HL Deb 21 March 1983 vol 440 cc934-44

3.3 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 6 [Supplementary provisions]:

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 27: Page 5, line 31, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 6(1) provides that: An Executive shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of giving advice". The advice concerned is referred to in Clause 3(5) and it covers advice on the amount of revenue grant, the method of determining the estimates of the cost of providing services and facilities and the form and contents of the annual plan. Your Lordships will see that these items are so extensive that the information required by the Secretary of State could be very detailed. In fact, the Department of Transport's consultation document, which has already been issued, indicates how detailed the information required could become if it were permitted to do so.

The amendment proposes to insert the one word "reasonably", so that the subsection would read: An Executive shall supply the Secretary of State with such information as he may reasonably require". Although this improvement will not extensively curtail the power of the Secretary of State, it is suggested that the insertion of the word "reasonably" will qualify the Secretary of State's requirement. I hope that the Minister will not say that this is implied and that, of course, the Secretary of State will act reasonably. Whether or not the existing Secretary of State will act reasonably remains to be seen. But there will be future Secretaries of State, and by inserting the word "reasonably" we shall be doing what I think has been done in quite a number of other pieces of legislation, and putting in a qualification which will hold back any attempt to get too detailed and unnecessary information. I beg to move.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, I should like to ask: who is to interpret the meaning of the word "reasonably"?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for explaining the purpose of this amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State is indeed reasonable, and he certainly has no intention of asking for information other than that which he considers necessary and relevant for the purpose of giving initial advice. This is really the point. The Secretary of State can ask only for information which is relevant to giving initial advice. He does not have freedom to require any information. Indeed, as the full planning cycle gets off the ground, much of the information for setting the next year's initial advice will no doubt come from previous year's plans.

Furthermore—and this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has just made—the amendment would not, in practice, make clear the boundary between what was reasonable and what was unreasonable. The amendment would not actually make a clear distinction. If an authority or an executive wished to challenge a request from the Secretary of State, they could do that equally well under the existing wording.

I recognise that there is a genuine desire in your Lordships' House to ensure that the Bill is as good as we can make it, but I ask your Lordships to consider this matter particularly carefully. The Bill does not qualify what the authority may require from the executive under Clause 4(2). We all assume that the authority itself will limit its request to a reasonable number of reasonable alternative proposals, and I should not want at this stage to pepper the Bill with "reasonables". With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I am sure that the House will be reassured by having the undertaking of the noble Lord the Minister that the present Secretary of State is reasonable, and will always act reasonably. May I give him a similar assurance from this Front Bench that my noble friend Lord Underhill is a very reasonable man, and I hope that your Lordships will similarly think of me. We are not really in the process of defining whether any particular Secretary of State, or any Member of your Lordships' House, has the distinct quality of being reasonable. This is a mandatory requirement.

Secretaries of State are not immune from the legislature seeing to it that what they require other people to do shall be reasonable. Indeed, in many Bills that have come before your Lordships' House either for revision or for dealing with here in the first instance, all the requirements that are made of individuals or of corporations have, as a rule, if they are not definitely defined in a clause, had the qualification that they must be reasonable. How unreasonable will the noble Lord the Minister be in resisting this amendment? Is it part of the policy that we were dealing with last time that, despite the fact that these clauses have not been revised in another place, not one single word is to be altered? We are not trying to alter words just for the sake of it, but the House knows perfectly well that a very busy Secretary of State does not peruse all the requirements made of every executive throughout the country. These requirements are drawn up by civil servants. The Secretary of State may peruse them, but he is most likely to delegate this duty.

The Minister made much of the point that we are dealing with the need to conserve funds. Despite all the needs of transport, very few funds will be available for it. Are we to say that the Secretary of State, of whatever party he may be, will be able in future through his civil servants to require any executive to supply any information which he may require in order to enable him to give advice? It may be a very expensive exercise. If the Minister wants to continue to resist the word "reasonably", is he prepared to undertake that the whole cost of this exercise, whatever it may entail, will be bound to be recognised in full in the budget when the limit is fixed? This is a perfectly sensible amendment: That if you require somebody to give you information which may be ultra-sensitive and ultra-expensive, and which it may therefore be a hardship for an executive to fulfil, the requirement must be reasonable. Therefore, this amendment ought to be accepted.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, there is complete agreement on both sides of the House that we want this Secretary of State and, whenever there is one, his successor to act reasonably. The point, however, which the amendment makes is, who is to deal with the question if it is alleged that the Secretary of State has not acted reasonably?

As I understand the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will correct me if I am wrong—if the word "reasonably" goes into the Bill it will be open to the body concerned which believes that the Secretary of State is acting unreasonably to challenge him in the courts and to take the matter from the High Court up to the Court of Appeal and then to this House, sitting judicially—a process which would inevitably take a certain amount of time and money. It would also delay the whole process contemplated by the Bill. On the other hand, if we leave the Bill as it stands and any Secretary of State of any party acts plainly unreasonably, we can be certain that either in this House or in another place he will be challenged immediately. Both Houses of Parliament are flexible in their procedure and can move quickly.

In the very unlikely case of the Secretary of State acting unreasonably in this respect—one cannot see why he should want to do so, but let us suppose that we are engaged in stopping up every hole—surely we can rely upon either this House or another place to make sure that he behaves properly. This is a much more effective power. If another place were to find that a Secretary of State had acted unreasonably, by the end of the week he would be the ex-Secretary of State.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—this is my only way of answering the question which he very courteously put to me—is the noble Lord seriously suggesting to the House (usually he is a serious Member of your Lordships' House and when he fails to be serious he is even more attractive than when he is serious) that when a local executive wants to grumble about a document which it received requiring information the matter will be dealt with in either House of Parliament? How in the name of Heaven would the Members of either House be able to decide in a question and answer session, which presumably it would be, whether or not the Secretary of State was reasonable in his requirement for information? The noble Lord cannot really mean that.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I can answer his question very simply. An executive which believed this to be so could go straight to its local Member of Parliament or to a Member of this House with whom it was in contact. The noble Lord knows enough about the procedure of this place and I know enough, perhaps, about the procedure of both Houses of Parliament to know that it is possible in an important case to move very quickly indeed and to exercise quickly an effective sanction, whereas on an issue of this sort the alternative of recourse to the courts would inevitably be prolonged and expensive.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I hope that he will support my amendment. There is nothing in it to suggest that the matter will be settled in the courts. It could possibly lead to the courts, as anything else in the Bill could possibly lead there, but if the matter were to be settled by Parliament, should the occasion arise, the fact that the word "reasonably" was inserted would greatly assist Parliament to wrap the knuckles of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I shall look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, supporting me on this amendment.

One of the points upon which information is required is the form and contents of the plan. I am referring to subsection (5) of the clause. The formal context of the plan could be sweeping; a mass of detailed information could be required. That is what we are trying to prevent. All we are asking for is the inclusion of the word "reasonably". The Minister said that the Bill should not be peppered with "reasonably", but we want to include that word in one place only. If the noble Lord the Minister looks carefully at what has been said, I believe he will find that we are being reasonable and that the inclusion of this word would assist Parliament to deal with the matter. In view of what the Minister has said, we shall look at the matter and consider what action to take at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.18 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 28: Page, line 33, leave out ("consult") and insert ("seek the advice of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another simple amendment. It relates to the last part of the same subsection. It provides that before preparing any plan the executive shall consult the passenger transport authority. This appears to us to be a very strange provision. The executive is the operating body—the unelected body—which is responsible to the passenger transport authority, the elected council. Yet the Bill provides that the unelected body, the operating organisation, shall consult the authority. All that the amendment seeks to do is to substitute for the word "consult" other words, so that the provision would read: … and shall, before preparing an plan under that section, seek the advice of the authority". It would provide the proper relationship between the executive and the authority. This simple amendment means that the unelected body would seek the advice of the body to which it was responsible rather than that there should be consultation, which would be the wrong relationship between the two organisations. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, with the greatest respect, is this not a distinction without any difference in substance?

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I do not know whether it will be useful if in answer to the noble Lord (who asks whether this is merely a distinction of words—whether there is a difference between "consult" and "take the advice of") I were to tell him that on the last occasion when we dealt with the Bill at Report there was a discussion about this matter. Because I do not have Hansard readily to hand I must paraphrase, but I am sure I am accurate when I say that the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Bellwin, dealt with the question of consultation in one of our amendments and used words to this effect: that of course there will be consultation, but what is the point of putting consultation in the Bill? Does it mean that people must talk to each other? That was the inference of his remarks. There is nothing about consulting between organisations and authorities which, of necessity, will be in touch with each other. I adopt that argument in reply to the noble Lord and in support of this amendment. It is meaningless to talk about consultation here. The proper words to use are the words, seek the advice of". and there is no need—and again, we have heard this from the Front Bench opposite—for the recipient of the advice necessarily to take it.

Many of us who are engaged in the profession of advising have met with a client who does not care to take the advice that we tender. That is his right, and that would be the right of the authority. But in order to give the authority the dignity that it should have, the authority's advice should be sought—but not necessarily is there any compulsion to accept that advice, and nothing of that kind is sought in this amendment.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, whether "consult" is the right word or not, I would have thought that the words "seek the advice of can imply taking the advice of a more learned or superior body and then being under a duty to consider and accept that advice. We would not want to imply that in the Bill. If an authority does not like the executive's proposals, there are plenty of safeguards for the authority to require the executive to set out the implications of alternative proposals.

The requirement for the executive to consult the authority, as is laid down in the Bill before us this afternoon, before preparing the plan, was added to the Bill with the agreement of both sides of the House during Committee stage in another place. The word "consult" does seem to be the proper one to use here and replacing it by, seek the advice of seems unnecessary. We cannot see that any improvement would be created by such a change.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I must first correct the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, as I have before me a copy of Hansard for the Standing Committee on 18th January, when the particular amendment was carried by 13 votes to 11; therefore, the amendment was not carried by both sides of the House and there was no discussion. The amendment was just proposed and the vote was taken, because it was guillotined. It was not passed with the full approval of both sides of the House in another place. If the Government cannot see the difference between the unelected body consulting with the elected body and seeking the advice of the elected body to which it is responsible, then to me it means that the Government are scraping the barrel to find every possible argument why they should not accept a single amendment to this Bill. But it is an issue on which we leave your Lordships to ponder, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29: Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and take into account their advice").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I shall not move it.

[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 30:

Page 5, line 33, at end insert— (" ( ) The National Bus Company and their subsidiaries shall supply an Executive with such information as they require for the purpose of preparing a plan under section 3 above or supplying information to the Secretary of State under sui)section (1) above.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, within the metropolitan counties there are very extensive operations of the National Bus Company. Generally, these are subsidised and carried out by means of agreement under Section 24 of the Transport Act 1968. It is clear under that section that the transport executive's powers to obtain information from the National Bus Company or their subsidiaries are not wide enough to enable them to comply with the requirements of the department in relation to the planning process under the Bill; in other words, not sufficient for the Secretary of State—because he is in charge of the department.

The Bill will give the Secretary of State authority to require information from the executives; that is what we were discussing on the very first amendment. Therefore, the executive itself must have adequate powers to obtain relevant information from the National Bus Company about the operation in their area. This information is required of the NBC, not only to enable the executive itself to supply the required information to the Secretary of State, but also so that it may obtain sufficient information for the three-year plan which the executive has to prepare under the provisions of the Bill. This seems to be a very sensible amendment to enable the executive itself to bring forward its detailed three-year plan—and also in order that the executive will have the wherewithal for supplying the Secretary of State with some of the information he may require, which we hope will be reasonable.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, the principle behind this amendment seems to be a useful and constructive one, but the obligation is put on the National Bus Company, which I would have thought in this context was the wrong way around. I would have been happier to impose an obligation upon the executive to obtain such information as it needs from the National Bus Company and not impose a direct obligation on the National Bus Company. If this makes sense to any of your Lordships, I wonder whether further consideration might be given to it?

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, the difficulty is that the National Bus Company is under no obligation to supply such information, however firmly the executive may request it. The purpose of this amendment, as I read it, is to make it necessary for the National Bus Company to provide such information as is requested by the executive. Otherwise, the NBC may just say, No, which will place the executive in very considerable difficulties in supplying that information to the Secretary of State.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, when he was speaking to Amendment No. 29, I wonder if he can tell your Lordships why, where information is to be required—as his amendment proposes—from the National Bus Company, he has not proposed the word "reasonably", so that it would read, with such information as they reasonably require".

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I admit that it is a defect, and if I insert the word "reasonably", perhaps the noble Lord will support me at Third Reading; that is the second opportunity he has had to support us.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I should like to tell the House that there is already adequate statutory cover for the purposes of this amendment. The purposes are twofold: first, to ensure that executives obtain the information which they themselves need from the NBC; secondly, to ensure that they can obtain information required by the Secretary of State. So far as the first point is concerned—and as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, reminded us—Section 24(2) of the Transport Act 1968 places the NBC and the executives under a duty to co-operate with one another and to enter into agreements as to the services to be provided by each within a metropolitan county. Agreements have been concluded between executives and NBC subsidiary operating companies. Under the terms of these agreements, there is already a flow of information to the PTEs about NBC's operators within their areas. Certainly at this time there appears to be no difficulty with regard to the transfer of information.

So far as the second point is concerned, Section 27(7) of the Transport Act 1962, which is applied to the NBC by Section 52 of the 1962 Act, already provides the Secretary of State with a comprehensive power to obtain all information from the NBC directly. So there is an adequate exchange procedure under the 1962 Act. It would appear that there really is no gap for the amendment to plug.

I said that there was a statutory duty on the NBC and the PTEs to co-operate with each other. I am aware that there have been complaints from time to time from some metropolitan counties that they have not always got what they wanted from the NBC. Well, there are quarrels in the best of relationships, but in practice and so far as the arrangements for providing information are concerned I cannot see any need to apply a new statutory duty. I would certainly expect the NBC to co-operate, as they do now, in providing all the information necessary to go into the annual TPPs. I think I made it clear that the Secretary of State himself has statutory powers, under Section 52 of the Transport Act 1962, to get any information from the NBC, if that is absolutely necessary. I think your Lordships will agree that, reasonable or not, there is no necessity for this amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.

Lord Sefton of Garston

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question in regard to the first part of the amendment, the obtaining of information by the executive from the NBC? If it is shown between now and Third Reading that some executives do have difficulty in obtaining information, apart from the question of co-operation between the two bodies, would the noble Lord be prepared to accept an amendment to rectify that?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, as I said, I think we would all accept that even in the best relationships some difficulties might arise. Perhaps they have. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, that he raises a hypothetical question to which I regret I cannot give a hypothetical answer.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, if we cannot have hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions, perhaps we can, I suggest to your Lordships, have a straight answer to a straight question. This is an amendment requiring the NBC to give information to the executive—taking the first half of the amendment—in order that the executive may prepare its plan. The Minister concedes, as I understand it—he will quickly correct me if I am wrong—that such information might well be necessary, might well be essential, for the executive to prepare its plan. The Minister has not risen, so I take it for granted that, so far, he agrees with what I have said. If it is necessary or essential for the executive to have information from the NBC in order to prepare its plan, the Minister answers this amendment by saying that it is already provided for.

May I analyse the noble Lord's answer. He referred to one statutory provision which obliged the NBC and the executive to co-operate. Co-operation can be defined in many ways. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not tell me that if there happens to be a failure of co-operation one is either driven to the courts in order to decide whether co-operation was reasonably or unreasonably refused, or one can go to Parliament. I do not think we want exercises of that kind. Co-operation does not mean anything other than working together. It does not mean that one body, if required, has to supply information to the other.

The next answer given by the noble Lord the Minister is that there are agreements between certain executives and the National Bus Company. There may be agreements; I do not know what the agreements say; the noble Lord the Minister has not revealed what the agreements say. Your Lordships have not got the agreements before you. In any event, it only refers to agreements in certain parts of the country.

The last answer given by the noble Lord the Minister is that the Secretary of State can require information. I have specially limited myself to the first half of this amendment, which deals with what the executive wants in order to prepare its plan to submit to the Minister. So the Secretary of State has not come into the picture yet. Are we legislating in such a tidy form that, before an executive can get from a recalcitrant National Bus Company some essential information which is required for its plan, it has to plead with the Secretary of State, explain why it needs the information and ask the Secretary of State if he will be good enough to exercise his power?

This is, in my submission, an absolute test of the bone fides of the Government. I am not interested, nor are my noble friends, I would assure the House, in trying to force amendments back to the other place in order that time may be taken. If there were an obviously sensible amendment sent back to the other House—and, my word, the other place will not think very much of this House if this Bill, which was not even considered in the other place, goes back without a single amendment!—it would not take two minutes to go through. If there were the slightest doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was persuaded by the good sense of the principle, but thought we had got it round the wrong way; I hope he and others will be satisfied that we have now got it round the right way. I challenge the Government to produce one single section of an Act which says what this amendment says and sensibly says—namely, that the National Bus Company shall be required to give this information if the executive requires it in order to prepare its plan for submission to the Secretary of State.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, may I make one submission which has not been made yet and which, in my judgment, is primary above all that have been made? This amendment, as my noble friend has said, is a reasonable proposition. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, submitted that if the word "reasonable" was included it would be a good thing. Now comes the question, a good thing for whom?—the executive, not at all; the NBC, not at all; the Minister of State, not at all. Above all these are the British people for whom this Bill is being directed to provide. Our responsibility in this Chamber is to put them first, above national bus companies, above executives; yes, even above ourselves and the Secretary of State. If that is the quintessential nature of what our endeavours should seek to achieve, I believe the Minister should forthwith accept this amendment.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am sorry that once again the Minister cannot accept what is a reasonable amendment. While the debate was going on I looked very carefully at Section 24: there is nothing in Section 24 which provides for information to be given. Subsection (3) provides that the bus company and the London Board and the bus company and the Railways Board shall exchange information. But subsection (2), to which the Minister referred, provides for co-operation with one another in the reorganisation of bus services within the area—nothing to do with supplying information for the purpose of this plan, because a three-year plan was not even thought of at the time. He says they are expected to co-operate with information in order to prepare the TPP each year. What we are trying to do in this amendment is not simply to expect them to co-operate but to lay down that it shall be done, in the same way that the Bill, instead of just relying on the commonsense of the executive and the Secretary of State to secure the appropriate information for the Secretary of State, lays down a legal requirement that the executive must provide the information to the Secretary of State. All we are asking is that we should put in the Bill an obligation on the National Bus Company to supply this information.

This is one of those issues which may seem small but where the Government are resisting a completely reasonable request. I believe that the House ought to be given the opportunity to say to the Government: "Do not be foolish on this matter. Support this amendment." Then, on Third Reading, if we wish to assist the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, we can have another amendment to bring in the word "reasonable".

3.40 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 96.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Amherst, E. Ewart-Biggs, B.
Amulree, L. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Ardwick, L. Gormley, L.
Aylestone, L. Hale, L.
Bacon, B. Hampton, L.
Banks, L. Hanworth, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Beswick, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Bishopston, L. John-Mackie, L.
Blyton, L. Kennet, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Kilbracken, L.
Brockway, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Byers, L. Leatherland, L.
Caradon, L. Listowel, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Collison, L. Longford, E.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Mayhew, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Mishcon, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Molloy, L.
Oram, L. Segal, L.
Peart, L. Stedman, B.
Perry of Walton, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Phillips, B. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Plant, L. Stone, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Roberthall, L. Tordoff, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B. Underhill, L.
Rugby, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Saint Oswald, L. Wigoder, L.
Seear, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Auckland, L. Loudoun, C.
Avon, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Lyell, L.
Bancroft, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Beloff, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Belstead, L. Mancroft, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Margadale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Marley, L.
Chelwood, L. Merrivale, L.
Clancarty, E. Mersey, V.
Cottesloe, L. Molson, L.
Craigavon, V. Mottistone, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Mountgarret, V.
Daventry, V. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
De Freyne, L. Northchurch, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Nugent of Guildford, L.
Drumalbyn, L. O'Hagan, L.
Dudley, B. O'Neill of the Maine, L.
Ebbisham, L. Onslow, E.
Eccles, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Ellenborough, L. Pender, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Penrhyn, L.
Elton, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Erne, E. Porritt, L.
Faithfull, B. Portland, D.
Ferrers, E. Rankeillour, L.
Gainford, L. Reigate, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Romney, E.
Geoffrey-Lloyd, L. St. Davids, V.
Glanusk, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Glasgow, E. Sandford, L.
Glenarthur, L. Selkirk, E.
Glenkinglas, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Gridley, L. Soames, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Spens, L.
Stradbroke, E.
Hayter, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Holderness, L.
Hunt of Tanworth, L. Strathspey, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Sudeley, L.
Ilchester, E. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Inglewood, L. Taylor of Hadfield, L.
Kilmany, L. Terrington, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Teviot, L.
Kinnaird, L. Trefgarne, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Trumpington, B.
Lauderdale, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Vivian, L.
Long, V. Westbury, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.