Water Bill

HL Deb 13 June 1989 vol 508 cc1268-81

3.11 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 102 [Waters to which Chapter I applies]:

Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 123A: Page 112, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) that a watercourse of a description specified in the order is to be treated for those purposes as if it were not a relevant river or watercourse.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this government amendment will empower the Secretary of State to remove from the class of controlled waters watercourses of a type described in an order. Any such order will have to be in the form of a statutory instrument subject to annulment by either House.

The need for this amendment will be seen by examining the definition of relevant watercourse in subsection (4) of Clause 102. A relevant watercourse—that is a watercourse which counts as controlled waters under subsection (1)(c)—is any watercourse which is neither a public sewer nor a sewer or drain which drains into a public sewer.

In other words, a private drain which drained into a private cesspit would count as a relevant watercourse. This means that if the owner of that drain were to pour into it some effluent such as soapy water, he would be guilty of a pollution offence under Clause 106. In practice doubtless he would never be prosecuted. But it would obviously be better if he were not guilty of even a technical offence. Hence this amendment under which it will be possible to exclude such drains from the definition of relevant watercourse.

Why, it may be asked, do we not simply amend the definition of relevant watercourse in the Bill? The answer is that a perfect definition of watercourse—if such could be devised, and I doubt whether it could—would be extremely cumbersome and of inordinate length. The merit of this amendment is that it enables the Secretary of State to deal with any real problems to which the current definition of relevant watercourse might give rise.

Finally, I should like to stress the two safeguards against any possible abuse of the Secretary of State's order-making power. First, as I have already mentioned, any such order will as a consequence of subsection (6) be subject to annulment by either House. Secondly, if a drain discharges not into a cesspit but into controlled waters, whether or not that drain is itself a relevant watercourse will be of no importance, for if a person pours polluting matter into that drain, when that matter reaches the controlled waters that person will in any case be guilty of an offence under Clause 106. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 103 [Classification of quality of waters]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 123B: Page 113, line 20, after ("may") insert ("in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 3A and 7A of Schedule 12").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123B I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 124B, 132AA, 132AB and 132CB. I rather regret that I was too slow on my feet to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he was introducing the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill whether the total volume of the statute book being repealed under the Bill is equivalent to the 409 pages of the Water Bill. If so, I am sure that we should gladly have made a swap with him, got rid of the Water Bill and kept the other matters for another day.

These amendments sound technical if they are read in detail, but they are of absolutely fundamental importance if the credibility of the Government's proposals for river water quality is to be sustained. They deal with the issues of sampling of river water quality and coastal water quality as well as with the way in which those samples are to be obtained, whether they are capable of being used in evidence and whether the sampling procedures are adequate for the purpose for which they are required; that is to ensure that the newly privatised water and sewerage companies have sufficient incentive to improve river water quality.

Unless the principle of these amendments is accepted and unless some of the amendments which are not simply probing amendments are accepted, a doubt must be cast on the wholehearted intention of the Government to improve river water quality. I wish briefly to introduce each of the amendments and then come back to the more fundamental issues which lie behind them.

Amendment No. 123B is in effect a paving amendment for Amendments Nos. 132AA and 132AB which insert two new paragraphs in Schedule 12. Amendment No. 123B requires the Secretary of State, who has the responsibility for classifying river water quality, to do so in accordance with the requirements of the new paragraphs.

The new paragraphs in Schedule 12 deal with the complex issue of what are called look-up tables. Under the Control of Pollution Act and the register maintained under that Act, which is the basis for water authority operation in respect of river water quality, water authorities are allowed to operate a certain percentage of pollution higher or worse than should ideally be the case. They are given a more lax regime in some ways than for industrial discharges. People responsible for industrial discharges can be prosecuted on the basis only of a single observation of pollution in excess of the permitted level, and this comes under later amendments.

However, the observation must be in the form of a tripartite sample of river water quality. That means one sample is given to the presumed polluter—that is, the occupier of the land or the captain of the vessel concerned—the second is used for analysis purposes and the third is maintained for record keeping purposes. So the regime for industrial discharges is tough as regards infringement. A single sample is good enough or bad enough to trigger a prosecution. But it is also a tough regime for the scientific accuracy of the sampling procedure.

As regards water authorities prior to the enactment of the Bill, there is a system known as look-up tables. In effect they are a further consent condition. That means that water authorities are currently required to meet consent levels only, for example, 95 out of 100 times, and thus the regime for infringement is less onerous. It is easier for water authorities to get away with pollution. But at the same time the regime for sampling is itself less onerous. It is also less onerous in the sense that it means that a significant number of infringements can be recorded in the course of a year without the water authority being prosecuted.

What that means in turn is that a substantial number of samples has to be taken in the course of a year in order to establish whether the number of infringements is permitted. There is a further complication in that the Secretary of State has the power under paragraph 4 of Schedule 12 to direct that the authority should transmit for determination such applications for consent as he specifies. That means that when the Secretary of State has directed in that way, the authority is bound by his direction. I have dealt with Amendments Nos. 123B, 132AA and 132AB. However, in doing so, I also touched on the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 124B and 132CB.

Amendment No. 124B, as I have said, refers to the comprehensive monitoring of river quality in controlled waters. It would require the Government to make sure that the monitoring is comprehensive—in other words, that enough samples are taken to give an accurate view of river water quality—and that it should be of sufficient frequency and recorded in such a way that not only is the monitoring complete but also that there is a possibility of private prosecution of the water or sewerage undertakings if there is. significant infringement. Therefore, Amendment No. 124B is an important part of the range of weapons which are necessary if river pollution is to be adequately controlled.

Finally, I have already referred to Amendment No. 132CB, which is concerned with tripartite sampling. The amendment requires that the authority should take all its water samples in accordance with the tripartite sampling system, in order that they are valid and there is no fear of contradiction in court cases.

We are trying to do two things with this series of amendments. First, we are trying to ensure that there is adequate public access to information so that private prosecutions can be brought for breaches of river water quality. We look for an assurance, backed by evidence that the Bill is adequate for that purpose, from the Government. Secondly, we are trying to ensure that the water plcs observe the same tough regime for discharges as is imposed for industrial discharges. It is simply not acceptable that the regime for sewage treatment discharges into our rivers should be more lax in any way than the regime for industrial discharges. It should not be the case that much more frequent monitoring should be required because of the possibility of defence by use of the look-up tables.

I am sorry to have gone into some detail in discussing these amendments, but that is essential in order to bring out the fundamental point that the Bill as drafted is not adequate to the tests which are now being required of river water quality. I do not want to go in detail over the ground which has already been covered in Committee and on Report. However, I remind the House that river water quality is still a matter of negotiation between the Government and the European Commission. It is still by no means certain that we have even the regime for improvement which the European Commission requires, let alone an adequate programme of investment within a satisfactory timetable. The acceptance of these amendments by the Government and the House would be a significant step forward in the improvement of river water quality in this country. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I wish to support these amendments from these Benches for the simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, stated, the public should at least have the possibility of being able to bring a prosecution against someone who violates river water quality. As the new water companies will be private companies and will generate profits to shareholders, they should certainly be subject to the same stringent standards as are placed upon any other part of the private sector that is concerned with water.

Lord Renton

My Lords, this is a complex matter and it is one, it seems to me, the solution to which must depend to a great extent on scientific advice. Speaking for myself, I do not have that at my disposal, but I should have thought that it would be a mistake to do away with the well-established system of look-up tables. I think that whatever else we do we ought to keep those.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has taken a great deal of trouble over this matter. I must confess that it is a complex matter and I do not follow all the implications of his amendments. The noble Lord seems to me to be suggesting an improvement of the system, but one which is perhaps not entirely practicable. I do not know whether it is feasible to have the frequent monitoring which would result from what he proposes.

It is obviously very important that we should improve the condition of our rivers and that pollution should be the subject of careful monitoring. But, of necessity, the precise condition of rivers, which all have a degree of bacteria—there are no rivers without some bacteria in them, and, alas, most rivers have a degree of chemical contamination, although very often it is extremely slight—is a question of judgment based upon scientific advice, which as I confessed I do not have. That is what is required in order to enable us to see whether this group of amendments is necessary.

This Bill is detailed enough in its injunctions to those who will bear a responsibility in future. On several previous occasions we have rather leaned against imposing on them what one can best describe as a counsel of perfection. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench has to say, but I make a plea on behalf of those who are going to bear the actual responsibility that we should be moderate and sensible about this, although we are all agreed that we must take reasonable steps in order to reduce pollution of the rivers.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I recognise the logic of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, as the new companies will be operating for profit they should be subjected to the same discipline as industry is now in regard to their discharges. They should be required to observe a strict standard. Therefore, as the noble Lord rightly said, there is a change from the constitutional position of the regional water authorities which are now operating as public corporations pro bono publico. That is a fair point, but as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the practical difficulties are still the same. The industrial discharge emitted by an industry can be measured precisely, but monitoring in rivers is subject to a good many other factors. I mentioned in a debate on a similar subject yesterday that the volume of flow of a river varies dramatically from one time of the year to another. At times of low flow in the summer the flow will be half that in the winter, or even less.

Other minor crises occur in rivers when there is a storm. Storm waters flow through the streets in a town and they go down into the drains. Very few towns have one flow system for storm water and another for the sewers. Therefore, the flood of storm water goes down to the sewerage works and washes a whole lot of raw sewage out into the river. One cannot help it; it happens. The day may come when we have separate storm flow channels from those of the sewers, but it is a very long way off for pretty well every city in the country.

Those are just two small examples of what the regional water authority has to deal with now and the water company of the future will have to deal with. The same practical problems remain. The manager of the river; namely, the new water company, is the longstop who has to cope with everything. It just is not possible to observe the same precision of standards as is possible in an industry which has only its own effluent to manage. Industry should be able to manage its own industrial processes to conform with the regulations. However, even there there are difficulties; now and again something goes wrong, and if the incident is a bad one the river authority has trouble dealing with it.

Those are the problems. While my noble friend Lord Caithness has to stand up and make himself responsible for the profit motive of the future—which, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows, I do not think very much of—these are the facts which confront the water company of the future. The measure is justified on the grounds that the Bill will make management stronger and that greater incentives and greater efficiency will give the public better value. That is what we hope will happen, but for the moment my noble friend the Minister has to justify the profit motive. At the practical level I see the same necessity for some flexibility as there has been in the past. I am quite certain that that is why my noble friend Lord Caithness will feel that he must ask the House to accept that that is still necessary. I am sure it is. I look forward with interest to hearing his arguments, and I shall be prepared to support them.

3.30 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the way in which he introduced the amendments. As your Lordships will have realised, it is only Amendments Nos. 132AA and 132AB which are consequential on Amendment No. 123B. The other two amendments are not consequential on each other or Amendment No. 123B but the noble Lord has sought to group them together for convenience of debate.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has given the House an account of what constitutes a 'look-up' table. I shall not labour a detailed explanation today. Suffice it to say that a look-up table is simply an objective statistical procedure for seeking to give effect to the 95 percentile confidence level as to the results of a sample in circumstances where the number of samples vary. A condition based on a look-up table simply requires that in any series of samples taken over a particular period, normally a year, a particular and statistically sound proportion of samples shall comply in relation to the total number of samples taken and the confidence level required. In the Government's view it is as simple, innocuous and necessary as that.

The starting point is simply that no effluent—but above all no sewage effluent—is completely homogenous through time. It varies, of course, depending on a wide range of circumstances, which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has mentioned. Whatever the technical advances in sewage treatment, that is and will always remain the position. In these circumstances some Community legislation and some UK administration sets standards on the basis of 95 percentile compliance; namely, that a discharge should meet its required standard in at least 95 per cent. of samples.

But how is that to be judged? It is obviously a simple matter if, over a year say, exactly 100 samples are taken. But supposing that for sound operational and resource management reasons, only 12 monthly samples are taken, or 52 at weekly intervals, or supposing it is a very minor discharge which is sampled only three or four times a year. What then does the 95 per cent. represent? A look-up table simply says what, in the statistician's view, the 95 percentile represents in any series of samples taken over a relevant assessment period—normally a year—whether there were three samples, four, 12, 52 or whatever number your Lordships care to choose.

The Government's view is that the look-up table will in this way remove an element of arbitrariness from the assessment over time of the quality of either an effluent or a receiving water. It readily allows other elements of arbitrariness to be eliminated also. Use of this mechanism can ensure allowance is made for freak samples and for sampling error.

Against that background the House may appreciate why the Government consider that the look-up tables system is required. There are three reasons. First, historically, a large proportion of limits in consents have been set on the 95 percentile of observed performance. Surely compliance should therefore in appropriate cases, be judged on the same basis. Secondly, as I said, a number of Community directives require compliance to be measured on a 95 percentile basis. How can we do this without a look-up table? Thirdly, as I said at the beginning, effluents are inherently variable. You cannot judge the quality of a river from a single one-off sample. Nor will that in some cases be true of effluents.

It will not, of course, be appropriate to judge compliance of all effluent over time on a statistical basis. If the following circumstances are met it is not necessary and the single sample is appropriate. These are that the effluent is reasonably homogenous; that the flow can be cut off without unacceptable consequences; and that the discharger has full control over the effluent.

For most industrial effluents, those three conditions are or should be met, and look-up tables are not normally used by the water authorities. But the one area where, overwhelmingly, such conditions are not met is sewage effluents. Sewage effluents are not homogenous; the discharger does not have complete control over their composition; and he cannot simply terminate the flow. It is for these reasons that this mechanism has been used for sewerage effluents consents for some years past.

The approach is simply an attempt to apply reasonable statistical rules to circumstances where uncertainty and therefore statistical assessment is inescapable. Its introduction in 1985 was a step forward in the fair and reliable measurement of water and effluent quality. To withdraw it now would be wholly retrogressive.

I recognise that a number of criticisms have been made of the system. The first is that it is unfair because a similar system is not applied to industrial discharges. But as I have explained, they are different. Surely your Lordships would agree with me that fairness requires different approaches. Secondly, it is suggested that this stops an effluent being judged non-compliant. But the often quoted statistics of 20 per cent. non-compliance is based on this system, so that conclusion can hardly apply. Thirdly, it is said that it inhibits effective prosecution. But since Thames, North West and Anglian authorities have all been successfully prosecuted in respect of look-up table evidence, that argument also does not stand up.

For all these reasons, we regard these amendments as unreasonable and unsound. The NRA must be able to impose any reasonable conditions on consents, and in some circumstances look-up tables in some form, in the Government's present view, are likely to be necessary.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in that I do not claim that our present arrangements are perfect. We are inviting the NRA to review this and other aspects of consent formulation. That will be one of its early tasks. The NRA will no doubt consider very carefully, any conclusion arising from that review, as indeed will the Secretary of State, since he has to exercise appellant jurisdiction in this area. But to seek to rule out look-up tables in this way, at this time, would be retrogressive and unreasonable.

I turn now to Amendment No. 132CB. The NRA like the water authorities will take samples of two kinds—those for ordinary routine monitoring and those specifically with a view to prosecution. It is the Government's view that both kinds are of equal interest to the public and should be on the public registers. But clearly not all the samples taken by the NRA should be tripartite—that would be a pointless waste of resources. What is important is that those where there are grounds for considering a case for prosecution may arise should be tripartite.

To discharge its responsibilities under the Act, the NRA will have to take such number of tripartite samples as is necessary to enforce the provisions of the Act. They will go on the register. The register regulations, which we shall in due course lay before the House, will require that the NRA register identifies those taken tripartitely. Any person at all will be able to refer to them in court proceedings.

In those circumstances, I suggest that the underlying objectives of the noble Lord's amendment—I agree with him on them—are fully met, and that there is therefore no need to press the amendment. If his concern is that there be sufficient tripartite samples on register for enforcement, I can assure him that that will be the case. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and could have the effect only of greatly increasing sampling costs and potentially reducing the amount of routine, non-tripartite sampling undertaken.

Finally, I come to Amendment No. 124B. I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in putting forward the amendment. It is important that the NRA should undertake such an extent of monitoring as is necessary for ensuring effective pollution control. However, for that to be achieved, I suggest that the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

The NRA will be the water pollution control authority for England and Wales. Discharges to controlled waters can be made only with its consent. The granting of such consents implies an inescapable obligation to monitor compliance with those consents. That means that it must monitor to the extent necessary to allow prosecution in appropriate cases. Whether those prosecutions are by the NRA or other persons will make no difference as the results will be there on the public register for all to use. The position of private prosecutors and their access through the registers to sample evidence will therefore be fully secured.

But the obligations on the NRA already in the Bill go wider than that. Noble Lords will see that, under Clause 105(1), it must exercise all its functions— including its monitoring duty—so as to ensure that the water quality objectives are achieved. That places on it an inescapable obligation to monitor to such extent as is necessary to secure effective control of pollution.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will consider carefully the assurances that I have given him, in particular, the assurance that the position of potential private prosecutors will be properly secured. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel that his concerns are already covered.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will comment on the point made by his noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford; namely that, in his reply, the Minister must justify the profit motive. The noble Lord said that twice. Presumably, if he said it twice, it was to justify the importance of the issue.

However, I have heard nothing at all in the Minister's reply that deals even faintly with the profit motive. His reply seemed to be pretty technical and I readily admit that the technical side escapes me all the time. But many of us on this side, and presumably all of us on these Benches, think that, if there is any justification whatever in the Bill—and we have shown our opposition to it—it will not improve the present situation at all. Some people might think that, if a profit is to be made, ipso facto, that will produce a more efficient system. Does the Minister agree that he has not dealt with that point made by his noble friend and, if so, will he deal with it now? After all, throughout the debate, we have heard praise from all sides of the House for the noble Lord. In my view, such praise is justified because of his experience in the water industry and his knowledge and interest. The Minister should at least reply to such a crucial point.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I did not reply to the point made by the noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford because I was dealing specifically with the amendment. My noble friend was making a much wider point relating to the Bill and to other parts of the Bill that we have discussed at length. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington has read those accounts in the Official Report.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may just add a word of explanation and excuse for myself because I undoubtedly went a great deal wider than the amendment. However, there was an implication regarding that point in the rather ingenious speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I was responding to that, but I do not think that my noble friend the Minister can be blamed for not dealing with that point because it is miles outside the amendment.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, perhaps I may rise to make one brief point. I entirely agree that the amendments should probably be rejected. However, at an earlier stage of the proceedings, I expressed my views about some of the shortcomings of the present system of look-up tables. The Minister spelt out in some detail the positive case for them. It is right to report that the Secretary of State has invited the NRAAC to begin an inquiry into the best way to administer the system of monitoring, including the use of look-up tables. He has asked that we should start such an inquiry and that it should be carried forward by the NRA.

I am sure that it is right to say that we shall look at the matter with a completely open mind, taking into account both the virtues and the demerits of the present system. I am sure that the NRA will come forward in due course with its report on the basis of the judgments that it makes. It does not feel committed either one way or the other to replacing or retaining the look-up tables system. The important point is to find a satisfactory definition of 95 percentile compliance that can be enforced and made to work in practice. That will not be a simple task. It is a complicated issue, but the NRAAC has been commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake such an inquiry and it has already set the task in hand.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question. I heard this morning on Radio 4 that shrimps are now coming through the London taps. The system of which we are very proud in the Thames Water area appears to have been producing either something extra or something that was not expected. Is that in anticipation of the takeover, so that we now have a profit motive and the shrimps can be sold, or are they part of the effluent? I ask that question quite seriously because it is an interesting development. I find that shrimps are very expensive when I buy them in restaurants. I should be delighted if I turned on my tap tomorrow and received them free. The Minister refers to his great scientific brief and talks about look-up tables and the effect of sewage, but we want an improvement, if that is not too difficult. The amendments can do nothing but add to the quality of the river and the effluent. Perhaps the noble Lord will comment on that example.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for intervening. I try not to interrupt, but we are at the beginning of quite a long day of the Report stage. The Companion is quite clear that only the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister has spoken at Report stage and at Third Reading unless by special leave of the House. This has been an extremely interesting exchange. I have enjoyed listening to it. That is why I have not interrupted it, but it is perhaps wise for me to remind noble Lords of our own rules in the Companion.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I did not make the point myself because both of those interventions were peculiarly helpful.

I shall not put myself in the position of attacking the statistical basis of the Minister's defence of the existing monitoring procedures. I have earned my living from sample surveys for more than 30 years now. I certainly do not intend to criticise the use of 95 per cent. confidence limits when dealing either with human samples in social research or with a large number of sampling procedures for natural phenomena.

However, the issue with which we are concerned here is rather different. We are concerned with issues of public health. In a real sense, the discharges that take place into our rivers from sewage treatment plants are different from many of the other scientific processes whose control may properly be the subject of scientific sampling procedures.

I put to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who queried whether we were not being too demanding in these amendments, that in terms of public health the discharge from sewage treatment plants is very much on a level with industrial discharge. In other words, a single major defect could prove extremely damaging to public health and it ought not to be possible that remedial action could be delayed because a series of sampling procedures had not been completed.

On many of these issues and in respect of many of these discharges immediate action is required just as it is required for industrial discharges. The example, which has been used many times, of the discharge of dangerous chemicals into the water supply at Camelford remains a very good and convincing argument. I appreciate the validity of scientific sampling in its place and understand that for some purposes there might be advantage in a continuing programme of scientific sampling of river water quality. But for the purposes of enforcement of river water quality and the elimination of damaging and dangerous discharges, scientific procedures are not appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, called my speech ingenious. I do not think that he meant it as a compliment. In all sincerity I think that on public health grounds the analogy between industrial discharge and discharge from sewage treatment works ought to be an overriding public health consideration. Therefore, although I appreciate the skill with which the Minister has deployed the statistical argument, I do not feel that it is at all adequate to the case to which we refer in these amendments.

I am sorry to say that the Government have shown that in this case they are not prepared to apply the highest standards of control over defects in river water quality which the public will require. It is not that the Government do not know that there are serious issues at stake. In his intervention the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made it clear that the Government and the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee understand that there are issues still to be resolved because the National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee has been asked to look into them. It would therefore not be inappropriate to continue that investigation. Of course that is very valuable.

Certainly there are circumstances in which it is desirable to improve statistical procedures. But the Government ought now to accept these amendments as an earnest of their intention to protect river water quality and to apply the same standards for sewage treatment discharge as they do for industrial discharge. In the absence of any movement from the Government in that respect—and I am afraid that there was no movement whatsoever in the Minister's reply—I think it necessary to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.

3.54 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 123B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 126.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. [Teller.]	Jeger, B.
Airedale, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Amherst, E.	Kearton, L.
Ampthill, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kilmarnock, L.
Attlee, E.	Kinloss, Ly.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lawrence, L.
Birk, B.	Leatherland, L.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bottomley, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Lockwood, B.
Burton of Coventry, B.	Longford, E.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	McCarthy, L.
Carver, L. [Teller.]	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
David, B.	McNair, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Mishcon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Molloy, L.
Elwyn-Jones, L.	Nicol, B.
Ennals, L.	Peston, L.
Ezra, L.	Phillips, B.
Falkland, V.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gallacher, L.	Robson of Kiddington, B.
Galpern, L.	Ross of Newport, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Glenamara, L.	Seear, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Grey, E.	Serota, B.
Grimond, L.	Shackleton, L.
Hampton, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
Hanworth, V.	Shepherd, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Simon, V.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Stedman, B.
Hooson, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hughes, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hunt, L.	Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.	Tordoff, L.

Turner of Camden, B.	White, B.
Underhill, L.	Wigoder, L.
Vernon, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L.	Winstanley, L.
Walston, L.	Winterbottom, L.
Whaddon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Kinnaird, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Kitchener, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Lauderdale, E.
Allerton, L.	Long, V. [Teller.]
Alport, L.	Lovat, L.
Annaly, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Arran, E.	Lurgan, L.
Atholl, D.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Auckland, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Balfour, E.	Malmesbury, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Mancroft, L.
Bellwin, L.	Margadale, L.
Beloff, L.	Marley, L.
Belstead, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Bessborough, E.	Merrivale, L.
Blatch, B.	Mersey, V.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Middleton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Butterworth, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Caithness, E.	Montgomery of Aiamein, V.
Caldecote, V.	Mottistone, L.
Camegy of Lour, B.	Munster, E.
Carnock, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Nelson, E.
Cayzer, L.	Norrie, L.
Cockfield, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Onslow, E.
Cox, B.	Orkney, E.
Crickhowell, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Oxfuird, V.
Davidson, V.	Pender, L.
Denham, L.	Perth, E.
Dilhorne, V.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Dundee, E.	Pym, L.
Eccles, V.	Radnor, E.
Eden of Winton, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Effingham, E.	Reigate, L.
Elibank, L.	Renton, L.
Erroll of Hale, L.	Renwick, L.
Faithfull, B.	Saint Brides, L.,
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	St. John of Fawsley, L.
Ferrers, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Foley, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Fortescue, E.	Selkirk, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Sharpies, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Greenway, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
	Strathcarron, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Harvington, L.	Strathspey, L.
Henley, L. [Teller.]	Sudeley, L.
Hesketh, L.	Swinfen, L.
Hives, L.	Teviot, L.
Home of the Hirsel, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Hood, V.	Trafford, L.
Hooper, B.	Trefgarne, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Trumpington, B.
Ingrow, L.	Ullswater, V.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Joseph, L.	Whitelaw, V.
Kaberry of Adel, L.	Windlesham, L.
Kimball, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

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