HL Deb 24 January 1983 vol 438 cc9-20

3.3 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Duty to offer agreements]:

Lord Bishopston

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("be made without direct or indirect charge and shall"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I speak to this amendment it would be appropriate for me to congratulate the Minister on his elevation. It is no secret that we have not always seen eye to eye, especially on this particular measure. Now that he has been promoted, with more power as well as responsibility, I have no doubt that he will use it in order to ensure that there is greater agreement whenever the occasion warrants it.

This Bill, to which we return after two days on which Committee proceedings were held, is one of some importance. Although some noble Lords may have the impression that mobile homes are like holiday caravans and not of any great consequence, in fact they provide a not insignificant part of our permanent housing stock. The House will be aware that the department sought from the officials of the Department of the Environment a review, in June 1975, with the terms of reference to review, in consultation with interested bodies, the problems of mobile home residents and the contribution that mobile homes make towards meeting the nation's housing needs in particular, and to consider legislative provisions as they affect owners and residents, planning considerations, terms and conditions, and so on.

It was following that review that a very helpful paper containing many recommendations was published by the department. Those of us who are concerned with the legislation have been helped by all forms of interested bodies and individuals, and particularly, of course, by those who depend on a mobile home as their main place of residence. I believe that the figures suggest that about 25 per cent. of the people living in mobile homes are elderly people, and about 28 per cent. of younger people do so. So we have to recognise some of the problems and the shortcomings of the previous legislation on mobile homes.

Many of these shortcomings have been detailed at some length in the report to which I refer, and to which the Committee referred on previous occasions. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is the task of the Opposition, and of other noble Lords, to make constructive suggestions which might be thought necessary to close some of the loopholes. This is one of the problems which some of the elderly people and the younger people in particular experienced. They are not able to go into all the legal aspects of the terms and conditions, and so on, in the making of agreements. They are subject to a fair amount of harassment, as we all recognise. There have been press campaigns and the media has drawn attention to these shortcomings.

Amendment No. 1, which refers to Clause 1, seeks to ensure that there are safeguards against the making of unjustified premium charges. We know that when people go on to a site they must have the site owner's permission and agree to a site rent and to other charges—service charges, water, electricity, amenity charges, and so on. But sometimes charges are levied mainly for making an agreement. Clause 1 requires the site owner to offer an agreement to the occupier. The amendment proposes in subsection (4) that basically the offer should be made without any charge.

Amendment No. 1 replaces Amendment No. 11 which was debated during the Committee stage and was a new clause to prevent or prohibit premiums. That amendment was defeated but we thought the matter was important enough to bring forward an alternative. The new amendment is narrower in scope but it is directed at the primary problem of site owners who charge for an agreement. The owner will still be free to sell a caravan to the occupier and to charge a pitch fee. As I said, the previous amendment was concerned with site owners requiring premiums which not only added to the cost for those wishing to use the sites on which a mobile home is placed but in some cases is a form of imposition of having to pay up on demand or else go to another site. The Minister knows, and the House must know, that the alternative sites which are sometimes suggested as a way out are not easily available because planning consent is necessary and there are not all that many sites around.

The DoE 1977 Report, to which I referred, said of the 1975 Act: The Act does not appear to deal with the premium payments of any kind if they are charged outside the terms of the agreement. It is not yet certain which, if any, of these additional charges are open to challenge in the courts. As I said earlier, a range of charges can be levied by site owners on mobile home owners. Some are reasonable but others are imposed that are quite excessive. We wish to stop the making of agreements where premiums are imposed. Premiums are a form of key money which noble Lords will know is forbidden under the Rent Act 1977. I hope the mention of that Act does not give the Minister blood pressure. However, it has been augmented by the Housing Act, 1980, for which the Minister's party was responsible. Indeed, he may claim credit for that measure.

Clause 1 requires a site owner to offer an agreement to the occupier, and this amendment requires that the offer should be made without a charge being levied on the agreement. I am certain that mobile home owners everywhere regard it as an abuse for direct or indirect charges to be levied when an agreement is made, because they are not relevant or justified and they are being imposed merely for granting an agreement. I am referring to any sum over and above the fair market price.

The subject of the payment of premiums was debated earlier in Committee. I quote the Minister, at column 16 of the Official Report for 6th December 1982, when he said: Premiums are charged not as a condition of granting an agreement, but, in effect, as a condition of granting the right to station the new mobile home in the first place". He also said: It is not our intention to prohibit this sort of premium". He went on to say, at column 17 of the Official Report for 6th December: If the premium is excessive [the occupier] can simply go to another site. He certainly does not have to accept it". If one considers the point I made earlier that these sites are not in abundance and there are no easy alternatives, then the mobile home owner who wants to position his home on a site is in a cleft stick. The Minister knows that there is a shortage of mobile home sites. It is not a question of going to an adjacent site down the road or even in the same village or the same county, because such sites are in very short supply. As regards other forms of housing—private and publicly owned houses—there is a choice, but there are only a limited number of mobile homes and a limited number of sites on which they can be placed. Therefore, there is really no freedom and the occupiers have to pay up if they wish to live on certain sites. Surely the Minister would agree with the principle of the amendment, and that therefore he ought to do something about it even if the wording needs to be reviewed. With those comments I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and the names of other noble Lords.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and to explain to your Lordships that I am here in a fairly unfamiliar role for me, speaking on mobile homes, because my noble friend Lord Avebury is in India—whether or not he is inspecting mobile homes there I do not know, but I am standing in for him. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, in congratulating the noble Lord the Minister on his elevation. I had intended to write to him, but the newspapers which I received said that the noble Lord had been promoted but did not say precisely what his promotion was. I must say that I am very delighted and I am sure that it will be a great help to your Lordships' House to have the noble Lord in this new, more powerful and more influential role. I hope that our influence upon him will be the greater now that he can have the self-confidence of the higher title.

I should like to say very briefly that I support this amendment. I am sorry that the Government would not go further to prohibit premiums. If owners are allowed to make charges without, so far as I can see, any control on the amount charged, then I must say, as a solicitor, that I fear from my experience in this world that it will very often be used on sites where there is a shortage of caravans, as a way of increasing the profit to be made by the owner. Already he or she has sufficient ways of making a profit under the terms of the Bill, and I should have thought that this would be a reasonable limitation.

One knows, from what we have read and seen during debates on previous housing legislation, how much difficulty there is over charges—charges to do with flats and so on about which we had a number of debates in your Lordships' House. I should have thought that this was an opportunity to try to ensure that charges were not made another synonym or euphemism for an additional profit to the owner. I support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I should like to say "thank you" to both the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, for their kind remarks and congratulations. I certainly take the responsibility part without question, but I am intrigued by the power that has been mentioned. I cannot say that I have noticed much of that vet, but it is early days and you never know. Certainly before I go further I should like to say that I do indeed claim credit, along with the Government, for the 1980 Housing Act.

This amendment is concerned with the same issue as one of those moved by the noble Lords, Lord Bishopston and Lord Avebury, in Committe. The amendment before us today is very much milder in tone than that proposed in Committee, which sought to make it a criminal offence to charge a premium in these circumstances. But I must say that I still cannot accept it. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, are such that I think I ought properly to explain precisely why I take that view.

The discussion that we had in Committee on this subject was, I felt, not quite as clear as it might have been. The first point I should like to establish is the distinction between, on the one hand, a charge that a site owner might seek to make when he offers agreements to all the residential occupiers on site and to those who come on to the site in the future, as a condition of the agreement; and, on the other hand, the premium or profit that a site owner makes when he arranges for a new mobile home to come on to his site. In the second case we are talking about the profit that a site owner makes on the expenses he incurs in transporting the new home to his site, connecting it up to services such as the water supply, electricity et cetera. These profits are made separately from what may happen when the agreement itself is offered. I think that the noble Lords are seeking to prohibit both these type of charges by their amendment, but they are different and it is crucial that we should look at them separately.

The first type of charge at which this amendment is aimed is one that a site owner might seek to make as a condition of offering an agreement. It is presumably envisaged that the site owner would say to an occupier something like, "Here is a statutory agreement that I am obliged to offer you. If you want to accept it, you must pay me £1,000" or whatever the amount may be. The Bill does not allow a site owner to make that type of statement. It imposes an absolute duty on him to offer an agreement to all residential occupiers, present and future. There are no conditions on that offer and the occupier is completely free to accept the agreement if he chooses. If a site owner asks for an extra payment in these circumstances, then the occupier should refuse to pay it.

It could happen, I suppose, that a site owner who asked for this type of payment might withdraw his offer of an agreement if the occupier refused to pay, but in that case the site owner would have failed to fulfil the duty on him to offer an agreement and that is a critical point. The occupier could then, if necessary, go to court to enforce that duty, as he would have to do in these circumstances if this amendment were accepted. So far as that type of charge is concerned the Bill already has the effect that the noble Lords are seeking.

The Bill does not—as the amendment would—prevent a site owner from making it a term of the agreement that the occupier should pay for the administrative expenses which the owner incurs in making the offer of an agreement. It does not seem to me unreasonable that he should be able to recover these expenses provided that the charge he makes is itself reasonable. If the administrative charge is unreasonable then the occupier, of course, would be able to challenge it.

That is the position as regards charges which might be made when the agreement itself is offered. The issues that they raise are, as I have said, different from those which arise on the premium or profit which a site owner makes when he brings a new mobile home on to his site. My understanding is that it is a fairly normal practice for a prospective occupier to select the mobile home that he wishes to buy and to agree with the site owner that he should bring it on to site. This can be at an earlier stage and it is quite separate from the offer of an agreement required by the Bill. The site owner then acquires the home from the manufacturers and arranges for it to be transported to his site and connected to services. The occupier then pays a total price to the site owner, which includes an element of profit for the site owner. It is this profit which I described in Committee as an important part of a site owner's income. I made the point then that an occupier who considered that the profit which an individual site owner made was unreasonable could go elsewhere.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, said that in certain parts of the country it is difficult for prospective occupiers to go elsewhere because demand outstrips supply, which I accept. But here we are talking about people who are considering whether or not to buy a mobile home. I do not think it realistic to argue that such people are likely to be forced to buy a mobile home at an extortionate price. They have an element of choice. A site owner who seeks an excessive profit is likely to find himself without any occupiers. For that reason I am unwilling to accept that this form of profit for site owners should be prohibited.

The effect of banning these profits would be either to increase the pitch fees paid by all occupiers or to drive site owners out of business. I do not think that either result is desirable. I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. In so far as it prohibits charges which are made as a condition for offering an agreement, frankly, it does not add significantly to the Bill's provisions. In so far as it goes further than the Bill in restricting a site owner's profits, for the reasons that I have given it is not acceptable.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat something which I raised many times in Committee when we were talking right across the provisions of the Bill. Throughout the Bill we seek to provide a balance between the needs of the occupiers and those of the site owners. It is the Government who have brought forward this Bill because we recognise that there are shortcomings in the 1975 Act, which, in fact, went a long way to improve the position which appertained prior to that date. We want to do this as equitably, and as fairly all round as we can. We had considerable consultations, and the Bill is the result of those consultations. Although one can always argue that one side or another is disadvantaged to a greater or lesser extent, on balance with this, as with other amendments before and now, I think that we have it just about right. I hope the noble Lord will think that that is so.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words. I am compelled to speak in this debate mainly in my capacity as an ex-diplomat's wife—and a mobile home is truly mobile in that capacity. I do not think the point that the Minister has made is absolutely satisfactory because he said that if it was wrong, meaning that if the occupier did not think it was right to pay this charge, he could refuse and go elsewhere or go to court. That must mean that the Minister thinks that these charges are wrong. Surely this particular amendment would simplify the position in that if the owner is not able to make his profit he must increase the profit he makes when selling the caravan, or he must increase the charges that he makes through his pitch fees.

Surely the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, must agree that there is an identically parallel situation as regards flat dwellers. My noble friend has already mentioned this, but I shall repeat it because I believe it is a very important point. If it was wrong for key money to be paid for a flat or a house for a home dweller, surely we should try to protect mobile home dwellers in the same way from the power that the owner of the land has in this particular case.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I hasten to say that I do not accept that the circumstances are the same as those for flat dwellers—not at all. Bit if the noble Baroness is right and if the circumstances were the same. I would have to turn her argument round on her by pointing out that if one looks at the effect upon flat dwellers who wish to have accommodation one sees that although the Rent Acts have had many good effects no one can deny the bad effect which has dried up the availability of supply; and if the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, is right—and I do not quarrel with him about this—that there are parts of the country where site accommodation is also difficult, he should be as concerned as I am that we should do nothing to make the likelihood of that less likely, if I can put it that way. Therefore, I cannot accept the point that the noble Baroness makes. I would simply fall back on my last observation. We are not talking about an exact science: these are judgments; this is a point of view. In trying to get a balance, as we are in this case, it may well be that if you see the argument more in one direction than another you think that it comes down slightly on the wrong side. I think the Bill gets it about right.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, the Minister has said that he is not yet quite sure what powers he has as a Minister of State. Having been one for five years, all I can say is that he probably has more powers than he thinks. I do not think he will have to say to us, "I shall consult on this" but, "I can actually say that I will agree to it". On this occasion I do not expect him to say that he accepts the amendment, but I should like to think that, considering the merits of what we seek to do, he will look at it again.

The noble Lord said that the occupier can go to court. That is all right, but it can take time. Many of the people we are dealing with are, as I have said, elderly; some are family people; and some are not too well aware of the legal intricacies of legislation which may or may not affect them. To go to court can also be costly. At this stage I shall not refer to Clause 5 of the Bill, which defines what is "the court". That will be raised in debate later on this afternoon. But it will certainly he very costly for people to go to court. I should have thought that legislation ought to be as helpful as possible by laying down, within reason, the details of what can or cannot be done.

Another more serious aspect of this is not only the cost but the aspects referred to in the DoE report, to which I have referred. At paragraph 3.55 the report refers to ways in which the site owner can discourage the making of an agreement which is necessary under the Bill. Having mentioned in the previous paragraph one way in which site owners can discourage occupiers from having an agreement, it goes on to say: This is not the only way in which some site operators have apparently sought to avoid entering into Mobile Home Act agreements. The large number of representations received by the department have left little doubt that a combination of lack of time, misunderstanding, ignorance, in some cases fear and the deliberate and often successful attempts at evasion have limited the rights that the Act sought to give. Among the pressures put on residents was a threat of increased site rents only for those who chose to enter into an agreement, exorbitant fees charged for the agreement itself and provision for additional capital sums to be paid annually by future residents to whom an agreement has been assigned". Then the next paragraph reads: It is also unclear how far the Act has succeeded for those who have agreements in outlawing certain restrictive practices. The Act"— this, of course, is the Mobile Homes Act 1975— does not appear to deal with premium payments of any kind although that is outside the terms of the agreement. It is not yet certain which, if any, of these charges are open to challenge by the courts—connection charges and premiums charged to tenants entering sites usually to he paid outside the terms of the agreement". There is some doubt about this and it is not good enough to say that people can go to court to get their rights taken care of and the measure defined.

The Minister has said, again rightly, that we seek a balance between the site operators and the occupiers. I agree, but he must realise that the main advantage is with the site owners. They have the sites and, due to shortage of alternative sites, if someone wants to put a mobile home on a site, the operator can say, "These are my terms."

I accept the Minister's point when he says that all this can be in the charges, but the charges should not include something for merely making the agreement. It is rather like going into a shop and buying a commodity off the shelf where the price is 20p and the shopkeeper saying, "You can have it at the price of 20p but I will charge another 5p for selling it". That is really only possible when there is a shortage of that commodity, but we do not expect that kind of thing to go on, especially when other forms of home ownership are covered by the Rent Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1980, which prohibit key money.

I hope that the Minister will look at this again, in view of the comments made by noble Lords. To give the Minister a chance to use his powers, I shall seek to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.33 p.m.

Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 29, at end insert— ("( ) For so long, after the expiry of the required period, as the owner fails to offer the occupier an agreement under this Act, the owner shall, notwithstanding the terms of any agreement, not be entitled to increase the amount of any payments due from the occupier.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also is important, indeed more important, and also seeks to clarify the Bill and close the loopholes which need closure, if the rights of the mobile home occupiers are to be safeguarded and if the site owners and operators are to be clear about their rights and responsibilities. The Bill does not impose any realistic sanction on the owner who fails to offer an agreement—I touched on this briefly when dealing with the last amendment—and the occupiers' right to apply to the courts is not sufficient. The amendment seeks to deal with the non-complying owner by effectively preventing him from increasing pitch fees or other charges as long as he is in default. We discussed this at the Committee stage and this is a variation of the amendment moved then. However, it is a little less demanding, which I think should please the Minister, but we consider it important. Because the Bill does not do so. the amendment seeks to impose an effective sanction on site owners who fail to offer an agreement. The 1975 Act provided for agreements to be made but only a percentage of occupiers made or completed agreements. so not all are covered now.

The review to which I made reference covers this in paragraph 331 and it is, I think, relevant to this situation. The paragraph says: Mobile home owners normally station their home on a site and occupy a pitch merely under a contractual licence. The type of contract varies considerably but the majority have no more than an oral agreement to occupy some part of a site. The DoE survey carried out mainly before the Mobile Homes Act 1975 came into operation showed that only one-third of site owners had offered written agreements to their residents and about one-quarter of residents had signed such an agreement. Half those without agreements would have liked them but even written agreements rarely give the residents much security and fixed terms were the exception".

It is obvious from correspondence from various parts of the country that there is no protection where there is no agreement. This amendment seeks to provide some protection pending the making of an agreement, because without agreements there is no protection for occupiers and no satisfactory position for site owners, because neither party is aware of the legal situation, except that the site owner is as such in a much stronger position than the occupier who is afforded little or no protection or security. We shall be told that the occupier has a right, as I said earlier, to take his case to the courts to define and enforce his rights. The snag is that the occupier may be unaware of his rights or afraid to enforce them for fear of the consequences. I gave an earlier quote from the DoE report which indicated the discouragement which can be placed upon an occupier to have an agreement. The right of the occupier to go to court is not really enough safeguard, apart from the fact that few would want the trouble, or indeed the costs. The Bill should provide that a site agreement should be unenforceable for as long as no statutory agreement has been offered.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said at the Committee stage of the amendment we debated last time—and, of course, it is the spirit of this one—it is in keeping with Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in respect of improperly executed credit agreements and to get the matter sorted out by the court could be a procedure to discourage occupiers seeking justice; it could be costly and could involve someone seeking legal aid. Those were the points, which I hope I paraphrase rightly, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, last time. So the amendment aims to deal with the non-complying site owner by effectively stopping him from increasing pitch fees or other charges for so long as he is in default. The Minister has said that he wants to stop cluttering up the courts—and how much we all agree with him—but if he intends to send people to the courts to get rights for these relatively small or minor but nevertheless important legal points, he will have queues there. We are trying to help the Minister to take this matter away from the courts by putting it into the Bill and letting everyone know exactly where he stands. This is another loophole which my noble friends and I believe should be closed.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, may I from these Benches once again lend my support to this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. I think the position is that, though the overwhelming majority of landlords and site owners are fair and reasonable people, no one, on the Government Benches or elsewhere, would be so naïve as to think that all site owners and all landlords are the very essence of every possible virtue. The fact of the matter is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has said, that the difference in bargaining strength and the difference in power between the owner and the occupier is very considerable. The owner is in a much stronger position than even the occupier with an agreement. The occupier without an agreement, reluctant as he may be to take legal advice or to think he cannot afford legal advice, and indeed, reluctant as he may be to do anything to anger the owner, might be willing to put up for a very long period with a totally unprotected position as an occupier without an agreement.

The best way to concentrate the mind of the owner—the probably very rare case of the unscrupulous owner—is to prohibit him, as this clause does, for increasing the amount of payments made by the occupier until a satisfactory agreement has been entered into. I should have thought that this was a very reasonable amendment, and one that the Government might agree to accept.

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to impose a penalty on a site owner who fails to offer an agreement under the Bill within the required period. The penalty would be that the owner could not increase the payments due to him from an occupier to whom he had not offered an agreement. Like the first amendment we considered a few moments ago, this one deals with a subject we discussed in Committee, and again does so in a less severe way than the earlier version.

My Lords, I argued in Committee that it would be wrong to assume that site owners would go to great lengths to avoid their obligation to offer an agreement under this Bill. An essential feature of this Bill is that it will not impose on site owners anything like the burden the Rent Acts impose on private landlords. We should not, therefore, expect that site owners will seek to avoid the obligations created by the Bill in the way that private landlords are said to avoid those of the Rent Acts. That said, I accept of course that there may be some site owners who will fail to offer agreements within the required period and that there must be protection for occupiers against them. The Bill already provides that protection. It enables an occupier to go to court to require the making of an agreement if one is not offered when it should be. I am not convinced that this amendment would take us much further.

We are told that the amendment would deter site owners from failing to offer agreements. Can we really be sure that a site owner who has ignored the obligation on him to offer an agreement under the Bill will pay any more attention to the effect of this amendment? The occupier who is not offered an agreement will still have to go to court to enforce his rights. If this amendment were to have effect, he would have to go to court to recover fees that he should not have paid. And if the problem is that the occupier did not claim his agreement because he did not know his rights, this amendment is not going to enable him to discover what those rights are.

The Bill as it stands offers a straightforward sanction for an occupier who is not offered an agreement. He can go to court or to an arbitrator to get one and on terms that the court considers just and equitable. He has the same recourse if the terms of the agreement that is offered to him are unacceptable. I do not believe that this amendment would in practice strengthen that protection, as its promoters claim. I think there is also some danger that it could be confusing. Might it not tempt an occupier who had been offered an agreement, and had neither accepted nor refused it, to claim subsequently that the offer had never been made? And might that not mean more court action rather than less? The Bill will give a solution to an occupier who is genuinely not offered an agreement, and one that it would be very difficult to abuse. It is, I believe, both an appropriate and an adequate sanction for the Bill and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I am sure that we are disappointed at the Minister not being more forthcoming on this. Without an agreement there is no protection. We believe that if the making of an agreement is delayed, maybe for reasons of uncertainty, and this we are trying to correct in this Bill, or because the site operator, as I said earlier when quoting the DoE document, is not keen on an agreement being made for obvious reasons, then there is no protection for the mobile home occupier.

We debated an amendment on somewhat the same lines at the last stage, when the Committee met, and this amendment has been varied in order to make it more likely that the Minister may be forthcoming on it. If the Minister cannot give any indication that he is prepared to look at it again, then we ought to test the feeling of the House on the matter.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I do not know whether I ought to put the Question now, or whether the noble Lord wants to make the Statement now and have the Division afterwards? If I do not receive any indication, I shall put the Question now.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I think that it would be desirable in order to complete this amendment.

3.45 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Amherst, E. Hanworth, V.
Amulree, E. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Ardwick, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Aylestone, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Bacon, B. John-Mackie, L.
Banks, L. Kennet, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Beswick, L. Leatherland, L.
Birk, B. Llewelyn-Davies of
Bishopston, L. Hastoe, B.
Blyton, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Briginshaw, L. Mayhew, L.
Brockway, L. Molloy, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Oram, L.
Clancarty, E. Peart, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Ponsonby of
Collison, L. Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Cooper of Stockton Reilly, L.
Heath, L. Sainsbury, L.
Derby, Bp. Shaughnessy, L.
Diamond, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Stone, L.
Evans of Claughton, L. Strabolgi, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Underhill, L.
Gaitskell, B. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Gladwyn, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Grey, E. Wigoder, L.
Hale, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Hampton, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS
Adeane, L. Long, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Ampthill, L. Lyell, L.
Auckland, L. McAlpine of Moffat, L.
Avon, E. McFadzean, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bellwin, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Beloff, L. Marley, L.
Belstead, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Bessborough, E. Merrivale, L.
Boardman, L. Mersey, V.
Broadbridge, L. Middleton, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Mottistone, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Newall, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Chelwood, L. Orkney, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Pender, L.
Clitheroe, L. Plummer of
Cockfield, L. Saint Marylebone, L.
Cottesloe, L. Porritt, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Portland, D.
Daventry, V. Rankeillour, L.
Davidson, V. Renton, L.
De Freyne, L. St. Davids, V.
Denham, L. [Teller.] St. Just, L.
Dilhorne, V. Saint Oswald, L.
Eccles, V. Sandford, L.
Effingham, E. Seebohm, L.
Ellenborough, L. Sempill, Ly.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Energlyn, L. Stamp, L.
Faithfull, B. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Ferrers, E. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Fortescue, E. Strathcarron, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Strathclyde, L.
Gainford, L. Strathspey, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Sudeley, L.
Glanusk, L. Swansea, L.
Glasgow, E. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Glenarthur, L. Terrington, L.
Glenkinglas, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Hailsham of Thorneycroft, L.
Saint Marylebone, L. Trefgarne, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Trumpington, B.
Hayter, L. Vaizey, L.
Henley, L. Vickers, B.
Hylton-Foster, B. Vivian, L.
Ilchester, E. Ward of Witley, V.
Kinloss, Ly. Westbury, L.
Kinnaird, L. Wise, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Wynford, L.
Lauderdale, E. Young, B.
Lawrence, L.

On Question, amendments agreed to.