HL Deb 12 March 1984 vol 449 cc487-99

3.1 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [The Director General of Telecommunications]:

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("together with a Council known as the Telecommunications Council (in the Act referred to as "the Council") of which the Director shall be the Chairman.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in relation to this complex Bill, which is of such great importance to British industry and indeed to the British economy generally, it is my privilege once again to bat first (if I may adopt the apt phraseology used by he noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he addressed your Lordships at the Committee stage). This is a simple amendment which proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint a council to be known as the Telecommunications Council (in the Bill to be referred to as "the Council") of which the Director General of Telecommunications shall be the chairman. The Secretary of State will appoint the Director of Telecommunications, who will have such an important job, and the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should then appoint the council.

My amendment contains a proposal of profound significance and potential assistance, both nationally and internationally, to the telecom industry. It has much support both inside and outside this House and in industry generally. Its inclusion in Clause 1 of the Bill could inspire much greater confidence in the finalising of the Bill and could overcome much of the present opposition.

I am somewhat reluctant to follow the cricketing analogy of the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but can assure your Lordships that today I am batting on a far better wicket, perhaps with a broader bat, and though the noble Lord has not yet joined our team, it appears that at any rate he now has greater sympathy for our proposals. In that connection, with the leave of the House, I shall later refer to Amendment No. 97, in which the Minister proposes the appointment of an advisory body somewhat on the lines of my proposal. If perchance the opening batsman on this amendment should stumble or be injured, I rather feel that the noble Lord the Minister may act as a runner for one of us, in view of the sympathy that he has shown for the general theme of the amendment.

With the leave of the House, I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 14, at end insert— ("() In addition to the Director, the Council shall consist of representatives of local authorities, users, of telecommunication systems and apparatus, manufacturers, and trade unions associated with the telecommunications industry.").

Amendment No. 2 suggests the composition of the council. It is suggested in the broadest terms, giving the Secretary of State, and indeed the director, full flexibility to appoint the council. It will be an advisory council. It will have no executive authority. So we are not concerned with two tiers of government. It will be a useful body, to which the director general can refer, if he so desires. It has been agreed in this House and outside that the job of the director general will be not only very important, but terribly onerous, and one in which he will need all the help that he can get.

It is suggested in Amendment No. 2 that the council should consist of not only the director (who shall be the chairman) but also, representatives of local authorities, users of telecommunication systems and apparatus, manufacturers, and trade unions associated with the telecommunications industry". The number and kind of representatives is left entirely to the discretion of the Secretary of State. It seems to me, and indeed to many of us, that the council should include representatives of local authorities. As your Lordships may know, British Telecom is at present considering apointing, for advisory purposes, representatives of what are called British Telecom territories. Details of those territories and the discussions on them have been published and therefore in my view it would be better to leave in general terms the reference to local authority representatives; and that would be of importance and help to the council.

I should have thought that it would be obvious to the Government that it would be of great help and advantage to them in floating British Telecom, and later in allaying anxieties that are being felt about the future of British Telecom when it is privatised, to be able to say that members of trade unions associated with the telecommunications industry were members of the council.

It is true that in their Amendment No. 97 (to which I shall come in more detail later) the Government have proposed that the Secretary of State should appoint an advisory council. It is true that the Government refer to various areas, and in particular those relating to industry, from which representatives should be appointed to the advisory council. But the Government have entirely omitted any proposal that trade unionists should be among the members of the council. It is my belief that from a psychological point of view, as well as a public relations point of view, and indeed any other point of view—businesswise, or otherwise—that omission from Amendment No. 97 is a great mistake.

When I presented a somewhat similar amendment to your Lordships at the Committee stage, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I made one mistake. I suggested that an authority or a council should be appointed, but I made a mistake in that I said that first of all the council should have powers to appoint the Director General of Telecommunications. Having looked back at the speeches of many noble Lords who spoke at the Committee stage, having once again read through the proceedings in another place, and having consulted trade unions and members of the industry, I feel that it was a mistake on my part to have suggested that the authority that I was proposing should have one executive duty; namely, to appoint the director general. That suggestion has now been left out of my proposal, and so the amendment proposes merely that, after appointing the director general, the Secretary of State shall set up an advisory committee.

I do not know whether I can again tactfully refer to the analogy used by the noble Lord the Minister, but despite that mistake, I had a good score at the Committee stage because my amendment had 112 supporters, whereas the Government had merely four more, 116. It seems to me that it would be far better, as is proposed in my present amendment, that the Secretary of State should have full powers to appoint the council in the way that I have suggested.

I come again to the proposal of the Government to amend Clause 52 in such a way that an advisory council is set up by the Secretary of State. This amendment is tucked away in Part III of the Bill, entitled "Other Functions of Director". Therefore, the proposal is somewhat sullied, if that is the correct word, by being placed so deeply in the morass of the Bill, particularly in that part of the Bill dealing with other functions of the director. In the amendment, where the Government suggest who should be members of the advisory council that they propose, there is no reference to the trade unions or to represen- tatives of local authorities. It seems to me to be a great tactical mistake on the part of the Government to have introduced an amendment of that kind in Clause 52 so deep within the Bill.

What the Government should do, if I may presume to say so, is to show not only to British industry but also to the world that they wish to make a great success of the Office of Telecommunications and that they wish to assist the Director General of Telecommunications who, as everyone agrees, has a most difficult job by including at the outset of the Bill, following the director's appointment, the appointment of the council consisting of representatives along the lines that I have suggested in Amendment No. 2. I appeal, therefore, to noble Lords opposite to consider how the real and sincere anxieties that exist in industry and in the public mind would be allayed by the inclusion of a proposal of the kind that I have suggested right at the beginning of the Bill. It would show, in my view, a sincerity on the part of the Government to help to make the Bill successful. I presume to say that with this amendment some help would be given to the Government in their approach for floating the company perhaps in New York and Tokyo where, as the Minister is no doubt aware, some anxiety is felt at the present time regarding the future success of the company.

Having appealed to noble Lords opposite, may I also make an appeal to noble Lords on this side of the House? At the Committee stage, many Members on this side became so enthusiastic that they went far further than I, as the mover of the amendment desired. I would therefore appeal to them, when they give what I hope will be strong support to the amendment, to confine their speeches to the precise words of my amendment in proposing the Telecommunications Council. I beg to move.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is trying, as usual, to be very persuasive. The noble Lord usually persuades me, but I fear that he has not done so this afternoon. As he rightly says, the question of whether or not there should be a council was defeated in Committee by four votes. Today the noble Lord has called the body by many different names. In fact, I became rather lost. Sometimes it was described as an advisory body, sometimes a council, and sometimes an advisory council.

If one studies the amendments to Clause 52 one finds—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred to this—that my noble friend the Minister has met the requirements that we wanted last time. Indeed, my noble friend has put into the Bill three categories of advisory body. One cannot have advisory bodies and a council. They are two completely different things. In view of the fact that my noble friend has, in my view, given, in amendments to Clause 52, everything that we asked for, I cannot see that the council suggested by the noble Lord is relevant at this time.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

My Lords, if I may reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, there seems to me to be all the difference in the world between having three national bodies in England, Scotland and Wales, as proposed in Amendment No. 97, and a general advisory council announced, as my noble friend says, as the second item in a Bill of 100 or more clauses. There is no conflict created in having a national council. It is quite different from provincial councils. With a national council, one normally has sub-groups that look after each particular area. There is nothing objectionable about that.

The difference between the proposal of the noble Lord the Minister and that of my noble friend Lord Lloyd is very slight. All of us, I think, on this side of the House believe that where this Bill is likely to go wrong is in its lack of attention to consumers, users and so on. I do not think that it is possible to over-emphasise our anxiety to make it clear that the Bill intends absolutely to see that people who are at the moment consumers, makers or distributors of apparatus will be no worse off than they are now. The general feeling is that they will be worse off. I do not believe that this can be proved through the Bill. However, one can suggest it. We shall be doing so from time to time. It seems to me that this would be a good opportunity for the Government to put this kind of fear out of people's minds at the very beginning of the Bill in the way that my noble friend has suggested.

Lord Somers

My Lords, there is one other point that needs to be emphasised. Although it is true that amendments have been made to Clause 52, which provides for advisory bodies, those bodies are ad hoc committees. They can be appointed by the director as he sees fit. They are not standing committees—and that is what we need.

Lord Morris

My Lords, I find it puzzling that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, should suggest that because Clause 52 is Clause 52 and not Clause 2 this somehow diminishes its importance. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that Clause 102, tucked away at the back of the Bill—it is, in fact, the very last clause—is the commencement and extent clause. As such, it is an astonishingly important clause. I cannot see that the mere fact that a clause appears in the middle of the Bill rather than at the beginning or the end makes any difference at all. I do not think—although I may be wrong about this—that the cross-heading, "Other Functions of Director", forms part of the Bill anyway.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, we on this side of the House offer our support to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as regard the particular series of amendments that stand in his name and also in my name. This new Bill, ill-conceived though it may have been and proceeding on a very ad hoc basis as it has gone along in both another place and in this House, will have very wide repercussions indeed on the whole of the life of this country whether it be considered from the point of view of the residential subscriber or whether it be considered from the point of view of those millions of our population who still have no telephone and who therefore have to rely for this type of communication on public call boxes or equivalent facilities. We must also bear in mind the wide business community, the wide industrial community of the country, that will be very considerably influenced by the whole of the development of the telecommunications system in the United Kingdom.

We have often been reminded, with some justification, that technical change proceeds not on the basis of a flat arithmetical progression. but very much on a geometric ne. It accelerates as time passes. Who knows how much further the technical processes—in which I am bound to say the existing British Telecoms organisation has participated so successfully, and has initiated—will go even in the next five or 10 years? We are not merely talking about the structure of an Act; we are not merely talking about the way in which Ministers will behave under its provisions; we are not merely concerned with the way in which the director of telecoms himself will behave: we are concerned with a fundamental development in our national life the prospects of which we can probably at this time only dimly apprehend. We do not know what progress lies ahead.

Under the Bill the director of telecoms has enormous responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities he exercises in conjunction with the Secretary of State. However, I would remind the House that one of the purposes of successive acts of privatisation has been to remove what is called the "dead hand of the state" from intervening in matters of this kind. So one can only assume that the interventions of the Secretary of State, notwithstanding the responsibilities which he has under the Bill, will be minimal. At least, if the noble Lord thinks that the Secretary of State will be very actively engaged throughout the whole of the proceedings, then he has been a little less than frank with the House when discussing the whole origins andraison d'être of the Bill itself.

So we come back to the director general. I am putting it to your Lordships that the director general will be a very lonely man. He will just have his staff—the Oftel staff. True enough, he will be supported by very able technicians and by executives. As the Bill proceeds we very much doubt whether the existing financial provisions in connection with the staffing of Oftel will be really adequate, but they still do not detract from the director's aloneness and his responsibilities.

The director's responsibilities are set out under Clause 3 of the Bill. He is responsible for the provision of the system itself, satisfying "all reasonable demands" of consumers. He is enjoined: to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers". He is enjoined: "to maintain and promote effective competition…to promote efficiency and economy"; to promote research and development; to ensure that the people engaged in research and development, establish and maintain a leading position in the field of telecommunications". He is enjoined: to encourage major users of telecommunication services"; and he is enjoined: to maintain and promote outside the United Kingdom competitive activity on the part of all those who take part in the industry.

The director is entrusted with the issue of licences. He is charged with the whole question of licence modification. He is charged with making quite sure that, in appropriate circumstances, references are made to the Monopolies Commission. He is charged also with making investigations to see whether such references are required. He is charged with the task of enforcing the various conditions of the licence, making quite sure that they are adhered to by all those who have been granted licences. He is required to approve contractors who contract for the supply of telecommunications material and also for installation and apparatus. He has a myriad of responsibilities—incidentally, far more than the Secretary of State now has in relation to British Telecoms itself. In fact, one may marvel that the Government have thought it wise, for totally different considerations, to have embarked upon such a complicated measure at this time, of no particular advantage to the community as a whole, but purely for the sake of privatisation.

But that is the Bill and, despite whatever modifications may be made in your Lordships' House and in another place in due course, we must assume that Oftel will be established and that the director general will be appointed. The question is: Should he be entrusted with this task alone? I venture to say to your Lordships that that is the question before the House at this time.

Members of public companies, and indeed other companies, know quite well that the appointment of non-executive directors to boards, who have little, if any, kind of control over the company's activities, are able to bring a new and fresh view to boards of directors or indeed to managing directors who may conceivably tend to become fixed in their ways. These non-executive directors proffer advice from their wider experience, their diverse experience, in what for them is the outside world. Those of your Lordships who have read the managerial press and—dare I say it?—The Times over the last two months will be well aware that there is a move, which is widely supported in British industry and which is even (if I may dare say it to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone) supported by the CBI, of having more non-executive directors who can bring a certain degree of independence to bear. Not merely (and I do not use the word "merely" in any derogatory sense) because of the users, whose interests are to be covered by the other advisory bodies to which the noble Lord has referred, but in order to deal with the much wider spectrum with which the director general has to deal—including the investigation of complaints, not only of users but of contractors, of licensees and all those who are concerned—the director ought to have somebody to whom he can look for advice.

We on this side of the House are pleased to give support to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, but it is not support in any party sense at all. We do not seek to change the political convictions of those who are pleased to sit opposite, or who are pleased to sit on the Cross-Benches, or, indeed, who are pleased to sit behind us. We take the view, which we hope the House will take, that this is simply a matter of plain common sense. One of the things that might conceivably soften the blow of this Bill on the public interest generally is at any rate the knowledge that when it comes to plain common sense in the framing of legislation—indeed, in the revising of it, which is part of the responsibilities of this House—this afternoon your Lordships may do the country and the Bill a signal service.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield)

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve has said, we have been here before. In fact, this proposition now appears for the fourth time of asking. As the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, reminded us, it was first put forward during the Committee stage of the 1983 Bill, which was aborted by the general election. It was then defeated on a Division. Undeterred by this, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, put the same proposition forward, but with a different name, as Amendment No. 1 during the Committee stage of the present Bill. That was also defeated on a Division.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, then put forward essentially the same proposition as Amendment No. 62 during the Committee stage of this Bill, and that amendment was withdrawn in the light of certain suggestions which I made to your Lordships, to which I shall return in a few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has now brought the matter forward for the fourth time.

When we were discussing this in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was perturbed by the suggestion I had made that his proposition was the same as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I thought at the time that he was arguing that there were differences of substance, but I subsequently came to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, was merely trying to protect his "intellectual property" in the idea—a subject which re-appears in Amendment No. 41 in his name on the Marshalled List.

However, to make quite certain that there is no confusion between his present proposition and those put forward before, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has now omitted the operative provision from his amendments. The result is that this council would have no functions. Despite the fact that it has no functions, the noble Lord has provided that it should make an annual report on the way in which it has discharged the functions that it is not given, and out of the generosity of his heart he proposes that the members should be paid for not performing the functions that they are not given.

The noble Lord started by referring to a cricket analogy that I had used in the debate during the Committee stage. Perhaps I may pursue that. What he is now proposing is that we have a cricket match with 22 players, but neither bat nor ball. Therefore, it is not likely to be a particularly interesting cricket match. In fact, the amendment is so defective that I really wonder why the noble Lord believes that it is necessary to move it. Nevertheless, despite this, I shall turn to the matters of substance which I realise are on the minds of a number of your Lordships. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, have made the point that the director has a difficult job to do—which I entirely accept—and that it would be useful for him to have advice. I entirely agree with that, but it is not necessary to have a special council of this kind to fulfil this function.

The Bill already contains wide-ranging provisions designed to ensure that the director has access to all the advice that he needs. The whole purpose of the provisions for the establishment of advisory bodies under Clause 52 is to ensure that this is so. Under Clause 52 we have specifically provided for the establishment of advisory bodies on those subjects where it appears to us the need for specialist advice is greatest. For example, we have the four national advisory bodies for consumer matters (and I shall refer again to these in a moment) and the advisory bodies on the disabled, the elderly and small businesses. The director is also given power under Clause 52 to establish such advisory bodies as he sees fit. In this way the director will be able to obtain advice on particular subjects from people particularly experienced in the field in which he is interested.

Another proposed role for a body of the kind put forward in the amendment is that it should act in a kind of supervisory capacity, overseeing the way in which the director performs his functions. I imagine that this is intended to provide the public with reassurance that the director is, in fact, being supervised. The basis of the regulatory system in the Bill is that the Bill sets out very clearly—for example, in Clause 3—the duties which govern the director in the performance of his functions. If anyone thinks that the director is failing to carry out any of these functions, then he can be challenged in the courts. I know that it would be exceptional for anyone to challenge the director in this way, but the fact that he can be so challenged is a very effective sanction. Further, if anyone thinks that the director is acting improperly, then that person can take it up with the Ombudsman. whose remit is specifically widened by this Bill to include the director. These two remedies provide a more effective sanction than any council which could be set up.

Finally, the director has to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, as provided in Clause 53. That report has to be laid before each House of Parliament. That is contained in Clause 53(3). This means that both Houses can debate the report if they so wish. Doubts were expressed during the Committee stage, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and they have been repeated in the debate this afternoon by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson and Lord Bruce of Donington, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, whether the interests of consumers are properly protected. The Government recognise that consumers would need to have some local body, other than the director in London, to which they can turn for advice and assistance in the first place. We have included provisions in the Bill to enable this to be achieved.

First, there is Clause 27, which enables the Secretary of State to continue to pay funds towards meeting the expenses of the various non-statutory consumer bodies that he recognises. We are here thinking particularly of the Post and Telecoms Advisory Committees, or PATACs as they are commonly known. But in addition we have the four national advisory bodies—one each for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—which are established under Clause 52 and to which consumers can turn. These arrangements will ensure very full facilities for representing the views of consumers.

Perhaps I might now turn to the general question of the advisory bodies established under Clause 52. The point has been put forward on a number of occasions that the role of the four national advisory bodies needs to be strengthened, and in particular that their function in paying regard to the interests of consumers should be underlined. It was this proposal that I was setting out to meet when I said that I would bring forward amendments to Clause 52 to strengthen the consumer role of the national advisory bodies established under that clause. Amendments to achieve this in fact now appear on the Marshalled List.

We shall have the opportunity of discussing this in greater detail when we come to those amendments, but there are two points that I should like to make. The first is that in deference to the views expressed both at Committee stage and this afternoon we have inserted the words: including, in particular, the special requirements and circumstances of consumers, purchasers and other users". That is the first major point.

Secondly, in order to enhance the status of these four territorial bodies we now specifically provide in Amendment No. 97 that they should be appointed by the Secretary of State and not by the director. This is the answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that these might be transient bodies which would come and go. I believe that the amendments we have offered meet the real anxieties which were expressed on this matter.

There is one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, that I entirely accept, and that is that if these amendments are made to Clause 52 their appearance under a Part of the Bill headed "Other Functions of Director" is no longer appropriate, and we shall need to amend that title. That is a valid point, and I shall ensure that it is met. But when we come to the question of the appearance in order in the Bill I do not think that in the end it makes all that much difference. The Bill is set out in a logical form at present, and provided we alter that title it gives adequate weight to the importance of these advisory bodies.

In conclusion, the amendments that I have now tabled offer a more effective route to achieving the objectives that we all want to secure. I would hope, therefore, that your Lordships would choose the route that I am offering rather than the seductive but, if I may say so, unavailing proposal offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. On that basis, I would hope that the noble Lord would be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran

My Lords, I am grateful to those Members of the House who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for her kind words about me. I am sorry if I confused her by changing the name "council" to "authority" and back again. Perhaps it is some consolation to her that, like Shakespeare, I say, "What's in a name?" It is the fundamental theme behind the name which is of such importance. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his support, and also for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, from the Cross-Benches, because he raised a substantial point on which I shall not elaborate any further.

So far as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is concerned, I always hesitate to say anything unkind about the noble Lord because he usually is so kind to me, but it seemed to me that he had not really been listening to what I had put forward. It is not merely that an amendment has been put in the depths of the Bill that I object to, and he could not have been listening to my argument to have made that attractive but irrelevant speech. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has, in his usual helpful way, recounted the difficulties and the problems which will face the director general. It is accepted that the director general will have a most difficult task, and the object of the council is to try to assist him.

The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was unusually dismal in the opening words of his comprehensive speech on this occasion. He referred to defeats—four defeats. But what has happened from what he calls defeats? They have produced at last an amendment which he says will now go all the way to meet the points that I have already put forward. I do not accept that submission, but in fairness to myself I feel that I should say to the noble Lord the Minister that really he did not quite get the right tone in relation to what I have submitted before.

This amendment has never been before your Lordships, either at Committee stage or at any stage. This is a new amendment which I am putting forward having studied all the answers and the comments made on previous amendments. It is as a result of that research, having regard to all the factors involved in this matter, that I come before this House with some confidence with a new amendment which has never been debated before the House. The noble Lord the Minister says that an advisory body, as it is quite clear this council should be, has no functions. Surely the word "advice", whether implied directly or indirectly in the words of this amendment, obviously gives this council some kind of function. Therefore, to say that advice does not constitute a function is an argument not worthy of the noble Lord the Minister so early in the afternoon as this.

I am not going to take up the time of your Lordships except to say that it seems to me crucial from a psychological point of view that the Government should make it clear that they would welcome advice from the trade unions in relation to the activities of British Telecom PLC, or in relation to the activities that are going on towards that. The amendment of the noble Lord, Amendment No. 97, makes no reference to the trade unions. I am tempted to ask why, in moving this Government amendment—which I admit comes quite a long way but not far enough towards the theme I am developing—the noble Lord should deliberately have left out from the list of members of his advisory body representatives of the trade unions. That seems to me to be a fundamental error. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said so clearly and so persuasively, this council should be appointed early in the activities leading to privatisation of British Telecom, and that is why it is of fundamental importance that it should come early in the Bill.

Again, the noble Lord indicated that there will be representatives from various regions in the United Kingdom on the advisory body that he is suggesting. But he names these by reference to the countries concerned. It would be much more helpful to refer to local authorities in a more general way. In my submission the Government have come quite a long way towards us on this side of the House in relation to this Bill. I would appeal to the noble Lord to come just that little further, put his amendments at the beginning and introduce trade unions as representatives of the council. Then it would show, in my view, the sincerity of the Government in designing an effective Telecom Act to achieve the commercial success nationally and internationally that they have promised the country. The Government will get great respect and support if they accept this amendment. I beg to move.

3.50 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents 91; Not-Contents, 102.

Amherst, E. Kearton, L.
Ardwick, L. Kennet, L.
Attlee, E. Kilmarnock, L.
Aylestone, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Lawrence, L.
Beswick, L. Leatherland, L.
Bishopston, L. Listowel, E.
Blease, L. Llewelyn-Davis of Hastoe, B.
Blyton, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L. [Teller]
Boston of Faversham, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Brockway, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. McNair, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Mais, L.
Caradon, L. Mar, C.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mayhew, L.
Chitnis, L. Milverton, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Mishcon, L.
Collison, L. Oram, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L. Peart, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B. [Teller.] Plant, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Rhodes, L.
Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B. Roberthall, L.
Denington, B. Rochester, Bp.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Donnet of Balgay, L. Sainsbury, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L. Seear, B.
Ennals, L. Serota, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Shinwell, L.
Fitt, L. Simon, V.
Gaitskell, B. Stallard, L.
Gallacher, L. Stedman, B.
Gladwyn, L. Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Steward of Fulham, L.
Grey, E. Stoddart of Swinton, L.
Grimond, L. Stone, L.
Hale, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hampton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hanworth, V. Tordoff, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Underhill, L.
Hunt, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jeger, B. Wells-Pestell, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Wigoder, L.
John-Mackie, L.
Adeane, L. Luke, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Lyell, L.
Avon, E. McAlpine of Moffat.
Bauer, L. McAlpine of West Green, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Bellwin, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Belstead, L. Mancroft, L.
Bessborough, E. Marley, L.
Broxbourne, L. Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.
Caithness, E. Merrivale, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Mersey, V.
Campbell of Croy, L. Mo[...]son, L.
Cockfield, L. Morris, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Mottistone, L.
Cottesloe, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Northchurch, B.
Daventry, V. Nugent of Guildford, L.
De Freyne, L. Orkney, E.
Denham, L. [Teller] Orr-Ewing, L.
Drumalbyn, L. Pender, L.
Dudley, B. Penrhyn, L.
Edmund-Davies, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Effingham, E. Porritt, L.
Ellenborough, L. Portland, D.
Elton, L. Romney, E.
Ely, M. St. Davids, V.
Enniskillen, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Faithful, B. Saltoun, Ly.
Feversham, L. Sandford, L.
Gainford, L. Sempill, Ly.
Glanusk, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Glasgow, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Glenarthur, L. Somers, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Spens, L.
Gridley, L. Strathcarron, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Strathspey, L.
Sudeley, L.
Halsbury, E. Swinton, E. [Teller]
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Terrington, L.
Henley, L. Teviot, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Ilchester, E. Torphichen, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Trefgarne, L.
Killearn, L. Trenchard, V.
Kimberley, E. Trumpington, B.
Kintore, E. Vaizey, L.
Lauderdale, E. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Liverpool, E. Vickers, B.
Long, V. Vivian, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Wilberforce, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.