HL Deb 30 October 1984 vol 456 cc444-54

[References are to Bill (230) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at beginning insert— ("Subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament") The Commons disagreed to the amendment made by the Lords in page 1, line 6, for the following Reason: Because it could result in unnecessary delay in transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act.

Lord Graham of Edmonton rose to move, That this House do insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the outcome of this debate is concerned with the rights of Parliament. The single central issue to be decided by your vote is not whether this Bill shall pass. That is not in dispute. It is not the principle underlying the Bill to place a public asset—our ordnance factories—into private hands. That is unchallenged. That principle, although opposed, is not in dispute.

What is at issue is the right and the duty of Parliament to be given the opportunity to consider the details of the prime instrument transferring those powers contained within a scheme or schemes. It is the refusal by this Government to provide both Houses with that opportunity before such a scheme is started that is in dispute. Quite simply, opposition to our amendment denies proper parliamentary scrutiny. Those who believe that this House has a part to play in exercising proper parliamentary scrutiny will support the amendment. The issue is as simple as that.

In another place, the Minister in charge of the Bill called the scheme nothing more than conveyancing machinery for transferring property from the Secretary of State to the new company".

He chided my honourable friends for being concerned with the details of the scheme. What reason do the Government give to your Lordships' House for asking it to reject the amendment which we in this House passed but three months ago? I quote: "Because it could result in unnecessary delay". I ask your Lordships to note that it is not "delay", but "unnecessary delay". I ask the question in all seriousness. Surely it will be a sad day if the proper accounting to Parliament by Government and the proper scrutiny of that accounting to Parliament is viewed as unnecessary. In a saga stretching over many months, even years, what would be unnecessary? It could be as little as hours of parliamentary time—hours, my Lords, not days or weeks.

The truth is that the Government will not tolerate or brook any delay by anybody, including either or both Houses of Parliament. That is the measure of the Government's desperate and intolerable haste. What do the Government want no unnecessary delay to interfere with? I quote again: with transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act".

We have no details of substance relating to land, buildings, machines, intellectual rights, valuations. There is no conclusion to the protracted negotiations with the trade unions on pension rights, redundancy terms, negotiating rights. Yet the Government seek approval to proceed, come what may.

What awkward questions do the Government think Parliament can ask, and why do they deny to Parliament the right to ask those questions? I tell this noble House that if a Labour Government came to either House, said that they wanted to take an industry into public ownership and asked for the principle of that decision to be agreed by the House without giving details of compensation, organisation or the transfer of liabilities, there would be a tremendous outcry from the Conservative Benches—and rightly so. Labour would be accused of riding roughshod over Parliament. We should be told, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that we had an elective dictatorship.

Noble Lords do not have to take my words. When we debated and determined this very issue in your Lordships' House on 19th July of this year the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said at col. 1635: In all my experience of legislation … I have never seen a Bill which consults Parliament so little, and indeed which scorns Parliament in the way it gives all power to the Government and to the Minister and none to anybody else".

That was a devastating indictment. We shall hear that there is no time, that deadlines have to be met, that all has been revealed, that the Minister has nothing to hide; yet for more than nine months Parliament has been fobbed off with promise after promise after promise.

Where is the memorandum of understanding? Where are the articles of agreement? Three months ago we were told that they were in final draft. Where are they now? Where are the details of the intellectual property rights? The Minister said in February, nine months ago, that they would be produced in three months' time. Six months after that promise, where are they? The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have repeatedly asked for details. Those details have been promised but have never been given. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and the noble Lord, Lord Carver, have asked questions time after time, but in vain. We have asked for details of the valuation of assets. All we have been promised in the scheme is a statement of the principles of the valuations.

What will be the capital structure of the company? We do not know. How will assets be transferred? We do not know. The scheme is the heart of the Bill, yet it is the intention of the Government, in Clause 3(9), not just to lay a copy of the scheme and allow for no debate upon it but to do so up to one month after—I repeat after—the scheme has come into force. Surely this cannot be right. Surely it lacks courtesy to Parliament. Surely it is undemocratic.

Let me repeat, in order to reassure those who share my concern over constitutional proprieties, that the amendment which I move seeks to provide both Houses of Parliament with an opportunity to exercise their duty and their rights. It is designed to enable proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is not a challenge to the principle of the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is not a delaying device. It will force the Government to treat Parliament not as a rubber stamp but as a responsible element in our legislative procedures. By supporting this amendment, noble Lords are doing no more than is their duty. We cannot do less. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion.

Moved, That this House doth insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Graham of Edmonton.)

3.16 p.m.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I understand that it would be more convenient if I said what I have to say now rather than after the Minister has responded to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.

I am most anxious to do everything I can to satisfy your Lordships that this is not a party or partisan matter. That was the principle of the Bill and it has been disposed of. Both Third Reading and the Question, That the Bill do now pass have been settled in both Houses of Parliament. We are concerned solely with whether we should insist upon Parliament being consulted. We are not asking for power to alter any detail. Merely do we insist upon Parliament being consulted in circumstances in which the Government have chosen to introduce an enabling Bill which, as I said on a previous occasion, is enabling with a capital "E".

The Bill gives to the Minister, and only to the Minister, enormous powers to privatise, as everybody knows, part of the supply of materials which affect the security of this country. This has continued for 400 years or more and has never been in hands other than those of the Crown. The Government are doing it by means of an enabling Bill which has only one effective clause: the power to make a scheme. We know very little indeed about what the scheme will contain. I put it to all noble Lords that it is no less than minimum courtesy and a matter of reasonable consultation with both Houses of Parliament for the Government at least to say what is in the scheme before, not after, it has become effective.

The Government do not dispute that Parliament is entitled to know. They say that the scheme will be published within one month after it has become effective. There is no dispute about that. We are all agreed that Parliament should know. The issue is when Parliament should know. Should it know at a time when it can express its view, at a time when the Government would have to justify—this is at the heart of democratic proceedings—and persuade all Members of both Houses that the course they have taken is reasonable?

If the Government had given to Parliament adequate details of what is to be included in the scheme, we should not be pursuing the matter. The details are important. There is no question that many of the most important details are still open—details affecting the employment, redundancy conditions, pension rights and other rights of a huge labour force which was totally loyal and totally strike-free until the introduction of the Bill. They are concerned about the prospect of up to 1,600 people being declared redundant in any week. Whether that will be before or after the scheme is introduced, one does not know. They do not know for certain what their future will be. Nor do the Government.

The Government say, very properly, that certainty can be obtained only by consulting the courts. That is a reasonable statement, but surely it is reasonable for Parliament to be given the opportunity to know the Government's proposals on a number of vital issues. How is the company going to be run? That is called a memorandum of understanding. What it means is, how is the company going to be run? It is going to be wholly owned by the Secretary of State. How is he going to exercise his powers? Answer: under a memorandum of understanding. What is the memorandum going to say? We do not know. Time and time again the Government have promised to produce it, but they have not produced it for the best of all reasons; they have not yet decided what the memorandum of understanding is going to say. One can continue in this way on a number of most important issues.

A whole series of assets is going to be transferred? Which assets? I am sorry, but neither the Government nor I can tell you, because the Government have not yet decided. How are the assets going to be valued? I am sorry, but neither the Government nor I can tell you, because the Government have not decided what are the principles of valuation. They decided earlier that there was a principle, which they promulgated, though I had never heard of it before, notwithstanding having spent a lifetime in my profession. It was the principle of usefulness. That did not last long, and they have withdrawn from that. I can only help your Lordships by saying which principle will not be adopted; but I cannot be more constructive and say which principle will be adopted for valuing the assets, nor which assets will be transferred, nor, when they are transferred, how the business will be run.

Good heavens! Have I not put before your Lordships sufficient information to establish the point that it is reasonable that Parliament should be consulted before the event, and not after it, so that it can express its views? We all know that Parliament can express its views only when dealing with an affirmative resolution, which takes half a day in another place (and that is the amount of the delay involved) and perhaps half a day in your Lordships' House; a total of one day. That is what we are talking about—whether that is a price worth paying to consult Parliament.

The Government are saying that that is a price not worth paying and that it is unnecessary to incur that delay. I am inviting your Lordships to take quite the opposite view and say the other place should consider on this procedure—an affirmative resolution—whether the Government have filled in these vitally important question marks reasonably; or if not, what suggestions they have to make. As we all know, there is no question but that the Government, commanding the majority which they do, will get their way. The Government must, and should, get their way at the end of the day, after Parliament has been consulted. There is no difficulty about that position. There is no difficulty about the constitutional position, the procedural position or any of those matters. It is simply an issue of whether that kind of delay can be described as unnecessary.

I hope very much that your Lordships will accept my assurance that I have tried to take out of my mind completely the fact that every opposition party in both Houses, as well as ex-Secretaries of State and distinguished ex-Chiefs of General Staff have all opposed this Bill. I have tried to take out of my mind the point that when this very amendment was being considered in another place not one Member spoke in support of the amendment against this amendment and in support of the Government. Certainly they voted in support of it, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will not be surprised at that. He has described this pattern of voting in language which I would not attempt to improve upon.

The issue is not whether the Government can get their majority at the right time in another place; of course they can. And once they have voted on a Motion of this kind, we in this House—and certainly we on these Benches, for whom I speak with authority—would not dream of opposing by a vote that which the other place has decided, because we would then be challenging the other House in such a way that it could not think again. That is not the function of your Lordships' House.

We are absolutely on safe ground in respect of the constitutional, procedural, and other considerations. We are not damaging the Bill in a central way at all. We are asking the Government to reconsider and to do what everybody who has spoken has asked them to do: please consult Parliament before, and not after, the event.

Baroness Vickers

My Lords, I shall say only a few words. I had down two amendments concerning this proposition in Committee and at Report stage. It is a very great experiment after 300 years completely to change the lives of the people who are working in these factories. I should like to say that they have done a wonderful job. Now they are not going to be civil servants and they will have a different type of master. They will have a different type of life, and we still do not know what pensions they are to receive. We have a rough idea, but we do not know. I really think it is essential to receive reports from the Ministry and I should like to suggest that if we cannot get this amendment through, we put down Unstarred Questions from time to time in order to get the information we require.

I hope that we shall stick by our feelings on this matter, even if this Bill goes through. I have worked in these factories and have some knowledge of what is done there and what has been done there in the past. When I was working in them I did not always feel that the arrangements were satisfactory. Conditions may become a little better now that the factories will be subject to different health and safety Acts. But if we are going to let this Bill go through, we want to be quite sure that certain matters are going to be put right and that the people working there will have a better life and a better living.

I support what has been said by the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition and I wish to say that I would be prepared to put down an Unstarred Question so that we can learn more about what is happening in these factories in the future.

3.27 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the other place has given as its reason for disagreeing with this amendment that, it could result in unnecessary delay in transferring property, rights and liabilities in accordance with the Act". The delay would clearly be appreciable. Arrangements for the necessary debates could not be made until all work on the scheme had been completed, since it is implicit in the amendment that the scheme must be approved in the form in which it will ultimately be made.

The scheme would need to be laid before Parliament well before the debates were to take place, in order to allow honourable Members in another place, and your Lordships here, time to consider it. The Government would have to take into account the possibility that one House, or both Houses, might withhold approval to the scheme. It would therefore not be possible to fix a definite date for vesting day until both debates had been held. On the other hand, the need to plan ahead would require the setting of a provisional date, with the hope of being able to keep to it. Probably, in order to cater for all eventualities, delay between the finalising of the scheme and vesting day would have to be in the order of months rather than weeks.

There is much to be done to weld the existing organisation into a coherent, independent, commercial entity. No real progress can be made in this direction until total independence is achieved by vesting day. The sooner the company can get going, the sooner it can start to build on the success of the ROF trading fund and begin to achieve some of the aims we would expect of it. Unnecessary delay in reaching vesting day would incur the risk of diluting the enthusiasm which now exists within management, lowering the morale of both management and workforce, and jeopardising early attainment of the Government's objectives.

That risk should be incurred only for sound reasons. Such reasons are, of course, said to exist in this case. The Government are said to be abusing the democratic process in not subjecting the scheme to parliamentary scrutiny and approval before it comes into effect. I find that a curious charge after the numerous debates we have held, both in your Lordships' House and in the other place; the Questions which have been put to us and answered; and the explanations we have given of our future intentions. It really is not credible to suggest that the Government's intentions have not been revealed, or subjected to detailed examination.

Much of the criticism that is made of the Government in this respect comes, I think, from a mistaken idea of what the scheme will contain. It was described in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement as a conveyancing document. This description was somewhat scathingly received there by the Opposition. But the fact of the matter is that it is a conveyancing document. It is a mechanism for transferring property from the Secretary of State to the new company more easily and more conveniently than the usual legal instruments. I wonder whether, if the property were being transferred in the normal way, there would be the same wish to approve the various deeds of conveyance and leases, drawn up by the lawyers, before they came into effect. I very much doubt it.

The truth is that the scheme will contain little or nothing concerning the matters in which Parliament has, quite rightly, expressed the greatest interest. The scheme will be a very limited document consisting mostly of lists of property and other assets to be transferred, stating the number of shares which are to be issued in consideration of the transfer and setting out the conditions on which certain property, most notably intellectual property rights, is to be held by the new company. There will be nothing in it which we have not already made abundantly clear to Parliament on many different occasions, and Parliament's knowledge of the issues will not be advanced in any significant degree by the scheme when it is published.

The matters of greatest concern to Parliament, such as the value of the new company, the details of the new company pensions schemes, the policies of the Ministry of Defence towards the new company and the plans which the Government have for privatisation will be nowhere mentioned in the scheme. But these, and other matters like them, are the things in which Parliament is really interested. A debate purporting to be on the scheme would inevitably turn into a general debate on these topics. But it is the Government's case that we have had sufficient debate of that kind already and that there is no advantage in discussing the matter further which is sufficient to compensate for the damage which additional delay would cause to the company and the implementation of the Government's plans. The Government are not abusing the Parliamentary process. They are trying to determine the balance of convenience between competing courses of action. It is our belief that Parliament has had, and will have in the future as my noble friend Lady Vickers so rightly pointed out, all the information it has wanted concerning our intentions.

We shall lay the scheme before Parliament. We shall publish the opening balance sheet of the new company. We shall make statements of our intentions at the appropriate time. All this will enable Parliament to ask questions and make points about what we are doing and intend to do. I ask your Lordships to be content to leave it at that, and not introduce the prospect of additional and unnecessary delay in reaching vesting day by insisting on this amendment to the Bill.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he add, in fairness to the House, what he means when he says that the scheme will be put before Parliament? When will it be put before Parliament?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we have had a long debate on these and related matters. Perhaps I could say in parenthesis that the articles of association, in which I know the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is particularly interested, have now been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House, save for one particular clause which will have to be added at a later date and which is not appropriate at the present time. The time at which we were proposing to publish the scheme is immediately after vesting day, and I hope that the noble Lord will regard that as satisfactory.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he can confirm, as much has been said about the constitutional position, that the constitutional position is the same for enabling Bills, whether they have a large "E" or a small "e", as for all other Bills, and whether he can assure the House that there is no constitutional impropriety involved?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I hasten to give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks. Of course there is no constitutional impropriety in this Bill. The Bill has now passed effectively through both Houses save for the small remaining matter we are discussing today. Therefore, I hope that in due course it will become the law of the land.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Lord who has just spoken that there is no challenge from this side that there is any constitutional impropriety in what the Government are doing; and we were at pains to point out that there is no constitutional impropriety in what we are seeking to do. In other words, we are saying to the Government that in this debate we have not sought to argue the, merits. We have argued, and we have lost. The parliamentary arithmetic stands up pretty well in both Houses. We are not arguing about the principle: that has gone. We are arguing about the opportunity which the Government have, and which they decline to take, of taking Parliament into their confidence, treating it with a little more respect and simply saying to us, "Although we are intending to do something, before we do so this is what we intend to do."

The Minister says "within one month", and the Bill says, in Clause 3(9): Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which a scheme comes into force". In other words, we are going to be told within one month after a scheme comes into force. It might be one week, two weeks or three weeks, or it might be four weeks. We are saying to the Government that that is a tiny price to pay in order to keep the confidence and satisfaction of the House on their side.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who quite properly stressed that there is no challenge to the principle of the Bill. He pointed out that it is an enabling Bill with enormous powers. We are not talking about the transfer of fish or fruit, or anything like that: we are talking about the transfer of assets which at the moment form part of the national security of the state. I appreciate that the Minister has told us that safeguards have been written in, but this is an enormous transfer of assets of what I say are a unique kind.

The Minister alluded to the information that has been given over the period by his good self and his parliamentary colleagues in another place. I have not argued that from the time the Bill received its First Reading in another place until now there has not been adequate time for debate. The problem of those who asked the questions is that they received promises, promises and more promises as to when they were going to see a little more flesh on the bones, but we have not seen it. I remember that it was nine or 10 days ago that my noble friend Lord Stoddart asked if he could sight something, and he was told that it was available. We are told it is available now. It might have been available for a longer period than that. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Stoddart has had an opportunity to see that document.

I take very kindly the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that if the Government do not accept our amendment there are other legitimate devices that we can use. Of course there are, but we ought not to adopt guerilla warfare tactics in order to get what Parliament ought to be given freely. We ought to be able to say to the Government, "Trust us. Trust us and give us the information." I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, hit the nail right on the head. The Government are literally making it up, not as they go along, because there are problems, but they are not yet in a position to produce the finished goods. We are saying, "Right; but when you do produce the finished goods simply consult us before going on".

I am grateful for the support that we on these Benches have received all round the House, not only today but at other stages of the Bill. I beg the Minister seriously to recognise the deep feelings which have been expressed and to reflect on the enormity of the actions which are contained in the enabling powers. The Government intend to take those powers, and they are entitled to, but it will take out of the public domain an organisation—the Royal Ordnance Factories—which has served the nation faithfully and well for more than 400 years.

All that we are asking for in this simple amendment is an opportunity for debate in both Houses of Parliament before that dissolution of public assets takes effect. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was absolutely right. The price that we are asking the Government to pay is one three-hour debate in each House. Surely that is a small request. What have the Government to fear? Why incur the wrath of the workforce and damage the Government's democratic integrity for such a tiny price? Why imply that neither House of Parliament, nor any of their Members, is capable of offering suggestions to improve the details of the scheme by not giving them the opportunity to comment before this change comes into effect?

Earlier this year the Grant to Redundant Churches Fund Order 1984 was approved by Parliament and this Government. That is subject to the affirmative procedures which I seek in this amendment. I cannot believe that it is right to treat our ordnance factories with less dignity and respect than redundant churches. I ask the House to support the Motion.

3.41 p.m.

On Question, Whether this House doth insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 130.

Ailesbury, M. Carr of Hadley, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Cathcart, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Chelwood, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Constantine of Stanmore, L.
Allerton, L. Cork and Orrery, E.
Avon, E. Cornwallis, L.
Bauer, L. Cottesloe, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Craigavon, V.
Bellwin, L. Craigmyle, L.
Belstead, L. Croft, L.
Berkeley, B. Daventry, V.
Bessborough, E. Davidson, V.
Boardman, L. De Freyne, L.
Boothby, L. De La Warr, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Denham, L. [Teller.]
Brabazon of Tara, L. Dilhorne, V.
Bridgeman, V. Dormer, L.
Broxbourne, L. Dudley, E.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Effingham, E.
Buckinghamshire, E. Ellenborough, L.
Caithness, E. Elliot of Harwood, B.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L. Elton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Energlyn, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Enniskillen, E.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Faithfull, B.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L. Middleton, L.
Ferrier, L. Molson, L.
Fortescue, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Gardner of Parkes. B. Mottistone, L.
Glanusk, L. Moyne, L.
Glenarthur, L. Munster, E.
Gormanston, V. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Gowrie, E. Nugent of Guildford, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Orkney, E.
Gridley, L. Pender, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Polwarth, L.
Halsbury, E. Porritt, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Renton, L.
Harvey of Prestbury, L. Renwick, L.
Harvington, L. Rochdale, V.
Henley, L. Rodney, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L. Rotherwick, L.
Hornsby-Smith, B. Sandford, L.
Hunter of Newington, L. Sandys, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Selborne, E.
Ilchester, E. Sharples, B.
Inglewood, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Ingrow, L. Soames, L.
Ironside, L. Somers, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Southborough, L.
Kilmany, L. Spens, L.
Kimberley, E. Stamp, L.
Kinnaird, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Lane-Fox, B. Swinton, E. [Teller.]
Lauderdale, E. Terrington, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Teviot, L.
Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Long, V. Todd, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Tranmire, L.
Luke, L. Trefgarne, L.
Lyell, L. Trumpington, B.
McAlpine of Moffat, L. Ullswater, V.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
McFadzean, L. Vickers, B.
Mancroft, L. Vivian, L.
Margadale, L. Ward of Witley, V.
Marley, L. Westbury, L.
Marshall of Leeds, L. Whitelaw, V.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L. Wynford, L.
Young, B.
Merrivale, L. Young of Graffham, L.
Mersey, V.
Airedale, L. Falkender, B.
Amherst, E. Fisher of Rednal, B.
Ardwick, L. Fitt, L.
Attlee, E. Gallacher, L.
Aylestone, L. Galpern, L.
Banks, L. Gladwyn, L.
Barnett, L. Glenamara, L.
Beswick, L. Gosford, E.
Birk, B. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Blyton, L. Gregson, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Grey, E.
Bottomley, L. Grimond, L.
Briginshaw, L. Hall, V.
Brockway, L. Hampton, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Hanworth, V.
Bruce of Donington, L. Hatch of Lusby, L.
Burton of Coventry, B. Hayter, L.
Caradon, L. Hunt, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Irving of Dartford, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Jacques, L.
Collison, L. Jeger, B.
David. B. [Teller.] Jenkins of Putney, L.
Davies of Leek, L. John-Mackie, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Kaldor, L.
Diamond, L. Kilmarnock, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Kirkhill, L.
Donnet of Balgay. L. Kissin, L.
Elwyn-Jones. L. Lawrence, L.
Ennals, L. Leatherland, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B.
Ezra, L. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Lockwood, B. Shackleton, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Shepherd, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Shinwell, L.
McNair. L. Stallard, L.
Mishcon, L. Stedman, B.
Molloy. L. Stewart of Fulham, L.
Monson, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Morris of Grasmere, L. Stabolgi, L.
Mulley. L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Nicol. B. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Northfield. L. Tordoff, L.
Ogmore, L. Underhill, L.
Oram. L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Peart, L. Walston, L.
Ponsonbv of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.] Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Wells-Pestell, L.
Raglan, L. Whaddon, L.
Rhodes, L. White, B.
Rochester, L. Wigoder, L.
Ross of Marnock, L. Willis, L.
Sainsbury, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Scanlon, L.
Seear, B. Winstanley, L.
Serota, B. Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.