§ 3.14 p.m.
§ Lord Hesketh
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hesketh.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
§ The Earl of Shannon moved Amendment No. 203B:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Council JOr Environmental Waste Policy
§ The noble Earl said: The new clause that I propose in the amendment which is to be inserted in the Bill immediately before Clause 47 was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he moved his Amendment No. 2. He has already spoken about the need for an environmental protection executive—he has reminded the Committee of the parallel Health and Safety Executive—related to waste issues as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, in his Environment Protection Bill.
§ My amendment, which relates to the establishment of a national council for environmental waste policy, has been subject to previous debate and scrutiny not merely in this House through my short debate on 9th May on a call for national environmental waste policy, and my contribution to the Second Reading of the Bill, but in debate and scrutiny elsewhere.
§ Last April, I had the privilege of hosting an international conference here on the same theme as my short debate. The conference attracted speakers from the European Commission, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Minister of State for the Environment and the Countryside as well as the distinguished environmental lawyer, Mr. Andrew Waite, who is the Secretary-General of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association. The audience was no less distinguished. It was made up of leaders from waste regulatory authorities, chief executives of major companies, academics, scientists, waste policy experts and Members of the House.
Immediately before the conference, a survey was conceived and conducted at my request by Strategy (Europe) Limited. That survey demonstrated the need for a national waste policy and strategy which the Minister here, and the Minister for the Environment, conceded are not contained in the Bill, although the Minister in my short debate believed that the strategy was needed. That concession by the Government is reported in the May issue of the ENDS Report as:
something which would have been unheard of even a few months ago".
§ The opinion of many of those who attended the conference was that there should be not just a national environmental waste policy, but that there was the need for the establishment of a body possibly to be called the national council for environmental waste policy. That council should be set up partly 1445 against the background of the long-term traumas of HMIP and its inability satisfactorily to enforce the existing legislation, let alone its capacity to enforce the myriad of measures proposed in the Bill.
§ During my short debate, the Minister argued that the much government-supported CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, with the vested interests of their respective toxic waste producing members, would fare the public well-being much better than an independent body such as the one that I outlined in my proposals.
§ However, the body that I propose would be beholden to no one other than corporate body of people in this country and the quality of its life over the next 10 to 20 years. Environmentally responsible waste producing companies which therefore have nothing to hide would find an ally in such a proposed council. On the other hand, those companies which conceal unacceptable environmental activities under the green flag of convenience would soon see that the council was no voluntary sop to government and industry, but a genuine force to be reckoned with—CBI, CIA or no.
§ The council too would be no middle ground between the Friends of the Earth on the one hand and the CIA and the Government on the other. It would have no truck with waste, economic expediency and political environmental compromises. In terms of waste issues, it would seek to help put back integrity into the philosophical meaning of sustainable economic development.
§ The role of the proposed national council for environmental waste policy would be, first, to evolve an integrated environmental waste policy related to waste minimisation, re-use, recycling and disposal. That policy would be based on consultations with local authorities, industry and the business community, directly and through trade and employers' groups. Trade unions, public and consumer pressure groups, as well as specialists in the waste sector, would also be consulted.
§ Secondly, it would ensure that manufacturing companies committed themselves to using raw materials meeting environmental criteria as laid down by the council. Thirdly, it would monitor environmental audits leading to acceptable corporate environmental strategies. Where a waste-producing business did not meet an acceptable environmental criterion laid down by the council, a notification would be posted to the shareholders and the other investors involved in that company, together with notification to the appropriate government departments.
§ Fourthly, it is proposed the council should have its own corporate investigative arm. The method of investigation could best be compared with the quality systems employed by companies such as Shell which are checked by independent third parties against the requirements of British Standard 5750. Fifthly and lastly, the investigation of a company's environmental audit and corporate environmental strategy by the quality systems type investigators would be paid for by the company and that company would be obliged to co-operate by law.
§ We shall eventually have to have such a body and not continue with naive reliance on codes of conduct 1446 issued by representatives of vested interest bodies, however well intentioned. Responsible companies will no doubt abide by such codes, but in a field already rife with fly-boys, who can expect them even to know, let alone observe, such codes? I beg to move.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
I understand that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we deal with the noble Earl's amendment together with my Amendments No. 204, 205 and 211, as well as Amendment No. 219C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. That is the right way to approach the matter because in many ways the three amendments or the sets of amendments are complementary and they all tend towards the same objective.
First, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Earl on recycling his speech so successfully. It was a good speech when he first made it in May. It was another good speech when he made it on Second Reading. I believe that it was slightly shorter this time, which is all to the good.
Many Members of the Committee may be surprised to hear that I approach this matter from a businessman's point of view. What is needed is something which any business entering a new period of investment with a new organisational structure ought to require and which the directors ought to require of the management. I am astonished that, while requiring business plans and waste management plans from the individual waste management authorities, the Government have given no thought whatever to requiring the same of themselves.
In Amendment No. 204—Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 are purely consequential—we propose that the Secretary of State should have an obligation within six months of the coming into force of the section on the national waste plan. The contents of that waste plan should be: national targets for the recycling of waste over the following five years; guidance on the development of waste recycling plans by collection authorities; and a national assessment of arrangements for the treatment and disposal of controlled waste, including estimates of volume and types of waste over the following five years.
If I were considering the substantial amount of investment of public money involved in this part of the Bill, the least I should require is that there should be a business plan. I shall come back to that in a moment. In the meantime, I wish to remind the Committee that we are not exactly taking a lead. In September last year the European Commission published a Community strategy for waste management in which it set out many of the contents which ought to be part of the Government's business plan for waste management. The headings of such a plan are well known to any noble Lords who have taken part in any of these debates, which seem to occur with considerable frequency.
The first option is the prevention of waste; or if that is not possible, the recycling and re-use of waste materials; or, if that is not possible, the safe disposal of non-recoverable residue. In proposing such a 1447 strategy—and the matter is still under consultation—the European Community has set the framework in which a whole series of further draft directives is now being prepared. For example, we are now at the stage of the fourth draft of the directive on landfill sites. This is of great importance, as the Committee will recognise, because of the information which has recently become available about the extent to which there are toxic wastes in landfill sites and the quite horrific nature of the cost of the remedial action which will be required. A number of amendments down for debate this afternoon cover that issue.
Perhaps I may continue with the example of landfill sites, which are only one of the means of waste management that we shall discuss. There is inevitably an interdependence of the different methods used for waste management. An individual waste management authority can hardly consider what landfill sites are required unless it goes on to consider what those landfill sites will dispose of and how in regard to the total waste for which the authority has responsibility that relates to the balance between landfill sites and incineration, for example.
The problem with this is that the local authorities, which have responsibility under the Bill for the local control of waste management—and we do not object to that—have insufficient knowledge about what their neighbouring authorities are doing in terms of landfill and incineration. I shall keep to those two examples. Incineration plant is often on a much larger scale than landfill sites. The whole economics of landfill depend on there being a short distance to the site, whereas incineration has a quite different economic basis. It depends on the steady supply of suitable materials for incineration which may come from quite a wide area.
With the best will in the world, local authorities which are being set up under this part of the Bill do not have all the information they need in order to produce a waste management plan which makes sense and which takes account of the optimum provision for facilities of each type that will be required for an efficient and economic system; and yet the Government criticise individual authorities for failing to have their own waste plans. What we are proposing here is that the Government should take their own medicine. They should treat this matter in a businesslike way and provide a national waste plan along the lines laid down in Amendment No. 204 to the Bill. I firmly believe that amendment would be a constructive addition to the provisions of this part of the Bill.
§ 3.30 p.m.
§ Lord Ross of Newport
I have added my name to Amendments Nos. 204 and 205. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say, particularly about Amendment No. 204. My attention was drawn to an article which appeared in the Independent on 13th June. The article considers the latest proposed European Commission directive. It states that the Government have commissioned a report by experts from the Environmental Safety 1448 Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell. The article continues,Experts from the Environmental Safety Centre of the Atomic Energy Authority's laboratories at Harwell examined 100 tips, mostly run by local councils, representing half the waste landfilled in Britain.Most sites had no measures for controlling pollution of groundwater or for methane emissions.About a third did not find out if their operations were causing any off-site water pollution or methane leakage. Of the ones that did monitor, more than half found problems. The Harwell survey found very few sites met the UK permeability recommendation of three metres per year. More than 45 had adjoining rocks which were of a permeability thousands of times higher … landfill operators were trying to improve the way they prepared, ran and then closed tips, but the widespread lack of proper monitoring for pollution was undermining their efforts".That paints a pretty horrific scene. Therefore I strongly support the idea that we should have a national plan.
§ Lord Layton
I shall move Amendment No. 219C because I think it puts matters in the right order. Both the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, deal with a national plan but from the wrong direction. We have here a situation where the waste regulation authorities are supposed to produce a plan. The noble Earl and the noble Lord are suggesting that the Government should produce a plan which the WRAs should then follow. However, I suggest in my Amendment No. 219C that the Government gather together all the plans that the WRAs have prepared. That will give the Government a basis of logistics and statistics which will enable them to find out what capacities and capabilities exist. From that information the Government can perhaps derive a plan which would not otherwise be available.
The first step is to collect the plans. Under the terms of Clause 48(10) it is a requirement that the WRAs submit plans. The next and fairly obvious step is for the Secretary of State to collate all the plans and come up with a national plan. If we try to do it the other way round, we shall find that no one will be able to do anything because no one will know what is going on in any direction.
§ Lord Renton
We have a number of alternatives to consider simultaneously. The Bill contains a pretty elaborate national plan in Part II set out in 46 clauses. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has done so much work on this subject and whose views are always entitled to great respect, has put forward the next alternative that I wish to mention, which is that,The Secretary of State shall … establish a National Council for Environmental Waste Policy".The noble Earl said that that council should formulate the policy after consultation with various people, including government departments. However, government departments are not mentioned in his amendment. I should have thought if we were to accept such a scheme that there would have to be consultation with the Secretary of State.
Another difficulty that I find with the amendment is that one wonders to whom the national council would be answerable. There is nothing to indicate 1449 that it would be answerable to the Secretary of State, although he appointed it. There is nothing to indicate how it would become answerable to Parliament. I must confess that I find difficulty with the noble Earl's amendment.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and of my noble friend Lord Layton come nearer to what I should have thought is constitutionally acceptable in that they make it quite clear that the Secretary of State is brought into the matter not merely through having appointed the national council in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but also through having carried out the inquiries himself in the case of the amendment of my noble friend.
I ask the Committee to consider whether any of these alternatives is necessary or is as good as the provisions in the Bill. A national policy has been worked out by the department and the Secretary of State and we have set out in 46 clauses how it is to be implemented. We must be jolly careful here. This Bill is elaborate enough as it is. We are falling into a grave error in some of our legislation in trying to do too much.
§ Lord Hesketh
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I should like to begin by paying tribute to the valuable contributions that he has made in recent months to stimulating debate and raising informed interest in waste issues. We had a long and serious debate on the noble Earl's Motion on 9th May, after my honourable friend the Minister of State took part in a stimulating seminar on waste which was held in your Lordships' House on 23rd April.
Having said that, I must in all honesty add that the noble Earl's commendable enthusiasm has slightly run away with him. During earlier debates we have all had ample opportunity to hear his arguments for a national waste disposal strategy and for a national council to provide for it. While the Government have agreed that it is desirable to provide for a strategic approach to waste disposal planning across wider areas than counties, we are not persuaded that such strategies require any independent national body to construct them. Indeed the more we have heard, the more the Government are convinced that we do not need or want anything like the body which this amendment seeks to establish.
I say this in the knowledge that the noble Earl has been reported as saying that the Government support such a council. I can only conclude that there has been some small misunderstanding. Neither I nor the Minister of State have ever subscribed to the idea of a national council on waste. What we have said—I am happy to repeat it today in the Chamber—is that there is need for some strategic thinking and policy on waste issues on at least the regional scale; if anyone wishes to dub that with the title of a national waste strategy, so be it. Yes, we need a strategy, most usefully at a regional level, but we do not need a council to devise or implement it.
It is clear from the amendment that such a council would not have a job of its own to do. The functions listed are readily allocated between government, local authorities and industry. Where these tasks 1450 would be assisted by formal consultation arrangements or committees, the Government have set them up. For instance, there are a great many consultation arrangements and committees for the recycling of waste where the lead is taken by the Department of Trade and Industry in order to promote the development of markets for recycled products. In such circumstances it is right that the issues are fully discussed with those who are best able to take the action on the ground.
We do not see a need for an all-embracing national council. We prefer to deal with the development of policy which is finely targeted to the audience it addresses. In this respect each arm of the public and private sector has its role to play. It is the Government's job to consult on, produce and promulgate waste policy and to advise collection and regulation authorities on their plans. It is the job of local authorities and for processes covered by integrated pollution control (the subject of Part I of the Bill) of HMIP to police companies and to ensure a high standard of management of wastes when they are stored, recycled or disposed of. It is the job of industry itself, with the help and advice from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, to develop and apply its own environmental policies, including the investigation of its disposal and recycling options, the scope for waste minimisation and the protection of the environment through such tools as environmental audits.
None of those functions needs a new body on top of the existing system. In particular, industry already produces its own waste strategies for those sectors that produce the greatest volumes of waste or those that produce difficult wastes. There is no need to duplicate the effort. I am convinced that the industrial organisations that have produced such guidance in the past, such as the CBI and the Chemical Industries Association, will continue to keep the needs of their industries under revue and will provide further guidance as necessary.
Amendments Nos. 204 and 219C are in a similar vein and also seek to produce a national waste plan. Amendments Nos. 205 and 211 require collection and disposal authorities to have regard to such a national plan in drawing up their plans. That seems like a curiously top-down approach to planning. The provisions of Clauses 47 and 48 for recycling and disposal plans set out a programme of operation. The first thing that they require an authority to do in both cases is to carry out an investigation of its area to see what waste actually arises in the area for which disposal or recycling arrangements will be necessary. That must surely be the right way to approach the matter: first find out what wastes you have to deal with and then determine what would be the most sensible way of dealing with them.
Of crucial importance in that process is an analysis of the facilities which are already in existence and in those which need to be provided in the future. Any planning system that started from the opposite end—from the top down—could only produce a series of pious intentions divorced from reality. The Government are in no position to provide such information or such a plan from the outset, even if 1451 they thought such a plan sensible. In the 1960s and 1970s a series of national plans for various matters were produced by governments of different political hues. They achieved nothing and the concept is thoroughly discredited.
The Government would like to see more co-ordination of waste disposal plans at a regional level. I have already said in the debate on Clause 29 that the Government are discussing with the local authority associations ways of improving co-operation between regulation authorities at a regional level. That was the subject of an amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Layton. One of the objectives of the process will be to prepare regional strategies for disposal, especially with a view to ensuring that each region is able to provide the majority of waste management facilities for its own needs.
I therefore cannot agree that any national waste disposal council or plans are needed or desirable. I hope that the noble Lords will not feel that I have been unduly harsh but I feel that I owe it to the Committee to make the Government's view quite clear beyond any possibility of misrepresentation. By all means let us have strategies where they count—at local and regional level.
I have gone on for quite long enough. However, perhaps I may take up the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton, who quite rightly drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that there are 46 clauses in the Bill which I believe represent a national policy. That is why we resist the amendments.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Viscount Massereene and Ferrard
I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government realise that several scientists have just invented a process by which they can turn the straw from corn into materials to make utensils which at the moment are made of plastic. That will be a great help in the future. Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendment, I believe that it is important that the Government should inquire into the matter. The process can be used to make utensils of all sorts. The material will fade away in about six months or so. Therefore there will be no need to recycle that form of waste because it will vanish.
§ Lord Hesketh
I believe that my noble friend is referring to the funding of the AFRC research in this field. I am very glad that he drew it to the attention of the Committee.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
It may be helpful if I respond to the Minister's remarks about my amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, will want to wind up the debate by referring to his amendment.
The Minister fears that we may find his reaction harsh. I should never have accused him of being harsh; he has just missed the point almost entirely, which is quite different. He embarked on what seemed to me to be a quite irrelevant attack on the 1452 national plans of the 1960s and 1970s, accusing his own party of indulging in them, as well as Labour Governments. He said that such a concept was thoroughly discredited. The Minister totally ignored the fact that that is not what is proposed in my amendment in particular or in the version moved by the noble Lord, Lord Layton.
What is proposed here is much more akin to a business plan, as I sought to make clear, obviously unsuccessfuly, when I introduced the amendment. We are talking about the systematic collection and interpretation of the information which is necessary in order for the investment decisions which have to be taken to be made on a proper and efficient basis. That is very different from the 46 clauses—if I may revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Renton—which set out the policy of the Government.
There is nothing wrong with the Government setting out their policy in legislation. Indeed, that is what they have sought to do in Parts I and II of the Bill. However, that is not a substitute for the detailed planning of the requirements of a national waste management policy on the ground, locally area by area. It is not a substitute for determining the options open to the Government and their agents in the waste management authorities, the cost of those different options, the balance between them and the correct conclusion to be arrived at. Those are not matters to be provided for in legislation or by setting out a policy. They are provided for by detailed, businesslike planning of resources, options and opportunities. That is what our plan proposes.
The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has a number of advantages to which I thought the Minister did scant justice. The particular advantages which I see in his amendment are the close relationship between his council and the companies particularly concerned with the production of waste. His proposal that there should be an obligation on the council to report directly to the shareholders of those companies about the environmental effect of their policies strikes me as a very valuable addition. It is not something that necessarily has to be included in legislation but it is something that the Minister ought to have recognised. He ought to have indicated that the Government supported it and would seek to provide for it, if not in legislation at least in regulations.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, is closer to mine than I think he recognised. There is not a great deal of difference between the top-down and bottom-up approach. The Minister misinterpreted both of them in that respect. The main difference between our amendments is that the noble Lord's provides for a national waste disposal plan, whereas mine makes it clear that the three options in order of priority are the prevention of waste, the recycling of waste and the disposal of waste which can neither be prevented nor recycled. To that extent I believe that my amendment is all-embracing and will be more effective than his, with due respect to the careful drafting and excellent presentation of the noble Lord.
The Minister's response to Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 211 is so unsatisfactory that I should warn 1453 the Committee that whatever decision the noble Earl. Lord Shannon, makes about his amendment, and subject to anything else that other noble Lords have to say, it would be my intention to seek the opinion of the Committee on the amendment in due course.
§ Lord Layton
I should like to take further the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and those made about my amendment in particular. I take his point about setting out priorities. It is a very strong point against which I have no defence. There is no provision in the 46 or 47 clauses of the Government's national plan for that information to be gathered together and published from the plans collected from the WRAs so as to allow local authorities, waste disposal authorities, waste regulatory authorities and all the other various authorities that are involved to produce regional or local plans on which their business decisions will be based. Unless that is forthcoming, I do not believe that anybody can come up with a rational plan at any level. One must know the overall situation in the country.
Basically my amendment seeks to say, "When you have the statistics, for God's sake tell everybody what they are". In that way it can then be known whether there are shortfalls or excess capacities. Therefore one can now say, "This is what we have to do; this is where investment must be encouraged and where it must be discouraged. This is the direction that we should take and these are the things that we should avoid".
For that reason I feel very strongly that the Government should take that point. It is in fact a very simple point. They should take that step and publish the plans of the modifications that the WRAs make to their own plans. That information should then be published as a national plan. If it is not thought desirable to publish it as a national plan, then they should give it as a national set of statistics in order that other plans at the other levels can then be worked out to the best of people's ability and with the best information available. Otherwise, they are not worth working out.
§ The Earl of Shannon
I am most grateful to all those who have spoken with reference to my amendment and especially to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, even though he said that my speech was somewhat recycled. I thought that there might possibly be noble Lords who were not present on the previous occasion. I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we had exactly the same recycled reply from the Minister. His brief was exactly the same as the one that he read out on two previous occasions.
These amendments fall into two different groups. My amendment tries to deal with planning and enforcement. The other amendments grouped with it tend to deal with planning based on information. I have nothing against them although they do not go so far as I should have liked. I ought to have realised and learned by now, after some years in this Chamber, that it is quite impossible to get any amendment past the critical and miscroscopic 1454 scrutiny of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who will always find just that little loophole that you did not think was there. He always does it, certainly with my amendments. Nevertheless I am grateful to him.
The noble Lord made the point that the amendment could not in itself be fully constitutional and that it was defective. I feel, however, that it is not unacceptable in intention. There may be 46 clauses outlining government policy, but, as we have heard, the Government do not have the information. They cannot do the planning. Equally well, as we have heard on previous occasions, there is quite definitely no possible chance that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution will ever be able to fulfil its duties under this provision. There are not enough people to carry out enforcement of what has already been legislated for. Yet we require it to do other things which it will never be able to do. Unless the Minister can say that it is intended to enlarge Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution about 50 times, he is just airily saying, "Let us do this. This is government policy. Let us hope that everyone will forget about it".
That is just not good enough. If the Minister is prepared to say, "We shall produce the resources that are required to implement the Bill", we shall be quite happy. It is not on at all merely to say that this has to be done but that they will not give any more resources to do it.
I agree that my amendment as it stands may be defective, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out. Therefore I have no option but to consider what has been said and possibly reserve the right to come back to this matter on a future occasion. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
We are dealing with a group of amendments which have been debated together by common agreement. I think that it might be better if we conclude the immediately succeeding amendment, which is on the same point and which need not be debated again, before we resume the House and have the Statement. I am not in any way anxious to delay the Statement but at this point it may confuse the arguments on the Bill.
§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 204:
Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("National Waste Plan
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 204) shall be agreed to.
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 146.1457
|DIVISION NO. 1|
|Addington, L. [Teller.]||Hughes, L.|
|Ailesbury, M.||Hunt, L.|
|Airedale, L.||Hylton, L.|
|Annan, L.||Hylton-Foster, B.|
|Ardwick, L.||Jeger, B.|
|Aylestone, L.||Jenkins of Hillhead, L.|
|Blease, L.||Jenkins of Putney, L.|
|Bonham-Carter, L.||John-Mackie, L.|
|Bottomley, L.||Kennet, L.|
|Brightman, L.||Kilbracken, L.|
|Broadbridge, L.||Kilmarnock, L.|
|Brooks of Tremorfa, L.||Kinloss, Ly.|
|Bruce of Donington, L.||Kintore, E.|
|Callaghan of Cardiff, L.||Kirkhill, L.|
|Campbell of Eskan, L.||Leatherland, L.|
|Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.||Listowel, E.|
|Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.|
|Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.||Longford, E.|
|Clinton-Davis, L.||McCarthy, L.|
|David, B.||McIntosh of Haringey, L.|
|Dean of Beswick, L.||Mackie of Benshie, L.|
|Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.||McNair, L.|
|Donoughue, L.||Mason of Barnsley, L.|
|Dormand of Easington, L.||Milner of Leeds, L.|
|Ennals, L.||Mishcon, L.|
|Ewart-Biggs, B.||Molloy, L.|
|Ezra, L.||Morris of Castle Morris, L.|
|Fisher of Rednal, B.||Mulley, L.|
|Gallacher, L.||Murray of Epping Forest, L|
|Galpern, L.||Nicol, B.|
|Gladwyn, L.||Ogmore, L.|
|Glenamara, L.||Oram, L.|
|Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]||Parry, L.|
|Grey, E.||Phillips, B.|
|Hampton, L.||Pitt of Hampstead, L.|
|Hanworth, V.||Porritt, L.|
|Harris of Greenwich, L.||Ritchie of Dundee, L.|
|Hatch of Lusby, L.||Robson of Kiddington, B.|
|Hirshfield, L.||Rochester, L.|
|Hollis of Heigham, B.||Ross of Newport, L.|
|Houghton of Sowerby, L.||Sainsbury, L.|
|Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.||Taylor of Blackburn, L.|
|Scanlon, L.||Taylor of Gryfe, L.|
|Seebohm, L.||Tenby, V.|
|Shackleton, L.||Tordoff, L.|
|Shannon, E.||Varley, L.|
|Shepherd, L.||Wallace of Coslany, L.|
|Somerset, D.||Walston, L.|
|Stallard, L.||Whaddon, L.|
|Stedman, B.||Williams of Elvel, L.|
|Stoddart of Swindon, L.||Winstanley, L.|
|Aldington, L.||Hooper, B.|
|Allenby of Megiddo, V.||Jenkin of Roding, L.|
|Allerton, L.||Johnston of Rockport, L.|
|Alport, L.||Joseph, L.|
|Ampthill, L.||Kimball, L.|
|Arran, E.||King of Wartnaby, L.|
|Balfour, E.||Kitchener, E.|
|Belhaven and Stenton, L.||Lauderdale, E.|
|Belstead, L.||Layton, L.|
|Bessborough, E.||Lloyd of Hampstead, L.|
|Blatch, B.||Long, V.|
|Blyth, L.||Lovat, L.|
|Borthwick, L.||Lucas of Chilworth, L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, L.||McColl of Dulwich, L.|
|Brabazon of Tara, L.||Macleod of Borve, B.|
|Bridgeman, V.||Malmesbury, E.|
|Brougham and Vaux, L.||Mancroft, L.|
|Butterworth, L.||Manton, L.|
|Campbell of Alloway, L.||Margadale, L.|
|Campbell of Croy, L.||Massereene and Ferrard, V.|
|Carnegy of Lour, B.||Merrivale, L.|
|Carnock, L.||Middleton, L.|
|Cavendish of Furness, L.||Milverton, L.|
|Clanwilliam, E.||Montagu of Beaulieu, L.|
|Cockfield, L.||Montgomery of Alamein, V|
|Cottlesloe, L.||Mountgarret, V.|
|Crickhowell, L.||Mowbray and Stourton, L.|
|Cullen of Ashbourne, L.||Munster, E.|
|Cumberlege, B.||Murton of Lindisfarne, L.|
|Dacre of Glanton, L.||Nelson, E.|
|Davidson, V. [Teller.]||Nugent of Guildford, L.|
|De L'Isle, V.||O'Brien of Lothbury, L.|
|Denham, L. [Teller.]||Orkney, E.|
|Derwent, L.||Orr-Ewing, L.|
|Dormer, L.||Pearson of Rannoch, L.|
|Eccles of Moulton, B.||Peel, E.|
|Eden of Winton, L.||Pender, L.|
|Effingham, E.||Penrhyn, L.|
|Elibank, L.||Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.|
|Elles, B.||Prior, L.|
|Elliot of Harwood, B.||Pym, L.|
|Elliott of Morpeth, L.||Quinton, L.|
|Erroll of Hale, L.||Radnor, E.|
|Faithfull, B.||Rankeillour, L.|
|Fanshawe of Richmond, L.||Reay, L.|
|Foley, L.||Renton, L.|
|Fraser of Carmyllie, L.||Renwick, L.|
|Fraser of Kilmorack, L.||Rodney, L.|
|Gainford, L.||St. Aldwyn, E.|
|Geddes, L.||St. Davids, V.|
|Gibson-Watt, L.||St. Germans, E.|
|Gisborough, L.||St. John of Fawsley, L.|
|Glenarthur, L.||Saint Oswald, L.|
|Grantchester, L.||Salisbury, M.|
|Gridley, L.||Savile, L.|
|Grimthorpe, L.||Selborne, E.|
|Haig, E.||Sempill, Ly.|
|Halsbury, E.||Sharples, B.|
|Harlech, L.||Stanley of Alderley, L.|
|Harmar-Nicholls, L.||Stodart of Leaston, L.|
|Havers, L.||Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.|
|Henley, L.||Strathspey, L.|
|Hesketh, L.||Swansea, L.|
|Hives, L.||Swinfen, L.|
|Home of the Hirsel, L.||Teviot, L.|
|Hood, V.||Thomas of Gwydir, L.|
|Tollemache, L.||Willoughby de Broke, L.|
|Trumpington, B.||Windlesham, L.|
|Ullswater, V.||Wise, L.|
|Wade of Chorlton, L.||Wootton, E.|
|Wedgwood, L.||Young, B.|
|Whitelaw, V.||Zouche of Haryngworth, L.|
§ Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
§ Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.