HL Deb 10 February 1994 vol 551 cc1698-710

3.30 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [The local government areas]:

The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. I: Page 2, line 12, at end insert: ("( ) Any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I should say that the Government have taken note of the comments of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee regarding the power accorded to the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1) to change by order the name by which a preserved county is known. The Government have therefore brought forward this amendment which makes that particular power subject to the negative resolution procedure of Parliament. In fact the Government do not envisage the need for a name change arising very often. The most likely event would be if one of the principal councils in the area of a preserved county were to change the name of its area so that it was the same as, or similar to, that of the preserved county. Whatever the circumstances, the Secretary of State would wish to consult locally before putting forward any proposal to change the name of a preserved county. For those reasons we feel that the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, as a member of the committee making that recommendation I should like to put on record my thanks to the noble Lord for the amendment, which is entirely appropriate. As there is no amendment tabled by the Minister to Clause 52, if he is able, without notice, to address the question of why that should be so, I would be most grateful. Perhaps he will bring it in at a later stage. That was also the subject of a recommendation in paragraph 13 of the report.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, I believe that there will be an opportunity at a later stage in connection with one of the amendments which is down on the Marshalled List to come to that point. I shall address the matter at that stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule I [The New Principal Areas]:

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 2: Page 48, line 12, column 2, after ("Meirionnydd") insert ("together with (from the District of Aberconwy) the communities of Betws y Coed, Bro Garmon, Bro Machno, Capel Carig, Dolgarrog, Dolwyddelan, Llanrwst, Trefriw and Ysbyty Ifan.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. One amendment gives and, as noble Lords will see, the other takes away. The purpose of the amendments is to move the nine community councils mentioned in the amendment from the county borough of Aberconwy and Colwyn to the principal area of Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire.

My reasons are as follows. First, these community councils have expressed a wish to remain in Caernarfonshire, and indeed have voted to do so. Secondly, historically and culturally they have been tied with Caernarfonshire. Thirdly, the communities are rural and would prefer to remain with a rural council rather than a county borough, which, as I understand it, is supposed to be urban. Fourthly, the switch to Caernarfonshire would not materially affect the numbers in Aberconwy and Colwyn. The total population in the community in Aberconwy and Colwyn is 106,236, whereas in the nine communities to which I have referred it numbers only 7,241. I beg to move.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in these amendments. I happen to know the areas fairly well. Their affinity is certainly with Caernarfonshire and not with the proposed change to the county borough.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, the decision to merge the existing districts of Aberconwy and Colwyn to form a single unitary authority has, I believe, been well received in the areas concerned. I give as an example to my noble friend Lord Stanley the fact, that as I understand it, the two existing district councils are already working together closely to prepare the way for the establishment of the new authority.

The proposed new authority brings together areas which have similar social, economic and cultural characteristics. The effect of the amendment would be to remove from Aberconwy and Colwyn and to place in Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire an area which, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, is relatively small in population, though it is large in area. It does that by drawing a line just north of Llanrwst which would split in two what is in fact a discernible community along the length of the Vale of Conwy.

The Government have not received any representations which suggest that boundary revisions along the lines proposed by the amendment would have widespread support in the areas concerned. But that said, I shall bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what has been said in the House today, and he may wish to consider the matter further in that light.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for that statement. I must say that my local information is contrary to what he has heard; it is that the nine communities have expressed a very strong desire to go back to Caernarfonshire. I have to admit that two of them were in Denbighshire before, but that area is more or less like Caernarfonshire. I thank my noble and learned friend for his statement, and I shall leave the matter at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brooks of Tremorfa moved Amendment No. 3: Page 48, line 17, column 2, at end insert ("and (from the community of Taffs Well) the wards of Taffs Well and Ty Rhiw with (from the district of the Vale of Glamorgan) the communities of Barry, Dinas Powys, Llancarfan, Llandough, Michaelston, Penarth, Pendoylan, Peterson Super Ely, St. Nicholas and Bonvilston, Sully and Wenvoe.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and in Committee stage about extending the boundaries of Cardiff. I make no apologies for raising the issue once again. After all, we are concerned about the future of the capital city of Wales.

The proposal in the Bill, effectively to return Cardiff to its situation before the 1974 reorganisation, would be a tragic mistake. It would also be a lost opportunity with serious repercussions for the whole of Wales. I am not alone in taking that view. It was heartening to receive such eloquent support at Committee stage from my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Hooson and Lord Aberdare, and my noble friends Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, all of whom have an intimate knowledge of the city and its history. There was widespread recognition from all sides that this is indeed a matter of national importance, not simply confined to the narrow interests of the views of the Cardiff and Vale district councils. Indeed, only the Government remained to be convinced.

I trust that the Government will today respond to the real needs of Wales and the ever growing consensus which clearly now exists in favour of the proposal which I put forward. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did his best to explain the Government's reasons for opposing my amendment. He made three points. The first two were wrong, and the third gave only a misleading part of the story.

The noble and learned Lord began by claiming that Cardiff had arrived at its present status as a great capital city within its present boundaries. The truth is that in order for Cardiff to establish itself as the undisputed capital city of Wales, governments of all persuasions have found it necessary to extend the city limits. Cardiff city's boundaries have been expanded six times since the end of the last century.

The noble and learned Lord's point was equally invalid if referring to developments in recent years. The major progress made by Cardiff over the past 20 years is recognised by many people. But that progress has been achieved, not by an authority working within restricted boundaries, but by an authority which has been able to take a wider perspective and form links and partnerships with the private sector and other agencies to benefit Cardiff and its hinterland. Wales needs a capital city which has not only responsibility for local government functions but also the capacity to continue the exciting developments which are getting under way.

In response to the widely held view that Cardiff needs room to grow, the noble and learned Lord said that the Government believe that there is enough land available for the expansion of Cardiff for the foreseeable future within its existing boundaries. I have access to the most recent assessments by the Land Authority for Wales and I can say that the Cardiff unitary authority proposed in the Bill has enough land for only the next five years and it will run out of land for industrial and commercial development within the next 10 years. The noble and learned Lord has written to me on that point. All I can say is that I disagree with his interpretation of the facts.

It will interest the House to know that the existing Cardiff City Council itself acknowledges the major problem of shortage of land for both housing and industrial development. A report to the city council in 1991 by its head of development noted: There was still currently a high demand for land from a range of market sectors both for indigenous business growth and inward investment purposes, but there was little land available for any such purposes. Remaining land largely consisted of small infill sites on existing estates; its availability for inward investment purposes was in particularly short supply and compared poorly with other nearby areas".

Similarly, a report by Cardiff City Council's director of land and valuation in 1993 said: South East Cardiff is the only area of the city that can cater for industrial and business expansion during the next decade or so";

and this site is earmarked as a site of special scientific interest, with the problems of dealing with a major investment in sea wall defences.

In fact, that was acknowledged by the chairman of the city council's land committee in a letter dated 24th January 1994 to members of his party's group in which he states that Tai Cymru (Housing for Wales) is concerned that insufficient land is available to it to meet the housing needs of the 11,000 people on the housing waiting list in South Glamorgan. He goes on to state that the city's main land bank is in South East Cardiff and extends to only 30 acres, which includes industrial and residential land.

He also refers to the sea defences that are required and which have not yet been put in place, resulting in the main land bank, in his view, being blighted and making it impossible for the council to achieve its policy objectives —for example, to build social housing and to bring forward land for industrial development. Industrial development land is desperately needed to secure employment opportunities for the 21,000 unemployed people in Cardiff and the Vale and for the 61,000 other people seeking work on the city's doorstep.

The noble and learned Lord concluded by claiming that my proposal would be bitterly resented by the population of the Vale of Glamorgan and that it was not desired by either the Cardiff City Council or the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Self-preservation is always a regressive instinct. Understandably, they have consistently striven for one thing: their own survival.

But what evidence is there for claiming that the local population rejects my proposal? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord is relying on dubious opinion polls conducted by the two district councils three years ago. The Cardiff City poll took place during July to September 1991. The Vale of Glamorgan poll was done in the same year. Both are three years out of date and neither sought the views of the people about my proposals.

The noble and learned Lord may have been influenced by the view of a small number of community councils in the area. Only half of them supported an independent Vale of Glamorgan. Those 12 community councils represent only 18 per cent. of the population of that district. It is notable that none of the town councils in the Vale supported the case for two authorities serving Cardiff and the Vale. Indeed, Llantwit Major Town Council, on the western boundary of the Vale district, and Penarth Town Council, on the edge of the Cardiff Bay development, supported the case for a single unitary authority. Community councils representing 82 per cent. of the people in the Vale did not submit responses in support of the White Paper's proposals. The most recent survey conducted by the South Wales Echo is the most extensive ever carried out in Wales seeking the views of the people living and working in Cardiff and the Vale.

My proposal was put to the people of Cardiff and the Vale as recently as last month in the form of a detailed questionnaire. It formed part of a comprehensive consultation campaign about the actions needed to develop Cardiff as a leading European capital. So far, the returns from about 1,000 local people show an overwhelming 90 per cent. in favour of a future Cardiff which my proposal aims to put into effect.

My proposal also has the support of the business community in Wales, not just the leading companies in Cardiff but also the major commercial organisations throughout Wales. They are realistic people who know that a strong and successful capital is essential if Wales is to be a major player in the European economy. Noble Lords will know from their own postbags that I have the support of voluntary organisations, academic institutions, the trade unions, the business community and the local press. The adjoining county of Mid-Glamorgan is also in full agreement with my amendment.

I have explained the reasons for my amendment on two previous occasions in this House. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I briefly summarise the case again. As it stands under the current proposals, Cardiff simply does not have the room to grow into the major European capital that its economy demands and its public deserves. The House must question the Government's proposals which create a capital city which is half the size of the neighbouring towns of Bridgend and Newport and two-and-a-half times smaller than Swansea.

More significantly, Cardiff—a capital city—will be half the size of Edinburgh and a quarter of the size of Brussels and Stuttgart. It will have a population of only 280,000 which will not allow it to compete with other regional capitals. The capital is simply running out of land, which will result in Cardiff either developing on and destroying its current open spaces or developing on land bordering the green belt surrounding the city. The importance of international links to the city cannot be over emphasised. The current proposals take Cardiff (Wales) Airport outside the boundaries of the local authority serving Cardiff, thereby destroying the vital link to potential investors and visitors.

The motto of the City of Cardiff is Deffro maen dyth —Awake, it is day. I believe that the day has arrived to take Cardiff into the 21st century. I beg to move.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Merlyn-Rees

My Lords, I rise to support briefly the spirit of the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Brooks. My purpose is to ask the Government how they have come to their conclusions about the boundaries of that part of South East Wales. I could also ask the same question about other parts of Wales. On what basis have the boundaries been drawn?

When I was first in the other place, the government of the day created the Greater London Council. It was supposed to be the answer to the problems of Greater London. That council has gone. Later, in the early 1970s, the government of the day created the metropolitan counties. I lived in one in West Yorkshire. They were to be the answer to the problems of local government. They have all gone. One could mention other changes to boundaries that have been made in the past 20 years which have certainly not stood the test of time as have those which were made 100 years ago for the county boroughs and the urban and rural districts.

So when I study and read again the proposals that are now made for Wales, and indeed for other parts of the United Kingdom, to put it mildly I am sceptical. I do not know the basis on which decisions have been taken. In South Wales, where I was born and to which I have returned to live after nearly half a century, it is said, behind hands, that some of the changes in South Wales in 1974 were made for political reasons. When we hear some of the problems in regard to quangos about which we were told today, one perhaps can believe that.

Now that I have returned to Wales, I find it a changed Wales —it would be surprising if it were not. It is a more self-confident Wales with great changes having taken place industrially—most for the better but some, sadly, for the worse. Nevertheless, there is a great confidence and Cardiff is seen as it was not seen in my day—as the capital city of a Principality of an emerging part of the United Kingdom that will play a fuller part in the economy of the United Kingdom, and indeed of Europe.

I was surprised at the changes that had taken place. The point I wish to emphasise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is that my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa raised, in a brief manner, the views of a group of businessmen from the Cardiff area who are in favour of extending and making Cardiff larger. I presume they sent the same document to the Government, who no doubt studied it. I know some of those businessmen and they are certainly not all supporters of my party; in fact, that is true of practically all of them. And if they stick their necks out to put this view, it is for some other reason than for political advantage. They say: We are of the view that there is an overwhelming case in favour of a single unitary authority for Cardiff based entirely or largely on the existing County area". On what basis do the Government say nay to that? What is their reasoning behind it? Is there a political reason? Is there a need to look after the parliamentary boundaries on the eastern side plus of the city? I do not suggest that there is. But those businessmen say that there is an overwhelming case. This is a government who listen to businessmen and the businessmen think in that way. They continue, We believe it is self-evident that this would be administratively less costly and more efficient than two unitary authorities". Surely the Government are concerned to provide something that is less costly and more efficient. They continue, And it is our considered judgement that it would also ensure that the Cardiff (and Wales) success story of the past 15 years continues, to the benefit of all the people of Cardiff, the Vale and indeed the whole of Wales". I have not lived in Wales for 50 years, and on my return I found, unlike the days of 20, 30 or 40 years ago when people worked in their localities, large numbers came down from the valleys to work in Cardiff. It is becoming the light industrial hub of the valleys. It is an important place; it is a flourishing place. Should we not give it a national status, a size, a financial base which would be to the advantage of Wales? I ask the Government: what is wrong with the analysis of those businessmen? On what basis is the smaller Cardiff being put forward to this House? It would assist us all in deciding how to vote if we knew what the Government's thinking was on the matter. That is why I support the spirit of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.

Baroness White

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House because an excellent presentation of the case for this group of amendments has already been made by my two noble friends. But I should like to sustain the argument which started on the Second Reading of the Bill. Anybody who has any close knowledge of the area must be of the opinion that it is incomprehensible why the Government should wish to keep the total areas covered by Amendment No. 3 in separation one from the other.

I too am less familiar with the area than I was a few years ago, when I had close relationships with Cardiff. I still have good relationships there and know a number of the people who signed the businessmen's letter, which probably also reached other Members of this House. I am delighted to see that for once the CBI and the Transport and General Workers' Union are as one. They say that if we are going to have the kind of prosperity which we seek, we cannot do it with this detached pattern of local government.

We should pay no attention to the strong arguments which have already been put forward. Some people may have reservations, though I know it is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa holds strong views in the opposite direction. I am not sure because I do not know enough about whether the area should extend so far as the airport. Nobody knows quite what the airport will turn into under this administration. At the moment it is the concern of three major local authorities. I do not want to bemuse the House by going into that specific area of difficulty. But there is no doubt that one does not want a city of Cardiff which does not have, even now, the full range of services. It does not look after its social services, education and so forth. That may be altered under the other provisions of the Bill and I am not sure what the future will be in that regard.

To separate South Glamorgan, Cardiff and what used to be the flourishing areas on the Bristol Channel does not seem right. As a young person, I grew up in Barry and we looked out over the Bristol Channel, which was a busy place with a busy port. However, the coal and steel vanished. If we are to have the kind of industrial and social prosperity that we need, we must have a large area in which to operate. I say no more because, to those of us who know, the problem is self-evident. Something along the lines of the amendment of my noble friend is the only intelligent way of dealing with the prosperity in South Wales with which some of us are closely concerned.

Lord Kenyon

My Lords, being from North Wales, I hesitate to speak on the amendment. But as an elected member of a borough council, I am acutely aware of the problems that agreeing to the amendment would bring.

The City of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan are culturally two totally different regions and should be kept that way rather than being amalgamated into a massive authority which is against the wishes of the vast majority of the people in the area. It is being suggested on the grounds that there is a need for a super city, and that need transcends the fundamental principle of the Bill, which is to bring local government to the people. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, reminded us in Committee that they were always telling this Government to listen to the people, and then he went on to say that this was an exception.

Much was made at Committee stage of the suggestion that the boundary between Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan would form an artificial barrier which would strangle Cardiff's expansionist aspirations. But it is only an administrative boundary across which hundreds of thousands of citizens travel daily without knowledge of its existence. The City of Cardiff is just the hub of the economic region of South Wales. In one way or another its influence extends to every citizen of Wales. But that does not qualify it as a sole unitary authority for Wales.

There can be no doubt that if the amendment were to be agreed to, the balance of power and the authority created thereby would rest firmly with Cardiff and the needs of the Vale of Glamorgan would suffer. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

4 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I listened with care to the way in which my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa developed his case, but the amendment raises a deep issue; namely, whether there is a need to establish a greater Cardiff authority which would give our capital city the same growth opportunities as other major United Kingdom and European cities. My noble friend, as one would expect, presented his case with conviction. We have been reminded that the case is supported by the South Glamorgan County Council, by the Mid-Glamorgan County Council and by many business organisations and individuals. Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I too have seen the memorandum by the group of nine businessmen supportive of the amendment, which would, as they say, provide Cardiff with the space for controlled expansion. I have also received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union supporting the amendment.

Despite the strong plea of my noble friend, we on this Front Bench believe that the House cannot ignore the fact that Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council are strongly opposed to the amendment. So therein lies one major difficulty. Those two councils are, of course, the two district councils whose interests and fortunes are directly affected by the amendment. Indeed, the amendment challenges the very existence of a Vale of Glamorgan principal council. In fairness to my noble friend, that was touched upon by him.

I mentioned in Committee that the leaders of both district councils had informed me of their misgivings and anxieties. Since the Committee stage I have received from them a joint letter and literature. They have studied the speech of my noble friend in Committee and the case presented by the South Glamorgan County Council, but their anxieties are as yet undiminished. I have also received a number of letters from individuals—men and women who live in the community and are worried about the amendment and all that it implies for them. I have also to tell the House that I have seen copy correspondence between the two district councils and business organisations which are opposed to the amendment. So to the Front Bench on this side of the House it appears that there are many difficult questions which have yet to be resolved and possibly questions which have yet to be posed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa touched on some of the questions.

As I have said, there is no broad agreement between the South Glamorgan County Council, on the one hand, and Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan District Council, on the other, about the merits of the proposal. In the short time that has been available our members—members of the Labour Party—and active supporters of the Labour Party in local government have not been able to come to a view about the best way forward for Wales' capital city. For us that is another major consideration.

I have therefore to say on behalf this Front Bench that we are not this afternoon in a position to support or to oppose my noble friend's amendment. If my noble friend is not satisfied with the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and decides to test the opinion of the House, this Front Bench will in those circumstances abstain.

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

My Lords, before I respond to the points made on this matter by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, it may be helpful if at this stage I say just a very few words in general terms about the boundary issues in the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that in responding to the point made in Committee I undertook to report your Lordships' views to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I take this opportunity to say that I have done that. The position remains as I indicated in Committee. My right honourable friend has reflected and will reflect on the issues in the light of your Lordships' views, but before he reaches any conclusions on these matters he will also want to hear the views of the elected Members in another place.

I turn to the particular issues relating to Cardiff. As I pointed out in Committee, the Government have seen little evidence of widespread public opposition to the proposals for separate Cardiff and Vale of Glamorgan unitary authorities. On the contrary, we are aware of a great deal of public feeling in the Vale that is aroused in favour of the existence of a Vale of Glamorgan authority and is very much opposed to any idea of a greater Cardiff. As many of your Lordships will be aware, an organisation known as the Vale Defence Committee, which represents the views of all but one of the community councils in the Vale, mounted a very vigorous and well supported campaign for a Vale of Glamorgan unitary authority. That also was supported by many representations from private individuals, from businessmen and from other organisations.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I too have received in the time since the Committee stage literature and representations from private individuals as well. Indeed, nothing that has happened since the publication of the Bill suggests in any way that the passionately held views of those in the Vale of Glamorgan have changed. I am aware that there are members of the business community in Cardiff who are in favour of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, but there is little to suggest widespread concern in Cardiff that the interests of the city or of its residents would be better served by establishing an authority for greater Cardiff.

On the particular matters raised, the Government feel that there are indeed sufficient sites within the city boundaries, in particular in the Cardiff Bay area and in a range of other areas, both larger and smaller, on the periphery of the city as it exists, which are capable of meeting the city's housing and employment requirements over the longer term and which will come on stream as and when the need arises. I wrote to the noble Lord about that matter. The Cardiff City Council is on record as being of the view that the availability of land within its boundaries is sufficient to meet its needs and is not a constraint affecting the future economic welfare of Cardiff as a capital or in any way a constraint on it having appropriate status within Europe. The Government remain convinced therefore that the development of Cardiff will not be restricted in the way suggested on account simply of the fact that it will not have within its boundaries a population of some 400,000, which would have the effect of making it by far the largest of the authorities proposed for Wales.

Some of the suggestions made seem to ignore the facts of everyday life; for example, the idea—my noble friend Lord Kenyon mentioned it—that when these boundaries are drawn on the map they will somehow or other prevent people crossing them in the course of their business. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, suggested that the proposal was destroying the vital link to the airport. Nothing will happen which will prevent people travelling from Cardiff to the airport and using it in a proper way. There is nothing in these proposals which should put a restraint on the development potential of the area. What one wants to see of course is economic prosperity in the area and further development, but that will not be restrained by these proposals.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned the views of the leaders of Cardiff City Council and of the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council. Since the Committee stage I, like the noble Lord, have received a joint letter which reaffirms their support for the proposals in the Bill. I say to your Lordships that when we are considering this matter we really must bear in mind the very strongly held views of those leaders of the two elected councils for that area.

The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked: what are the kinds of principles which the Government have had in mind in putting forward the proposals for local government for Wales? These general principles have been set out in the White Paper at paragraph 3.1. The first principle is said to be, local authority boundaries should, as far as possible, reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties; and the second principle— local public services should be of high quality, and delivered efficiently, economically and effectively". Those are the principles which have been invoked in looking at the reorganisation and which have been borne in mind in connection with the proposal for Cardiff. We believe that we are indeed responding to the sense of community both in Cardiff and in the Vale of Glamorgan. We also believe that the authorities proposed would be of an appropriate size and so on, to be able to develop and deliver services of a high quality. The Government remain satisfied that the proposals in the Bill are the best for both the communities and in those circumstances I ask your Lordships to reject the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Brooks of Tremorfa

My Lords, I note that during the various stages of the progress of this Bill the Government have been able to find only one Member of your Lordships' House to support it. Under those circumstances I must test the opinion of the House.

4.13 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M. Brooks of Tremorfa, L. [Teller.]
Archer of Sandwell, L. Bruce of Donington, L.
Ardwick, L. Chapple, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Bottomley, L. Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Broadbridge, L. Cudlipp, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Kilbracken,
Diamond, L. Lawrence, L.
Elis-Thomas, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Falkender, B. Mallalieu, B.
Fisher of Rednal, B. [Teller.] Merlyn-Rees, L.
Foot, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Gladwyn, L. Milverton, L.
Hanworth, V. Molloy, L.
Harrowby, E. Mulley, L.
Healey, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Rea, L.
Hooson, L. Serota, B.
Howell, L. Stallard, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Stoddart of Swindon,
Hunt, L. L. Strabolgi, L.
Hylton, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Jay, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Jeger, B. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. White, B.
Kagan, L. Wilson of Rievaulx, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Aldington, L. Harlech, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Alexander of Weedon, L. Hayter, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Henley, L.
Alport, L. Hooper, B.
Annaly, L. Howe of Aberavon, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Howe, E.
Arran, E. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Kenyon, L.
Astor, V. Killearn, L.
Bauer, L. Knollys, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Lane of Horsell, L.
Beloff, L. Lauderdale, E.
Birdwood, L. Layton, L.
Blatch, B. Leigh, L.
Blyth, L. Long, V.
Boardman, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Lyell, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord
Brigstocke, B. Chancellor.]
Brougham and Vaux, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Burnham, L. Mancroft, L.
Butterworth, L. Marlesford, L.
Cadman, L. Merrivale, L.
Caithness, E. Mersey, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Carnock, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Morris, L.
Chelmsford, V. Mottistone, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Munster, E.
Cockfield, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Colnbrook, L. Norfolk, D.
Courtown, E. Norrie, L.
Cranborne, V. Onslow, E.
Cranworth, L. Orkney, E.
Croham, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Cumberlege, B. Park of Monmouth, B.
Darnley, E. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Davidson, V. Pender, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Perry of Southwark, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Pike, B.
Downshire, M. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Elles, B. Pym, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Rankeillour, L.
Elton, L. Rennell, L.
Erroll of Hale, L. Renwick, L.
Ferrers, E. Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Romney, E.
Gainford, L. Seccombe, B.
Gibson-Watt, L. Selborne, E.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Sempill, Ly.
Gisborough, L. Sharples, B.
Goold, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Goschen, V. [Teller.] St. Davids, V.
Stanley of Alderley, L. Swinfen, L.
Stewartby, L. Trumpington, B.
Stodart of Leaston, L. Vivian, L.
Strange, B. Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Strathclyde, L. Walton of Detchant, L.
Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. Westbury, L.
[Teller.] Willoughby de Broke, L.
Swansea, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Forward to