HL Deb 24 November 1992 vol 540 cc921-34

3.4 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Licensing of fishing boats]:

[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]

The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert: (""(6A) In considering what action to take under subsection (6) (c) above, the Ministers shall first give due consideration to a scheme of decommissioning in order to achieve a significant reduction in the capacity of the fishing fleet."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I managed to get here despite roadworks on the M.3. I was not expecting to speak quite so soon. This is an important amendment. It is very similar to the one which I brought before your Lordships in Committee and which gathered a considerable amount of support. It has been slightly altered. In a moment of some warmth I threatened to come back, insisting that the funding of any decommissioning scheme should be adequate. However, on reflection I realised that that was a totally unreasonable request to put into an amendment.

My object was, and still is, to present an amendment to your Lordships which is also acceptable to my noble friend Lord Howe. The amendment stems originally from the knowledge that I and others received, being fortunate enough to sit on Sub-Committee D, from numerous witnesses who pointed out that in the end, and sooner rather than later, we would have to have some kind of decommissioning scheme that was acceptable and also effective. The phrase, used again and again by nearly all the witnesses, was that there were just too many boats chasing too many fish.

In that same report and recommendations I believe we said (I am paraphrasing) that tying up, although disliked intensely by the fishing fraternity, might have to be a staging post towards a proper decommissioning scheme. That is the foundation of the amendment.

In talking about a reduction of fishing "effort", my noble friend Lord Howe considers that that word describes ships actually moving about fishing. I feel that decommissioning is a reduction in effort as well. If a ship does not go out at all it cannot catch fish: it has an effort equivalent of nil. In the scientifically-based report it was stated that about 25 per cent. of the fishing capacity of one kind or another should be taken away, so to speak, from the vessels which are fishing in the waters around our shores.

If that is to be accomplished by tying up, as indicated in this enabling Bill, then fishermen are in a very serious situation. They may not be able to maintain their businesses. It is wrong that there should be a large fishing fleet which is under-used with all that capital equipment not being fully put to work. It also seems wrong because, as I mentioned before, there is a temptation for the fishermen to go out on those days when they are allowed to fish but for too long. That may possibly endanger life. If there are too few crew, that can equally possibly endanger life. That would be wrong indeed.

The tie-up situation, if carried on for long, may take more policing than my noble friend on the Front Bench imagines. After all, somebody has to know where the ships are. If they have been decommissioned then it is a far simpler matter. Furthermore, the fishermen themselves feel what I think is a very reasonable resentment at the idea of this somewhat arbitrary tie-up—at this stage they do not know for how long—and, after all, it comes without compensation. Perhaps not without reason they interpret it as a form of decommissioning by the back-door.

In Committee when we discussed my first amendment on the licensing of vessels of under 10 metres, I was very pleased to receive from my noble friend the assurance that that would now be done. That, of course, is absolutely vital to any sensible decommissioning scheme. So to that extent the stage is at least set for having an efficient decommissioning scheme. Perhaps what we want, however, is a larger scheme—certainly larger than can be funded by £25 million spread over a period.

However, that is not really the point of this amendment. The point of it is that decommissioning should be on the face of the Bill and should be perpetually in front of any government who might be in charge of shipping and fish conservation matters —and this is a serious matter. If any of your Lordships have studied this or other reports—I am sure that many of you have—you will know that fish stocks are in a parlous state. A number of the important ones are described as "depleted" or "over-exploited" or by other expressions of that sort. Something quite serious must be done. Once more, in the end I hope that sooner rather than later it will have to be decommissioning. That is why, with other noble Lords, I have tabled this amendment, with the addition this time of just that fact: the reason why it has been tabled, which is to conserve fish stocks. Conserving fish stocks and getting back to the point where recruitment equates with catches and where we have some sort of sustainable yield are vital to our fishing communities.

The amendment in no way drives the Government into a corner. It is not in point of fact asking them suddenly to launch themselves vigorously into a decommissioning scheme. All that it is doing is keeping the matter before their eyes—or before the eyes of any subsequent government—and putting it on the face of the Bill so that one day—as I said previously, sooner I hope rather than later—for the sake of the fish and of the fishermen, it will come into being. I beg to move.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I, too, should like to say a word or two about this amendment to which I have put my name. Presumably since they have agreed to introduce a decommissioning scheme, the Ministers responsible believe that decommissioning must be of some use, although they say that it will not in itself be sufficient to prevent over-fishing without other means of effort reduction such as a limit on days at sea. A scheme so minuscule that it will reduce the capacity of the fishing fleet only by up to 5 per cent. will, as I see it, be nothing but a waste of money. Therefore, it really is imperative that, if £25 million-worth of taxpayers' money is not to be wasted, a rather more extensive scheme is introduced.

My understanding is that it is thought desirable that the capacity of the fishing fleet should be reduced by at least 25 per cent., as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just said. At any rate, the European Communities Sub-Committee D considered that a "substantial" reduction in capacity was long overdue. I do not think that anyone could call 5 per cent. or under a "substantial" reduction.

I appreciate that we live in times of financial stringency —but then, when do we not? I cannot seem to remember ever not living with the necessity for the most stringent economy, so I can accept that more than £25 million may not be available this year or the next. However, surely if a sizeable chunk of that is to come from European Community coffers, another £25 million—or, if things improve, perhaps a bit more than £25 million—might be made available the following year and so on until the capacity of the fleet has been reduced to a satisfactory level.

The decision to give up fishing for ever will not, for people who have never learned any other way of life, be one which would be taken lightly or in a hurry. This is especially the case if, as I heard this morning, the haddock TAC for next year has been considerably increased. In devising the manner of implementing such a scheme, I would again urge the Government to look carefully at the scheme which has been proposed by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, an outline of which is to be found on pages 36 to 39 of Sub-Committee D's report, HL Paper No. 9. I think that I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at a previous stage of the Bill whether the Government had considered that proposal, but I do not think that he told me. Perhaps he will comment on it when he winds up. I am anxious to know the answer to that question because I understand that that scheme would be compatible with the European Community's structures policy for the purpose of attracting Community contributions.

I believe that the Government would like their scheme to work by a system of tendering whereby the fishermen would each put in a sealed bid for the amount of money that they would be prepared to accept to decommission. The Government would then accept the lowest tenders and so keep the cost of the scheme down. However, I also understand that that scheme would not attract Community assistance. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand. I suspect that it could also be manipulated so as to keep the price of decommissioning up. I should also have thought that it would take out only the oldest and least efficient boats.

Lastly, none of the schemes devised so far—not the Government's, nor the European Community's scheme, nor that of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—has addressed the problem of crew members, the majority of whom are not employees (who would be entitled to redundancy pay) but share fishermen who are self-employed and who will have no entitlement, except in a relatively few cases where they own a legal share of the boat and its equipment. I believe that that was another very unsatisfactory aspect of the previous decommissioning scheme which the Government operated some years ago and that it gave rise to a lot of ill feeling between the boat owners and the fishermen, many of whom were members of the same family. I ask the Government to address this problem so that the same thing does not happen again.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. This question was discussed in Committee, but the Minister's response was not particularly encouraging. Nevertheless, in the light of the speeches already made, I believe that there is an obligation on the Government—and on the Minister in particular—to say why an amendment of this kind, in such moderate terms, which is asking only that "due consideration" should be given to a scheme to achieve a significant reduction in capacity, cannot appear in the Bill.

It is a fact that the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the European Communities studied the whole question of the common fisheries policy in considerable detail and produced a report which was widely praised both here and outside the House as being in some senses a definitive document on the question. Certainly the part of the report which dealt with decommissioning expressed the opinion that the Bill's proposals for decommissioning are not of themselves sufficiently adequate to deal with the problem. Consequently, it asked for a substantial increase in decommissioning as such.

The Minister will probably tell me that decommissioning is only one aspect and that conservation is the aim and objective of the Bill. Nevertheless, it appears in the Bill and, unquestionably, the industry is looking at decommissioning in the light not merely of what the Bill provides for decommissioning, which is modest enough and is considered to be inadequate, but also of the other powers which are being taken in the Bill. Those powers, in my opinion, would guard against what the Government fear about a large decommissioning scheme; namely, that if decommissioning is extensive the vessels which remain will fish more intensively and as a consequence the conservation objective of the Bill may be lost. It seems to me that the Government's powers in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen are adequate, and consequently the fear about an increase in fishing effort nullifying the objectives of the Bill is somewhat misplaced.

On finance, here again I appreciate what the Minister has to say. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has dealt with this point in some detail. I think it is a fact that the British financial privilege at Fontainebleau may be the subject of considerable pressure in the coming months. As a consequence, any disability which a decommissioning scheme would have suffered because of the existence of the concession we obtained at Fontainebleau may be subject to renegotiation if Fontainebleau itself has to be renegotiated. I am not suggesting that it should be. I am not suggesting that Her Majesty's Government will agree to it. I am aware that Her Majesty's Government are firmly of the opinion that Fontainebleau requires a majority of all member states. Nevertheless, the Commission's affairs being what they are, the possibility of renegotiation, perhaps as a quid pro quo for something else, cannot be ruled out. In that context the burden of a larger decommissioning scheme may not be as great as the Government currently believe it to be.

For all those reasons I hope that the Minister will say something about the amendment which is designed to be helpful and to address a problem which I think is worthy of the consideration of the House.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, with great respect I think the problem is that decommissioning does not appear on the face of the Bill. We are trying to put it there.

Lord Gallacher

My Lords, I acknowledge the point. I have never been an authority on semantics. I am well aware that decommissioning is in the Bill somewhere. Although it does not appear on the face of the Bill, the fact is that the Government have in mind a modest scheme of decommissioning and the sum of £25 million has been mentioned many times as being the upper limit for that scheme. It is the inadequacy of that sum of money in the context of the problem which the amendment seeks to address.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee which produced the report, I should like to join the three previous speakers in pleading with the Government to accept the amendment. I do not know whether all Members of the House are aware of the fact that the fishing industry today is a high capital investment industry. I should like to ask the Government this question. What other industry with capital investment of such a high order would happily accept not using its equipment for a large number of days? If the number of days when the equipment cannot be used is significantly increased there is no doubt that a lot of fishermen will go bankrupt. Some of them have invested large sums of money. Some of them still hire some of their equipment which has to be paid for every week and every day, including the days when the boats lie in harbour.

Secondly, to police the system of a limited number of days at sea is a very difficult thing to do. We have heard suggestions that we will have satellite monitoring to control the number of days at sea. It would be much easier and much cheaper to police a decommissioning scheme than it would be to police the present suggestions. The fishing industry, the fishermen and the crews that are employed by the trawler owners deserve better of us. I hope that the Government will look at the possibility of accepting the amendment now before the House.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I too hope that my noble friend will find it possible to accept the amendment. I do not think that there is a great deal between the view that he has put forward and the view of my noble friend Lord Radnor. I sat on the Select Committee which produced a report which, though I say it myself, will, I believe, be studied for many years ahead. It was a most valuable report. We said that there was certainly room for a tie-up and for putting a restriction on valuable assets and saying that they may not be used for many days in the year but we felt that it must be secondary to the much simpler scheme of reducing the effort by reducing the number of vessels in an overlarge fleet. The reasons for that suggestion—reasons perhaps that are not all that valid —rely on the fact that every other country in the Community with one exception has taken that line. They regard it as more efficient to reduce effort than to restrict assets.

It takes a great deal—I have never known it happen —to make more than 1,000 fishermen march through Aberdeen on a Saturday to try to draw attention to the extreme difficulties in which they are placed. They believe that in decommissioning lies the most effective way of doing what everyone agrees is essential; that is, to increase conservation. There are too many boats catching too few fish. That is unarguable and undeniable. It only comes back to how best and how most fairly one tackles the problem.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I have some sympathy with this amendment which arises in respect of an industry which I believe all of us in the House would consider to be regulated, or perhaps over-regulated. I have looked in the Bill for the word "decommissioning" but I cannot see it. I believe that it is part and parcel of the arrangements which we must have for the future regulation of the fishing industry. I say that because I believe that the history of decommissioning is not a particularly happy one. We can look back at a previous scheme which has been talked about at great length and which was not a success. That does not mean to say that this scheme will be a failure, but there is a risk that it could fail.

It could fail for several reasons. First, it could fail if the Government are not wholeheartedly behind this approach. They have perhaps moved their position over the years on this matter. Secondly, it could fail because of the large investment in the various boats which go out to catch most fish.

The amendment places on government the duty to use the decommissioning tool. It is an industry which is ever more dependent upon higher capital costs and ever more able to catch more fish than it was in the past so that fewer boats are catching more fish. If we are to be able to meet our MAGP targets in time, decommissioning must be a tool used effectively by government. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says in reply to the amendment. It is permissory. It underlines to the fishing industry the importance that the Government place on trying to obtain the right size of fleet in the UK to deal with the resources at its disposal.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I have been consistent in what I have said during the passage of the Bill. There is no question but that fishermen feel that this is the best way forward. When they say that they mean that they feel that there should be more than the £25 million allowed towards the decommissioning scheme so as to have a bigger scheme and that the taxpayer should contribute more. The problem with the amendment is that it does not mention how the money is to be raised. I wish that my noble friend had included in the amendment the fact that consideration should be given to charging for licences so that money could be raised towards the decommissioning scheme—so that the fishermen themselves could contribute towards it. That would make the scheme much more acceptable to the taxpayer and, incidentally, to the Treasury.

I am sorry that this small amendment, anodyne though it is, does not say that, because I shall have some difficulty in voting for it for that reason. I believe that the fishermen will understand and appreciate that point. They want the Government to move forward as time goes on towards a larger decommissioning scheme. The amendment does not make that possible unless money is made available to do so. My noble friend may say why he did not include that when he replies to the debate on the amendment. It would have been helpful to the House and to me had he done so. I am not sure that I shall support the amendment.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, as I said in Committee, unless the Government accept the amendment, or a similar one, the fishing industry will come to the conclusion, like farmers, that it has been led up the garden path and is now being dumped. Perhaps I should say sunk. I have to remind my noble friend that, despite warnings, including those from your Lordships' Select Committee several years ago, that the Government should start a decommissioning scheme in line with those operated by other EC countries, they did nothing. It was only recently—a year ago I believe—that they repented and put, as the noble Baroness said, this small decommissioning scheme into being.

In Committee my noble friend Lord Howe said (at col. 146) that he would much prefer a decommissioning scheme to set-aside payments as proposed in an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness. I agreed with him and so did my noble friend Lord Selborne. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will reinforce the view that he expressed in Committee and accept this moderate amendment.

Lord Moyne

My Lords, there are two further arguments in favour of the amendment and of considering seriously a decommissioning scheme. The first is that other countries have done more of it and can throw at us the accusation that we are not decommissioning whereas they are. We then argue with our days-at-sea restrictions, but they still have that case. A stronger and more mercenary point is that a good proportion of the cost of such a scheme would come from the EC, whereas all the costs of our days-at-sea restrictions have to come from our own fishermen.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, having listened to this interesting debate, perhaps I may ask some questions for clarification. Surely your Lordships are not wholly concerned with the conservation of fish stocks, avoiding depletion or even the position of self-employed fishermen, who have, alas, no share in the catch or the boat, but with the monetary considerations.

The amendment, as cast, relates to subsection (6) (c), which refers to the principles upon which the time which vessels may spend at sea is to be arrived at. That must surely include decommissioning. As far as I am aware, decommissioning is not defined in any statute or subsidiary legislation. If those assumptions are correct, why is not subsection (6) (c) sufficient to carry the situation to the end which those who support the amendment would wish to carry it?

It seems, with respect, that what the amendment does is to give precedence and pride of place to decommissioning, which fortunately is a vague term, undefined by statute, above other principles referred to in subsection (6) (c). First, what would the amendment truly achieve in effective terms? Secondly, is it right to impose a statutory priority of precedence, above other principles available, to keep vessels at sea?

Lord Greenway

My Lords, it seems to me that the Government are in danger of falling between both stools. We have already heard from other noble Lords that the earlier decommissioning scheme did not work. My noble friend Lady Saltoun said that it caused a great deal of upset among some of the fishing families. By ignoring the amendment, it strikes me that the Government will be upsetting the fishermen again, because my understanding is that they would much prefer a proper decommissioning scheme to the reduction in days at sea proposed by the Government. The argument that decommissioning does not work has surely been disproved by the fact that it appears to have worked in other EC countries.

I fully support the amendment, but I must add a note of personal regret: it is rather ironic that the only sector of our battered and dwindling merchant fleet (the inshore fishing sector) that has shown an increase over the past few years will now have to be reduced, albeit for perfectly valid and proper reasons which we all understand.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, when I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon I had no views on the merits of the matter. I have listened carefully to the debate and I am bound to say that I have found the arguments in favour of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Radnor to be unanswerable. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will appreciate that the combined wisdom of your Lordships' House seems to point somewhat in that direction. I take the point, as I am sure he will, raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour as to who should pay for the decommissioning. As I understand the amendment, it does not deal with payment one way or the other. Acceptance of the amendment would therefore not prejudice a decision on that. I am bound to say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the views of the noble Baroness that it is expenditure towards which those in the industry might well have to contribute.

What seems to me to be difficult to argue against is that we should have in the Bill some reference to decommissioning. We are now at the Report stage and unless we continue to violate the rules about amendments on Third Reading—as your Lordships' House has done once or twice recently, on occasions which it would be indelicate on my part to recall —this is the last opportunity for the views of your Lordships' House to be put into the Bill.

Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will not look for trouble by objecting to the principle of the amendment. If he can give some assurance that the principles behind it will be accepted and the necessary amendments put into the Bill by the Government at a later stage, so be it. But if not, I ask him to consider seriously whether it is not right now to put the amendment into the Bill and make any adjustments necessary later on. I hope that the Minister will accept what seems to be the overwhelming view of your Lordships' House.

Lord Gray of Contin

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has made such a useful contribution to the debate. I merely wish to say that where we have tended to fall down a little is that we have perhaps been bogged down by the semantics of the wording and forgotten what we are really talking about—the livelihood of a whole industry. We are talking of people who have made an enormous investment, who have given of themselves, who have given their lives.

I do not wish to become emotional on the subject, but when one talks about the fishing industry, it is extremely difficult not to do so, especially if one has had the privilege, as I have, of a very close connection with the industry for a number of years. All the points which my noble friends have made have been valid. The Government can get the best of both worlds if they accept the amendment. After all, it asks them merely to consider the scheme, it does not ask them to produce a definitive scheme immediately. It asks them to consider the full question of decommissioning. I feel that that is hardly too much to ask at this stage. I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that apparently this is the last opportunity we shall have to make such a move and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider what has been said.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe)

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments presented by my noble friend Lord Radnor and other noble Lords this afternoon. However, I have to say that I do not think that they advance the debate which we had in Committee on this issue. I am naturally sorry that the assurances that I gave in Committee on the question of a decommissioning scheme have not counted for very much. I made the Government's position quite clear at that time and the position has not changed.

The nub of the matter is that noble Lords want a larger decommissioning scheme, paid for by the taxpayer. We simply do not have the funds for a larger scheme and there is no prospect whatever of our getting them. The Government have now announced their public expenditure plans and it is quite unrealistic to suppose that these will be changed. The £25 million that was set aside for a decommissioning scheme has been safeguarded, despite all the pressures on public expenditure. I think that that is an achievement in itself. But that amount will not be increased.

If we look at the wording of the amendment, the fact of the matter, is, as I said in Committee, that the Government have considered a decommissioning scheme prior to the introduction of effort control. They have made what allowance they can for such a scheme. The effect of that scheme will be taken into account, if we ever come to consider a reduction in the number of days at sea to be imposed on fishermen. Of course, in allocating public money for any scheme, the Government must take a balanced view of all interests, not just those of the fishing industry. There are many competing demands on the public purse at the moment and value for money is a key concern. But that does not compromise our view that decommissioning and effort control, taken together, remain the most effective way of conserving fish stocks. That is why they are inseparably linked to one another in the conservation package announced earlier this year. Either scheme taken on its own, would be significantly less effective.

I would just point out to certain noble Lords who have raised the point that there is a fundamental difference between fishing effort, as defined by days at sea, and the capacity of the fleet. We debated at length in Committee why days at sea are a vital part of the package and I have nothing to add to what I said at that time.

The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked me about the evidence of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to the House of Lords committee. We have considered that evidence. However, it includes a statement that a scheme five times greater than the Government's scheme is needed. It goes without saying that in the current public expenditure climate, such a proposal is completely unrealistic. A scheme to reduce the capacity of the fleet by, let us say, 25 per cent., would cost £125 million. The argument that the Community would pay that is, I am afraid, unfounded because the Fontainebleau Agreement leaves the taxpayer paying roughly 80 per cent. or £100 million. That is a very substantial sum of money indeed.

Furthermore, as I said in Committee, the industry must play its part in fleet rationalisation. There is no justification for putting the entire burden on the taxpayer. We have suggested changes in our quota management arrangements with exactly that in mind. If the industry has other ideas which would fund a larger decommissioning scheme, then we would be happy to consider them. If they do not. they must accept the £25 million that has been allocated. We estimate that this will reduce fleet capacity by around 5 per cent. which could be about a quarter of the total reduction that we shall have to achieve to meet our MAGP targets. I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that that is not an insignificant contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked why the Government could not accept this amendment, as it is an innocuous form of words. The form of words may be innocuous, but the import of the amendment, as we have debated it, is not. I would not wish it to be said that the Government had accepted an amendment other than in good faith. I cannot do so. Decommissioning has a part to play; there is a decommissioning scheme on offer. The sum involved is significant; it is a worthwhile sum. It is not a sum for which there is any scope for an increase and I hope very much that my noble friend will he persuaded by what I have said and withdraw the amendment.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he draw the attention of your Lordships' House to any part of the amendment which commits the Government to any particular item of public expenditure?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I have said that it is a matter of good faith. I have presented the Government's view on the scope that exists for extending the decommissioning scheme. There is no such scope. I cannot say to the House that there is such scope when there is not. I think it would therefore be unwarranted for me to accept the amendment in those circumstances.

The Earl of Radnor

My Lords, first, I wish to thank all noble Lords and Baronesses who have taken part in this interesting and vigorous debate. I must admit that at times when my noble friend Lord Howe was answering, I felt that we were talking about two totally different amendments, particularly in view of what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said.

The amendment was in no way intended to commit the Government to an enormous decommissioning scheme which would cost a lot of money. I said that quite clearly in my opening remarks. What it does do is to keep the proposition of the decommissioning scheme in front of whatever government are in power. In the long run I am quite sure that that is the right way to preserve fish and therefore to preserve fishermen, fishing communities and all downstream work.

I am not sure that I am capable of answering the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway because I am not a legal gentleman. However, as regards the comments of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, I believe—I am sure I am right —that under the 1967 Act the Government already have the power to obtain money for licences. All in all, the Minister's answer was very disappointing. There has been an enormous amount of support both in Committee and at this stage of the Bill for the measure and I must seek the opinion of the House.

3.51 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 1
Ackner, L. Aylestone, L.
Addison, V. Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Ailesbury, M. Beloff, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Birk, B.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Blackstone, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Blease, L.
Ardwick, L. Boston of Faversham, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Mancroft, L.
Brain, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Bridges, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Brightman, L. Mishcon, L.
Broadbridge, L. Monson, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Moran, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Caldecote, V. Mottistone, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Mountgarret, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L. Moyne, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mulley, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Nelson, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L. Nicol, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Norrie, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Northesk, E.
Clinton-Davis, L. O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Oxfuird, V.
Cudlipp, L. Palmer, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Perth, E.
Diamond, L. Peston, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Dundee, E. Porritt, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Portland, E.
Ezra, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Falkland, V. Radnor, E.
Gainsborough, E. Rankeillour, L.
Gallacher, L. Redesdale, L.
Galpern, L. Richard, L.
Geddes, L. Rix, L.
Geraint, L. Robson of Kiddington, B.
Gladwyn, L. Rochester, L.
Glenamara, L. Sainsbury, L.
Glenconner, L. Saint Levan, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]
Gray of Contin, L.
Greenway, L. Seear, B.
Grey, E. Shackleton, L.
Grimond, L. Shannon, E.
Grimthorpe, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Halsbury, E. Sherfield, L.
Hampton, L. Skidelsky, L.
Harding of Petherton, L. Stallard, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Stedman, B.
Harvington, L. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Hayter, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Strabolgi, L.
Holderness, L. Strathcarron, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Howell, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Tenby, V.
Hughes, L. Terrington, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. Tonypandy, V.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. TordofT, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Judd, L. Underhill, L.
Kagan, L. Varley, L.
Kilbracken, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Whaddon, L.
Kinnaird, L. Wharton, B.
Kintore, E. White, B.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Wigoder, L.
Lockwood, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Wilson of Langside, L.
Lyell, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Aberdare, L. Boardman, L.
Aldington, L. Borthwick, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Brabazon of Tara, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, Brigstocke, B.
L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Arran, E. Butterworth, L.
Astor, V. Cadman, L.
Blatch, B. Caithness, E.
Carnock, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Cayzer, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Chalker, B. Manchester, D.
Clanwilliam, E. Margadale, L.
Clark of Kempston, L Marsh, L.
Cockfield, L. Melville, V.
Cox, B. Merrivale, L.
Cranborne, V. Mersey, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Milverton, L.
Cumberlege, B. Mountevans, L.
Davidson, V. Newall, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Onslow, E.
Effingham, E. Orkney, E.
Elibank, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Ellenborough, L. Parkinson, L.
Elles, B. Prentice, L.
Erroll of Hale, L. Pym, L.
Ferrers, E. Rippon of Hexham, L.
Finsberg, L. Rochdale, V.
Flather, B. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Romney, E.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. St. Davids, V.
Gainford, L. St. John of Fawsley, L.
Goold, L. Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Goschen, V. Seccombe, B.
Gridley, L. Selborne, E.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, Selkirk, E.
L. Sharples, B.
Harmar-Nicholls, L. Strathclyde, L.
Harmsworth, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]
Henley, L.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.] Swansea, L.
HolmPatrick, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Howe, E. Trefgarne, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Trumpington, B.
Joseph, L. Ullswater, V.
King of Wartnaby, L. Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Kitchener, E. Wakeham, L.
Knollys, V. Whitelaw, V.
Lauderdale, E. Wynford, L.
Long, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Forward to