HL Deb 19 July 1984 vol 454 cc1632-43

3.38 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into corn mittee.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Transfer schemes]:

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert— ("Subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first amendment with which we are to deal this afternoon. Line 6 on page 1 of the Bill deals with ordnance factory transfer schemes. We are talking about the very important matter of the sovereignty of this House over matters such as the transfer of ordnance factories out of public ownership into private ownership.

Clause 1 begins: The Secretary of State may make a scheme which". We are saying that, subject to an affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, the Secretary of State may make a scheme. At the moment the Secretary of State has the right to do what he wishes, as he wishes, and when he wishes without the agreement of Parliament. No doubt the Minister will draw my attention and that of the Committee to certain ways in which there may be a circumscription on that statement.

Clause 3(9) of the Bill merely states that: Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which a scheme comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of the scheme". We shall be dealing with and concentrating very much on the whole basis of transfer, which is the scheme, or schemes, and what they contain. Perhaps I may read to the Committee the detail of a Parliamentary Question which was asked by my honourable friend Mr. Kevin McNamara, who speaks on these matters in another place. It reads: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he still proposes to place in the Library, before the end of the Summer Recess, the proposed Memoranda of Understanding and the Scheme under the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill. We are attempting at this late stage fully to understand the intentions of the Government. This is the reply given by the Minister of State on 18th July: It remains the Government's intention that the Scheme to be made under the Bill, if enacted, will be placed in the Library as soon as work upon it has been satisfactorily completed and certainly not later than the day on which it takes effect".

I draw the attention of the Committee to the particular problems that must arise, in that this stage of the Bill is taken before the House rises and the remaining stages take place in the overspill, so there are special problems about Members being fully aware of matters which are laid in the Library. The Answer goes on from the words, and certainly not later than the day on which it takes effect, to say, that is to say the Vesting Day of the new ROF Company. We shall come later to the significance of the vesting day. Correspondingly, if considerations of commercial sensitivity allow, my right honourable friend would also hope to publish the Memorandum of Understanding between himself as 100 per cent. shareholder of the Company and the Chairman of the Board as soon as it has been completed and agreed. Again, this would be on or before the day on which it becomes effective, which will also be Vesting Day.

In our view, Parliament must retain control in the interests of national security and commercial interests, and, equally importantly, must retain control of patents and intellectual property rights. We shall return to those matters in later amendments.

There is an enormous welter of detail that has yet to be revealed, and we are quite uncertain as to how the Minister satisfies and squares up to the responsibilities of Parliament with the procedures he has in mind: for instance, the structure of the company, or companies, that may be established at a later date and the methods whereby the Government intend to introduce private capital—because that is what this is all about in respect of changing the basis of control.

In another place on 21st May, at columns 739 and 740, the Minister of State said: At a later stage but, we hope, a not much later stage, we propose to seek the introduction of private capital into the company. He further went on: We will at a later date put forward detailed proposals on privatisation in the light of the circumstances at the time".

If Parliament is to have effective control over these matters then guarantees must be in the Bill. The Bill draws up just about the loosest possible mechanism for dismantling the profit-making, efficient and highly successful Royal Ordnance Factory organisation, which is vital to the defence of the nation and the operational efficiency of the armed services. There is no dispute between the Minister and me on the latest points I have made on efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction of the national interest. What we are concerned about is, given that the Government have their will, how does Parliament exercise its responsibilities in these matters?

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to an article in The Times on 14th June by Jonathan Davis, headed, "The Many Pitfalls of Privatisation", in which he referred to the evidence of Sir Kenneth Couzens, the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Energy, and Mr. Peter Lazarus, the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Transport, to the Public Accounts Committee on 6th February 1984. The article went on to say: the report's other main conclusion that stands out appears to be that a combination of the volatility of the stock market—and the inability of both merchant banks and underwriters always to read it correctly—makes it inevitable that the Government will always be groping for the right solution in privatisation issues". The article concludes: Given the scale and importance of the flotations to come in the next year this is hardly encouraging. The chances of the Government avoiding another Amersham or Britoil may not be that high".

The severe difficulties which emerged when Britoil and, certainly, as recently as last month, Enterprise Oil were floated remain within the memory of many Members of your Lordships' House, and the problem for the Government of securing effectively their will in respect of ensuring that no monopoly ownership occurs. We are dealing today and at other times with how it is possible to achieve the Government's imperative—that is to privatise—and at the same time to ensure that it is not possible for some owner, whether he is British or in fact foreign, to be able to take complete control over one or more or all of the factories involved.

We also have experience of the sale of the Mirror group of newspapers, where it was possible, as a result of the determination of an individual, to circumvent what appeared to be a settled situation. Flotations have ceased to be flotations; individuals have been able to put forward a sum of money sufficient to be attractive. We had the situation yesterday by announcement of the sale of Sealink, where, instead of the matter being floated, an owner came along who is not British or British-based, but foreign-based, and who was able to put up a sum of money which was found to be attractive not only to the Government but to the advisers of the Government as well.

All we raise with the Minister is that it is important, particularly with the sale of our ordnance factories (whether wholly or in part; whether there is a holding company or there are groups) to recognise that, regarding Clause 1—which deals with the scheme whereby these things will take place—it is not unreasonable that a measure of parliamentary control should be introduced.

The Minister may be able to convince the Committee that after the Bill gets Royal Assent there is no need for Parliament to be bothered any more about what happens to our ordnance factories. I believe that most people here will want to have at least some opportunity for this House, and particularly the other place, as regards the Minister and those to whom he is likely to sell our national assets, to have some exercise of parliamentary control. I beg to move.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Diamond

I want to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said on this important amendment at the commencement of our discussions on the Committee stage of this Bill. The background to this amendment is a proposal which has been opposed by all opposition parties in both Houses. It has been opposed by the representatives of more than 50 per cent. of the electorate at the last general election. It is being put forward by the representatives of some 42 per cent. of the electorate who voted Conservative at the last general election.

It has been opposed by all sorts of expert advice, ex-Conservative Ministers—indeed an ex-Secretary of State for Defence himself. It is against that background that we examine the method by which the Government propose to give effect to their dogmatic proposal. It is a very risky one, playing fast and loose with the defences of this country. It is against that background that the Government propose this Bill. In all my experience of legislation, which I daresay is as substantial as that of any Member of your Lordships' House, I have never seen a Bill which consults Parliament so little, and indeed which scorns Parliament in the way it gives all powers to the Government and to the Minister and none to anybody else.

It is an enabling Bill—with a capital E. This difficulty will come up on several amendments. It is bound to come up in particular on this amendment because against that background it is naturally of vital importance and of vital interest to Parliament to know whether a scheme being proposed under this Bill, under the enabling powers of the Secretary of State, will be broadly acceptable, broadly unacceptable, totally unacceptable or whatever the case may be.

The details of the scheme will naturally affect the reaction of Parliament and of those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill, which we can do nothing about at this stage, and will affect them considerably. We therefore press the Government very strongly to take one step backwards and to pay some regard to the fact that Parliament exists. It exists not to deter or to prevent a Government from carrying out proposals, but to examine them, and if possible to improve them.

As the Minister knows, these proposals will give an opportunity to your Lordships' House to discuss any proposal made under the Bill, any scheme which is proposed, but no more than that: just a discussion. The Government need not be anxious about it. All that we can do, if an affirmative resolution is put before us after being passed by another place, is to listen to what the Government propose, to make suggestions, to seek to persuade (if we think there are matters on which persuasion ought to be exercised), and nothing more than that. We cannot delay the Government nor prevent them from having their will, nor should we, but we want the right to consider what the Government are doing. We want the Government to take one step backwards and realise that they and the Secretary of State himself are Members of Parliament.

Lord Mayhew

My noble friends I know would want me to express our warm support for this amendment. Following the argument of my noble friend, I ask the Government: what are they afraid of in allowing us an affirmative order? This is not a paving Bill. They will not be defeated in the House of Lords if an affirmative order comes before us. They will not be defeated in the House of Commons. The truth is, I am afraid, that this whole Bill is designed precisely to prevent us from exercising any parliamentary influence on the things that really matter in the privatisation of the ROFs.

The truth is that the Government will argue that they will tell us after the deed is done all about what they have done. We shall, no doubt, be able to put down parliamentary Questions and receive an answer after the event. We shall be able to know about it and study it, but we shall have lost the opportunity of advising the Government, of exerting genuine pressure on the Government. I think it is an abuse that we should have a Bill of this kind, an enabling Bill, which removes from us any chance of affecting the real guts of the problem which is before us. I therefore have the warmest enthusiasm for this amendment. I hope that it will be pressed to a Division. I am sure that if it is my noble friends will want to support it.

Lord Trefgarne

In responding to the arguments that have been put forward, I am conscious that both on this amendment and on a number of amendments that follow we shall be covering territory already explored in some detail in another place. I make no complaint of that. But the effect of this amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to seek the authority of both Houses of Parliament before he made a scheme. But this is precisely what he is doing now in bringing this Bill before Parliament. This is an enabling Bill which permits the Secretary of State to make schemes, as well as to determine when they shall come into force. If Parliament gives its authority to these actions covered by the Bill, what would be the point in asking for the same authority again somewhat later on?

No doubt what the noble Lord really has in mind is that the House should be told of the details of the intended transfer before giving its approval to any schemes. But this is not achieved by the amendment, which requires the Secretary of State to come to the House before a scheme is made—which covers the drafting of the scheme, not simply its coming into force. In any case, the Bill already defines and limits the types of assets to be transferred. Clause 2 provides that the property, rights or liabilities to be transferred must be attributable to the operations of the ROFs or be certified as such by the Secretary of State. As regards the destination of the property etc., the Government have already announced their intentions for the future company structure of the ROF companies.

In all this we accept the constitutional principle that legislation permits the Government to take certain actions or exercise certain powers without specifying exactly how these are to be implemented. This enabling Bill allows the Secretary of State to set up companies to carry on the business of the ROFs by transferring defined property from the Crown. The exercise of these powers is an administrative, not a legislative, function. The Secretary of State will of course remain answerable to Parliament, after the event, for the way in which he has exercised his powers, but that is a different question. For example, if there is concern about the return which the Secretary of State obtains for the transfer of Crown property, these financial aspects can be examined by Parliament in the normal way.

I therefore ask your Lordships to reject this amendment on two grounds: first, because it merely adds a further unnecessary process of debate after the principles have already been agreed to, assuming enactment of this Bill, of course; and, secondly, because the detailed intentions of the Government have already been made clear to Parliament and publicly, so that further debate is unlikely to achieve anything more. I hope that the noble Lord will be persuaded by these considerations.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

First, may I express appreciation for the support that the amendment has received from the other Benches in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, used the phrase, "What can the Government be afraid of?" I had already asked, "What can be lost by having this?" The Minister has indicated that what would be lost would be the Minister's ability to proceed without as full a disclosure and as full a public comment by those who are interested in the nitty-gritty and the details as might be made in this matter. The Minister must know that one of the prime functions of Parliament is to expose to the public gaze matters which might otherwise not be sufficiently made known to others outside this place. The other noble Lords who have spoken have said, quite fairly, that the principles upon which the Bill received its Second and Third Readings and passed from another place to here were that, although they will be challenged, the reality of parliamentary arithmetic quite clearly indicates that it will make progress.

Although the Government have spoken in general terms we feel that there will be people vitally interested in the details. For example, there are the employees who are employed within the organisations. They will not merely want to know that there are schemes which will take account of various matters, but want to have an opportunity of scrutiny. Not only are there the employees, but there are many thousands of ex-servicemen at all levels and every rank of seniority who will be interested in what will happen. When one talks about the destination of property, there will be another group of people who will want to know.

I do not want to use pejorative language, but the Minister should understand that there is a genuine interest, not merely an attempt to put a brake on the passage of these matters. What are we talking about?

Perhaps one or two hours, if that, and we realise the preciousness of parliamentary time. We are really saying that we have a responsibility. I think that the Minister again was helpful when he said that in his view what we have are administrative matters and not legislative matters. In other words, once the legislation has approved the principle, what we are talking about and what we want are really administrative matters, and we ought not to be involved in them.

The Minister might be looking upon the sale of an ordnance factory in the same way as the sale of a ship, a mine, a piece of railway stock, or whatever it might be. We happen to believe that there is an even more vital principle in Parliament wanting to exercise its rights in these particular matters. I am very pleased to be advised that if we press this matter to a Division, there will be support around the Committee. I believe that the best way is to test the will of the Committee by pressing this matter to a vote.

4.1 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 97.

Airedale, L. Jacobson, L.
Ardwick, L. Jacques, L.
Attlee, E. Jeger, B.
Balogh, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Banks, L. John-Mackie, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Beswick, L. Leatherland, L.
Birk, B. Listowel, E.
Blease, L. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B
Boston of Faversham, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Bottomley, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Briginshaw, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Buckmaster, V. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Caradon, L. McNair, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mayhew, L.
Carver, L. Milford, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mishcon, L.
Collison, L. Molloy, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Mulley, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Nicol, B. [Teller.]
Diamond, L. Oram, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Paget of Northampton, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Peart, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Phillips, B.
Ennals, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Ezra, L. Plant, L.
Falkland, V. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Fitt, L.
Gaitskell, B. Rathcreedan, L.
Gallacher, L. Rea, L.
Gladwyn, L. Rhodes, L.
Gosford, E. Rochester, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Sainsbury, L.
Grey, E. Sefton of Garston, L.
Hampton, L. Shannon, E.
Hanworth, V. Simon, V.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Stallard, L.
Hooson, L. Stamp, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Hughes, L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hunt, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Stone, L.
Ilchester, E. Strabolgi, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Strauss, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L. Whaddon, L.
Taylor of Mansfield, L. White, B.
Thurso, V. Willis, L.
Tordoff, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Underhill, L. Winstanley, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Wells-Pestell, L.
Ampthill, L. Luke, L.
Auckland, L. McAlpine of West Green, L
Avon, E. Mancroft, L.
Bauer, L. Margadale, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Marley, L.
Beloff, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Belstead, L.
Bessborough, E. Merrivale, L.
Birdwood, L. Molson, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V
Caithness, E. Mottistone, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Moyne, L.
Chelwood, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Clitheroe, L. Newall, L.
Cockfield, L. Norfolk, D.
Cork and Orrery, E. Northchurch, B.
Daventry, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
De Freyne, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Onslow, E.
Eccles, V. Orkney, E.
Elton, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Pender, L.
Ferrier, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Gainford, L. Porritt, L.
Gisborough, L. Rankeillour, L.
Glanusk, L. Renton, L.
Gormanston, V. St. Davids, V.
Gray, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Greenway, L. Sandys, L.
Gridley, L. Seebohm, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Sempill, Ly.
Skelmersdale, L.
Halsbury, E. Soames, L.
Henley, L. Somers, L.
Hives, L. Southborough, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Strathcarron, L.
Ironside, L. Sudeley, L.
Keyes, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Killearn, L. Terrington, L.
Kilmany, L. Trefgarne, L.
Kinnaird, L. Trumpington, B.
Kinnoull, E. Ullswater, V.
Kitchener, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Vivian, L.
Lauderdale, E. Whitelaw, V.
Long, V. Wise, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

4.9 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 9, leave out ("or to different companies").

The noble Lord said: This amendment goes to the heart of another aspect which greatly worries Members on this side of the Committee. It is the current intention under Clause 1, which speaks in terms of a scheme which provides for, the transfer to a company or to different companies". In effect, we want to leave out the words "or to different companies". The "different companies" aspect, in our view, is very serious.

The amendment is important because it enables the corporate unity of the 13 establishments to be maintained as one under public ownership in the new company for the purposes of maintaining both employment and the efficiency that arises out of the highly integrated production chains in the factory. There is no question but that, although each factory has its own esprit de corps and pride, the Royal Ordnance factories collectively are looked upon as a unity and as an entire complex.

The Government proposals—and no doubt the Minister will say a little more about them—are for a holding company and four fully owned subsidiary companies acting as operating divisions. So already there is the possibility, but not the certainty, that there could be at least four separate companies and ownerships. There could very well be more, but let us look simply at the arrangement whereby there will be four.

At the moment there is one set of administrative costs for headquarters, marketing structure, financial structure, personnel management structure and the like. Here are a Government who believe in efficiency saying, "Although we have a unity of all of those efficiency tools, we intend to create four separate structures to manage something almost precisely the same".

We believe that that is not on. Certainly the interests of the workforce, as well as a great many other interests, are at stake. Quite simply, this amendment is saying to the Government, "Well, all right; you have the power to sell, sell as one block, and do not divide them." I beg to move.

Lord Diamond

I should like to support very strongly, but briefly, what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said about this matter, I understand, although it has not been made absolutely clear, that the Government may want to sell in terms of four separate companies. It is not absolutely clear from what the noble Minister said at Second Reading, but he may want to reserve the power to do that. I beg him, as a businessman, not to commit such business nonsense. He surely must give the new owners, under any scheme he makes, the opportunity to decide whether they want to run the business as a whole or in parts. All the evidence of previous examination has pointed to the same result. Every businessman in your Lordships' House would agree with me, I am sure, that it is virtually criminal, that it is commercial folly to divide up a business like this, with all the additional overheads, the lack of integration, and the damage to well-proven loyalties that result from dividing it up. No businessman would dream of running it in this way, in which the Government want to have enabling power and may want to use it. If the Minister wants to avoid destroying the morale and usefulness of these factories, I beg him to leave them as one unit.

Lord Trefgarne

I am sorry to say that I am not able to accept this amendment. We have already announced our intention to establish a holding company and four subsidiary companies, wholly owned by the holding company which, in turn, will be wholly owned by the Secretary of State. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to enable this to the done, and we are taking the necessary preliminary steps accordingly.

The Opposition have made clear that the intention behind the amendment is to allow the Secretary of State to set up only one company and therefore to maintain the ROF enterprise as a single entity. But in fact, the structure we have proposed is basically the same thing. The subsidiary companies will be answerable to the holding company, which will determine general questions of policy for the group as a whole. But with the kind of structure, the subsidiary companies will be free within certain limits to take their own commercial decisions, making them better able to exploit particular opportunities as they arise. We believe that this arrangement will be better for the competitiveness that we are seeking, as well as for the profitability of the group as a whole.

The Government certainly recognise that there are links and certain inter-dependencies between the individual factories which make up the ROF organisation. But these links can, and will, be preserved within the structure we propose. As subsidiaries of the holding company, the divisional companies will be perfectly able to trade on a sound commercial basis between factories within the same division and between divisions.

As I have said, the holding company will remain responsible for some general policy aspects of the enterprise; for example, personnel matters, and the policy for research and development. Although each subsidiary company will be expected to develop its own R & D capability, we recognise that overall direction for R & D, for example, may be required from the holding company. The structure we propose allows for that.

Inevitably, the setting up of subsidiary companies will facilitate, if this course is proven to be desirable, the disposal of divisions of the ROFs separately to the private sector. We have made clear that if this proved attractive, such a possibility has always been on the cards. However, as seen at this moment, the most likely course for privatisation will be a flotation of shares in the enterprise as a whole. Again, the company structure we have proposed will enable either course to be followed.

I should emphasise that the grouping of factories within the subsidiary companies has been chosen as the most logical grouping of factories which undertake work of a similar nature to each other, but this does not rule out the possibility that further schemes may be made to transfer assets from the holding company to the subsidiary companies, or between subsidiary companies, to create the best possible organisation for privatisation. In no way does any aspect of these possibilities damage the commercial interests of the Royal Ordnance factories; indeed, we have left the possibilities open expressly so that we can provide for their best commercial interests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not wish to press his amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

The Minister's reply is wholly unsatisfactory and not acceptable because at the beginning he indicated, quite rightly, that the whole purport of the views on this side of the Committee is that there is a unity, not merely an interchangeability of interest between the factories, but he said that they can all work more efficiently. There is an esprit de corps among the Royal Ordnance factories. Although the Government say that this is almost like a halfway house, it is not 13 separate businesses; it could be four. There is no guarantee as to what might happen in the fullness of time—and it could be sooner, rather than later. The separate companies, which are responsible to the holding companies, by a means of a financial device—I am not talking about a legislative one—could be broken down even further. We have what we regard as a national asset, which we wish to keep together, and therefore I shall test the opinion of the Committee.

4.18 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 97.

Airedale, L. Lawrence, L.
Ardwick, L. Leatherland, L.
Attlee, E. Listowel, E.
Aylestone, L. Llewelyn-Davis of Hastoe, B.
Banks, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Beswick, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Birk, B. Lovell-Davis, L.
Blease, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Bottomley, L. McNair, L.
Briginshaw, L. Mayhew, L.
Buckmaster, V. Mishcon, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Molloy, L.
Caradon, L. Mulley, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Nicol, B. [Teller.]
Peart, L.
Carver, L. Phillips, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Collison, L. Plant, L.
Davies of Leek, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]
Dean of Beswick, L.
Diamond, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Rathcreedan, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Rea, L.
Ennals, L. Rhodes, L.
Ezra, L. Rochester, L.
Falkland, V. Sainsbury, L.
Fitt, L. Seear, B.
Gaitskell, B. Sefton of Garston, L.
Gallacher, L. Shackleton, L.
Gladwyn, L. Simon, V.
Gosford, E. Stamp, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B
Grey, E. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Hall, V. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hampton, L. Stone, L.
Hanworth, V. Strabolgi, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Strauss, L.
Hayter, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hooson, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Thurso, V.
Hughes, L. Tordoff, L.
Hunt, L. Underhill, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Vickers, B.
Ilchester, E. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Wells-Pestell, L.
Jacobson, L. Whaddon, L.
Jacques, L. White, B.
Jeger, B. Wigoder, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Willis, L.
John-Mackie, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Kirkhill, L.
Ampthill, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Auckland, L. Mancroft, L.
Avon, E. Margadale, L.
Bauer, L. Marley, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Beloff, L.
Belstead, L. Merrivale, L.
Bessborough, E. Molson, L.
Birdwood, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Mottistone, L.
Caithness, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Chelwood, L. Newall, L.
Cockfield, L. Norfolk, D.
Cork and Orrery, E. Northchurch, B.
Daventry, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
De Freyne, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
De La Warr, E. Onslow, E.
Denham, L. [Teller.] Orkney, E.
Eccles, V. Orr-Ewing, L.
Elliot of Hanvood, B. Pender, L.
Elton, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.
Ferrier, L. Porritt, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Quinton, L.
Gainford, L. Renton, L.
Gisborough, L. St. Davids, V.
Glanusk, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Gormanston, V. Sandys, L.
Gowrie, E. Seebohm, L.
Gray, L. Sempill, Ly.
Greenway, L. Shannon, E.
Gridley, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Soames, L.
Southborough, L.
Henley, L. Spens, L.
Hives, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Strathcarron, L.
Homsby-Smith, B. Sudeley, L.
Ironside, L. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Kinnaird, L. Terrington, L.
Kinnoull, E. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Kitchener, E. Trefgarne, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Trumpington, B.
Lauderdale, E. Ullswater, V.
Leathers, V. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Long, V. Vivian, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Whitelaw, V.
Luke, L. Wise, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Young, B.
West Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Viscount Long

I think this is the moment to take the Statement. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Forward to