HL Deb 05 April 1995 vol 563 cc288-310

9.45 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. First, I should outline the purpose of the Bill, which is to prohibit professional boxing. It has nothing to do with boys' clubs or stopping amateur bouts. It is concerned simply with professional boxing and perhaps the debate could limit itself to the impact of professional boxing on our national life.

I speak with the full support of the British Medical Association. I suggest to your Lordships that the opinion of that authoritative body should be given some weight and consideration when making a judgment on the Bill.

The Bill has a long history. It was introduced by Lady Summerskill way back in 1962. I introduced the Bill in 1981 and again in 1991. I introduced it in 1991 because at that time most of us felt sensitive about that issue due to the very serious injuries that were caused to Mike Watson, who is now in a wheelchair and who will never really recover from the injuries caused to him on the night of his last fight.

Since then, of course, Bradley Stone, a young boxer who hoped, by going into the ring in London, to be able to pay off his mortgage and get married, has died in the ring in London.

And then some of us no doubt saw the last exhibition of national note—the fight between Nigel Benn and Gerald McLellan. It was the experience of watching that fight which induced me again to introduce this Bill. I remember quite clearly watching the fight because Nigel Benn emerged into the ring with a great deal of excitement and hype and across his dressing gown were the words "The Black Destroyer". Therefore, there was no doubt as to what was his purpose in the ring. By the same token, his opponent, Gerald McLellan, who as a hobby raises bull terriers in the United States, had said: I get a buzz from knocking people unconscious". That spectacle takes place in a ring. There is great excitement.

I received a letter this morning from a 16 year-old girl who is writing an essay on this subject at her school. I do not know who she is but she lives somewhere in Maidenhead. She quotes also Gerald McLellan: 'When I am in the ring with another fighter', he said recently, 'I look across the ring and see this guy I have so much hate for. I have so much desire to knock this guy unconscious'". Is that the kind of spectacle which we, in a civilised society, with some standards of human decency, should encourage or even permit? I am not a natural "banner". I am a bit of a libertarian. But there are certain activities which we introduce in our society which are stamped as being civilised. Boxing is not one of them.

Cases of damage to boxers are well documented in the literature of the British Medical Association. It is not only that people are killed in the ring, it is also the delayed effect on hundreds of boxers who subsequently suffer from dementia—the punch-drunk syndrome. The example of that which is known to most noble Lords is, of course, the sad and pathetic case of Muhammad Ali. He was a brilliant athlete in his day, but here he is today going about without much knowledge of what he is saying or doing. Muhammad Ali is one case which is well known. However, there are many cases of young boxers who are similarly afflicted. We must not only count the people who have been killed in the ring; we must also count those who have suffered long-term damage.

Very few boxers make money out of the business, although the initial incentive is that they hope to do so. That is particularly true now of young blacks, whereas it used to be more true of young working class boys.

In previous debates it has been pointed out to me that other sports are dangerous and people ask why we do not ban them. Of course other sports are dangerous, but boxing is the only sport in which people are committed to doing damage to other people. That is the purpose: knocking them unconscious. That is the buzz.

Of course, people are damaged by playing rugby football or other sports. But that is not the purpose of the sport; it is incidental to it. Other people have told me that boxing teaches discipline. But do we need that kind of thing to teach discipline? Is the only way that we can teach discipline to introduce youngsters into the ring to try to knock each other unconscious? People also say that it is a good thing that the boys' clubs practise boxing and that they do not do very much harm, indeed, they do some social good. I would concede that point. But the Bill is not about boys' clubs. I am not sure that it is the only way in which one keeps boys off the streets of the East End of London or Glasgow. There are other sports and other activities which could be encouraged and which are much more socially desirable than boxing.

If one considers, for example, the Nigel Benn versus Gerald McLellan fight, it will be realised that all such contests are created in an atmosphere of excitement and hype. What we are doing is glamorising violence in a world where violence is one of the greatest dangers to our society and to decency in that society. Let us forget about boxing being a noble art. The man who wins is the man who knocks the other fellow unconscious. That is the purpose of the sport.

Certain people have pointed out to me that if we ban boxing we will drive it underground. However, that has not happened in Scandinavia, where the sport has been banned. No one can believe that boxing would survive as an underground sport. We banned cockfighting in this country. Why did we do so? Why did we ban bare knuckle fighting? We did so because we felt that such things were offensive in our society.

The British people have shown a great sensitivity as regards the welfare of animals. We have seen that in recent cases involving the export of animals abroad. We have in the past banned cockfighting. I cannot understand the people who become all alarmed and excited about damage to animals and who are not equally and deeply concerned about damage to other human beings in a public spectacle. I would suggest to those of us who really want to see a better and more decent society that we should seriously consider why this so-called sport should not be banned. I leave it at that at this stage.

During the previous debate on this subject there was a most moving contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who looked at this matter—as inevitably he would—as a Christian. I try to do the same myself. I consider that our lives are a treasure given to us by God and we have no right to destroy this intricate mechanism or do damage to our bodies if we live in trust. I suggest to those noble Lords who profess the Christian faith that this is a most unchristian activity of setting one human being against another intent on doing him physical damage. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Taylor of Gryfe.)

9.56 p.m.

The Viscount of Oxfuird rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is unable to be with us this evening but I draw comfort from his interest in the subject. Probably most noble Lords know that he spoke in the previous debate on this matter on 4th December 1991 when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, introduced exactly the same Bill as is before your Lordships. On that occasion the Bill was rejected. It is only just over four years since your Lordships have had the chance to address the subject. We must ask what has changed to make it essential that we have to invest parliamentary time on the same subject again, and in such a short timescale.

I would remind your Lordships that last evening the Commons were presented with a similar Motion on a 10-minute Bill and that was defeated on a ratio of 2:1, or 120 votes to 60. That does not mean to say that we cannot have our own opinion.

My experience of boxing goes back to my school days. I have no hesitation in admitting that in those days I was feared when I went into the ring. However, I drew strength from being taught properly and from winning a couple of bouts at the end of the day. It was part of the character forming training in a school that prided itself on the number of old boys who ended up as members of the country's national rugby side, the All Blacks.

Today the sport suffers from the voice of the "banners" but it serves a function. It helps young men to learn discipline, responsibility and competitive skills, particularly, I understand, within the National Association of Boys Clubs. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, would rather we did not discuss this, and even though the proposal is to ban professional boxing, boxing as a sport has to be considered.

I believe that if the promotion of this sport were to be made illegal, as defined in this Bill, there would be a most dangerous result. The management of the sport would fall into the hands of the unqualified. It would be driven underground, and therefore be deprived of the valuable regulation that is required to avoid many of the obvious pitfalls inherent in what is a potentially dangerous pastime, as in the case of other confrontational sports such as kick-boxing. I understand that kick-boxing was banned in Ontario. It has now moved to Quebec, where it continues. Even sports such as karate and other closely allied Japanese personal confrontational sports are all, in essence, included in this Bill.

In considering the merits or otherwise of this sport of boxing we are not dealing with a recent phenomenon but a sport—some would say even an art form—that can be traced back to the ancient Greeks, even to 688 BC.

Since the 18th century boxing has been made very much more acceptable in the eyes of many by the use of padded gloves, the invention of which is generally credited to Jack Broughton, who was for many years champion boxer of England. There is even a thought abroad today that gloves are not the answer and that bare knuckle fighting has the benefit of the protection of pain. That is a thought we shall dwell on another time.

The most popular 18th century teacher of the art was John Jackson, sometimes known as Gentleman John Jackson. Among his pupils was Lord Byron, who when chided for keeping company with a pugilist insisted that Jackson's manners were: infinitely superior to those of the fellows of the college whom I meet at high table". It was around 1866 when John Chambers and the 8th Marquess of Queensbury drew up a code to cover all boxing contests in the United Kingdom. Those rules remain substantially the governing rules of boxing today.

If we were debating this evening the possibility of new codes of practice to tighten up the existing regulations concerning improved referee responsibility or tighter medical controls on the sport, I for one would be prepared to give the proposals a sympathetic hearing. So, I believe, would the British Boxing Board of Control, whose work has been unstinting not only in protecting the sport but also in going beyond even overseas control bodies in ensuring that the boxer is fit to undertake the task he faces and that there are no problems before he goes into the ring and as soon as the fight is over. Such protection is available right through the fight, and is an example to every institutional body of this type.

Sadly, that is not the case. The Bill we are debating tonight, as drafted, proposes an outright ban on boxing for profit. As I have said, that would have the effect of driving underground into an unregulated regime an activity which rightly requires a certain level of regulation. But it also requires a high level of exposure.

I have been advised that there has already been one case of a senior boxer, who fears the advent of this very Bill or similar legislation, who has been involved in such an unlicensed fight. If that continues, then we face real problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, spoke of Norway, Sweden and Iceland, where professional boxing has been banned. I do not know whether he is aware that the distance from Sweden to Denmark is a little over half-an-hour by ferry. All the boxer has to do is to go by boat to Denmark where he can be licensed; and with perhaps a little more money in his pocket he can come to this country. Therefore the question of this issue going underground has nothing to do with the situation in that country. In fact, our friends from Scandinavia may possibly be rather more law-abiding than we are, and for a very good reason. Their ethnic and cultural structure is more consistent than ours. Instead of going underground, those who wish to pursue a professional boxing career can simply get on a ferry.

I well remember when I lived in Sweden that Ingemar Johanssen was the country's hero at the time he fought for the world heavyweight championship. We are considering the future of an ancient sport which has shown itself ready and willing to adapt to sensible regulation over the years. Adaptation and not banning is the answer. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at the end insert ("this day six months").—(The Viscount of Oxfuird.)

10.7 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, in speaking to this Bill there are two matters that I have to make clear. First, I do not speak on behalf of my party. As I believe we are about to find out, it is a subject which will split all parties in your Lordships' House. I have an interest too, although non-pecuniary, as I am vice-president of the Lonsdale Club.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, stated that he was interested in professional boxing. Amateur boxing would not be able to survive for the simple reason that the Bill, as drafted, refers to no boxing matches for profit. Amateur boxing clubs survive on funds generated from their displays and tournaments. The noble Lord shakes his head, but let me assure him that that is correct.

The Bill totally fails to take into account the fact that many other full contact, striking martial arts take place in this country. If this measure has to be all encompassing, it should take those into account. I refer to kick-boxing or Thai boxing. The Bill would have to define—it does not do so—exactly what one means by boxing. As we all know, the way one gets round something that has an illegal name is to give it another name. The Thai equivalent in English—kick-boxing—would quite easily get around this Bill. There is also full contact tae kwon do and karate. Those sports are infinitely more dangerous because one is allowed to kick at the head.

One has to take into account that martial arts are the greatest growth area in sport in Britain. That is a fact. There is a great diversity of activity. When people go into a martial arts contest, they seek to achieve physical dominance. Most of those sports are regulated by a points system. The stoppage can be regarded as a way of terminating the contest when someone is unfit to continue.

The noble Lord made a good and well-crafted speech on the moral ground that one is seeking to destroy someone. Possibly the stoppage may be regarded as a safety valve. It depends how one looks at such matters.

No matter what is said on the issue, boxing is a martial art, if one defines such sports as karate as being a martial art. Such sports do not make contact all the time but limit contact until the higher levels of the sport. Moreover, how long will it be before we stop any game in which you drive at somebody or run at them, as happens in Rugby Union or Rugby League, to try to knock them out of the way? That is allowed in both those rugby football codes. I know because I have played those games. On occasions, you run at someone to knock him out of the way and another person will run at you to try to knock you flat. That is the sport.

On the grounds on which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has brought forward this Bill, those two sports of Rugby Union and Rugby League would have to be stopped. So would American gridiron football as well. In those sports, players run at each other to knock them out of the way and achieve physical dominance. There is a line of logic that derives from the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord can see that. I cannot put it more clearly.

It may surprise noble Lords to know that the sport which carries the highest death toll in this country is hill-walking. Moreover, motor racing—and motorcycling, as my noble friend says in an aside—also carries risks. Many sports are inherently dangerous. I suggest that this Bill is fundamentally flawed in both its drafting and approach. We can discuss the moral arguments later. However, I suggest that the Bill itself does not address the issues raised in the noble Lord's speech. The Bill is too narrowly drawn. It is a blunt instrument and badly aimed. It aims at professional boxing but it will eliminate the way in which amateur boxing is funded.

I hope that, when noble Lords consider how they will vote on this amendment, they will take into account all the secondary issues. They should not simply consider the very good speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. As it is currently constructed, the Bill will stop any sport which is deemed to be boxing—or any martial art—at an amateur level because it will cut off its funding. We must consider this matter very carefully.

10.14 p.m.

Lord Brooks of Tremorfa

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Taylor reminded us, we have debated this topic on a number of occasions. The last time I went into some detail of the history of boxing in the United Kingdom. I do not intend to do that again tonight. It is rather late and I do not feel that we should profit much from it. In any case, the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, has done it for me.

However, I want to make clear at the outset that I am an administrative steward of the British Boxing Board of Control, a member of the area council of the Wales Boxing Board of Control and a patron of the Welsh Ex-Boxers' Association. I also have a number of other involvements in boxing. None of them is financial. Indeed, if there is a financial input, it comes from my pocket.

I have been fascinated by boxing ever since I was a very young boy. My uncle had a gymnasium in Cardiff in the area where I was born, which was a very much deprived area. I learnt a number of lessons as a result of being taught by my uncle how to defend myself. I learnt that it was wrong to bully. I learnt that it was wrong to suffer bullies. I also learnt humility.

I remember that, after I had been going to the gymnasium for a couple of years, I was bullied by someone in my school. He was the bane of my life until I could stand it no longer and we fought. I beat him; and I beat him because of the disciplined training I had received from the gymnasium I attended.

Let me bring that experience up to date. A couple of years ago a world champion was due to defend his title in the north of England. On arrival here it was discovered that he was medically unfit. The television had been booked for the show and all the seats had been sold. I was asked whether I thought that a young Cardiff boxer named Steve Robinson would be a fit opponent to fight for the title.

At that time Steve Robinson had a mixed record. My answer was that I did not believe it would be a mismatch. I did not think that Robinson would win, but I felt that he would be a worthy opponent. In the event Robinson won the World Boxing Organisation featherweight title. Steve Robinson is a black boy from a council estate in Ely, a very deprived estate which had terrible publicity a few years ago. At the time he fought for the title he was earning £80 a week stacking shelves in a supermarket. He has gone on to defend the title five times, has earned hundreds of thousands of pounds and is now settled for life.

I cannot describe Steve Robinson adequately. He is one of the most humble young men I have ever met. A great deal of affection has grown for him in Cardiff. He is a role model for the many hundreds of young people on the Ely estate. But the irony is that about the time he won that title, two young thugs—contemporaries of Steve Robinson from the estate—were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for beating to death an innocent elderly man. I am not suggesting that Steve Robinson might have turned out to be a thug if he had not been a boxer with the discipline that had been instilled into him by virtue of that. But I suggest that if those young thugs had had the discipline that Robinson received in the gymnasium, one elderly innocent man might still be alive today.

That is one of the lessons one is taught. I am afraid that I was never very good at boxing. In fact I share a distinction with the late, great, Rocky Marciano, former heavyweight champion of the world. He boxed 49 times and won all 49 contests; that is 100 per cent. I boxed four times and lost on each occasion. That is 100 per cent. also, whichever way one looks at it.

My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe says that Sweden abolished professional boxing and yet it has not gone underground. Of course not; it has gone across the border. Young men of ability in boxing who wish to make a career in the professional game have simply gone across the border to Denmark and taken out a licence. Ingemar Johannsen can be seen at the ringside at British shows commentating for Scandinavian television. So even if the Bill were successful, it would not stop young British boys turning professional and earning money boxing. They would simply pop over to France, Belgium, Germany or wherever, take out a licence, and the fights in which they were engaged in other countries would be beamed by satellite television to this country. That is the reality of life.

I am not suggesting that simply because we have modern innovations there is no merit in what my noble friend is trying to do. But the burden of the case is this. There are many thousands of young men in this country who go to boxing gymnasiums and learn the disciplines and skills of boxing. And if anybody believes that there is no skill in boxing then they should try it. I do not know of one champion at any level who was a mere slugger. One must learn the science of boxing to become a champion. There is great skill involved in it and we would be doing a disservice to the youth of this country, a disservice to sport, if a Bill of this nature were ever to pass either this House or another place.

10.19 p.m.

Lord Belhaven and Stenton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is what we Scots call "a bonny fighter". I am not sure whether that is apposite to the Bill but we have been here before, as has been pointed out, and I dare say we will be here again. The noble Lord's views on boxing are consistent and very well known to your Lordships. I used to agree with him, but I have changed my mind, as he knows and as I have told him. So let me say, first, where I agree with him.

I agree that professional boxing is a barbarous sport. I do not really agree with my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, because there is no real protection against the brain damage caused by professional boxing. There cannot be. It is the closest thing we have to the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome. It is a mixture of skill and savagery. That is why it is popular; and, so long as human beings remain what they are, it is likely to remain popular. That said, no one today becomes a professional boxer without being aware of the risks of long-term brain damage. It is voluntary, unlike the gladatorial games, and often very rewarding financially. It may be, and often is, that when the boxer has amassed his fortune his damaged brain does not allow him to enjoy it very much or possibly keep it for very long. If he is not aware of these risks at the start, he will probably be too stupid to be a good boxer and his brain, such as it is, will remain unimpaired.

I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because he wants the sport to he banned. We are at the stage today when far too many people want to ban activities of which they disapprove. I hasten to acquit the noble Lord of being one of those as his views have been consistent over very many years. But here we are. We have smoking, drinking, fox hunting, boxing—I could go on. There is a long list of activities which are now legal but which various pressure groups wish to make illegal. That cannot be a healthy state of affairs in a free country.

I have recently received letters which the British Medical Association has been good enough to write to me. I dare say that I am not alone among your Lordships in that. The latest was, predictably, on boxing. As I recall, the letter started with the proposition that the case against amateur boxing is not proven. It ended with the statement that the British Medical Association seeks a ban on all boxing. Why all boxing? I suppose that it would like us to end up with notices depicting a pair of boxing gloves with a red line through them in all boys' clubs and gymnasiums, in the same way as the ubiquitous no smoking notices.

I am aware that doctors have to be there to pick up the pieces when we fall ill owing to our own foolishness, but I would say to the BMA that it knows better than most of us that life is a very uncertain thing. There is a certain randomness in the way in which the British Medical Association chooses those activities of which it disapproves. I shall not say much about this, but we all know that sodomy leads to AIDS. However, there is no campaign against it by the British Medical Association. There also seems to be a tendency to disregard anything which may be found in favour of any activity which it happens to dislike. No facts which tend to show that smoking may in certain cases be beneficial are allowed to disrupt the seamless web of its disapproval. The fact that boxers, as we have heard, may possess a certain nobility of character and courage beyond the ordinary and that those qualities are desirable, especially in young men, is brushed aside. I sometimes think that some of these researchers start at their conclusion and then work backwards.

Free men have a right to a free choice. Smoking, boxing, fox hunting and drinking alcohol all carry risks. But people have a right to take those risks. Whether we approve or disapprove of those activities is up to us, but I do not believe that they should be banned by law.

10.24 p.m.

Lord Airedale

My Lords, if this Bill gets its Second Reading, as I hope it will, we shall certainly be in for an interesting Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Addington will see to that.

I was discussing professional boxing the other day over the lunch table with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I was saying to him that I could not understand why anyone wanted to spend £100 or more on a ringside seat when if one liked that sort of thing one could see it for nothing on the box. The noble Lord said to me, "You are forgetting something. With a ringside seat you have the added thrill that you may be bespattered with blood". I must say that that is one of the things that would not appeal to me.

The fans will tell you that they do not go to watch anybody get hurt—oh no! They go to watch the skill. Why is it that most of the big fights are between big men? Do not the little men exercise just as much skill as the big men?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, more

Lord Airedale

My Lords, or more so indeed, but they are not so strong or likely to knock each other unconscious and so the crowds tend to keep away. I believe that that says something about the crowds who turn up for big fights between big men. Whether professional boxing can really be called a sport at all I rather doubt. It is certainly part of the entertainment industry, but whether it is in truth a sport I would doubt.

Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, said, the doctors are going to win this argument in the end. They have won it already over smoking. There is a little way to go, but smoking is becoming increasingly unacceptable in society and the doctors will go on pressing home the point that if your object is to knock people unconscious you are going to damage the brain and that is going to inflict permanent injury. The doctors will win this argument in the end. I wish that they could win it much sooner than looks likely.

10.27 p.m.

Earl Grey

My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised if I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Airedale. I would like to declare that I have an interest as I am president, and my noble friend Lord Addington is vice-president, of the Lonsdale International sporting club. In my case too it is purely an honorary position. The club's aims are to promote all sports, which includes boxing, at amateur and professional level and to raise money for such organisations as the National Association of Boys' Clubs which encourage boys to have a worthwhile purpose and a role in life.

I am not going to dwell long on opposing this Bill. Most of the arguments against it have already been raised. If passed, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Addington has emphasised, that this Bill will affect amateur boxing. It will prevent money being raised at these events for charitable purposes. I agree that boxing is a rough sport. Unfortunately, boxers have been seriously hurt and, tragically, some have died. That is a well-known risk which these people take and they are fully aware of the consequences.

It is my belief that boxing must be regulated from within. I must give praise to the British Boxing Board of Control for its continuous monitoring of regulations and safeguards. As regards injuries, a body of neurological surgeons has set up a working party to examine the board's requirements relating to head injuries et cetera. Britain has a high reputation for looking into the safeguards of the sport, and I believe that that should be noted.

A great many members of the public watch these events whether on television or at the actual event itself. If there was an overwhelming feeling against the sport and if people really opposed boxing, whether amateur or professional, they would stay away and boxing bouts would lose money. That is the answer: if people do not like boxing, they do not have to watch it or be involved in any way.

Professional boxing is big business and more money is involved in it than in any other sport of which I can think. It is not surprising if a young man with ability decides to pursue boxing as a career. I am satisfied that, especially in Britain, the controls and regulations are continually being monitored and conducted responsibly.

Mention has been made of boxing going underground. In some respects it is already an underground sport in that unlicensed boxers already take part in bouts that are watched by a great many people. If boxing is banned, that will happen to an even greater extent and will be an even greater danger to those involved. I shall not class boxing with such things as cock-fighting (which takes place in my part of the world, the west country) or with badger-baiting. However, although both of those barbaric sports have been banned, it is a well-known fact that they continue.

As I have said, other sports involve a higher degree of injury and death but I hear of no moves to ban them. In many cases I would not want to do so. For a number of years I was the manager of a power boat team involved in inshore power boat racing, such as on the Bristol docks. It was a highly dangerous sport. Over a period of two years about 12 or 13 years ago, eight drivers were killed, but nobody made any moves to ban that sport. Although a great many more drivers are killed or injured than boxers, there has been no outcry about that. It is obvious that I oppose the Bill.

10.32 p.m.

Lord Meston

My Lords, I must declare an interest as an appeal steward at the British Boxing Board of Control, unhappily with the same rather negative financial consequences as those suffered by the noble Lord, Lord Brooks.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, offers the House yet another return contest for this Bill—a similar Bill was defeated in 1962, in 1981 and most recently on 4th December 1991. On each occasion, it was soundly defeated on points. While admiring the noble Lord's persistence, I do not admire his Bill now any more than on the last occasion. As before, the Bill seeks to create a new criminal offence—that of organising boxing for profit. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that before creating any new criminal offence it is necessary to think carefully about the need to do so and the consequences of so doing.

This Bill is concerned only with professional boxing, although It is not clear to me why the professional sport is singled out. Presumably there is something in the professional element of that sport which the noble Lord finds particularly distasteful—

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, surely the noble Lord sees that there is a major difference between allowing people to fight each other for the sport of it and allowing society to pay them money—often a lot of money—to risk their lives and those of their fellow contestants. Does he not recognise that there is a strong moral difference between the two?

Lord Meston

My Lords, I do not see that there is a major difference. There is a difference between the two sports, such as the difference in the length of the rounds. There are certain other differences. There is, of course, a difference in that there is a commercial element in professional boxing which does not exist in amateur boxing; but, as was pointed out in the 1991 debate by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and has been pointed out this evening by, among others, my noble friend Lord Grey, the Bill's impact on the amateur sport has apparently not been properly considered. As I said, that point was raised in 1991 and there has been no attempt to deal with it in the drafting of the Bill before us tonight during the intervening three-and-a-half years or so.

The arguments for and against boxing in general, and professional boxing in particular, have not much altered, and they are unlikely to improve with age or repetition. I prefer the arguments that allow professional boxing to continue. For example, there is the argument based on the fundamental right of people to choose to enter a boxing ring knowing the risks and possible rewards. There are also the economic and social arguments based on the undoubted fact that over the years boxing has provided a living and opportunities for those from the most disadvantaged sectors of society and is a disciplined, skilful sport that requires fitness, agility and determination.

There are also comparative arguments. Other sports are responsible for more fatalities. During the previous debate in 1991 the then Government Minister gave figures for air sports, motor sports, mountaineering, ball games and horse riding. One can only presume that there are also relatively high levels of serious injury in such other sports. Moreover, some of those other sports endanger third-parties in a way that boxing does not. Motor sports endanger spectators, and mountaineering, potholing, and sports of that nature, endanger rescuers. Other comparisons can he made with the so-called martial arts which, with all due deference to my noble friend Lord Addington, I believe will be untouched by this Bill. Finally, there is the very strong argument that to criminalise boxing will drive it underground. Against that, it has been said tonight that apparently there is no illegal boxing in countries that have banned it. But those countries tend to be ones where there is little inherent boxing tradition. In this country, there is a long-standing, deep-rooted tradition which will defy criminalisation. We have to consider whether we want a legal sport carefully and responsibly run, as it is now, or an illegal sport without rules and safeguards that is conducted in remote and unsuitable venues.

We have within the British Boxing Board one of the best regulating bodies in the world. It always puts the interests and safety of boxers ahead of anything else. It is always alert to the latest neurological research. Without such an organisation the clock will go hack. There will be no rules concerning the length and number of rounds, the size of gloves and weights of fighters. There will be no proper matchmaking, medical checks or medical scrutiny. There will be none of the contractual protection that is now provided to boxers by the board. There will be none of the high standard of alert refereeing that is required of licensed referees. Of course, in a small number of cases things go wrong. The British Boxing Board constantly seeks to ensure that there are the best possible emergency procedures on hand at all major tournaments, and that the supervision provided by its officials is of the highest vigilance. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, asked what had changed. What has changed is that, if anything, the procedures are even better now than in 1991.

I briefly mention the role of the appeal stewards, because that is the area with which I am most concerned. I have been involved in appeals by boxers who have had their licences revoked because it has been considered that they have lost too many fights. Likewise, I was recently involved in an appeal in which a referee of great experience and long standing was considered to have acted a little too slowly in stopping a fight. His licence was revoked. Whether or not to allow him to continue to referee was a difficult decision. It was decided, with great regret, that he should not be allowed to do so. That indicates the degree of vigilance and care provided by a properly organised sport that one will not have for an illegal sport.

I am not concerned—none of us should be—to give an unduly romantic view of boxing. It is a hard sport, but it is still a sport that puts a premium on skilful scoring, rather than on brute force. It is still a sport which channels aggression, rather than creates it. It is still a sport which creates respect and self-respect. It is still a sport which is conducted largely in front of essentially well-behaved crowds.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that the object of boxing is to knock out one's opponent. Perhaps I may remind him that some of the best boxers, at all weights, have been boxers who have not always won all their fights by knock-outs. Some of the greatest boxers seldom scored a knock-out, and, with respect to my noble friend Lord Airedale, I would say that boxers at the lighter weights attract crowds which are there to admire their skill rather than their aggression.

I do not often agree with the Government's approach to things, but on this occasion I suggest that there is a great deal to be said for self-regulation rather than anything more drastic.

10.40 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I do not believe that he can seriously put forward that the injuries or fatalies suffered from boxing, as compared to other sports or pastimes mentioned by noble Lords, can justify the banning of boxing, whether it be boxing for financial reward or not. He takes a moral stand, and I respect that, but I do not share his views.

I am but a relatively obscure hereditary Peer with some fairly plebeian tastes. I like gambling, boxing and stand-up comics. I suppose that there is a connection among all three. I became keen on boxing as a young boy when I would get away from school on one pretext or another and go to watch the fairground booth boxers who no longer exist these days. That was stand-up comedy, if you like.

Since the noble Lord brought up the subject, the late Lady Summerskill, who was such a doughty campaigner against boxing, wrote a book called The Ignoble Art. Even at this late hour, perhaps I may get away from the main theme of the debate for a moment. The term "ignoble art" was not an idle term. It related to the 18th century when boxing, as we understand it, originated. It is a fairly modern sport. It was then something of a noble art. Unlike France and other other countries where, if disputes arose between the nobility and lesser mortals, there was likely to be a serious conflict involving weapons, we are told of many instances, particularly in the excellent work by Lord Knebworth—a standard work on boxing—of members of the English nobility (I am not sure about the Scottish nobility) who would settle such affairs with their fists.

There is the well-known case in the 18th century of the Duke of Grafton, who took a coach for hire and had a dispute about the fare—much as one would do outside London Airport today. Both he and the coachman took to their fists with a will. It is recorded that the Duke of Grafton won fairly and squarely. That tells us a good deal about the origins of boxing. It probably tells us even more about the unique character of the peerage compared with the nobility in other countries. It goes some way towards explaining how it has survived in the curious way that it has, even in your Lordships' House.

Boxing for money developed at the end of the 18th century. I had an ancestor—my great, great, great grandfather—who died in a duel, I am sorry to say. I wish that he had stuck to boxing. He would gamble with his contemporaries on fights between professional pugilists who used to meet by accident, or on purpose, on various heaths where the fights took place.

The injuries which occurred in those days rarely resulted in brain damage. The reason is simple. The human fist is not made for striking the human head, which is a delicate organism. The noble Lord, Lord Brooks, who spoke so eloquently and with such knowledge, may agree that the cause of brain damage is the revolving of the head as a result of being struck by a large glove. I suggest that if one wishes to reduce such accidents one must return to using a smaller glove, but that may not be possible. There is no question of returning to bare-knuckle fighting.

I know that the sport is looking at all those issues and at all others related to injury. I watch boxing closely and I know that the medical attention that is available at professional fights has improved greatly, even during the past three years. I suggest that the unfortunate boxer recently injured in a middleweight fight may not have survived five years ago because the attention that he would have received would not have been so prompt.

Surely we do not want to drive the sport underground. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, cannot seriously believe that it will not go underground. After all, fights involving small men can attract up to 11 million television viewers. I do not believe that, in the light of such interest, professional boxing would just disappear if it were banned. With such interest it is bound to go underground or abroad where it will be beamed to television sets in this country—

Lord Renton

My Lords, has the noble Viscount considered the fact that if it were to go underground there would be no hope of the large rewards being made to professional boxers?

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the rewards available to boxers would not be so large. Indeed, one of the aspects of professional boxing which I do not like is the enormous amount of money in the game. One must watch that most carefully. Perhaps the Minister in summing up will comment on that aspect. Where there are large pools of money and gamblers—and I know something about them—there is likely to be some skulduggery sooner or later. However, the authorities which control boxing watch that closely too.

I have nothing further to say on the subject. I enjoy boxing as do millions of other people. I do not take a moral stand about it and I do not feel inferior tonight because I do not have a moral reaction to it. I conclude by saying that if your Lordships want to hear about real violence they should ask a policeman how much violence he sees on Friday and Saturday nights as a result of the misuse of alcohol. How much enthusiasm do we have in this House for the control of the misuse of alcohol? How many impassioned speeches, such as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, do we hear on that subject? There are other areas that we can usefully look at to deal with violence.

10.49 p.m.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, there is a certain nostalgia about this debate. I came back into the Chamber especially to listen to it. To my personal knowledge, we have had such debates for more than 45 years. It is interesting—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, have I done something wrong?

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, there is a list of speakers. Is the noble Lord seeking to speak in the gap?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is there a gap?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, no, the noble Lord has missed it.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, while the list of speakers is something I support, and it makes this House particularly good, it is not absolutely sacrosanct. What is sacrosanct is that when a debate is taking place which is of some importance to the nation, every Member who is legitimately entitled to be here shall be free to express his point of view. That is what I am doing.

I merely wish to say that this is not a new subject. But what is new is that all noble Lords who have spoken are male. I used to enjoy these debates—and the arguments used were very similar—when Lady Summerskill on the one side and Mrs. Braddock on the other really showed us what knuckle-fighting was all about. I am delighted that my noble friend is to put the distaff side of the argument when she winds up the debate.

Baroness Trumpington

Am I Mrs. Braddock?

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lord, my noble friend asks whether she is Mrs. Braddock. She was a noble person who made a great contribution to Parliament over the past fifty years. My noble friend is also a noble person who has made a great contribution to our parliamentary procedures.

I felt that Mrs. Braddock always won the argument. I believe that her argument is as strong today as it was then; namely, that an organised sport is to be preferred to a disorganised sport. If this Bill is allowed to proceed as currently drafted, it is quite obvious, as it was 50 years ago, that the sport will not cease. We shall merely replace an organised sport with a disorganised sport. That would not be good from any point of view.

10.51 p.m.

Lord Donoughue

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, raised for us the appalling spectre of female violence in institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned policemen on a Friday night and other forms of violence. I do not know whether he has ever witnessed women's hockey. I have played virtually every sport that it is legal to play but I have never had the courage even to watch that.

I should stress that when I speak on boxing I am speaking personally, since your Lordships will be surprised to learn that the Labour Party has no official policy on the subject. I have discussed the matter formally with Labour's national heritage team. I know that what I say is in accordance with the views of my honourable friend in another place, the Shadow spokesman in the Commons, Tom Pendry. Both Tom Pendry and I boxed when younger. I believe that he did so for longer and certainly more successfully than I did. Some noble Lords may feel that my boxing experience is itself sufficient evidence of the brain damage risk involved.

There has long been anxiety about the medical aspects of boxing, which so genuinely concern my noble friend. When I was a founding member of the original Sports Council in the late 1960s chaired by my noble friend Lord Howell, we had long discussions on the subject led by Sir Roger Bannister, himself a distinguished neurologist. Like the country as a whole, we shared the anxiety but were divided as to what to do about it. I believe that there was a firm majority against banning the sport and I think that that would still he the view across society.

I have noticed that such concern becomes more active whenever there is a highly-publicised injury or fatality. As we have heard, Bills to ban boxing came before the House unsuccessfully in 1962, 1981 and 1991. Public concern was recently revived, as my noble friend pointed out, by the disabling injuries suffered by Gerald McLellan earlier this year against Nigel Benn. Before that, we remember Michael Watson against Chris Eubank. In the previous 15 years, Britain has seen the deaths of Johnny Owen, Steve Watts and Bradley Stone—a total, I believe, of 14 deaths in the 50 years since the war. I saw all of those recent fights on television and can vouch for how disturbing the experience can be.

The public is understandably concerned. However, there is an enormous difference between expressing concern and wishing sport to be safer—which I do—and actually taking the vast step to ban boxing. I do not believe that the facts justify that step. Thousands of sportsmen participate in boxing each year, the vast majority of whom never get near a professional championship or even a professional ring, never earn much money, and, indeed, never suffer serious related injuries. Especially in socially-deprived areas, boxing has always provided for many young boys a focus, a purpose, and a sense of achievement and self-respect. It often provides the first discipline in their lives which they willingly accept. Anyone who has seen the boys' boxing clubs in the deprived areas of our cities, as I have done, will know the truth and value of that.

Admittedly, boxing is, as has been said, a hard and demanding physical sport. It involves some physical risk. As was pointed out at the beginning of the debate, it is also unusual in that one of its objectives is to try to knock unconscious the opponent. That fact has always troubled me. However, it is not the only objective and most fights do not end that way. Certainly more would end that way if boxing were officially banned and driven underground, where fights would often be timeless until a knock-out took place, and without proper refereeing and medical supervision.

I should point out to my noble friend that boxing is not like cock fighting. Cocks do not choose to do it: boxers do. No one compels boxers to fight or spectators to watch boxing. If people are deeply offended by it on television, I recommend that they exercise their fundamental right to switch it off.

On the question of injuries and fatalities we must also, as others have done, set boxing in the context of other sports. Boxing injuries are usually highly publicised because they are witnessed on television by millions of viewers. But other less publicised sports are actually more dangerous. For example, fatalities and injuries in motor sports and water sports far exceed those in boxing.

I have heard it said that there are even more such injuries in fishing. That may arise from fishermen being pushed into the water by those animal rights terrorists.

More climbers were killed in the Scottish Cairngorms in 1994 than the total number of professional and amateur boxers killed since the war. So, as has been asked: do we ban climbing? Rugby football has a worrying injuries and fatalities record, especially in schools, which led to the recent public expressions of concern by the Stoke Mandeville Hospital for special injuries. I believe that more schoolboys are seriously injured playing rugby than is the case with boxing. But do we ban rugby in schools? As a former rugby player, often injured, I would certainly oppose that.

On a more general level, I should like to add that I find somewhat distasteful the growing fashion in some political quarters which I shall not specify to ban anything which upsets anyone, whether it is country sports—fishing, hunting, shooting, coursing—or cigarette smoking, though I personally practise none of them. I have a fear that sex will be somewhere next on the list.

This is a slippery slope which we know we must resist. This puritanical, politically correct—not that I would accuse my noble friend of anything as foolish as that because we know his concern is personal and genuine—way of thinking, imposing personal attitudes on the way others choose to lead their lives and take risks (what I call a kind of McCarthyism of the Left), is not attractive. Perhaps we should think about banning all bans.

Having got that off my hairy chest, I want to see the boxing authorities do everything possible to protect the health of boxers. The British Boxing Board of Control, which contains three distinguished parliamentarians, including my noble friend Lord Brooks. has introduced many regulations and procedures to reduce the risk of serious injury in professional boxing, for example, the annual medical examinations, including brain scans; medical examinations before and after a fight; and fully equipped ambulances, which almost certainly, as has been said, saved Gerald McLellan's life.

Perhaps more can be done. Perhaps referees can be instructed to stop fights sooner. Perhaps fights should he stopped after two knock downs, not three, of eight seconds a round. I am not convinced that headgear will help. It prevents cuts but impedes vision and does not necessarily reduce concussion. I note that soccer players head the football as often as boxers get punched. Are we to ban heading at football?

Insurance compensation for damaged boxers is another area where I believe improvements could be made. At present I believe—certainly this was the case when evidence was given to the Select Committee—that the maximum insurance compensation for a fatality is around £40,000 and for a disabling injury there is no insurance compensation, just a small benevolent fund. That is totally inadequate in my view. An industry which receives £12 million a year from television could devote more to compensation for the men who put themselves at risk to generate it. I believe the British Boxing Board of Control should take urgent steps at least to quadruple insurance compensation. It says it receives none of the promotion millions, and that is true, but it could stipulate that compensation payments be made as a condition for giving assent to a boxing tournament.

I reiterate that I share the concern of my noble friend, but I believe that banning is unjustified. It would be illogical given the greater danger in other sports. It would be dictatorial given the fact that no one forces men to box. Like mountain climbers, they have a right to take risks. Seventeen million viewers recently watched a boxing match on television. Are they all wrong? Is the puritan minority right? Should we ban their right to enjoy this pleasure? I think not.

11.3 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I can do no better at this time of night than to emulate my noble friend Lord Oxfuird when I quote what Byron said of his mother-in-law; namely, that she had lost the art of conversation but not, alas, the power of speech.

First of all, I should like your Lordships to know that the Government cannot support this Bill. I should also like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to be aware that of course we share the views of those who are concerned about the safety of boxers though we do not believe that the sport should be banned.

Some of your Lordships have recalled a most stimulating debate on boxing on 4th December 1991, when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, last called for a ban on professional boxing. The Government's view on boxing remains as it was then. We believe strongly that in a free society—which this country thankfully enjoys—individuals should have the freedom to participate in the sport of their choice so long as it is within the law and they are fully aware of the risks involved. It is paramount that the element of risk attached to boxing is controllable and that the proper medical safeguards are in place.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I should like to say that I am well aware of the BMA's report published in 1993. I should like to highlight the fact that the British Boxing Board of Control's medical safeguards are among the most rigorous in the world and are constantly under review. Following meetings at the end of 1991 between the then Minister for Sport, the BBBC and a number of medical specialists, the BBBC not only strengthened its medical safeguards but converted them into firm regulations.

In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the professional sport is, of course, driven in part by financial considerations, but the British Boxing Board of Control is there to ensure that money is not of primary importance but that safety is paramount. The Government are confident that the BBBC's medical safeguards do all that is possible to ensure the boxers' safety.

The BBBC continues to review its research on methods of continual assessment of brain functions to detect possible chronic deterioration that may occur during a boxer's career. It has now extended the scheme, which was originally piloted in Wales and which aims to minimise acute brain injury by the compulsory attendance of an anaesthetist with the necessary equipment at the ringside. Indeed, John Sutcliffe, the neurosurgeon who operated after the Benn/McLellan fight, said that he believed that the introduction of those improvements helped to save the boxer's life.

The Government believe that there is absolutely no case for singling out boxing for a ban. To ban boxing would drive the sport underground and remove from boxers the very important safeguards which now protect them. Furthermore, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird and the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, said, even if boxing were banned in this country boxers could still compete anywhere overseas—which is what Swedish boxers did when boxing was banned in Sweden. It is important to note that medical safeguards in other countries may not be as stringent as in this country.

Let me deal first with the question of fatalities. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, will be interested in my update of the figures given in the last debate. Figures provided by coroners to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that from 1986 to 1992 there were fortunately only three deaths in England and Wales from boxing. In the same period there were 77 deaths in motor sports; 69 in air sports; 54 in mountaineering; 40 in ball games; 28 in horse riding. Alas, I am unable to inform the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, as to how nearly he dices with death when he rides his motorbike, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, appreciates that both ends of horses spell danger.

The Government have no hesitation in accepting that, sadly, there are instances where long-term medical problems can be attributable to boxing. However, boxing is not unique in that respect. The simple fact is that there is a risk attached to any physically challenging activity, and to remove the risk would for the most part remove the challenge itself.

No one can be complacent about the issue of boxing safety. The Government believe strongly that the utmost attention must be paid to safety, not only in boxing but in all sports where risk is a factor.

I was very interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about insurance. How about an injured boxers' fund as with jockeys? Perhaps we could explore that possibility a little further. That is a personal note which I should probably not have included in this speech.

It is recognised that, like any physical contact sport, boxing has an element of risk. What is paramount is that the element of risk is controllable and containable. Medical safeguards are already in place to protect the health and safety of boxers before, during and after contests and to monitor boxers for long-term medical problems. There are a great many medical examinations which I could list for your Lordships, but, again, I am well aware of the time of night. I believe that noble Lords are aware of the extremely severe medical precautions which are taken not only at the ringside but before and after a boxer enters the ring.

Some claim that boxing is repugnant and morally wrong in that the sport deliberately encourages individuals to inflict injury to each other. This is a matter of judgment. However, let me make a couple of points very clear. Boxers in this country compete within the strictest medical safeguards and regulations imposed by reputable governing bodies. They do so under their own free will and within a sporting code that emphasises skill rather than aggression. Furthermore, boxers pose no threat to the general public.

I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that while the Government are not complacent about safety issues in boxing, we believe that it would he a gross infringement of civil liberties to deprive individuals from participating in a properly constituted sport of their choice. I hope that I have also persuaded your Lordships that there is clear evidence that the boxing authorities in this country are determined to continue to make the sport as safe as possible.

11.11 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Many of the issues were also discussed in an earlier debate to which there has been reference. Indeed, some of the speeches—including my own, I suspect—had distinct similarity to those in an earlier debate.

Let me say this to your Lordships: we shall be back. As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said, this is a continuing debate. With the assistance and encouragement of the British Medical Association, and all our medical advisers, we shall continue to campaign against this sport.

It is said that the Bill is an infringement of personal liberty. I was interested in the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, about the Duke of Grafton and others. An article in The Times recently by an eminent QC under the heading, "What's so special about boxing?", takes us back to 1981. The article states: Lord Lane, then the Lord Chief Justice, stated on behalf of the Court of Appeal that it was a criminal assault for a man to punch another during a fist fight in the street, even though each of them consented to the fight as a means of settling a dispute". In this country it is illegal for any man to go out and have a fight in the street with another man. But it is not illegal if it occurs in a boxing ring; the man can punch the other fellow as hard as he likes. There is something wrong with that situation. If it is an infringement of the rights of people—they should not punch each other on the street corner—can we defend such a restriction as a prohibition on the rights of the individual? We must consider the argument very seriously. I include the argument that one would drive boxing underground. What way is that to make legislation—that if we pass such a law one would drive the issue underground? That is protecting the criminal. It is not respect for the law and the judgment of the country.

Let us not exaggerate the argument about driving the issue underground. Professional boxing thrives on the glamour, excitement, television coverage and the large amounts of money spent. I include the £50 million or £60 million that will be spent on the promotion of this criminal, Mike Tyson, who is about to descend on us in this country. Is that the mark of a civilised society? I ask noble Lords to ask themselves this question. Supposing Mike Tyson arrives here and knocks a man unconscious, or even kills a man, in the ring, which he is quite capable of doing, would noble Lords feel pleased and proud at that? I do not think so.

Let me say a final word. It is not a defence to say that something might be driven underground. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made a very interesting contribution. He said that the Bill was badly drafted and could be changed. That is what we are talking about; we are not talking about motor racing, mountaineering or any other sport. We are talking about a simple Bill to which we want to give a Second Reading. That would enable the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to define more clearly the purposes of the Bill, if he feels that its drafting is inadequate and wrong. That is all that we are asking: that this Bill be given a Second Reading so that we can examine the full implications of it.

The Viscount of Oxfuird

My Lords, I do not think that there is any doubt of the professionalism that has been demonstrated this evening, with the skill, understanding, knowledge and experience associated with this subject. I have no other course than to press my amendment.

11.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 7.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Courtown, E.
Ailesbury, M. Donoughue, L.
Annaly, L. Falkland, V.
Balfour, E. Gisborough, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Grey, E.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Lucas, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Meston, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller] Monson, L.
Chesham, L. Oxfuird, V. [Teller]
Clanwilliam, E. Rodney, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Stockton, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Airedale, L. Gage, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.] Hacking, L.
Renton, L. [Teller]
Brightman, L. Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.