HL Deb 15 July 1996 vol 574 cc621-32

3.15 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 1 [Arrangements for making grants]:

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (4) below and after the making of an order having effect for a period of up to twelve months").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this group of amendments is designed to secure the best of both worlds in an area where there is still a great deal of public concern, and which is perhaps the weakest part of the Bill as it stands. So far are they from being wrecking amendments that I would hope the Government might welcome them as a constructive means of targeting expansion in the direction and through the structures which the Government have in mind, while at the same time allaying the worries of those parents and providers who have greatest involvement in nursery education.

The problem, as noble Lords are by now well aware, lies in those authorities, some of them Conservative-controlled like Solihull, where there is already high LEA provision. I need not repeat the arguments in detail. The way in which the resourcing is intended to work, by the convoluted clawing back of money from LEAs only to give most of it back later, means that, to put it no higher, where nursery provision is already at near-universality, the LEA cannot gain and there is a likelihood that it will lose financially. It is surely quite wrong that those who have worked in the past to build up good nursery provision should now have this provision threatened. On top of this we have the attendant uncertainty in planning future LEA provision, to say nothing of the rigmarole of the administrative paperchase—was it eight different steps that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to in Committee?—to enable nursery school parents to reclaim what they have already.

I think we can do better than that. In Committee we put forward an amendment which would have allowed a whole LEA area to opt out of the voucher scheme. Where that was something of a blunt instrument and involved the complication of parental ballots, what we are bringing forward today is much more focused.

The effect of this group of amendments, of which Amendment No. 5 is the operative one, will be to remove all local authority nursery provision from the ambit of the voucher scheme. The scheme will apply only to places in the voluntary and private sectors. Grants, however, may still be made to LEAs for any new provision they may want to make.

This will come about as follows. Sub-paragraph (i) of Amendment No. 5 provides for such grants to authorities for any new nursery provision—the relevant words here are "for the first time". Nothing should be done to discourage authorities from bidding to government through the mechanisms that exist to expand their own provision if they want to. I will deal with the bit about the order made under subsection (1) in a moment.

Sub-paragraph (ii) in effect insulates the maintained sector from the voucher arrangements—and note that this can involve other departments in addition to education, for example, social services. A parent or guardian will not be able to present a voucher and through it obtain a local authority place. This is the crux, together with sub-paragraph (iii), which prevents local authorities' revenue support grants from being raided to fund the voucher scheme. Together these are designed to lift local authority places out of the scheme and so prevent the financial and administrative disruption to existing provision which is the major drawback to the Bill as drafted.

Subsection (4A), still under Amendment No. 5, gives a necessary definition of the word "voucher" in sub-paragraph (ii) which has otherwise not appeared in the Bill.

Amendment No. 1 cross-refers to the subject of Amendment No. 5 from the Secretary of State's enabling power to make arrangements at the beginning, and stipulates the making of an order for a period of up to 12 months. This is to give flexibility in the light of Amendment No. 13, which your Lordships agreed to in Committee, on the question of full evaluation of the pilot scheme; the first order could come into effect after the evaluation, for the period up to the end of March 1998, giving the Government the choice thereafter whether to continue with a cycle based on financial years or to revert to the academic year cycle. We feel it is appropriate that there should be a chance for a review of the scheme on a regular basis, and Amendments Nos. 1 and 11 provide for this to be done through an order made under the negative resolution procedure.

If these amendments are agreed to, the voucher agency would still send an application form to all parents who were eligible. Instead of merely offering a voucher, the form would ask parents to choose between seeking a place for their child in a maintained school or taking up a voucher for the voluntary or private sector. According to their choice, the full system which the Government are proposing in this Bill would either apply or not. Parents could not unscrupulously try to secure a voucher as well as a free place if they had been required to commit themselves to a choice of one or the other on the form.

There is much to gain and little to lose in agreeing to these amendments. There is no loss of choice involved. Parents can exercise just the same preferences as they could under the Government's proposed scheme, but in a more direct and less confusing way. What is different is that the new money which the Government are providing will go straight where it is needed, and LEA resources will not be redirected round the houses in an elephantine exercise of energy-sapping bureaucracy, while much of the estimated £20 million administration costs of the scheme will be saved and thus available for actual nursery education.

Since the evidence which has come in so far indicates that it is the extra money, not surprisingly, that is producing the expansion (such as it is), for goodness sake let us maximise it. And since these amendments are targeting vouchers on precisely those sectors— the voluntary and the private—where the Government themselves wish to see the greatest expansion, I can commend them confidently to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. It may be helpful to take as an example the circumstances in Wales. In Wales over 92 per cent. of four year-old children already attend schools in their local authority areas, some in church schools and some in county-maintained schools. That is the parental wish. Without this amendment the money for the education of those children would have to go through eight different additional administrative loops. There can be no justification for that. The same would be true in Northern Ireland, if the result of the Government's consultation was a Northern Ireland order. The same is true for Solihull and many areas of the country. If one takes Solihull as an example, that is not by any means an inner city deprived area; nor is it an authority in receipt of high levels of revenue support grant. The Conservative authority in Solihull, which was in power until a little over a year ago, made direct provision with money which came primarily from the local community charge and local council tax to build up the service. It seems a rather odd irony that in those circumstances governors of church schools and non-church schools will face uncertainty as a result of the Government's plans in the Bill before your Lordships today and will have to go through the loops to get back the money.

The Minister might be minded to reply that in some way the amendment would diminish parental choice. The amendment reduces parental choice not one wit. The amendment offers to parents the choice between available local authority-funded nursery provision for four year-olds and opting for a voucher to purchase provision in the voluntary or private sector. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, said at the beginning, the amendment ensures that the money which would otherwise be spent on administration and re-routeing funds through eight different loops, for example in Wales, in order to put it back where it started from, would be available to spend elsewhere.

At Report stage I asked the Minister whether or not additional capital funding—there is no proposal for capital funding in the provisions of the Bill—had been available to any of the authorities in the pilot study. I have since ascertained that such funding was made available in Norfolk in order that bids and new provision could be made. Surely, it is better to spend the money if there is a church school in a rural community which, but for the want of a small amount of capital, could meet parental demand. Surely, it is better that that capital is made available to the system and finance is released, small though the amount may be, rather than that it should be wasted on bureaucracy.

At previous stages the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the popularity of the voucher scheme. She prayed in aid the fact that the voucher scheme was possible if parents applied for a voucher. What a nonsense. To say that people who currently get a service and wish to continue to use it now have to apply for a voucher to continue to use it, and that they must pay for the bureaucracy involved in getting the money redeemed, is a nonsense.

Finally, if the Government do not believe that parents faced with a choice will continue to use local authority provision, all local authority assumptions about the actual number of children in schools are retrospective. That applies to five, six and seven year-olds. There is nothing to stop the Government using the figures for four year-olds in the schools to ensure that the funding is commensurate with the continuation or variation in parental choice. There can be no real support from any quarter. Parents in Solihull have expressed their views strongly, clearly and often. Those in the voluntary sector express concern that, as a result of remarks by the Minister and his friends in another place, the proposals before your Lordships will not protect their access to new funds. This amendment protects that new money from an increase in bureaucratic paper chases which use up scarce resources. We support the amendment.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I rise to give warm support to this amendment from the Liberal Democrat Benches. As the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, has said, the amendment comes close to giving us the best of all worlds. On that basis, he indicated confidence that the Minister would be likely to accept the amendment. Sitting where I am, the look on the Minister's face at that point indicated that the noble Earl's confidence might have been misplaced. It is to be hoped that we can still persuade the Minister.

This comes close to giving the best of all worlds. First, it retains what I think should be and I hope is the central purpose of the Government, which is to provide parental choice and an expansion in the provision of nursery education initially for four year-olds. More than that, it seeks to address the many concerns which have been raised about the nursery voucher scheme. At every stage of the Bill many of us have expressed surprise at and certainly commented on the volume of post which we have received from all quarters of the country expressing grave concerns about the likely and, I believe, unintended effects of this scheme.

As previous speakers have said, this amendment tries to address those concerns. It proposes to take the existing provision in the maintained sector out of the voucher scheme. That means that we shall no longer have what has come to be called the long paper chase. In the Second Reading debate I itemised the eight stages which follow this voucher from the first move from the Child Benefit Agency right through this long loop until eventually we come back to where we started for the majority of children who already have existing provision. One effect of this is to cut out that long paper chase for the vast majority of parents and providers.

That alone should lead to a significant cut in administrative costs. At earlier stages we have expressed some doubts about whether those administrative costs could be kept within the £20 million suggested by cutting down so hugely the paper chase of the administration. We certainly should be able to keep well within that figure and indeed to have some money over which could be spent not on more administration but on more and better provision.

That provision would be targeted on the voluntary and private sector, and that surely must be one of the Government's wishes. It certainly gives a better opportunity to target these resources—something that we must all be in favour of in relation to scarce resources, and resources are always scarce. They need to be targeted where they will have the best effect. That may well be the private and voluntary sector.

The provision would give a greater degree of certainty to the maintained sector, both in its budget flat planning and in its provision planning. That too must be a good thing. Indeed, there is so much in favour of this amendment that I find it hard to imagine what the Minister will say against it, although I suspect, from the look on his face, that he will find something to say.

Finally, the test of the voucher scheme, as the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, has said, is not actually its take-up rate. If the only way in which parents can obtain nursery education for their children is by having vouchers, then of course they will go for vouchers. The take-up rate, whatever it may be, is not a test, although we have some concern about those who do not seize that opportunity and why.

The test of the success of the voucher scheme must be the new provision which it brings. At Report stage the letter which some of us received from the Kensington and Chelsea Pre-School Learning Alliance, one of the pilot scheme areas, was mentioned. The alliance expressed its concern in that letter, and I quote from it: This has had a great effect on the local Pre-School as the 4 year olds have been filtered away to the school they were planning on entering in a year's time. Therefore we have lost their voucher money. The authority have suggested that they will be withdrawing the funding equivalent to the vouchers we have received". It seems to be having the opposite effect from that which is intended. The amendment will make it much more likely that we can target the scarce and valuable resources where they are needed; we shall be able to cut out much administration and a long paper chase; and we shall actually be seeing the money best used as it should be used, to provide additional provision for four year-olds and we hope in due course, three year-olds. I beg to support the amendment.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, in the final exchange on the Report stage of the Bill the Minister commiserated with me for having apparently taken a vow of silence not to speak on any amendment except those to which my name was put. I should like to assure him that, in standing to speak on this amendment, such a vow can in fact be rescinded.

I wish to support the general thrust of these amendments, and the major reasons for doing so have already been made clear by those noble Lords who have already spoken. These amendments do not disturb the central thrust of the Bill: that parental choice is still allowed and that a parent who has a child in nursery provision made available by the local authority could, if he or she wished, withdraw the child and place him or her with the voluntary or private sector. There is therefore no undermining of the central thrust of parental choice.

However, I want to underline what other noble Lords have already said. While I was turning over in my mind what to say, I recollected that during the Second Reading a number of us had talked about the nonsense of the long road along which money has to go in order to arrive at its final destination. As I was remembering that, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, made exactly the same comment. I think it is also a nonsense that so much money has to be spent on administration when in fact it could be made available for new provision.

Like other noble Lords, I have been somewhat surprised at the volume of correspondence and particularly at the way in which it has continued to pour in. It did not come in only at the Second Reading stage. Many people, and indeed many parents, have written personal letters to me (as I know they have to other noble Lords) to express their concerns; and I would have thought that the Government might be concerned about the public relations effect of the Bill. I want to express my support for the general thrust of the amendments. I am by no means clear, however, that technically they would achieve what they set out to do. I have no doubt that the Minister will have points to make in that regard.

One point I would like to make is that the word "voucher" does not appear elsewhere in the Bill. Although it is an enabling Bill, and it simply enables grants to be made, the means by which they are made is indicated elsewhere. We are presuming it will be by voucher, but that is not on the face of the Bill. Therefore it seems a little odd that it should appear in this one place only, supposing that this amendment is agreed. If the Minister says that this amendment is technically flawed, I hope that he will take account of our anxieties and go some small way towards recognising the great concern there is about the Bill, not only in this House but throughout the country.

Baroness Perry of Southwark

My Lords, I am the first to wish to cut down on bureaucracy and I think there are real concerns about the paper chase that is implied by the enactment of the Bill. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is a major problem with these amendments as they are proposed which I consider would have a very unfortunate effect. They could put a real brake on the opportunity for expansion of any local authority provision.

If the grants were to be made only in respect of voluntary and private provision, and if a local authority were to decide (as it would be quite free to decide) not to expand its nursery provision, then parents who wished to send their child to a good local nursery school would be unable to do so. It is all very well to protect the position of those parents whose children are already in local authority nursery education, but those new parents who might decide that they want their children to go would not be able to use a voucher to do so. Therefore the extraordinary effect of these amendments would be to make all the expansion happen in the voluntary and private sector and no expansion in the good nursery schools and classes which exist in the local authorities. I am sure that that is not the effect that noble Lords who have proposed these amendments would wish them to have, but I cannot see how it could be gainsaid.

At present, as we know, many local authorities have cut back on their nursery provision and there is no guarantee in the future that they would not continue to do so. The small extra amount of money which would become available to them because of the reduction in bureaucracy would not necessarily be spent on expanding their nursery education. Even in the first case, and certainly in the future, there would be no guarantee of expansion there. This seems to me more like the kind of provision one sees in a developing country, not in an advanced and civilised country like our own. We want to see our local authority provision expand as well as our private and voluntary provision.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley)

My Lords, we have had some beguiling words from noble Lords who tabled this group of amendments. It is important to assure the House that this is yet another attempt to delay implementation of the scheme and to exclude existing provision from the scope of the scheme—existing local authority provision, of course, rather than existing private and voluntary sector provision. So, in essence, this is a series of amendments about delay and about preferential treatment for the existing local authority provision. Parental choice is set aside.

It was right for the right reverend Prelate to draw attention to some of the technical defects of these amendments. We should remind ourselves that as a revising Chamber it is not right on Third Reading to bring forward amendments which do not achieve what the proposers of those amendments have set out to achieve. I have to make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that his claim that they do not set aside parental choice is wrong. If his intention is that there should be total freedom of parental choice, the amendments do not achieve that aim. It would not be right for us to pass them.

We must address what noble Lords opposite and local authorities are frightened of. On the one hand, noble Lords, together with a number of local authorities, tell me how good their provision is, how it meets the needs of the local community, how it is of good quality, and how parents are completely satisfied with it. But on the other hand, noble Lords and the same local authorities tell me that they are frightened that parents, with the new found mechanism that the Bill will provide to express their choice, might flee the maintained sector. We cannot have it both ways. If, and I appreciate that is a big if, local authorities are providing what parents want, and parents continue to choose local authority provision, what have they to fear? I contend that if local authorities are making the right provision, they have nothing to fear.

It would be right for me to say a little about how the money will be deducted. Central government are providing a significant amount of new money to meet the costs of giving a voucher to every four year-old whose parents want it. But it is obvious that in order to avoid double funding, some money has also to come from local education authorities' existing funding for four year-olds.

There has been much misrepresentation of the way in which the amount to be taken from each LEA's funding will be calculated. I shall therefore explain the proposal in straightforward terms. Local authorities currently receive funding from the Government for educating children under five. When the nursery education voucher scheme starts, the amount of funding coming through the present route will be reduced. The amount it will be reduced by is the number of four year-olds currently attending state schools in the LEA, multiplied by the voucher value.

That means that if a four year-old is attending a state school in this school year, the LEA's funding in the first year of the voucher scheme will be reduced by a certain amount for that pupil. But if that four year-old's place is filled again under the voucher scheme, then the LEA will get back that same amount of money through the voucher. If the LEA creates a new place, then it will get the voucher money even though it has not had any funding deducted for that place.

So the only LEA provision which is threatened by the voucher scheme is poor provision—provision to which parents do not choose to send their children. I can only assume that those who talk about schools "losing" funding have very little faith in the quality of those schools.

The amendments have two purposes: to deny parents the choice we seek to give them; and to shield local authority provision from any chance of losing funding. Parents deserve choice. They know best what suits them and their children. Through their vouchers they can demand over time the provision of new places that meet their needs in local authority maintained schools or the private or voluntary sectors. Local authority providers, too, can modify what they do to suit parents and their children. But the amendment cuts across all that, and leaves the providers in charge. That will not do.

Subsection (4A) of Amendment No. 5 attempts to define the nursery voucher in statute—a point made by the right reverend Prelate. I suspect that a close examination would show that the attempt is not entirely successful. Defining the voucher in primary legislation would be extremely cumbersome, and it is for precisely that reason that the word "voucher" does not appear on the face of the Bill.

Further, much has been made of the £20 million alleged to be wasted on administration. The vast majority of that money is to go on inspection. The lion's share is for that new education inspection regime—one that does not exist in the private and voluntary sector. I am sure that that is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will greatly welcome. She also alleged that the scheme was unpopular. Perhaps I may assure her that a survey conducted by my department showed that 60 per cent. of parents was in favour of the scheme. Its very popularity may be why noble Lords opposite so fear it. That is two and a half times as many as who were against it; and 87 per cent. of parents in Norfolk said that they were in favour of it.

As I said, the amendments cut across the purpose of the Bill. All I can recommend to the House is that the amendments be rejected. They are, as I said, defective. They do not achieve what is wanted. Even if they did, we do not believe that they are right way forward. I hope that the noble Earl will listen to my words and consider withdrawing his amendment. If not, I ask my noble friends and other Members of the House to reject the amendments.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he correct my lack of understanding of one matter? I believe I heard him say that parental choice would be undermined by the amendment, but my reading of it is that even if the amendment were passed parents would still have the choice of withdrawing their children from existing local authority nursery provision and going elsewhere if they wished. Nursery schools would thereby lose income. Therefore I do not see how the amendment protects local authorities or undermines parental choice.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must remind the right reverend Prelate that we are at Third Reading. That is why it is undesirable to debate such an amendment at such a late stage. My advice is that the amendment would not achieve that and would deny parents the choice that we wish to give them. For that reason, the House should reject the amendment. The amendment does not achieve what the noble Earl claims; that is, protecting local authorities while maintaining choice for all parents.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he agree that when a voucher is not applied for or is not placed because parents cannot find a suitable nursery, or is lost, that funding disappears?

Lord Henley

My Lords, again, perhaps I may remind the House that we are on Third Reading. That is not a valid point. The surveys we have conducted show that the vast majority of parents, particularly in Norfolk, can obtain vouchers. Obviously not all of them want vouchers. We are also seeing new provision occurring. We never said that there would be an automatic entitlement to a place the minute the Bill came into effect. We have always said that we look for growth in provision over time.

Earl Baldwin of Bewdley

My Lords, I did listen carefully to what the Minister said. I have to say that I disagree with him on most of the points that he put forward. I cannot for the life of me see how this restrains parental choice or alters the position. The right reverend Prelate made that point very well. It leaves choice just as it would have been under the Government's own scheme.

The Minister asked what the LEAs have to fear. I thought that we had explained at great length that we fear this enormous rigmarole of administrative hoops that everything has to go through, in many cases to produce the situation that existed before. It is precisely that, and that only, which has led us to bring forward these shorter and more sensible routes to achieve the desired result.

Nor do I believe that it is right to invoke my noble friend Lord Weatherill's law of unintended consequences which he promulgated during our constitutional debate. I do not think that that applies here, except possibly in the Government's case, when it is this rigmarole of which I have already spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said that this could be a brake on LEA provision, but as I said in my introduction, and as is in the amendment, LEAs can perfectly well bid for new provision under the schemes that exist at the moment. Nothing has taken that away from them. Therefore, the LEAs are in with as good a chance as anyone else. I firmly believe that that is the case. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but there is nothing to prevent them doing that. So for once the playing field is as level as we would all like it to be.

As regards the word "voucher", I have heard nothing to convince me that it is wrong. It may not be the best possible wording but it is a possible wording to have on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that it is fatal to our purposes to have it there and I am quite happy that it should be there in the form that it is.

In short, I have heard no argument which would persuade me that we are on the wrong tack with the amendments that we are putting forward. I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord and ask the opinion of the House.

3.50 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1
Addington, L. Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Castle of Blackburn, B.
Annan, L. Clancarty, E.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E. [Teller.] Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Bancroft, L. Craigavon, V.
Barnett, L. Croham, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. David, B.
Berkeley, L. Davies, L.
Birk, B. Desai, L.
Blackstone, B. Diamond, L.
Bledisloe, V. Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Borrie, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Brightman, L. Dubs, L
Broadbridge, L. Eatwell, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Elis-Thomas, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Ezra, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Falkender, B.
Carlisle, E. Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Milner of Leeds, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B. Molloy, L.
Gallacher, L. Monkswell, L.
Geraint, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L
Graham of Edmonton, L. Nicol, B.
Greene of Harrow Weald, L. Ogmore, L.
Greenhill of Harrow, L. Palmer, L.
Grey, E. Peston, L.
Hamwee, B. Plant of Highfield, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Hayman, B. Porter of Luddenham, L.
Healey, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Rea, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Redesdale, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Ripon, Bp.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Howell, L. Robertson of Oakridge, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Rochester, L.
Hughes, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Russell, E.
Jay of Paddington, B. Scanlon, L.
Jeger, B. Serota, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Shepherd, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Stallard, L.
Kennet, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Strabolgi, L.
Kitchener, E. Stafford, E.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Lincoln, Bp. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Lockwood, B. Thurso, V.
Longford, E. Tonypandy, V.
Lovell-Davis, L. Tope, L. [Teller.]
McCarthy, L. Tordoff, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Varley, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
McNair, L. White, B.
Mallalieu, B. Wigoder, L.
Mar, C. Williams of Crosby, B.
Mar and Kellie, E. Williams of Elvel, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Mayhew, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Addison, V. Courtown, E.
Ailesbury, M. Cox, B.
Ailsa, M. Craig of Radley, L.
Aldington, L. Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Alexander of Tunis, E. Cuckney, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Cumberlege, B.
Ashbourne, L. Davidson, V.
Balfour, E. De Freyne, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Denham, L.
Beloff, L. Denton of Wakefield, B.
Berners, B. Devonport, V.
Blaker, L. Dixon-Smith, L.
Blatch, B. Downshire, M.
Boardman, L. Ellenborough, L.
Bowness, L. Elles, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Finsberg, L.
Bruntisfield, L. Flather, B.
Butterworth, L. Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Gainford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L. Geddes, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Gisborough, L.
Carnock, L. Goschen, V.
Cayzer, L. Gray of Contin, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L
Chelmsford, V. Hayhoe, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.] Hemphill, L.
Cockfield, L. Henley, L.
Coleridge, L. Holderness, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L. Hooper, B.
Hylton-Foster, B. Pender, L.
Inglewood, L. Perry of Southwark, B.
Ironside, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Quinton, L.
Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L. Rankeillour, L.
Kintore, E. Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Knollys, V. Rees, L.
Lane of Horsell, L. Rennell, L.
Lindsay, E. Renwick, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Richardson, L.
Liverpool, E. Romney, E.
Long, V. St Davids, V.
Lucas, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Seccombe, B.
McConnell, L. Shannon, E.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Sharples, B.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sherfield, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Mansfield, E. Slim, V.
Manton, L. Stewartby, L.
Marlesford, L. Strange, B.
Merrivale, L. Strathcarron, L.
Mersey, V. Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]
Monteagle of Brandon, L. Sudeley, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Swinfen, L.
Mountevans, L. Terrington, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Teviot, L.
Moyne, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Munster, E. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Trefgarne, L.
Newall, L. Vivian, L.
Norfolk, D. Westbury, L.
Northesk, E. Wigram, L.
O'Cathain, B. Wilcox, B.
Oxfuird, V. Wise, L.
Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.