Gas Bill

HL Deb 24 April 1986 vol 473 cc1316-28

6.14 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 1 [The Director General of Gas Supply):

Lord Diamond moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("After consultation with the appropriate Committee of the House of Lords,").

The noble Lord said: We have to accept for the moment that there will not be a commission of three persons, with the strength of their combined force, but only one such person who is referred to as the regulator. If that is the case it becomes more important than ever that that person should enjoy the confidence of the Chamber and of Parliament and should feel that he has Parliament's understanding on those occasions in which he may find himself under undue pressure either from the Minister or anybody else. In our view the way to do that is to enable the relevant committee of the House of Lords to be consulted. It is referred to in the amendment as the "appropriate Committee".

I should like to draw attention to one or two aspects of this amendment. We are now talking about consultation. We are not talking about approval. We are trying to find out the Government's position, and whether they would agree to the minimum possible protection—that is to say, consultation. It does not mean that the appropriate committee would have any power of veto or anything like that. It would merely mean that the individual himself, and more particularly the Secretary of State, would know the general reaction of a committee of the House of Lords to a proposed appointment and would be all the better informed therefore as to whether they should or should not make the appointment, and the conditions of that appointment. The amendment refers to "consultation" and the "appropriate Committee".

First, why should it be a committee of the House of Lords at all? The answer is because this has proved a very satisfactory method in other countries where they have adopted what the Government are now adopting: the policy of having utilities managed as private monopolies. I have already described it to Members of the Committee and I am sure that you would not want me to go over the ground again. In their constitution it is not a Committee of the House of Representatives, but the Senate Committee—the Committee of the Upper House—which has this responsibility of receiving reports and examining individuals from time to time. In my view it is highly appropriate that it would be the House of Lords which would approach its duties without any partisan or party bias, in a very objective way. The committee would help the Secretary of State to discover whether the individual proposed has these enormous abilities and the experience to be able to regulate the industry and to be able to stand up to the board, the chairman, all the directors, and the staff and customers behind them. The House of Lords would carry out its duties in a most objective way and would assist the Secretary of State in that aspect.

The Secretary of State would also know not only whether the individual—the candidate—was regarded as suitable for this enormous task but also whether he was a person who understood the needs of the situation as explained to him in examination by a committee of Members of your Lordships' House.

This is a modest amendment. It refers only to consultation. It fills in a most regrettable gap in the whole Bill. Nowhere in the Bill, so far as I can see, do the Government propose to consult Parliament. It has taken a public monopoly away from the control of Ministers and of Parliament as a consequence because we all know that every Member of either House can ask questions of a Minister about his responsibilities. It has completely taken away any protection that an individual consumer, a tariff customer or non-tariff customer may have so far enjoyed and replaced it with nothing. Other than by receiving a report after the event—which it can presumably debate if it finds the time to do so—this Chamber has no powers to affect or influence the conduct of the individual concerned. All those powers of protection have been taken away and replaced with absolutely nothing.

This is an extremely modest attempt to introduce consultation with a committee of the House of Lords—a committee best able to do it because of its skill and objectivity in dealing with matters of this kind. I beg to move.

Lord Bruce of Donington

On this side of the Committee we are very sympathetic indeed to the proposal that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I do not think it is a matter of contention between the parties that we live in a time when the Government themselves, and the Prime Minister in particular, have enormous powers of patronage—patronage that they do not hesitate to use. This may be considered to be a good thing. Indeed, the noble Lord is quite entitled by way of reply to say to me, "Well, previous Labour Governments have exercised the power of patronage. Why, therefore, should there be any particular exception so far as a government who are composed of the opposite political persuasion is concerned?"

There is a short answer to that. Quite clearly the existence of much of this Bill confirms (and we might as well be quite frank about it) that there is a conflict of interest between the principal aims of the privatised gas company, on the one hand, and the interests of the consumer, on the other. Were it not so there would be no necessity for the appointment of Ofgas and the appropriate director. To use a term very much favoured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it is a matter of the law of automaticity, as he was kind enough to refer to it in another context, if the interests of the newly privatised monopoly were identical and naturally in conformity with those of the consumers in all respects, there would be no need to have any regulatory body at all. All that would need to be done would be to stop the nonsense of privatising and leave the existing Gas Acts which provide for statutory regulation and allow the nationalised corporation responsible ultimately to Parliament to operate, as it has operated successfully for many years. There is, therefore, a conflict.

The appointment is one of enormous importance, particularly in the light of the very detailed provisions in the Bill and the enormous responsibilities geographically, technically, financially and from a safety point of view that are put on to this particular director general. Is it really safe for the appointment of this very important person to be left solely to the Secretary of State, particularly if the Prime Minister is leaning on him as she is bound to do from time to time if she has a particular favourite foible of her own? Is it safe to leave it to the Secretary of State unaided? Are we quite sure that the Secretary of State is free from the representations that may or may not quite properly emanate from Conservative Central Office? Is it right that a very sensitive appointment of this kind should be left like that, particularly in the light of the fact that, as Members in all parts of the Committee know, Secretaries of State come and go, at very frequent intervals recently, all over the Government's spectrum?

I do not go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the sense that he would seek to compare this Chamber with the Senate in the United States. The functions are different. The Senate is a legislative body; it has elected representatives; and it is really a much more powerful and distinct body than this Chamber. But over the past five or six years in particular—I would not wish to decry its former history, but I talk only from my own personal experience—this Chamber has come to be held in increasing regard by the public at large, and particularly for the quality and experience of its active Members.

I do not include myself among the experienced and qualified people, but there are very large numbers of noble Lords who are qualified in almost every expert field of administration, for example in engineering, technology, physics, chemistry, the law and accounting. There is a very wide spectrum of experience available in this Chamber, and a Select Committee would have that expertise. In fact, as I believe I have said before in a different context, probably the Select Committee on Overseas Trade has more experience, expertise, intelligence and perception than the Cabinet itself.

We are talking now of future governments as well as of the present Government, who will not be here for very much longer; but so long as they are here surely it would be wise to present themselves with that degree of impartiality that they always affect when they communicate with the electorate, to give them an air of electoral respectability. Even on those narrow political party grounds they might commend themselves to noble Lords opposite.

I think it is a very good idea, when the Minister of State has in mind to appoint a person, either male or female, to a job of this kind, that that person should present himself or herself to a Select Committee of this Chamber for informal conversation and also to be examined in the light of the contents of the Bill. It need not be an extremely full-dress occasion, but the Select Committee could be made aware of the person's qualifications, could assess his personality, could have his CV in their hands, and generally be able to make an objective judgment which they would not express publicly in any way. Then the Minister could consult the committee and the committee could tell him what they thought.

The Minister would not be bound by that. The decision would still be his own but it would be made after consultation and it might be—I do not say it would be, because there is no certainty in these matters—that the Minister of State would have second thoughts about the first choice or the second choice and might, in the event, choose a person more fitted to the task as a result of the consultative process than if he had appointed him purely on caprice, or under pressure from the Prime Minister, or after consultation with the Conservative Central Office. We support the amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Whaddon

This is a worldly amendment. After his appointment, this officer is going to be under the glare of public attention for a period of years. He is going to discharge a most important function, that of looking after the interests of 16 million customers. It is a dreadful burden to have to carry. It is most desirable that he should be seen to be properly appointed and that it should not in any way be a hole-in-corner appointment.

If he is to be examined gently by Parliament, I also think that this House could usefully discharge that function. The other place has an enormous burden of work. I think that it would gladly hand over such a job. Perhaps I may also say that the average age of first election to the other place is 37 years; possibly to our regret we have far more years of experience under our belts in this House, and we can use that experience. A great deal of time and a great deal of industrial, commercial and administrative experience is enshrined here, and we should place that to the public service.

I therefore have the greatest pleasure in recommending with the greatest sincerity that the Government should on this occasion show their magnanimity and open-mindedness by conceding this worthy amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Diamond.

Lord Sandys

This amendment may have certain superficial attractions, but there is one fundamental problem. In moving it, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is seeking to tie the hands of the Secretary of State. The suggestion is that advice would not be available. There is certainly a gratifying suggestion here, which is not repeated in any other statute so far as I am aware, that consultation should take place with a committee of your Lordships' House. I am not aware of any other statute and perhaps the noble Lord can inform the Committee on that point. I should be delighted to know whether this procedure of consultation with a committee of your Lordships' House prior to an appointment is in statute law at present. If it is not, I may be correct. However, the noble Lord is proposing an innovation. I suggest that the advice of the Secretary of State, with which he will be amply supplied, will be sufficient without embodying this in a statute.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

Perhaps I may make a few remarks. A few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said that he knew of no precedent for this. I never regard that by itself as an overwhelming argument. It is sometimes a good idea to take some step of an innovative character, and undoubtedly this proposal is one such step.

In this debate one thing we have to recognise is the dissatisfaction of many members of the public, who have no particular partisan feelings on the subject of privatisation, about the wholly unsatisfactory arrangements which obtain at the moment as regards British Telecom. There is a general feeling that the consumers' interest has been treated with, to be quite blunt, scarcely veiled contempt. One has only to look back at one of the most recent decisions on pricing policy to see the amount of severe criticism which was directed at British Telecom and at the consumer interest that exists there because it was felt that the public interest has not been safeguarded.

If we are now involved in a second-rate exercise of the same character where we are creating a new private monopoly, it seems to me that it is probably a good idea to take action of an innovative character. This undoubtedly comes within that category. I believe that it would be warmly welcomed by many outside this House who, I repeat, have no particularly strong feelings either for or against privatisation but who believe that there should be far more satisfactory protection as far as the consumer and the public interest is concerned. That is my first point.

Secondly, it is sometimes rather a good idea (and I think that there is some general bipartisan feeling on this as well) to limit the powers of ministerial patronage. In the lifetime of this Government there has been constant criticism about the ways in which those powers of patronage have been used. That is not unique to this Government; it has also been directed at their predecessors. It seems to me that if a proposal is made that some committee of your Lordships' House should be consulted, that is not necessarily a bad thing in itself and would probably create a greater degree of public confidence than if it were simply left to the discretion of a Minister acting on his own authority. For those reasons, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Diamond has made a very persuasive case.

Lord Gray of Contin

The Committee will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept this amendment; nor am I persuaded by any of the arguments. The procedure which we have set out in the Bill for appointing the Director General of Gas Supply follows a well established precedent and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, indicated, that is not in dispute. Both the Director General of Fair Trading and the Director-General of Oftel must be appointed by the Secretary of State, and those are but two examples. The list is long. The procedure is well tried and it has been found to be satisfactory. Scores of government appointments are made in this way. It would be entirely unnecessary, and I believe inappropriate, to single out the appointment of the director for consultation with committees from either House of Parliament.

In our consideration of the method of regulating the industry we scrutinised very closely overseas methods, particularly the American method referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The requirement to consult parliamentary committees before appointing the director would be similar to the approval of appointments by the Senate committees in the USA. This procedure has been severely criticised in the USA because it leads to considerable delays.

The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, also indicated that there was no consultation in Parliament. Indeed the noble Lord overlooks the process which we are now going through. The Bill itself will be subject to the fullest scrutiny in this House, and it has already been subject to considerable scrutiny in another place. The Secretary of State has also ensured that a draft of the proposed authorisation has been made available during discussions in another place and in this House.

Baroness Seear

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but if I understand him aright, he is talking about consultations over the Bill. My noble friend Lord Diamond was talking about consultations over the appointment, which is totally different.

Lord Gray of Contin

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that it is totally different. I am pointing out that there is ample opportunity to scrutinise the method that we use for making appointments, and that is precisely what we are doing now. We take the view that the Select Committee system is not designed for the purpose for which the noble Lord seeks to use it, and we believe that it is inappropriate that it should be used for such a purpose. We believe that the traditional system of the Secretary of State making such appointments is the best way forward, and it is one which is well tried and which has been found to be satisfactory.

I am not for one moment suggesting that over the years appointments by various Secretaries of State from different political parties have always met with unanimous acclaim. Of course that would never be so. However, by and large, the system has worked well and we believe that it is best for us to stick to it. We do not consider the proposal in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to be an improvement on the existing method. For that reason and for the other reasons which I have mentioned, we do not feel able to accept the amendment.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

It is disappointing that the noble Lord is so inflexible. He did not have the opportunity of dealing with one point that I endeavoured to put to him, and I am sorry to have to take up a small amount of time in repeating it. There has been constant criticism during the lifetime of this Government, just as there was in the lifetime of the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government as well, about the powers of ministerial patronage.

I see with pleasure the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Kilmorack, in his place. He will remember the great dispute that took place during the lifetime of the postwar Labour Government about allegations that Ministers were appointing political friends. I think the phrase used at the time was, "Jobs for the boys". I do not see an overwhelming argument why in a matter of this sort we should not break new ground.

The noble Lord says that it is right for Ministers to make the appointment. In the final analysis of course they will. What is asked for here is a power of consultation. What is so offensive or so wholly objectionable about a Minister consulting one Mouse of Parliament on such a matter? I cannot see an inherent objection to the principle recommended in this amendment. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could deal with that point.

Lord Gray of Contin

I am happy to do so. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution and for making the suggestion. Whatever department is making an appointment, anybody who has had experience of government will confirm that these appointments are not made, generally speaking, without a considerable amount of consultation among Ministers. It is not a case of Ministers just selecting chums and appointing them at random. There is a great deal of consideration given to appointments because appointments of this sort are going to attract a considerable amount of public attention, and, if the Government get it wrong, the Government will be subject to a considerable amount of criticism.

The Government do not accept the proposal that a Select Committee would be a more suitable or appropriate body to make such a selection than the Secretary of State, with the benefit of the advice available to him. We have provided that the Secretary of State has responsibility for the director. As well as appointing the director, he receives an annual report from the director on his activities, which is also laid before Parliament. This ensures that the director is accountable, through the Secretary of State, to the whole of Parliament. That is a more satisfactory position than having the director appointed by a Select Committee.

Lord Williams of Elvel

The noble Lord has not addressed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Nobody is asking for a Select Committee of this House to make the appointment. The amendment specifically refers to "consultation". If I may go back some years to my appointment as chairman of the Price Commission—as commissar, I think the noble Lord referred to it at an earlier stage this afternoon—it was not done in consultation with anybody. I know how these appointments are made. The Civil Service comes up with a list of names. The list of names is known throughout Whitehall. Certain names are chosen for good or for bad reasons. Then somebody comes along and selects the appropriate name.

This appointment, as noble Lords will be aware and as other noble Lords have said, is going to be a matter of enormous interest to the public at large. The person appointed is going to be a major public figure. What we ask is, is it not right, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, just to break new ground and take the consultation of the committee of one House of Parliament?

6.45 p.m.

Lord Gray of Contin

No. The noble Lord is very persuasive, and he was one of the nicest commissars that we could have had. But he has not succeeded in persuading me that he has built upon the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He was equally persuasive on this, but I cannot accept that a Select Committee of either House, for that matter, is in a better position to give advice to the Secretary of State on an appointment of this nature. They are not necessarily in a better position than the Secretary of State and his advisers.

It may well be that they would come up with many of those to whom the noble Lord referred—the good and the great, as they are known in Whitehall. They may well be on both lists. I am just not prepared in this case to accept that it will be of benefit to move from the established system which we have followed and which I believe to be satisfactory. After all, these committees are not designed for that purpose at all.

It would be wrong to bring a House of Lords' committee into a situation where it could be criticised for being political. House of Lords' committees genuinely pride themselves on being above politics, if I may put it that way. We are coming near to dragging them into politics. If that is what we want to do, perhaps this amendment is right. But I think it is better to leave them in their elevated state where they can look at various problems objectively. I fear that if we involve them in this sort of situation, we may be putting at least part of that at risk. I would rather leave things the way they are. I hope that the noble Lord may be persuaded to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

Lord Whaddon

The point that the noble Lord has made is that the Select Committees pride themselves on being above politics, which is true, whereas Ministers of course pride themselves on being political. The holder of this appointment will deal with 16 million consumers, members of the public. We on these Benches do not want to be renationalising this industry after a couple of years, and it is important that this officer is seen to be above politics and not a party stooge.

This makes it all the more important that the well known Select Committee, which prides itself on being above politics, should not make the appointment—which the noble Lord appeared to imply a few moments ago—but should scan the nominees. The nominee is going to be before television and the press time and time again over the years. If he cannot stand such exposure at the time of his appointment, he would be better not appointed. Will the noble Lord please rethink and consider whether this is an occasion on which he could legitimately give way?

Lord Gray of Contin

No, I should not dream of giving way on this because I do not think there is a valid point. There is no reason whatever why a Select Committee, if it feels so inclined on a particular appointment, cannot make the Secretary of State aware of its views. But it is quite wrong for us to write that into legislation. A Select Committee has the perfect right, if it chooses to use it, and it would be perfectly in order, to make that view known to the Secretary of State. But I am not happy about writing it into legislation.

Lord Whaddon

How can it make its views known without interviewing the nominees? How is it possible? We are simply asking for what the noble Lord has suggested to be done in a rational system.

Lord Diamond

It will come as no surprise to your Lordships not only that I regret the response of the Minister but that I wholeheartedly reject the snub he intends for this House and for the way in which committees of this House function. I reject it on the basis of my experience. The noble Lord asked for people who were experienced in government and on appointments. I had the privilege of being the first chairman of your Lordships' European committee, and I gained experience of the way in which the Government would listen, and listen fully, to the views of that committee and of its sub-committees, which were based on evidence, interviews and inquiries. Those views were not based on something taken off the top of one's head without being able to see the person.

It is the authority of the individuals and the evidence they give which enables your Lordships' European committees to function so well, to have the respect of both Houses, the respect of this country and of other countries. I reject completely the Minister's approach. I reject completely his suggestion that committees of your Lordships' House work politically. There may be committees of which I have no knowledge which work that way; but nevertheless I reject it.

The Minister knows that in the other place everybody is very politically inclined and partisan, and has to be because constituencies have to be looked after and parties have to be represented. Yet when Select Committees are formed, with a majority on the Government's side, as they always are, they take an objective view and the party approach is often laid on one side.

Lord Gray of Contin

Perhaps I may—

Lord Diamond

I shall gladly give way as soon as I have finished my point. That is in the other House. But we are not talking about the other House; we are concerned with this Chamber. Anyone who suggests that the Select Committees of this House act more politically than the Select Committees in another place must be drawing on experience which is totally unknown to me.

Lord Gray of Contin

I think the noble Lord must have misheard me. I did not for one moment suggest that the Select Committees of this House were political in any way; quite the contrary. When his noble friend sitting behind him spoke he acknowledged that. He said that they were very proud of being non-political. I think I used the phrase "above politics". I am afraid the noble Lord has it wrong. I did not say that; so I do not know why he will not accept the point. I certainly did not say it.

Lord Diamond

I shall remind the noble Lord of what he did say, and I am not proposing to withdraw one tittle of what I said. The noble Lord said that the present proposals do not involve committees of your Lordships' House in acts which are near political, but that if this proposal were to be accepted, they would come into political activity.

Lord Gray of Contin

They might.

Lord Diamond

What he was saying was that if this amendment were adopted, the relevant or appropriate Select Committee would be acting politically. Your Lordships heard him, and that is the logical outcome of his remarks. I repeat that I reject completely what he said on those arguments.

What the Minister wanted to say to us was that there is no reason for any of this. There is the opportunity through examining the Bill for Parliament to make its views known. I am grateful to my noble friend for making it clear that we are not talking about examining the Bill. But if we were, what benefit would there be in our examining the Bill and making suggestions if every suggestion were turned down flat, as has happened so far?

Noble Lords

We have had only two.

Lord Diamond

They have all been turned down flat without any regard to their logic, validity or value. I do not know how many amendments the noble Lord will accept so as to prove what he is now indicating. We look forward to that very much.

The noble Lord the Minister also said that we have two excellent precedents. Why change the system when we have two excellent precedents? What are his precedents? The first is the Office of Fair Trading. As has already been made absolutely clear, that is not a parallel. It does not have the same function at all. I do not know how many times the Minister—I hope I may have his attention—wants us to repeat an argument so that it is taken on board by him. We are patient and we shall gladly repeat the arguments as necessary.

Lord Belstead

Until seven o'clock.

Lord Diamond

We have made it absolutely clear so far that, as many noble Lords have said, the Office of Fair Trading has a totally different function and has no parallel with what we are talking about.

The other precedent which the noble Lord so magnificently produced was that of Oftel. The whole of this argument arises because Oftel has proved to have an unsatisfactory method of appointment; otherwise we would not be bothering the Government. There is no need to repeat what the Government know does not work and has not worked. Therefore we say that there should be consultation. The Minister has produced no other consultation proposal in advance of the appointment. All he said is that a year, 15 or 18 months after appointment a report made will be made and the House can say to itself what it likes about the report. In the meantime the officer in question will continue in post and will know that he is supported by the Secretary of State. Whether that is satisfactory to Parliament or the House of Lords is a different matter.

Then we go on to talk about the House of Lords itself. I am very sorry that the Minister is not taking this opportunity to strengthen the standing of this House and the regard which is paid to it. We have moved a very long way in the last few years, but there is no reason why we should not move even further in establishing the respect of the country as a whole. One way to do that is to let it be seen—I mean that we should literally let it be seen—that there is a committee of the House of Lords on a parallel with what has been well established, that it has this function and that it carries it out in an informed, totally objective and non-partisan manner.

The noble Lord says that of course they do this in the States; but it results in delays. Dear me! Have they stopped doing it? Is it not true that they continue doing it? Is it not true that the Senate committee have much more regard for getting the right man than for saving a week through not consulting the Senate? Would it not be wise for Parliament to be consulted as is suggested here?

Noble Lords may ask why I am not suggesting both committees of Parliament. Those of your Lordships who have previously been in another place and are aware of the pressures there know that the committees in the House of Commons are unable to carry out the whole of their functions at present. As I am standing here there are some duties laid upon the House of Commons committees which are not being earned out because of pressure of time.

Therefore the first approach must surely be to let the House of Lords do the work in a complementary way to the other place—work which the other place finds itself incapable of doing. What is wrong with that? It would be an objective review—getting the right person, helping the Secretary of State and seeing to it that there is parliamentary understanding. It would mean consulting Parliament on the basis of going to the appropriate committee of the one House capable of doing the job. I am sure that is a good idea and I hope the Committee thinks so too.

6.59 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 91.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Amherst, E.	Irving of Dartford, L.
Ardwick, L.	Jacques, L.
Attlee, E.	John-Mackie, L.
Birk, B.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bottomley, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Burton of Coventry, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	McNair, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Meston, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mishcon, L.
David, B.	Molloy, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Mountevans, L.
Diamond, L.	Mulley, L.
Donoughue, L.	Nicol, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Oram, L.
Ennals, L.	Phillips, B.
Evans of Claughton, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Falkender, B.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Seear, B.
Fitt, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Gallacher, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Tordoff, L.
Grey, E.	Underhill, L.
Hanworth, V.	Whaddon, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]	Williams of Elvel, L.
	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Ypres, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Elton, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Faithfull, B.
Belstead, L.	Feversham, L.
Birdwood, L.	Forte, L.
Boardman, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Broadbridge, L.	Glanusk, L.
Bruce-Gardyne, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Grantchester, L.
Caithness, E.	Gray of Contin, L.
Cameron of Lochbroom, L.	Greenway, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Cathcart, E.
Coleraine, L.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Colwyn, L.	Harris of High Cross, L.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Harvington, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Henley, L.
Craigavon, V.	Hives, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Hood, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Hooper, B.
Davidson, V.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Denham, L. [Teller.]	Lane-Fox, B.
Drumalbyn, L.	Layton, L.
Dundee, E.	Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Lyell, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
MacLeod of Fuinary, L.	Sandford, L.
Mancroft, L.	Sandys, L.
Marley, L.	Selkirk, E.
Marshall of Leeds, L.	Shannon, E.
Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.	Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]
	Strathclyde, L.
Merrivale, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Mersey, V.
Milverton, L.	Swinfen, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Swinton, E.
Munster, E.	Thorneycroft, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Tranmire, L.
Onslow, E.	Trumpington, B.
Orkney, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Vivian, L.
Reay, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Renwick, L.	Windlesham, L.
St. Davids, V.	Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Earl of Caithness

In moving that the House do now resume, I suggest that we do not return to further consideration of the Gas Bill until five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.