secondly, by giving to the court a reasonable degree of direction over the sort of experience the offender is to get as a result of his offence, it gives the court the confidence to use the system rather than to rely upon more traditional and inflexible sentences. Our object remains to make the sentence fit the criminal and finish his criminal career.

The Government, therefore, consider it very important to keep a separate sentence of detention. For many years now the detention centre system has not known what its fate will be. The Children and Young Persons Act 1969 contains a provision which would enable the sentence to be abolished for juveniles. During the 1970s the Advisory Council on the Penal System put forward proposals which would have merged the detention centres with the rest of the young offender system. This feature was preserved in the last Government's proposals in the Green Paper. For well over a decade those who work in detention centres have kept going without knowing whether what they were working for was likely to be abandoned or continued, and that uncertainty must be brought to a conclusion.

Detention centres are valuable, specialised establishments dealing with young, short-term offenders who need to be kept apart from the general run of hardened and serious offenders. If your Lordships accept this amendment, it will be among them that your Lordships will be throwing these youthful and still redeemable scapegraces. For many that would be to slam shut the doorway to a reasonably conducted and happy life. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment.

3.32 p.m.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has made out as good a case as he possibly can on this amendment and has answered a number of questions. He did not answer a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right when he says that for us to go ahead in this way, without having more information, is quite wrong.

We are concerned whether what is being done to and for these young people is, in itself, effective. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, spoke about a great many young people committing violent crimes. The point is that in seeking a solution to this we should try to ensure that what is being done is effective in dealing with the young people. If it is not, it is not only a waste of time and money, but it is extremely harmful.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me—and I am most reluctant to interrupt her—I am not certain whether she made that point in respect of the special régime or of the whole system; but it is of material importance because the amendment relates to the whole system of detention centres, and not just to the special régime.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, yes, it does. I thought that the noble Baroness was making a general statement as a matter of fact.

The Minister referred to the experimental new régime. He also reminded us that the amendment refers to all detention centres, which is absolutely true. My noble friend Lady Wootton was, I think, absolutely right when she drew attention to the fact that what had started off as being training within the borstal system, had, in fact, disappeared. We can see that from the results: where people are reconvicted after borstal sentences, and from what is now happening in detention centres. Although the Minister referred to it in connection with all detention centres—and that is absolutely true—it would be quite impossible and wrong for the House not to be very aware of the fact that there has been a tremendous emphasis on and hope expressed in the short, sharp sentences in detention centres. It is this to which we have also to address ourselves and which we must consider when we look at this amendment. In looking at the amendment, this aspect would come into the matter as well as all detention centres generally.

When my noble and learned friend moved the amendment he referred to the report of the Prison Officers' Association. I believe that we should attach a great deal of consideration to what they have said. I do not think that anyone could accuse the Prison Officers' Association—they would be the first to refute it themselves—of being a soft organisation. In April of this year they published a document entitled The Tougher Régimes Pilot Project, which dealt with what was happening at the four detention centres—in fact, the very centres which are referred to as the experimental project. What they say is I think very relevant, and to some extent answers some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. For instance, they say: As the day itself involves the brisk changing from one activity to another, a considerable amount of time is lost in the changeover periods … without doubt the effect of chopping and changing of activities has a debilitating effect on the staff who are supervising the activities". They go on to say: We believe that drill training occurs too often and for too long a period…". Then they say: It has to be recognised that some staff feel that drill is a waste of time, a boring and demoralising activity and that any purpose of ensuring a rigorous activity for the trainees is lost as they prefer it to any form of work activity". That seems to me to be a very counterproductive way of doing things.

They then say: We remain to be convinced that the mental ability of some trainees lends itself to being drilled in this fashion as so many are so badly co-ordinated and have such a low mental age that marching in any uniform sense is impossible to achieve. The resultant effect is that some trainees are pressurised by other trainees to improve their performance and because of their inability to do so they become frustrated during that session. This, of course, has a detrimental effect on the other activities as well …". The document then mentions a number of other things and, finally, there is the reference to staff morale: The project has proved quite clearly that prison officers have found it impossible to sustain the purely negative approach to their work and now see the distinct possibility that even shorter sentences will thrust upon them an even more negative régime. This is again viewed with great dismay and prison officers, and indeed the Prison Officers' Association, are sadly moved by the prospect". At this stage, when we are dealing with this very important Bill, I do not think that we ought to, or can, wait for the very long-delayed figures from the Minister's department. We are concerned with the working of the system and the effect on the young people, who are, in fact, going through it now. For those reasons, and for reasons which have been given by other noble Lords from different parts of the House, I hope that the House will support the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, in the light of the strong opinion that has been expressed, with one exception on the other side, which naturally I respect, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will give further thought to this matter. I did intend to cover the detention centre réegime generally and I only mentioned the four special centres because I suspected that adherence to that experiment would be at the basis of the rejection of this amendment by the Minister. That is not wholly true, but I believe that the arguments that have been put forward for incorporating this part of the penal process in relation to the young, as part of a unified programme giving flexibility to those who have the responsibility for these centres, would be the best solution to this grave problem of recidivism among young offenders which present arrangements, alas! are not doing a great deal to remedy. If the noble Lord wishes me to give way, of course I shall.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was inviting me to think and I thought that I ought to reply. If the House would allow me to do so, I would give the basis on which I was replying. I have thought a great deal about what has been said. It appears to me that the discontent which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has most recently referred to among those operating the régime, dates from a rather earlier time than the present. It is certainly true that there was difficulty with the fragmentation of the timetable by drill and more frequent PE sessions, but adjustments to the timetable seem to have overcome this. There have not been any unusual medical problems and I have, in fact, visited Haslar to see the régime in work. I was not aware of discontent there; I was aware of a rather good atmosphere.

Certainly, there may be some people who are less well fitted to the régime than others, but on either physical or mental grounds, it is within the powers of the Bill that they should be transferred elsewhere. I think that some people ought not to be sent to long custodial sentences, and, if they go to detention centres, the ré there should be tailored to their requirements. This is what this Bill does, and it is what the noble and learned Lord is asking us to throw out of the window.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, I am afraid that that somewhat lengthy intervention may encourage others to follow suit at the Report stage. That worries me a little. However, I did invite the Minister to apply his mind to this matter. I am disappointed with the consequence of that application and I invite the House to come to a view upon this amendment.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, if he wishes to do away with the detention centres, may I ask him whether he envisages that children will be sent to up to 18 months across the board and not have the opportunity of going for 21 days?

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, it is not proposed to do away with the short sentence of three weeks but to embody it in the other arrangements, and, for those who are to be dealt with in that way, that will continue. The amendment is not directed against short sentences.

3.41 p m

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]
Amherst, E.	Blyton, L.
Amulree, L.	Boston of Faversham, L.
Ardwick, L.	Briginshaw, L.
Bacon, B.	Brockway, L.
Balogh, L.	Bruce of Donington, L.
Banks, L.	Buckinghamshire, E.
Barrington, V.	Byers, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Caradon, L.
Beswick, L.	Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Birk, B.	Collison, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
	McCarthy, L.
David, B.	McNair, L.
Denington, B.	Mayhew, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Mishcon, L.
	Molloy, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Northfield, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Oram, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Peart, L.
Gaitskell, B.	Phillips, B.
Gardiner, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Reilly, L.
Gore-Booth, L.	Roberthall, L.
Gosford, E.	Rochester, L.
Grey, E.	Sainsbury, L.
Hampton, L.	Seear, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Shackleton, L.
Hunt, L.	Soper, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Jeger, B.	Stone, L.
Kagan, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Kennet, L.	Strauss, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Leatherland, L.	Underhill, L.
Listowel, E.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.—[Teller.]	Wells-Pestell, L.
	White, B.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Wigoder, L.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Longford, E.	Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Ilchester, E.
Ampthill, L.	Inglewood, L.
Avon, E.	Killearn, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Beloff, L.	Lane-Fox, B.
Belstead, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Bledisloe, V.	Long, V.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Lyell, L.
Caccia, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mancroft, L.
Chelwood, L.	Marley, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Merrivale, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Mersey, V.
	Milverton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Daventry, V.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Davidson, V.	Newall, L.
De Freyne, L.	Northchurch, B.
De L'Isle, V.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Denham, L.—[Teller.]	O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Derwent, L.	Onslow, E.
Drumalbyn, L.	Portland, D.
Duncan-Sandys, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Ebbisham, L.	Richardson, L.
Eccles, V.	Romney, E.
Effingham, E.	Saint Brides, L.
Ellenborough, L.	St. Davids, V.
Elles, B.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Sandford, L.
Elton, L.	Sandys, L.—[Teller.]
Ferrers, E.	Sharples, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gainford, L.	Somers, L.
Garner, L.	Spens, L.
Glanusk, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Gridley, L.	Strathspey, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Sudeley, L.
	Trefgarne, L.
Halsbury, E.	Trumpington, B.
Harvey of Prestbury, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hayter, L.	Vivian, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Young, B.
Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.