HL Deb 18 July 1984 vol 454 cc1486-97

3.13 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [Duty of trade union to hold elections for certain positions]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 31, leave out ("affect") and insert ("impair").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that this amendment and the next amendment, No. 2, be taken together, although either of them could stand on its own feet. Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 31, at end insert ("validly").

These are very simple drafting amendments so it will not take long. As the subsection is drafted, it could be thought to mean, although it is not intended to mean, that anything done by a principal executive committee shall be considered valid, whether or not it is valid. The trouble is that the word "affect" has a different meaning, according to its context, when it is used as a verb. I suggest that that difficulty can be overcome by using the word "impair" instead of the word "affect", and that that would better fulfil the intention of the subsection.

I concede that the second amendment is less necessary, but I think that it is still desirable to make the meaning absolutely plain. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.

Lord Denning

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. It is quite plain that the lawyers can make hay with the subsection as it at present stands, because it says: Nothing … shall affect the validity of anything done … I should have thought that it meant "already done". The lawyers will say: … shall affect the validity of anything to be done by the principal executive committee". In other words, one validates all acts heretofore to be done by a principal executive committee, although they are invalid. It must be made clear that all this validates is acts that are validly done, and therefore I support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie)

My Lords, I have listened with the closest attention to what my noble friend Lord Renton has had to say, and naturally I share his view that it would be particularly undesirable if Clause 1(6) were to be interpreted as having an entirely different effect from that which is intended, and my noble friend acquitted us of ill-intentions. But where I differ from my noble friend—and I am happy to say that this is a rare event as earlier debates on this Bill have shown—is on whether the drafting of Clause 1(6) is, in fact, defective in the way in which he fears.

I am afraid that what I have to say must necessarily be relatively brief. Of course, I am not a lawyer whereas my noble friend is a most distinguished one. But I have to say to him that on this occasion the firm and unequivocal advice of the Government's legal advisers is that Clause 1(6) could not be misinterpreted in the way in which he suggests. I should like to assure my noble friend and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that our advisers, including counsel, have considered this issue on a number of occasions, most recently in response to my noble friend's latest letter to the Secretary of State. Their firm conclusion is that this provision cannot be properly construed in the way which gives rise to my noble friend's fears.

I do not intend to repeat at length the reasons for this somewhat technical subsection. My honourable friend the Minister of State explained its purpose in another place. I explained it again at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has since written to my noble friend at great length in a further attempt to allay his concerns.

In brief, the subsection ensures that the legal status of the acts of a union's principal executive committee is not affected by the fact that part or all of that committee has been improperly elected. If an improperly elected executive committee commits an unlawful act (such as calling unlawful industrial action), then that act remains unlawful and the union remains liable for any consequences. Conversely, if the improperly elected executive commits a lawful act (such as authorising the payment of benefits), then that act remains lawful and is not invalidated in any way.

The amendment which my noble friend has moved, for motives with which I am in sympathy, would I fear undermine the provision by making it bite on valid actions only. This would create the possibility of a union escaping liability for unlawful acts if its executive had not been validly elected in accordance with the Bill's requirements, and it could thus argue that its actions were invalid. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to my noble friend that that would open a can of worms in respect of other parts of the legislation with which I believe he is in considerable sympathy. I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the firm assurance that I have given the House as to the quality of the legal advice that we have received.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I should like to ask him a very short question. Is his understanding of the interpretation of this that, as Part I of this Act is not concerned with the validity of anything done by the principal executive committee, Clause 1(6) is merely declaratory of that situation? Is that his understanding of the matter?

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, again I have the disadvantage of not being learned like my noble friend, but that is my understanding, yes.

Lord Renton

My Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gowrie and, indeed, to the Secretary of State for the long letter which he wrote to me, which my noble friend mentioned. I think the explanation which has been given, or at any rate part of it, intensifies the need for this amendment. I feel bound to say that because the explanation given depends on the supposition that subsection (6) has something to do with the way in which the principal executive committee is elected, whereas it has nothing whatever to do with that.

However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, for the support he has given. I think we must leave it like that. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, and I can only express the hope that the fears to which we have drawn attention today are not realised at some later date when the matter comes before the courts. Reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

Clause 4 [Register of members' names and addresses]:

The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 3: Page 5, line 16, leave out first ("and") and insert (", by the date appointed under section 22(2) of this Act, and thereafter").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment to Clause 4 I should like also to speak to the amendment to Clause 22 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lady Cox.

Amendment No. 9: Clause 22, page 26, line 2, at beginning insert— ("Section 4 shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed. Save as aforesaid,"). I want to make it clear right away that I shall be asking your Lordships to accept the amendment to Clause 22 put down by my noble friends. This amendment to Clause 4 is directly related to their amendment to Clause 22, and, indeed, it was inspired by it.

My Lords, it is a rare pleasure for anyone speaking from these Benches to see the word "Accept" written in upper case at the top of their brief, and to be able to say that the Government are happy to accept an amendment. Even when we are convinced that an amendment is right in principle we are usually advised that the drafting is in some way or other defective, and that the best we can do is to offer to take it away and come back with our own immaculate version. The amendment to Clause 22 is a happy exception. I am delighted to be able to say that we believe it to be right in principle and that we are only too happy to commend it to your Lordships in the admirable form in which it has been put down by my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord De La Warr.

My noble friends have pointed to a defect in the Bill, and one which we are glad to have this chance to put right. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he envisages Part I of the Bill coming into effect towards the end of next year so as to allow unions time to amend their rules where this is obviously desirable, and to take whatever other steps are necessary to bring their electoral practice into line with this legislation. They will then be in a position to conduct the first elections due thereafter in full compliance with the requirements of the Bill. However, it is also clearly desirable that unions should simultaneously be taking steps to compile a register of their members' names and addresses, as required, your Lordships will remember, by Clause 4 of the Bill.

It would have been contrary to the whole spirit and intent of the amendments to which your Lordships agreed on Report if unions had been able to postpone taking any steps to compile a register until Part I came into effect on the ground that the duty in Clause 4 did not yet apply. I am therefore moving this amendment to make it clear that unions are under a duty to compile a register by the time Part I comes into effect, in other words, by the end of 1985. If they have not taken steps to compile a register by that date they will be at risk of proceedings under Clause 5; that is, either an action in the High Court or a complaint to the certification officer.

The effect of my noble friends' amendment to Clause 22 in bringing Clause 4 of the Bill into effect as from the date of Royal Assent will be to make it clear that unions must begin to take steps to compile a register as soon as the Bill becomes law. This amendment to Clause 4 makes it clear that this process must be completed by the time the remaining provisions of Part I themselves take effect. A trade union will not then be able to argue that it is impossible for it to hold a postal ballot because it does not have a register of its members' names and addresses. I am grateful to my noble friends for bringing this matter to my attention. I commend the amendment to your Lordships together with that to Clause 22 standing in the names of my noble friends.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, we are seriously worried by the speech of the noble Minister. I want, if I can, to try to explain the basis of our concern. These amendments, including the amendment of the noble Earl which we are now discussing and Amendment No. 9 of the noble Earl, Lord De La Wan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, have been put down at the last minute. It is not normal for us to complain about this, but it is relevant to the discussion and the position in which we find ourselves at the moment.

On my first sight of Amendment No. 3 my reading was that it is, in a sense, contrary to Amendment No. 9, which is to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Wan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. What the Government amendment is doing is saying in fact that the part of the Bill, which is now under discussion, Clause 4, would in effect come into active play when the rest of Part I came into active play. The amendment of the noble Earl says: by the date appointed under section 22(2) of this Act". In other words, the whole of Part I would come into effect at the same time.

Although as the House will know we are not in favour in general terms of Part I of the Bill, nevertheless we could support this amendment because what it is saying is that maybe it is the case that this particular clause does not have a specified date by which it will come into effect—because, after all, it, too, was introduced somewhat late—but that date will in fact be the date at which this part of the Act in general will come into effect. That we would accept and go along with. But now the noble Earl tells us that he wants us to pass the amendment in his own name to Clause 4, and, in addition, subsequently, we shall be asked to pass Amendment No. 9 to Clause 22, which will make Clause 4 come into effect from the very day on which this Act is passed.

I have taken that to be a contradiction, and I want to know why the Government do not accept that it is a contradiction.

We have to ask ourselves: what is the point of having a register at all? Very few unions at this moment in time have centrally administered registers. There is no reason why they should have. Most unions either do not have centrally administered postal ballots, or, even if they do, they do not necessarily feel that alongside them have to go central registers. They have some names kept centrally, others kept in the regions, some at branch level, and some names which only come to light as a result of asking for information from employers, in particular where there are check-off arrangements.

There is no reason at the moment why that should not be the case, and there is no reason why it should not continue to be the case; because after all, the main aim of having names on registers, or in having them kept in some other way outside the central administrative centre of the union, is because in that way they are more likely to be up to date. That which is centralised is out of date. It is the case in all organisations, particularly in voluntary organisations.

But the Government have said, in this part of the Bill, that they want the unions to compile and maintain a register. The Government have not said—we have raised this matter in debate in the House, but we have not had an answer—that it shall be the duty of every trade union to compile and maintain a central register. It is just "a register".

As the Government are now saying that these registers shall be in existence from day one, it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask them what kind of register they mean. Let us take the example of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, or the GMBTU as it now is, which keeps in the regions such registers as it has. Are we to be told that this is improper? Are we to be told that from day one there must be a central register, kept in the central office of the union; or can the union have its register torn up, as it were, in various parts and kept in different places? This now becomes a matter of immediate importance, because the Government are saying that it has to start from day one. Under the terms of the Bill, and particularly in the light of the amendment which the Government say is compatible with the Bill, we are told that is shall be the duty of every trade union to compile and maintain this register. What if they do not?

I had always thought—and I ask the noble Earl whether he agrees with me—that the sanction behind Clause 4 was the final sanction whereby an aggrieved member could go the certification officer or to the court and say that in some way he had not had his full rights under Clause 1. If the court found that this was the case, and that in some way or another the member had not had his full rights, then the sanction in the end would be that either the certification officer or, in some cases, the court, would order another election. It is possible that one of the factors which may decide the court or the certification officer to make a declaration that the election was irregular would be whether there was a duty which had been carried out to compile and maintain a register.

If that is the case—and I had always thought that it was the case—it is not strange and queer that in Clause 4, or anywhere else in the Bill, we have no particular provisions imposing penalties upon unions because they do not keep registers. The nature of the duty contained in Clause 4 is simply a duty to observe the general terms of Part I. If they are not observed, and if it is found that one of the reasons for that is that the register is not being maintained, then a union should be told that it must hold another election. But if we are to have a particular day—namely, the day on which this Bill is passed by Parliament—when Clause 4 comes into operation in terms of imposing a duty (in addition to any other parts of the Bill) then we must ask the Minister: what is the sanction? I cannot see any sanction in this Bill for people who are in breach of Clause 4. I thought the sanction was the general sanction which would come into operation only when the whole of Part I comes into operation.

Let us ask another question. What happens when a union decides, under its own risk, as it is allowed to do, to have an election at the workplace, to have a workshop-based election? Can it be suggested in front of a certification officer that the union does not have reasonable grounds for going forward to a workshop-based election because it has not kept a register? This is arguable. Immediately there is no register in existence, and if from this day forward a union does not create a centrally-based register, then it has no reasonable grounds for believing that it can go forward into a workshop-based election.

All these questions are raised, all these issues are put in doubt, because the noble Earl, in moving his Amendment No. 3, which I thought was in contradiction of Amendment No. 9, has told me, to my great surprise, that the two run together. I wish he could clarify the position.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I understand the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has expressed on the question of construction. Until my noble friend the Minister spoke and allayed the misunderstanding, I shared it. The reason is that on the face of it Amendments Nos. 3 and 9 lie in conflict because the date appointed under Amendment No. 3 must be later than the passing of the Bill under Amendment No. 9.

However, as my noble friend the Minister obviously has this problem in mind, perhaps one can say, on more important matters, that the duty to compile a register is perhaps the most significant reform that has ever been introduced into the management of trade union affairs. It is not only the stuff and essence of the democratic machinery of a postal ballot; it is essential that it should be brought into force soon. That is the main point. But although there is this strong case for expedition, reasonable time must be given, because there are many unions which either do not have registers at the moment or do not have them in proper shape, and one must afford an opportunity, an interval, to enable them to get their affairs in order. There is this conflict between Amendments Nos. 3 and 9, but so long as it is resolved on the basis of giving the unions a fair time, then in my book it does not matter.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, say that this amendment was closely related to Amendment No. 9 and, indeed, inspired by it. In adding my name to the later amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, I had in mind the point that the trade unions should be given every encouragement to apply themselves as soon as possible to the work involved in compiling registers of names and addresses of their members, for to many of them the task will be unfamiliar and may appear rather formidable.

There are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl. One relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Am I right in thinking that in determining the date on which Part I is to come into force, the Government will take due account, on the one hand, of the need for reasonable expedition and, on the other, of the difficulties with which trade unions will be faced in meeting the requirements of Part I? That is a point that the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, have made on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill, and, for what my opinion is worth, I have a great deal of sympathy with them on it.

I come to my second question. Expenditure incurred in compiling registers and keeping them up to date would not appear to be covered by Clause 20, which refers specifically to Sections 2 and but not to Section 4 of the Trade Union Act 1984. Do the Government consider that payments should be made to trade unions towards expenditure incurred in compiling and maintaining these registers? If so, what provision do they propose to make at this late stage of the Bill to accommodate that point?

Earl De La Warr

My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend very much for agreeing in advance to accept the amendment which stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself, and for the gracious way in which he has talked about our efforts. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gave the game away by saying that he had not had time to cobble together any proper complaints, and it was clear from what he said that he had not really reasoned out the objections, because it seems as clear as crystal to me that these two amendments go together like a horse and carriage.

Which was the chicken and which was the egg—and I am sorry to throw these different metaphors around—does not really matter. The fact is that we have suggested that it would be proper, useful and essential to get the unions moving, as from the passing of this Bill, on starting the very tedious work that they have to go through. My noble friend's amendment says that they have got to be finished with it by the time the Secretary of States decides in his wisdom when he is going to enact this part of the Bill, and he has made the thing at least sufficiently plain by giving your Lordships' House an idea as to when this enactment is going to take place.

The lawyers and the pundits may find all this very difficult. To me, it is dead plain. What is already in Section 4, combined with the added strength that is given to it by these two amendments taken together, means, in my opinion, that in Part I of this Bill we have arrived at something which is mightily important. Let us not forget that if you do not have registers you will never get postal ballots. It is as clear as that. My gratitude goes to the Government for the line that they have taken so generously in the speech by my noble friend. I can now put my hand on my heart and say that we have indeed made a giant stride in the direction in which so many of us want to go.

Lord McCarthy

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—and I am sure he does not want to misrepresent me—would he not agree that what I was saying was not that I did not have time to gather together, or cobble together, objections, but that I thought that on the face of it Amendment No. 4 was contradicted by Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 4 says that you bring it in at once and all together when you bring in Part I, and Amendment No. 9 says that you make an exception in the case of Clause 4. I do not see how you can have those two things together.

The Earl of Gowrie

My Lords, I believe—and it will come as no surprise to the House—that the logic of my noble friend Lord De La Warr is inescapable, and is certainly shared by the Government. The two amendments complement one another. The amendment to Clause 22—that is, Amendment No. 9—brings the duty to compile a register into effect on the date of Royal Assent. That is the beginning of the process. Amendment No. 3 to Clause 4 makes clear that the process is to be completed by the time the rest of Part I comes into effect. It is about completion as against initiation. So far from being inconsistent, the amendments fit together to make a very sensible whole, with a beginning and an end, like all good stories.

In response to the earlier point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, the duty imposed by Clause 4 is quite clear. It is to have one register in one place. The noble Lord also appears to be under the misapprehension that a union member will be able to challenge a union directly after Royal Assent. There could be no challenge until the date by which the register must be compiled; that is to say, the date when the rest of Part I comes into effect—and that is the effect of Amendment No. 3. The remedy then will be that if unions have not taken steps to compile a register, they will be at risk of proceedings under Clause 5; that is to say, either an action in the High Court or a complaint to the certification officer—and we debated at Report stage the balance between those two remedies.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about the date when the Bill will come into force. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place that he intends to bring Part I of the Bill into effect 12 months after a commencement order is laid, and that such an order will be laid within a few months of Royal Assent. So Part I will be in effect towards the end of 1985 and that is the date to which trade unions will now need to work in compiling their registers.

I can hardly say that I expected the rapturous support of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, but the pretty rapturous support that I received from my noble friends cheered me up for that lack, and the fairly rapturous support that I got from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is also welcome. Nonetheless, I am surprised by the nature of the objection of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. No doubt he would be happy if the duty to compile a register were one that could he indefinitely postponed. But, of course, that is not our purpose on these Benches, nor, I suspect, the purpose of those who sit on the Liberal or Social Democrat Party Benches.

Surely the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not really asking us to believe that, with all their financial resources and, indeed, their proven ability to organise national strikes, sometimes overnight, the relatively simple job of establishing a register could not be completed by the end of 1985. I would ask the noble Lord to pull the other one in that context. I find that an extremely dubious proposition. In respect of the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, about public funds, I think the same point applies. Trade unions are very wealthy organisations, and there seems to be no case for public funds to be given in order that they should compile registers. Already it has not escaped many unions that they may be better off as a result of compiling these registers; and I am sure that they will welcome that.

I am grateful, again, for the reception that these amendments have had from my noble friend and from other parts of the House. My noble friend Lord De La Wan is quite right in saying that they are a logical continuation of our commitment, strengthened by the initial debate on the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Beloff in your Lordships' Committee, to an inexorable move towards postal ballots. I am glad that he recognised that, and that we were able to accommodate him.

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

My Lords, the nature of the Government's announcement is astonishing. At this late stage the Bill is now to impose upon trade unions, not from 1985 but from the day the Act is passed, from day one, a duty to compile a register; that is, to compile it, not to begin work on compiling it. If the noble Earl had come along and said that, then I could have understood it. There will be a duty to have from day one, and to maintain, a register of hundreds of thousands of members, including those on building sites, and those listed on branch and regional registers. All of this will become a duty on trade unions on day one. Why?—so that it will be possible to say with much greater ease that trade unions are breaking the law than it would have been had this amendment not been brought forward from the depths of the Back-Benches and gratefully accepted by the Government. In view of its link with Amendment No. 9, we shall resist this amendment.

3.51 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 198; Not-Contents, 58.

Ailsa, M. Chelwood, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Chesham, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Clitheroe, L.
Allerton, L. Cockfield, L.
Amherst, E. Colwyn, L.
Ampthill, L. Cox, B.
Arran, E. Craigton, L.
Ashbourne, L. Cranbrook, E.
Auckland, L. Cross, V.
Aylestone, L. Daventry, V.
Bancroft, L. De La Warr, E.
Banks, L. Denham, L.
Bauer, L. Denning, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Diamond, L.
Bellwin, L. Dilhorne, V.
Beloff, L. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L
Belper, L. Donegall, M.
Belstead, L. Drogheda, E.
Berkeley, B. Drumalbyn, L.
Bessborough, E. Dudley, B.
Birdwood, L. Duncan-Sandys, L.
Bolton, L. Ebbisham, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Eccles, V.
Brocket, L. Eden of Winton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Effingham, E.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Ellenborough, L.
Buckinghamshire, E. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Burton of Coventry, B. Elton, L.
Buxton of Alsa, L. Enniskillen, E.
Caccia, L. Erroll of Hale, L.
Caithness, E. [Teller.] Faithfull, B.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Ferrier, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Flowers, L.
Carthcart, E. Foot, L.
Chelmer, L. Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Gainford, L. Mottistone, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Moyne, L.
Gisborough, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Glanusk, L. Norfolk, D.
Glenarthur, L. Northchurch, B.
Gormanston, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Gowrie, E. Onslow, E.
Granville of Eye, L. Penrhyn, L.
Grey, E. Perry of Walton, L.
Gridley, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone L.
Grimond, L.
Grimthorpe, L. Polwarth, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Porritt, L.
Portland, D.
Halsbury, E. Raglan, L.
Hampton, L. Rankeillour, L.
Hankey, L. Reay, L.
Hanson, L. Redesdale, L.
Hanworth, V. Reilly, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Renton, L.
Harvington, L. Renwick, L.
Hayter, L. Richardson, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Rochdale, V.
Hill of Luton, L. Rochester, L.
Hives, L. Sainsbury, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. St. Davids, V.
Hood, V. Saltoun, Ly.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Sandford, L.
Howard of Henderskelfe, L. Sandys, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Savile, L.
Inglewood, L. Seear, B.
Ironside, L. Seebohm, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Sempill, Ly.
Keith of Castleacre, L. Sharpies, B.
Keyes, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Soames, L.
King of Wartnaby, L. Somers, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Southborough, L.
Kinnoull, E. Spens, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Stamp, L.
Lauderdale, E. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Lawrence, L. Strathcarron, L.
Long, V. Strathspey, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sudeley, L.
Lyell, L. Suffield, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
McFadzean, L. Taylor of Hadfield, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Terrington, L.
McNair, L. Teviot, L.
Mancroft, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Mar, C. Thurso, V.
Margadale, L. Tordoff, L.
Marley, L. Tranmire, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Trumpington, B.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Ullswater, V.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Vickers, B.
Mayhew, L. Vivian, L.
Melville, V. Walston, L.
Merrivale, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Middleton, L. Whitelaw, V.
Milverton, L. Wigoder, L.
Molson, L. Winstanley, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Wynford, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Ardwick, L. Gaitskell, B.
Bernstein, L. Galpern, L.
Blyton, L. Glenamara, L.
Bottomley, L. Gosford, E.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Gregson, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Hall, V.
Collison, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Houghton of Sowerby, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Hughes, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Irving of Dartford, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Ennals, L. John-Mackie, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Kagan, L.
Leatherland, L. Rhodes, L.
Listowel, E. Ross of Marnock, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Serota, B.
Lockwood, B. Shackleton, L.
Longford, E. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
McCarthy, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Milford, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]
Mishcon, L.
Mulley, L. Stone, L.
Nicol, B. Strauss, L.
Northfield, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Oram, L. Underhill, L.
Paget of Northampton, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Peart, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Wells-Pestell, L.
Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Forward to