HL Deb 05 December 1991 vol 533 cc332-43

3.32 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]

Clause 13 [Duty to conduct reviews and make recommendations]:

[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 142:

Page 11, line 18, leave out ("and").

The noble Baroness said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. They are intended to allow the Local Government Commission to examine the whole of the country and not just non-metropolitan areas.

For the work of the commission to be fully valid, its work should not be partial. I use that term with regard to the extent of the work and not its attitude towards it. When we debated earlier clauses, we discussed questions of community and historic identity. Those matters should be regarded throughout the country. I am not dictating a recipe for change but I believe that we should not exclude the people of our great cities from participating in that process.

The greatest city is London. I am a councillor of a London borough. I chair a London-wide body and I have been a member of other London-wide bodies. For the purposes of this discussion what is most important to me is that I live in London.

I shall not go over the mistakes of the past. I hope that we can all avoid the knee-jerk reactions which some of us have to the question of London government. I hope that we shall not take with us our baggage of prejudices and our anxiety about what London would be if it were governed by a party of a particular political complexion. Today I ask the Committee to look forward to see how best we can serve our capital and why.

In 1988 the London-wide committee which I chair—the London Planning Advisory Committee—agreed on what it termed a fourfold vision for the future of London. It regarded it as a civilised city offering a high quality of environment for all Londoners; or that should be our aim. We should aim for London to be a world centre of international trade and business, a city of opportunities for all and a city of stable and secure residential neighbourhoods capable of sustained community development. I give that list in no particular order because all those matters are interdependent on one another. That committee comprised representatives from all the London boroughs. It had no inbuilt political majority but had a balanced committee. That vision of London was agreed on a consensual basis by all parties.

The issue of London has risen up the public agenda faster than almost any other issue. For that reason the London Planning Advisory Committee commissioned the World City Project whose brief was to discover what is needed to sustain London's future status as a world city and what can be learned from comparisons with its rivals; for example, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Frankfurt and possibly Berlin, because of its situation where it may be able to take advantage of the greater movement and communication between East and West.

The co-sponsors—and this is important because it shows the importance which all those organisations attach to the project—were the Corporation of London, the City of Westminster, the London Arts Board, the London Docklands Development Corporation and London Transport.

The Committee may be interested to know of some of the comments given by people interviewed on other world cities. New York was described as: emerging as a central brain of the global system".

Paris, Ile-de-France, was described as: maintaining a position at the forefront of the new world".

Tokyo was described as: contribution to peace and development in the world",

and of Frankfurt it was said: the hub of Europe … Europe's 'most American' City".

The conclusions of that report were considered at a conference only last week of what may be described loosely as movers and shakers on the London scene. They widely endorsed the conclusions of the consultants engaged by the London committee. Briefly, its conclusions were that London's key priority is easier and safer movement around London. That will come as no surprise to anyone who has to move around and within London. There is a need for improvements to public transport and, in particular, secure funding. An environmental audit is needed and innovation and enterprise to help with regeneration.

London has special potential and special problems. One of the major keys to unlocking potential is to improve education and training to enable its residents to contribute more to the workings of London.

London has a particular potential in the cultural sector. That is interesting. Arts, culture and the whole entertainment industry are the soul of London and an area which is growing in innovation leading to increased employment. It is the industry which has created the greatest increase in employment over the past decade or so. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that our arts and cultural heritage are part of the whole heritage of London and the country.

Again, the Committee will not be surprised that there is an urgent need to find an answer to providing affordable housing for essential workers and homeless people in the capital.

To do all that, London must project and promote itself, not just to rekindle the belief of Londoners in our capital city but to sell itself to the rest of the world. That is what needs to be done. The consultants, many of whom have great expertise in London problems, concluded that London is a world city and can remain a pre-eminent world city, but its status is at risk. That is not because of any inherent or irredeemable disadvantage but it arises simply by default.

How are we to put that right? There is a wide consensus that something needs to be done. At present we have the boroughs—a plethora of joint arrangements which have no agreed context, no agreed priorities and no common objectives, let alone a vision of where they should be going.

Amendment No. 178, which is grouped with this amendment, refers—and I was careful to refer to it—to strategic functions for a London-wide government. Those functions should be functions which may be performed now by central government. We on these Benches believe, and I know that others believe it too, that government should be delivered at the most local level possible.

London has a government; it has central government. But it is not serving the capital well. To give one example which I know is dear to the hearts of many Members of the Committee, the London-wide arrangements for grants to voluntary organisations, to the arts, affecting many people in need, have simply fallen apart.

London needs its own government. It needs more than just a voice; it needs a democratically elected representative and accountable government. Of course there are other models for a voice for London. A Minister could be appointed as part of the Westminster/Whitehall machine, although I doubt that he would win any battles with the Treasury on behalf of London and would probably only be a target for brickbats—an unenviable position with no resources to do the job.

London could have a group selected by the Government—a group of experts whose expertise could be harnessed. But would the decisions of a quango have real validity? We could have an elected mayor with an executive office. But I believe that a mayor would be elected primarily as an expression of confidence or otherwise in the government of the day. A mayor would be concerned to build his image and status; there would be an executive office; the work of the boroughs would be duplicated and that would be wasteful. Above all, the model of a mayor running the capital city is entirely alien to the culture of this country.

I ask the Committee to seriously consider the amendments in this group which calls for the commission to consider the question of government for London. I do not advocate any previous model. I feel that from these Benches I am able to say that we come without prejudice to the question. However, I conclude with the words of Lord Latham, who was the chairman of the London County Council in the dark days of 1943. He said, The fate of London, one of the greatest cities the world has ever known, will be one of the signs by which posterity will judge us. There is a long road to travel before London can become the city she ought to be. Therefore let us start now".

Lord Morris

There is clearly a misunderstanding in regard to Amendment No. 142. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may have read the long title of the Bill with care, she did not read the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That states that this part of the Bill is specifically designed for the Local Government Commission to take on the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and to make orders changing the structure of local government in the non-metropolitan counties of the United Kingdom. The amendment would appear to be an attempt to look at the idea of recreating another GLC, God help us!

Baroness Hamwee

Perhaps I can deal with that point. I hoped to make it entirely clear that what I was not proposing was another GLC. The amendments were considered by the Public Bill Office before they came here. I am advised that they are within the scope of the Bill. The word "and" is the word which allows a further subsection to be attached to a specific section which is necessary to introduce the subject of a government for metropolitan areas including London. I was speaking not only to Amendment No. 142 but also to Amendment No. 178.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

The noble Baroness tried to duck the question put by my noble friend as to whether the real purpose of the amendment is to suggest the reconstitution of the GLC or something like it. In any event, the argument that a central authority is required for London seems to imply the creation of another GLC or of something similar. More important, it appears to accept that there is something unsatisfactory in the present situation. Frankly, I do not agree.

The present system under which the London boroughs have been freed of top-tier administration is working perfectly adequately and results in considerably less public expenditure than the continuation of a two-tier set up. The question of whether we have single-tier or two-tier systems for local government runs right through the Bill.

I do not propose to weary the Committee by going into the merits of that in general, though it is a subject on which I hold fairly strong views. However, what the noble Baroness should do—which she has manifestly not done—if she wants her amendment to succeed, is to suggest that there is something wrong with the present system. That may demonstrate that it is necessary to impose on the ratepayers of London—local tax payers, community charge payers or whatever one likes to call them—all the additional costs of a new authority with a new and massive bureaucracy. That would certainly result in increasing the cost of local government in London. That being so, I suggest that the onus is on those who seek to support the proposal to demonstrate that it is needed.

I heard nothing in the speech of the noble Baroness which to my mind carried any conviction on that point. Even the ceremonial aspect of London is already so superbly dealt with by the City of London and the Lord Mayor that there seems to be no reason to set up another counter authority for the purpose of providing a focus of opinion. The City of London and the Lord Mayor function satisfactorily and at minimum cost to the residents. Therefore to put on the commission, as is proposed, the duty of trying to evolve a new form of central authority for London, depriving London of the advantage of what seems to be a unitary system of local government, is a misconceived idea. I hope that when the Committee considers the point, it will be rejected.

There was a moment when the noble Baroness seemed to be near to saying, "Something must be done. This is something, so let us do it". I suggest that it is a nonsense and that we should leave it alone.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

As usual the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is irresistible. He makes so many misstatements and mis-interpretations of fact that, however much I wished to wait until the Minister replied before speaking, it is impossible not to intervene.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has tabled a Motion for debate next Wednesday in which he seeks to review the legislative performance of the Government in the last Parliament. I imagine that a considerable part of the thrust of that will be "The Grand Old Duke of York" performance of the poll tax and the council tax. If he were to extend the scope of the Motion a little, we may be able to deal with what inevitably will be the same "Grand Old Duke of York" performance—the abolition of the Greater London Council and its replacement by any government of any political complexion; a proper city government for London. Indeed, the present chairman of the Conservative Party unwisely trailed that possibility even as Conservative Party policy. He was slapped down fairly rapidly.

The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, suggests that there is no reason to suppose that there is a need for city government in London. I was not much of a supporter of many aspects of the Greater London Council. Indeed, when I served on it it had 20,000 employees, of whom 10,000 were firemen. It was difficult to see what services were provided by most of the others. I certainly do not advocate a return to the Greater London Council as it was then constituted. But even I did not realise how rapidly London would decline in the absence of a central authority.

Let us look at the facts. Our public transport is the most expensive in Europe. Our average traffic speeds are 10 miles an hour, which is the same as they were at the beginning of the century. Traffic congestion in London is costing the London economy billions of pounds every year. These are not Labour Party estimates; these are the estimates of the CBI, the business community, the London Chamber of Commerce and industry. The decline in house building is such that at the present rate it would take 90 years to meet the present housing needs of London, and that is regardless of the other houses which would reach the end of their useful life during that period. At the same time as we have a desperate housing shortage we have 20 million square feet of office space vacant in London. We have an unemployment rate in London which has increased by 50 per cent. during the past year and a crime rate which has increased by 15 per cent. over the same period.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made effective reference to many other aspects in which London is falling behind other cities both in Europe and in the world generally. I entirely agree with her, but in particular about the crisis which exists for the arts in London as the result of the abolition of the city authority. I part company from her to some extent when she speaks about a strategic authority. It is always very difficult to divorce strategy from tactics just as it is difficult in business to divorce policy from administration. I am not sure that a strategic authority would not in fact result in a duplication of effort. I am certain, however, that there are major city-wide executive functions which are now being carried out by central government or by nobody. They should be carried out by a city government for London. That is the reason why I support and have also tabled many amendments to which the noble Baroness has spoken.

Lord Mancroft

The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are very persuasive. He has great knowledge of local government with which to back them up. As he said when he began to speak, the arguments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter are equally persuasive—to me they are more persuasive.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I did not say that the noble Lord's arguments were persuasive. I said that the temptation to rise after the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had spoken was irresistible. There is a difference.

Lord Mancroft

I stand corrected. That is slightly different. My temptation to rise to speak after the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was equally strong. The noble Lord has produced very interesting but expected arguments for a new tier of local government. He has put forward reasons for it which are similar or the same as those of the noble Baroness. He referred to the deterioration of London in various areas. I do not believe that any noble Lord or anyone who lives in London would disagree that in certain areas city life is bound to deteriorate. I hope that in other areas it may have improved, and those are areas at which we can look.

We must bear in mind that all things are relative. The noble Baroness quoted New York, Tokyo and Paris. Heaven forbid that London should ever get anywhere near the situation which New York has reached now. New York may be the centre of the western world, and I love it dearly as a city, but it is a concrete shambles. The streets of fashionable New York are potted; the traffic does not move; the crime rate is such that in the worst part of the worst city in Britain we cannot even dream about such a crime rate. New York is run by a mayor with a massive bureaucracy.

The noble Baroness discarded mayors and she was right to do so. I wish that she had discarded New York as an example. She spoke about Tokyo. It is true that it does not have the same housing problems as London. It does not have so many old houses. Regardless of their wealth, the population of Tokyo lives in shoe-boxes such as Londoners would not live in. Tokyo traffic is stationary; the long-distance trains may be very remarkable when they move but they do not move very often. The inhabitants of Tokyo loathe the city and spend a great deal of time telling everyone how much they loathe it.

Paris is also a wonderful city, but even with the advantage of Baron Haussmann's marvellous boulevards, the traffic there does not move very fast. The likelihood of being stabbed on the Paris Metro is goodness knows much greater than is the possibility of being mugged or threatened on the London Underground. I do not believe that London is perfect, but I would not like it ever to become like the cities which the noble Baroness gave as examples of well run cities. All cities have their problems now. It is true that today we are looking for ways of possibly solving the problems.

One of the possible solutions is to have a mayor. I do not believe that that method works; there is no evidence that it works particularly well. I believe that it was the noble Baroness who said that that system was alien to our way of life. I do not believe that the mayoral system would work here. I suppose that there is a case for considering bringing back another tier of government, another bunch of expensive bureaucrats. They will be another lot to be elected and another group of people to fill our newspaper columns and television screens with what they are going to do.

We have had that kind of system twice before but it did not make very much difference. We have very good elected local government in London. Its members may not always work together as well as they might, but nobody in this world ever does. Local government may not be perfect, but nothing ever is. The question that must be asked is whether we can make local government better or do we need to change it. There is no evidence to suggest that we cannot make it better whereas there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that we should not seek to change it in particular to go backwards. Although I respect the motives behind the noble Baroness's amendments and the way in which the noble Lord, McIntosh, put forward his argument, I do not believe for one second that he made them strong enough. There is no real reason at all for an extra tier of government. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendments.

Lord Ross of Newport

Before the noble Baroness replies, I hope that she will not return to the Secretary of State and report to him that there is total alienation to the idea of a directly elected mayor for London or a directly elected chief executive system of authority throughout Britain. I happen to be in favour of it. At one stage not very long ago the Secretary of State was reputed to be rather in favour of the idea himself.

My children live in London and I very often stay with them. I believe that London is going the way of New York. The kind of situation which, I am sorry to say, is now developing in our capital city is where people break into your house at half past nine at night, and where your children look out of the window the next morning and wonder whether the car will still be there or elsewhere or whether it will have wheels on it. I am not blaming the police because when my daughter saw a leg coming through a ground-floor window two days ago the police were there in three minutes flat. That is very good indeed and much to be commended. That kind of activity is taking place in our suburbs.

No one can be satisfied with the Underground system as it is at present. It is a disgrace. I was brought up in North London. The Northern Line trains used to run every two or three minutes but these days they run about every quarter of an hour and one is lucky to get on them. The downside escalator at Euston Station has been out of use for over six months and no one seems to be doing anything about it. When the mayor of Paris was reinstated about 10 years ago (I believe that the previous one lost his head) things looked up in Paris. When anyone complained about the dirty streets the mayor immediately took on about 700 cleaners and cleaned up the city. There has been a remarkable improvement in Paris since it has had a directly elected mayor.

I am simply asking that the suggestions made are not simply thrown out of court. It is interesting because Dame Shirley Porter, who until recently led Westminster City Council and who is now the mayor, has been saying similar things herself. She certainly believes that there should be some kind of overall authority for London. I believe that many people in local government believe the same. Bridges across the Thames are shut without any co-ordination whatever. Previously there was at least some reasoning for that. Everyone knew roughly what was going to happen because of advance warning, but now we do not know. I do not want to set up a great bureaucratic machine, but I do not believe that rationalising London Transport, which was done by Mr. Ridley, has resulted in any success at all. There are institutions like the arts, transport and planning which require an overall look. Please do not throw these provisions out of court.

4 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

I have to deal with the amendments which appear on the Marshalled List and not with people's interpretations of what they believe is on the Marshalled List. I have listened very carefully to the introduction to this amendment and I am left in no doubt that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was suggesting was government. The difference between us on this matter arises from the solutions to the problems—there has been much analysis of what they are on the part of noble Lords opposite—being more money and more government. We believe that there are other solutions to the problems. Simply more government in London will do nothing about improving culture or improving transport. When we had London government we had unacceptably low fares and an unacceptably high level of subsidy which fell on people to pay. Congestion will not change if there is London government, and housing will not be improved if there is more London government.

I did not understand the reference to law and order because there is a London-wide police authority. Where London is dirty has a great deal to do with London boroughs not doing their jobs properly. As for references to Tokyo, air pollution there is quite dreadful; and with regard to Paris, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that traffic is still just as bad in Paris and often does not move. I can testify to that from my own recent experience.

London government should be closer to the people. We have made it clear that we have no intention of imposing an additional layer of bureaucracy on Londoners, or elsewhere, because we believe that this would create and not solve problems. I am very grateful for the interventions of my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Morris and Lord Mancroft.

The unitary system of local government in London, as said by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the system in metropolitan areas has proved to be a great improvement on the previous two-tier system. The benefits of improved accountability and streamlined bureaucracy are considerable. Recent research by the London Boroughs Association showed a £1.3 billion saving so far for Londoners—and for taxpayers too—as a result of the abolition of the GLC. There is no reason to believe that anyone wants to pick up that price tag again.

Where a strategic overview is needed suitable arrangements are in place. There is a distinction between a voice for London and government for London. Perhaps more thought should be given to a voice for London. We are committed to a move to unitary authorities in those areas which do not already enjoy the benefits of increased accountability and streamlined bureaucracy for local people which a single tier of local government will bring.

With regard to the voice for London, perhaps I may say in passing that we have two splendid Lord Mayors of London—the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the Lord Mayor of the City. It is my view that they are doing a magnificent job. I should also like to say—and perhaps this is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will take on board—that it would help if the London boroughs could co-operate more fully than they do now. Certainly one association would be preferable to two.

I do not intend to go into all the other detail about the functions for London. I believe the arrangements and mechanisms are in place to deliver good government for London as it is at the moment. I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee

I thank noble Lords for contributing to what I think is one of the most important debates that we shall have this afternoon.

Several noble Lords have commented that London is working perfectly well and that there is nothing the matter with the system. I say to that: go out and respectfully ask the people on the streets and look at any newspaper. At least once a week national newspapers appear to have articles about the problems in London, and it certainly features high on the list of subject matter of any of the London press.

We are told that more government means more bureaucracy. We on these Benches believe that government is about service, not about bureaucracy, and I would not waste one sentence on advocating more bureaucracy. I advocate better service.

The Minister has asked me about the co-operation of the London boroughs. I take that point on board entirely, but however well they co-operate as different entities it is not the same as forming one strategic authority sorting out its own priorities and working together. The boroughs can co-operate. But for each of those boroughs that co-operation is perhaps the second or third thing on its list of tasks. Their first priorities are, quite rightly, to their own areas.

We are told that we have two splendid Lord Mayors. I do not dispute that. I shared a platform with them on Friday and I felt that what I had around my neck was quite inadequate in the circumstances! But I do not think that they are the solution to the problem.

I end by appealing to the Committee's loyalty to our capital city and to the intellectual rather than emotional argument that the health of London is vital to the economic health of the country. We should take good care of the health of London. In looking at its health, we should seriously consider allowing the new commission to look at the possibilities and the options for proper government for London. I feel that this is so important an issue that I wish to divide the Committee.

4.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 142) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1
Addington, L. Hunt, L.
Alport, L. Jeger, B.
Aylestone, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Birk, B. John-Mackie, L.
Blackstone, B. Judd, L.
Blease, L. Kirkhill, L.
Bonham-Carter, L. Kirkwood, L.
Bottomley, L. Leatherland, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Listowel, E.
Buckmaster, V. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Campbell of Eskan, L. Longford, E.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Mallalieu, B.
David, B. Masham of Ilton, B.
Dean of Beswick, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Desai, L. Mayhew, L.
Diamond, L. Mishcon, L.
Donoughue, L. Molloy, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Falkender, B. Morris of Kenwood, L.
Falkland, V. Mulley, L.
Feversham, L. Nicol, B.
Fitt, L. Ogmore, L.
Foot, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Gallacher, L. Richard, L.
Gladwyn, L. Ross of Newport, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Russell, E.
Sainsbury, L.
Hampton, L. Seear, B.
Hamwee, B. Serota, B.
Hanworth, V. Shackleton, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Soper, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Stallard, L.
Hirshfield, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Strabolgi, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hooson, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L. [Teller.] Williams of Elvel, L.
Underhill, L. Willis, L.
Wallace of Coslany, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
White, B.
Abinger, L. Lauderdale, E.
Aldington, L. Lloyd of Hampstead, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Long, V.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Lyell, L.
Ampthill, L. Lytton, E.
Arran, E. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Astor, V. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Balfour, E. Macleod of Borve, B.
Bathurst, E. Mancroft, L.
Bauer, L. Melville, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Merrivale, L.
Beloff, L. Mersey, V.
Bessborough, E. Monk Bretton, L.
Birdwood, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Blatch, B. Morris, L.
Blyth, L. Mottistone, L.
Boardman, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Borthwick, L. Moyne, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Munster, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Braybrooke, L. Nelson, E.
Bridgeman, V. Newall, L.
Brigstocke, B. Norfolk, D.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Norrie, L.
Butterworth, L. O'Cathain, B.
Caldecote, V. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Orkney, E.
Campbell of Croy, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Carnarvon, E. Oxfuird, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Park of Monmouth, B.
Carnock, L. Pender, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Platt of Writtle, B.
Cheshire of Woodhall, L. Plumb, L.
Cockfield, L. Porritt, L.
Coleraine, L. Prior, L.
Congleton, L. Rankeillour, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Reay, L.
Cottesloe, L. Renton, L.
Craigavon, V. Ryder of Warsaw, B.
Cross, V. St. Davids, V.
Cumberlege, B. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L. Sandford, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.] Selsdon, L.
Denham, L. Shannon, E.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Shaughnessy, L.
Dormer, L. Shrewsbury, E.
Downshire, M. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Dudley, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Ferrers, E. Strange, B.
Flather, B. Strathcarron, L.
Fortescue, E. Strathclyde, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Swansea, L.
Gainford, L. Terrington, L.
Gainsborough, E. Teviot, L.
Geddes, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Gridley, L. Thurlow, L.
Grimthorpe, L. Trumpington, B.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Tryon, L.
Harmsworth, L. Ullswater, V.
Henley, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.] Vivian, L.
Hives, L. Waddington, L.
Howe, E. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Walpole, L.
Jeffreys, L. Wharton, B.
Kimball, L. Wilberforce, L.
Kinnaird, L. Wise, L.
Knollys, V. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.14 p.m.

Earl Howe

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

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

House resumed.