HL Deb 01 February 1983 vol 438 cc683-95

3.1 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [Support financing of community services in Scotland]:

Lord Lyell

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 6, line 33, after ("district") insert ("or islands"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a drafting error. In Scotland, the local authorities empowered for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 to provide housing accommodation are, in terms of Section 1 of that Act, islands and district councils. It is therefore intended that the proposed new Section 16A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 should enable health boards to make support finance payments to both islands and district councils as housing authorities to assist them in providing accommodation to meet the special needs of the elderly, disabled and infirm. As drafted, the proposed new Section 16A(1)(c) refers only to district councils; this amendment would insert a reference to the three islands councils as well. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

My Lords, I see no reason why we should not support this particular amendment; it is an obvious one. But I take this opportunity to register a very strong protest at the large number of amendments tabled by the Government at this Report stage. Of 117 amendments, nearly 90 are Government amendments. In addition, there are four new clauses and two new schedules, which were tabled last Tuesday and were not available to noble Lords until Thursday. Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has done me the courtesy of sending me a very large number of papers, Notes on Clauses. One amendment about voluntary bodies promised me by the noble Lord in his letter of 9th January has not even been put down.

I protest on behalf of the House in this sense. Here we are faced with very complicated amendments and new clauses. We are on Report stage and, as noble Lords know full well, on Report stage, except for the mover of an amendment, one can speak only once. Therefore we have been robbed of the detailed examination that takes place on the Committee stage. When I state categorically that the bulk of these large amendments were put down last Tuesday, noble Lords will recall that that was the day on which the Report stage should have taken place. But it was postponed because of certain situations arising which naturally engaged the attention of the House, and indeed the country.

Therefore I make this protest, not from this Box but on behalf of the whole House, that the House is not being treated properly by the department. I am not going to involve the Minister too much, but he has to carry the can, as we know full well. This is a scandalous way in which to treat the House. One cannot pass much comment at this stage on the individual large amendments. It can only mean that, unfortunately, on Third Reading there is the possibility of there being a large number of amendments. My attitude is that on Committee stage we should consider as much as possible of the detail on amendments. On Report stage we should deal with only those where at least there is a faint hope that the Government might agree, or someone feels so strongly about an amendment that they wish to take the matter to a Division. On Third Reading we should be as moderate as possible. That is the general spirit of co-operation that one extends in this Chamber. On this occasion, unfortunately, the situation is different.

Those of us w ho work in Opposition from these Benches know full well that we are not surrounded with advisers writing our speeches. We have to paddle our own canoe, and it is not easy. Noble Lords opposite, when they are on this side, know this, although perhaps their central office is more generous than my particular organisation, they having far greater resources in terms of money than we ever get. However, that is beside the point. I protest; not from this Box, but on behalf of the whole House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, I do not propose to speak on the substance of this amendment with which my noble friend Lord Lyell is concerned. I take what the noble Lord says in the spirit that it is meant. It is true that some of these amendments were tabled at rather a late stage, for which I apologise. I offer a general reason, which may not necessarily apply in each and every case. The reason is that we have been very busy consulting on some of the proposals which have been put forward, not only by the Government but by noble Lords opposite and by other Members of the House. It is often not possible until a late stage to table amendments which reflect the results of such consultation. The noble Lord complained that certain amendments which I had foreshadowed in a letter to him had not been tabled. I am happy to say that the noble Lord is not correct. The ones he refers to are Nos. 25 and 28 on the Marshalled List, which I hope he will find satisfactory when he sees them.

The Government have tried very hard to approach this Report stage—and I speak for myself, at least—in a constructive frame of mind, as the noble Lord will discover. Later today, I intend to accept at least one of the proposals put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and one or two proposals that come from other quarters of the House. So I feel that my record in that respect is well capable of examination.

Lord Wallace of Coslany

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; certainly the amendment is down and it is one of the late ones. But instead of being on Clause 1, he has put it down under Schedule 5. He has led me up the garden.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.9 p.m.

Baroness Jeger

moved Amendment No. 2: Before Clause 3 insert the following new clause: (" . Where a child is in the voluntary care of a local authority any denial of parental rights, including rights of access, must be referred to a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and represented."). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that where a child is in the voluntary care—and I emphasise "in the voluntary care"—of a local authority, any denial of parental rights, denial of access, must be put before a juvenile court at which either parent shall have the right to be heard and to be represented. There are all sorts of reasons why a parent asks for a child to be taken into care. It could be a mother's illness or death; it could be homelessness—and I must tell your Lordships that these cases, sadly, are increasing. There might be a marital breakdown of such severity that neither parent can care for the child. There are many complex reasons. But I must emphasise that we are not talking about children who are neglected or abused or taken into care for their own protection. I understand there are about 40,000 children in voluntary care today, so we are not talking about a small minority.

I realise that if this amendment were accepted there would have to be amendment of the Child Care Act 1980 and possibly of other legislation. But it seemed to us that the occasion of this present Bill should not pass without your Lordships setting some changes in the context of this Bill: otherwise it might appear that your Lordships are quiescent, self-satisfied and passive about the present situation, and I do not think that is true.

This matter was discussed at Committee stage on 9th December on a proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to amend Section 3 of the Child Care Act 1980. The noble Lord's amendment was defeated by 84 votes to 65, although it had the support of Members from all parts of the House. It may be argued that at present a parent has the right to object at a juvenile court—a right to object within 28 days of the parental rights order being made. This puts the onus on the parent of going to court within the given period. This amendment would make referral to the court statutory so that the writ of the social services committee could not run without the confirmation of the juvenile court.

It might be maintained that this amendment is unnecessary because the parent can oppose a resolution by the service of a counter-notice upon the authority. But how is a parent to know this, and how would they cope with it, or even know what a counter-notice is?—especially as in these cases parents are very often distressed, disadvantaged, lacking confidence and lacking support. It is said by some who oppose this amendment that the parent should get that support from the social worker. That is very difficult for the parent to accept because it is the social worker who would have moved the order in the social services committee; it is very hard for a parent in this situation to look for help in opposing the social services committee when that social worker will have been responsible for recommending that parental rights be assumed by the local authority. The mother or father might well presume that the social worker would be supporting the authority in court. It would certainly put the social worker in a very difficult position if he or she were to support the parent in court, in defiance of his or her own authority.

Under the present law, once the social services committee has passed a resolution assuming parental rights, a formal notice must be sent to the parent and must inform him or her of the right to object within 28 days. But 28 days seems to me to be very little time. I am not sure whether the parent would have received the letter. The parent might have moved or might have been transferred from one hospital to another. Parents might even have a language difficulty in many cases in understanding an official document, and even those who do not have a language difficulty may well find some problems in understanding those documents.

We are talking in the main about people who are often the least articulate, with the least initiative, in this very difficult situation. In this amendment we are endeavouring to do something to help them other than just sending a letter telling them they have 28 days in which to appeal to a court. I must emphasise to your Lordships that at present I understand there are no absolute rights to legal aid, which might well be a disadvantage to some of the poorest people involved.

Some professional social workers may well feel that in the interests of the children they should be able to protect them from irresponsible or, in some cases, dangerous parents. But surely the juvenile court would be equally sensitive to these problems and in such cases their judgment would be in support of the local authority. This procedure would protect social workers from harassment by parents or other relatives who feel they have been harshly dealt with. I have discussed this with some social workers who feel they would gain added confidence from knowing that the court had upheld their judgment, that their decisions were not invidious and therefore, if the court had decided against them, that must be accepted without their taking responsibility for decisions which might well be opposed by families later on.

I also think that parents who have lost their case might well be sad but they would find a judgment of the court at which they could appear and be represented to be more acceptable than the decision of a local authority committee at which they were not present. I believe we are naturally a law-abiding community and, by and large, people would prefer to feel that the law had made its judgment on their case rather than a committee of unseen bureaucrats in the town hall in their absence.

These changes have the support of the Magistrates' Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Council for One-Parent Families and the Family Sub-Comittee of the British Association of Social Workers—but not yet the council of the association, I must make clear. That council will be meeting later this year.

I am sure the House would want to express its appreciation of the heavy burden borne by our social workers—often with too heavy a case load, a problem which seems likely to increase under present policies. They are having to deal with desperately difficult and sensitive situations, but I know of no social worker—and I know many—who would claim total infallibility. None of them should see this amendment as an attack on their profession; it is an attack on the system.

On 9th December, in col. 303, the noble Minister said that consideration was being given to these problems to find out whether any changes were needed. I quote: We may conclude that changes or further safeguards are necessary. If that is our conclusion I have no doubt we shall want to use the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in another place". That was said on 9th December. It is now 1st February, so I do not think it is unfair to ask the noble Minister whether he has had time to come to any further conclusion about these proposals. I beg to move.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, this amendment is of very great importance and I hope that every Member of this House who is or has been a parent will envisage the situation of the parent. Suppose that your wife is taken ill and you are left at home with one or two children with whom you cannot cope. Your first reaction is that you are very glad that there is a local authority place or some kind of place where your child can be in residence during this crisis at home. Then comes next week and you think you will go and see the child, but you find that you are denied access to your own child. Imagine this, and imagine yourself in that situation when you have young children at home. Your immediate reaction to that would be, "They have no right to do this", and by that you mean that only a court of law can have a right to do it. This amendment would make it obligatory that denial of any access to the child should be subject to the approval of a court of law.

Lord Banks

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. The noble Baroness reminded the House that at the Committee stage I moved an amendment which would have prevented a denial of parental rights to parents of a child in voluntary care without recourse to the courts. It would no longer have been possible for that to be done by administrative means through a parental rights resolution. As the noble Baroness said, there was wide support for that amendment in all parts of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the present procedures were not ideal, and also said that the Government had not ruled out the possibility of change, although he opposed the amendment itself.

He spoke of possible amendments when the Bill reached another place, and he referred to consultations about the possible establishment of a code of practice. A code of practice would undoubtedly be an advance, although, of course, that was not what the amendment proposed, which went much beyond that. I felt that on that occasion during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had not made any firm commitment to take action and had not, therefore, met the point of the amendment. So we divided, and the amendment was lost by the comparatively narrow margin to which the noble Baroness referred.

As I understand it, this amendment, although much more loosely drawn, would produce a similar result and, for that reason, I support it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to commit the Government firmly to the introduction of amendments in another place. The British Association of Social Workers, to whom the noble Baroness referred, have told me that they would prefer no change in the law until family courts have been introduced. That is an understandable point of view. I, too, support the establishment of family courts, and I urge the Government to set them up. But I do not feel that we can leave the matter with which this amendment is concerned to be dealt with at some unspecified date in the future, and it would be very encouraging if the Government would say that there will be definite proposals for amendment when the Bill reaches another place.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, while understanding the feelings of the two noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I am not at all clear about the law in relation to this amendment. If a child is accepted into care under Section 1 of the Children Act, that means that the child is accepted into care at the request and demand of the parents. At any point in time the child can be withdrawn from care, and no local authority can stop that. If a child is in care under Section 1 at the request of the parents, and if a local authority refuses either to allow the parents access or to allow letters to pass, the parents can withdraw the child at a moment's notice. That is under Section 1 of the Children Act.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, had to do with the assumption of parental rights under Section 2 of the Act. I am not sure whether in this amendment we are talking about Section 1 or Section 2 of the Children Act, but if it is Section 1, which means voluntary care, then it does not really apply. Under Section 1, if parents want to withdraw their child they can do so, and they sometimes go to a voluntary organisation and ask for help.

Secondly, I am also somewhat confused about this amendment, because if a parent is ill, or if there is a death in the family, and the parents ask for the child to be accepted into care, it will be a terrible shock to find themselves in court. That would be something which they had never foreseen or envisaged when their child was accepted, but not taken into care, and when there was no question of Section 2 rights, as was the case with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I am afraid that I find it quite impossible to accept this amendment legally, although I understand the feelings of the noble Baroness who moved it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, may I say a brief word in opposition to this amendment? The approach must surely be what is in the best interests of the welfare of the child, and not how we can best protect parental rights. It was not my initention to speak on this matter, but as I was engaged in a case involving the Lewisham Borough Council which went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and where these issues which are under discussion arose for decision, may I be excused for saying this brief word?

I have not looked it up for many months, but that was a case where the child was put by the mother into voluntary care and the mother, having put it into voluntary care, was on any showing irresponsible and an improper person to have further custody of the child. Indeed, handing it over to the mother would have endangered the child. The Court of Appeal held that the local authority had to hand that child over to the mother; so we took out wardship proceedings in the High Court, went to your Lordships' Appellate Committee and your Lordships overruled the Court of Appeal. That still stands as authority.

Like my noble friend Lady Faithfull I am concerned about this matter, and I am not seeking in any way to be obstructive. But I am not convinced as to the use of putting what is called the onus on the local authority, which I suppose would mean that you would, perhaps, add to the drafting that after the denial of parental rights the local authority shall forthwith refer to the juvenile court.

I do not know about your Lordships, but I am not happy with the use of the word "parent". There might be a grandmother or someone who had care of the child but who was not a parent. But points of drafting are not particularly attractive. I merely mention them because they could lead to wider points of principle. What seems to me to be the point of principle at stake is that, by and large, since the Lewisham Borough Council case the law is reasonably satisfactory to protect the welfare of children. There is no sufficient case made out for this amendment, and it would perhaps he preferable to wait until the establishment of the family courts. For those reasons, as at present advised, and subject to anything further that I hear in your Lordships' debate, I would be disposed to oppose the amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, very often in your Lordships' House the intervention of lawyers is an annoyance. But sometimes I think we find that their experience, and the way in which they can point to that experience, does help the House. I hope this is such an occasion, because we have drifted from principle to some sort of examination of the legal position, and whether that is satisfactory. As always, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for giving us the benefit of his experience.

The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, talked about whether this amendment applied to Section 1. If it applies to Section 1 that is the very case that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was talking about; namely, a parent voluntarily giving a child into the care of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, then went on to say that that was a case which he thought was sufficiently cared for at the moment by the law, and he took us through the various stages of the case that reached your Lordships' Appellate Committee. It is to just that sort of case that my noble friend is referring.

It is the case of a child being handed over in certain circumstances—be it illness, be it death, be it some tragedy of some kind—to a local authority. The sole question for the House indeed, for the lawyers in the House, too is whether one leaves the extraordinary case, as it may be, of refusal of access—the normal human right of a parent in relation to a child and a very essential human right—to a committee, to a local authority, to an officer's recommendation to a local authority. When one is dealing with such a fundamental refusal which, quite apart from the liberty of the subject, can produce such emotional reactions from both parent and child, should not a juvenile court look at such an extraordinary case and deal with the matter judicially? Is there any doubt in your Lordships' minds that a juvenile court would not have, as a prime consideration, the welfare of the child, but would at the same time ally with it the right of the parent? Is this not a judicial and completely independent decision that ought to be taken away from the local authority that is already involved in the decision; namely, that this fundamental right should be withdrawn?

My Lords, if I may say so, I regarded the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as so helpful because I think it answered the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, by saying that this is just the case, under Section 1, however rare it might be, where a court decision ought to be applicable and not that of a committee of a local authority, well advised or otherwise by an official.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful, first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for clarifying what she seeks to achieve by virtue of this amendment. The matters which she and others who have spoken have raised are of the greatest importance, and, as I shall explain, are under urgent consideration by the Government.

Before I go on to that I should perhaps say that the drafting of the amendment presents certain problems. It is far from perfect, I fear, but I should not seek to argue against the principle of the amendment just on the basis of its drafting because that can be put right either at a later stage or in the other place. Despite the drafting, I can give an assurance to your Lordships that we are very well aware of the concern felt in this House, and indeed outside it, about some aspects of provision for children in care. The question of the law and procedures regarding parental rights resolutions was debated at some length by your Lordships on 9th December, when I endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the Government's considered view.

We are by no means satisfied that the present system is entirely satisfactory. Nor are we convinced that the law should be changed to bring before the courts every case where a local authority feels it needs parental rights over a child in care, regardless of whether there is any conflict between the authority and the parent over the matter. We believe that the practice needs to be improved so that the procedures are operated in a way that ensures that parents' rights do not go by default or are not lost for want of the right advice at the right time. I gave your Lordships an undertaking on 9th December that we would be exploring the possibility of drawing up guidance on good practice. Work on this is now in hand and has the support of the local authority associations and the Association of Directors of Social Services. We are also considering whether we need to bring forward in another place one or two small changes to the legislation.

I turn now to the question of access to children in care. We have this matter very much in mind at the moment, and I am grateful for the views of your Lordships. I am certainly concerned about the difficulties which I know can face parents who find themselves at irreconcilable odds with a local authority about access to a child in care. It is important and reassuring to remember that in most cases the question of access will be agreed without serious problems between the authority and the parent. In most cases, indeed, the local authority will be anxious to encourage access between a parent and a child, which is so important if their family is to be reunited. Further, I am sure that we would all wish to recognise the very difficult job and heavy responsibility which a local authority is expected to take on when a child is placed in its care. I am sure that where arrangements can be made by agreement and any difficulties resolved by negotiation this must be the best way forward for the family as a whole.

Again, we shall be considering carefully whether guidance from my department can help to ensure good practice in this field. I would not wish to see these matters referred routinely to the courts. Having said that. I certainly sympathise with those of your Lordships who feel that, when all attempts to agree have failed, parents should have the right to seek redress through the courts. It would be my hope that this would be a final resort rather than in the first instance, and we are urgently considering whether there is any measure which we can bring forward in the other place to achieve this without putting unreasonable burdens upon the local authorities and the courts.

The law relating to children in care is very complicated and fragmented, and, partly for historical reasons, there are inconsistencies; but the law generally provides that where a child is in the care of a local authority then that authority has a responsibility for the child's upbringing as long as he remains in its care—and a very heavy responsibility and a very difficult task that can often be. The law gives the authority the necessary powers to make decisions about the child's upbringing. These decisions must be made within the framework of legislation which provides, most importantly, that a local authority should give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the child's welfare throughout his childhood.

The law provides that, in special circumstances, the courts may issue directions about decisions affecting a child in care; for example where a child is made a ward of court. But in the majority of cases where the local authority stands in the role of the parent it has the responsibility for making the decisions as a parent would. If the natural parent believes it is no longer right or necessary that an authority should have the care of a child, the parent has a right to ask the court to bring the care order or the parents' parental rights resolution to an end. That is very broadly the position which is now being challenged.

I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward, especially those in relation to the question of access. We believe that the position of parents who are denied access to their children needs further consideration. but the implications of a more general change in favour of the referral of the decision to the court also need careful consideration. I very much doubt whether at present there is any consensus of opinion that the courts and the adversarial nature of proceedings in the courts provide the best forum for effectively planning a child's upbringing and future.

I said at the earlier stage of the Bill that we were considering whether we could bring forward further proposals, perhaps during consideration of this measure in another place. I suppose it might have been possible, by speeding up that consideration but, worst of all, by truncating the consultation process, to act more quickly, but again that would have incurred the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany. Had we done that, it would have necessitated putting down more amendments quite recently. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has already pointed out that we have put down quite a number. I hope your Lordships will agree and accept that the Government take this matter very seriously indeed and that we hope to bring forward further proposals in the other place.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. May I say straight away to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who has such experience of these matters that I tried to anticipate her criticism of its legality by saying that there would have to be subsequent amendments of the Child Care Act 1980 and that these would take on board her problem about which section of the legislation was being referred to. I cannot agree with the noble Baroness's reference to the strain that this would put upon parents of having to go to the juvenile court. This seems to be an argument for the abolition of the juvenile courts. Parents often have to go to the juvenile courts. I am not sure that the strain of a court appearance in a juvenile court where the issue can be discussed is as much of a strain as a parent receiving a letter saying that a committee has passed a resolution denying his right of access to his own child. To be told this by people with whom you may not have come face to face, by means of an official, bureaucratic document, seems to me to be the most traumatic experience of all.

I appreciate the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, as did my noble friend Lord Mishcon. However, I take issue with him on one point. He referred to the fact that a parent might be denied parental rights because a social worker thought that that parent was irresponsible. I doubt whether there are many parents in this House who can claim that they have never been irresponsible. It is a very subjective judgment of the kind which parents deeply resent. It is especially resented when a slightly older woman is in the care of a younger social worker. Not so long ago I had such a woman come to me and say, "Who is that bit of a girl? She's never had a baby in her life—not that she admits to, anyway. Now she's telling me that I'm irresponsible". These are delicate and difficult matters, but I should have thought that to go through the courts is one way of reducing to a minimum these subjective judgments.

I would remind the House that 3,000 of these parental rights resolutions go through local authorities every year. This means that we are talking about 3,000 children. It is not good enough for noble Lords to think that if it is under Section 1 the parent can get his child back. Once a resolution has been passed, the whole situation changes. There have been cases where children have not even been allowed to receive presents from their parents because a resolution of denial has been passed.

I appreciate all that the noble Lord the Minister has said and I am glad that the Government are giving urgent consideration to the matter. Nevertheless, I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment, defective though it is legalistically, for which I apologise. The noble Lord the Minister made one statement which seems to contradict the intention. He said that he would not wish matters to be automatically referred to the courts. The purpose of the amendment is that they shall be referred automatically to the courts so that there will be no invidious decisions about one case going to court and another case not going to court. It would be a difficult decision to make. I am not sure who would make the decision as to which cases went to court and which did not. If it is for the parent to take the initiative in going to court, that contradicts the intention of the amendment, which is to save the parent the onus of initiating proceedings. I am sorry if I have failed to persuade the Minister that these parents are often the least confident and the least able to initiate proceedings. We are seeking to make it obligatory so that neither side has to take the initiative.

For these reasons, with all my thanks to the noble Lord the Minister for the crumbs of comfort and good hope which he has given us this afternoon, I am afraid that I do not feel able to withdraw the amendment.

3.45 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 119.

Airedale, L. Elwyn-Jones, L.
Amherst, E. Evans of Claughton, L.
Amulree, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Ardwick, L. Gladwyn, L.
Auckland, L. Glenamara, L.
Aylestone, L. Gore-Booth, L.
Balogh, L. Granville of Eye, L.
Banks, L. Grey, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Hale, L.
Beswick, L. Hampton, L.
Birk, B. Hanworth, V.
Bishopston, L. [Teller.] Harris of Greenwich, L.
Blease, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Blyton, L. Hayter, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Briginshaw, L. Hunt, L.
Brockway, L. Irving of Dartford, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Jacques, L.
Chitnis, L. Jeger, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. John-Mackie, L.
Collison, L. Kagan, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Kaldor, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Kennet, L.
Denington, B. Kilmarnock, L.
Diamond, L. Kinnaird, L.
Donaldson of Kirkhill, L.
Kingsbridge, L. Leatherland, L.
Lee of Newton, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Savile, L.
Hastoe, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L. Serota, B.
Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. Shinwell, L.
Longford, E. Simon, V.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Stamp, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Stedman, B.
Macleod of Borve, B. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Macleod of Fuinary, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
McNair, L. Stone, L.
Mais, L. Strabolgi, L.
Masham of Ilton, B. Strauss, L.
Mayhew, L. Tanlaw, L.
Melchett, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Mishcon, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Nicol, B. Tordoff, L.
Northfield, L. Underhill, L.
Oram, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Peart, L. Walston, L.
Pitt of Hampstead, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Plant, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Whaddon, L.
Porritt, L. Wigoder, L.
Rathcreedan, L. Winstanley, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Rochester, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Hailsham of Saint
Alexander of Tunis, E. Marylebone, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Halsbury, E.
Allerton, L. Harvington, L.
Ampthill, L. Henley, L.
Avon, E. Hill-Norton, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Hives, L.
Bellwin, L. Home of the Hirsel, L.
Beloff, L. Hunter of Newington, L.
Belstead, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Bessborough, E. Ilchester, E.
Blake, L. Kilmany, L.
Boyd Carpenter, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Burton, L. Lane-Fox, B.
Caccia, L. Lauderdale, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Long, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Lovat, L.
Cathcart, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Clancarty, E. Lyell, L.
Clitheroe, L. McFadzean of
Cockfield, L. Kelvinside, L.
Coleraine, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Cottesloe, L. Macpherson of
Crathorne, L. Drumochter, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Mansfield, E.
Daventry, V. Margadale, L.
Davidson, V. Marley, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Mersey, V.
Derwent, L. Mills, V.
Digby, L. Milverton, L.
Dilhorne, V. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Drumalbyn, L. Mottistone, L.
Duncan-Sandys, L. Mountgarreot, V.
Ebbisham, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Ellenborough, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Elton, L. Onslow, E.
Faithfull, B. Orkney, E.
Ferrers, E. Orr-Ewing, L.
Fortescue, E. Reilly, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Renton, L.
Gainford, L. Rochdale, V.
Garner, L. Romney, E.
Geoffrey-Lloyd, L. Rugby, L.
Gisborough, L. St. Aldwyn, L.
Glasgow, E. St. Davids, V.
Glenarthur, L. St. Just, L.
Glenkinglas, L. Saint Oswald, L.
Gray, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Greenway, L. Sandys, L.
Gridley, L. Seebohm, L.
Shaughnessy, L. Tranmire, L.
Skelmersdale, L. Trefgarne, L.
Soames, L. Trumpington, B.
Somers, L. Ullswater, V.
Spens, L. Vickers, B.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Swinton, E. [Teller.] Ward of Witley, V.
Terrington, L. Westbury, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L. Windlesham, L.
Thorneycroft, L. Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Back to