Education (Student Loans) Bill

HL Deb 25 March 1996 vol 570 cc1472-83

3.4 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Subsidy in respect of private sector student loans]:

Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No.1:

Page 1, line 8, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 1(3) of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1996,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the debate that we had in Committee on similar points to those to be raised today was rather lost in the wash of a Statement. I think that not all noble Lords who were present that evening had the opportunity to hear any explanation of what it was about.

To begin on a friendly note, my noble friend has earned the gratitude of the House, and certainly my own, on two particular points. First, he provided us with a print-out of the 1990 Act as it would be with the present Bill superimposed upon it. Secondly, he gave the appearance of taking very seriously the points that were raised about parliamentary control. With private sector institutions taking part for the first time, Parliament ought at least to know the quantity of public money that those institutions will be handling in any one year, subject to what general terms funds will be made available to students, and what arrangements will he made for repayment.

As my noble friend has said on a number of occasions, the Bill is enabling legislation. It is therefore bound to attract—and ought to attract—some measure of critical examination, and particularly in this respect. As I understand it, the Bill enables the Government to make such arrangements as they think fit—and so far as I can see they have made few, if any, arrangements for telling Parliament what they have done.

I accept—or rather, I think I accept (I should like my noble friend's advice on this point)—that the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Park and myself could have the effect of making it very difficult, if not impossible, either for the Government to finalise arrangements with those private sector institutions that are showing an interest, if there are any, or even for arrangements to be reached with individual students. It is no part of our purpose either to frustrate those negotiations or even to make them difficult. What we should like is an opportunity for Parliament to be told precisely what those arrangements are.

I do not particularly want to press this amendment to a vote. I did not want to press the amendments to a vote the other day in Committee. It was partly due to my increasing awareness that the department was not taking this point at all seriously. Then, if I may weary the House with one brief quotation, we reached the stage when my noble friend used these words: I mentioned the detailed information that will be available in the department's annual report. That, as I understand it, is always published and made available to Parliament. Parliament has a chance to scrutinise that annual report and"— mark the words— certainly can find time to do so".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 784.] If I were seeking safe custody for some piece of sensitive information, I could not think of any more intelligent thing to do than to include it in a departmental annual report. It would be safe from reading by anyone, save perhaps a few eccentrics or those of unsound mind. There is no way that Parliament can be satisfied with facts which should be made available to it being made available solely through the medium of a departmental annual report.

I am most grateful to my noble friend in that since the vote the other day he has moved his position. He was kind enough to write me a letter promising a separate Statement to Parliament. He has not yet said precisely what that Statement would contain, but I take it that at the top of the list would be a clear indication of the total cost of the moneys spent during a financial year.

Let me again make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that I do not want in any way to add to his difficulties. We have no desire to frustrate the Government in achieving the purposes which Parliament has given it the authority to pursue. We want to be told in general terms what the Government are up to. Am I right in thinking that, with the Bill as drafted, there will be no need for further regulations and that therefore any reference to affirmative resolution is by the way? There is no point in it. That is one of the reasons why I am a little unenthusiastic about my amendments.

I want to make it abundantly clear to my noble friend, whose courtesy and attention I greatly appreciate, that in my view, at a time when the Government are to provide private sector institutions with substantial sums of money to enable them to grant loans on favourable terms to students, we need to know how much money is involved and for what period in general it is being given. In his letter to me my noble friend said that he is perfectly prepared to let us have sight of the general contract but not of particular cases. That we accept totally. But I believe that Parliament has every right to know the sums of money that are being made available, on what general conditions and what arrangements will be made for their repayment.

As I said, I am not at all anxious to divide the House this afternoon. I very much hope that, as a minimum, my noble friend will take back this matter—I do not expect him to accept the amendments—and give it serious thought before Third Reading. I hope he will then bring forward some alternative arrangement for giving to Parliament the information for which it is entitled to ask and set out the form of the Statement which he would make to Parliament in pursuance of that new arrangement. I beg to move.

3.15 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I support the amendments. I recognise that the Minister is trying very hard to move in our direction and allay some of our concerns about what will still be a blank cheque. Also, because we are not dealing with regulations, the application of the affirmative resolution procedure is not appropriate. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very helpful text showing what the full, amended Bill looks like. Nevertheless, I believe it proper and necessary to reiterate in this debate the provision already contained in the 1990 Act and repeated in our amendment.

I recognise that in this Bill there are genuine problems about commercial confidentiality, once we are talking about private money secured by competitive tender. But I want to know from the Minister when and in what way Parliament will be told once the contracts are signed; who is doing the lending, if anyone; what the total administrative and other costs will be compared with the costs of the existing system of the public borrowing facility through the Student Loans Company; and what is the length of the contract. Maybe we cannot be told all that but I certainly should like to know most of it. My right honourable friend the Minister said in another place on at least one occasion that in due course the Student Loans Company would probably fade away, presumably meaning that all loans would be paid through the private sector. That makes my curiosity even greater.

In the debates on the original 1990 Act, the Government spoke about top-up loans. The White Paper made a commitment that the maximum top-up loan would be 50 per cent. of the original maintenance grant. Is that still the policy? Will that policy apply to loans from the private sector? I continue to be unhappy also about the permissive nature of the provision for making payments to governing bodies. Will those be negotiated directly by the private institutions? It is already a scandal that the universities are paid only £4 for each student application processed instead of the £8 which it costs them, and they are thus subsidising the student loans system to the tune of £2 million per annum. That is a fact that has caused considerable concern in the Public Accounts Committee, which rightly points out that the money is being paid out at the expense of higher education priorities.

Thus, I believe that it is absolutely essential for; the Government, once the contracts have been concluded, to make an early Statement to Parliament saying what the scheme is to cost in the round so that it can be compared with the cost of the existing public sector arrangements; telling us which institutions are participating—after all, students themselves will need to know that in good time; the duration of the initial scheme—for instance, is it to be reviewed after an initial period of five or 10 years; and the arrangements, as they are called, as they affect the universities—indeed, I hope that, having failed utterly to consult the CVCP when the Bill was first brought forward, the Government will talk to it now at least about the financial and administrative implications of the scheme for it. After all, it is one more task being placed on its already overloaded and underfunded administration.

In view of all that, I should not be at all happy—any more than the House was happy in 1990—unless a method of informing Parliament which offers a proper opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House is envisaged. For that reason I should have wished to make the debate on the report of the first year of operation of the scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But, as they are not regulations but presumably orders, that cannot be. I do not believe that a technicality of that kind should be allowed to negate Parliament's power to consider properly the cost and effectiveness of the new arrangements once the requirements of commercial confidentiality have been satisfied and the contracts signed and respected.

I wait with interest to hear from my noble friend the Minister how it is proposed to ensure that the necessary information on which to base a judgment of the value and propriety of the new arrangements can be obtained and the blank cheque justified.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which have been grouped together, so cogently and felicitously proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, to whom it is always as delightful as it is improving to listen.

After reading with care and with profit our exchanges on this subject at Committee stage, and hearing again today the eloquent and persuasive pleas of noble Lords opposite, and after scrupulously reconsidering the Minister's words throughout the Committee stage, especially his final reply to his noble friend—given after some considerable pressure—I can only say, with the poet George Meredith, in his poem "Modern Love", stanza 50, Ah, What a dusty answer gets the soul When hot for certainties in this our life". It is the uncertainty of all this that lies behind so much of our unease with the whole of this unnecessary little Bill. Phrases like, "the blank cheque" and "no payee, no date, no amount", run like a gay refrain through all of our discussions. I am bound to say that, so far, we have been given remarkably little reassurance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, made our concerns pellucidly clear when she said at Committee stage, and I quote her with pleasure, the Government will not know who has tendered and on what terms until at least after Easter. Nor, we understand, will the private institutions know until then what will be the cost of rejigging their computer technology and training their staff. Nor will the Government be able, until then, to cost the relationship between the universities, which must still do all the paperwork, and two funding mechanisms rather than one".—[Official Report, 12/3/96; col. 778.] I could not have put that better myself, and I wish I had. It is only when we are certain what the arcane arrangements are to be that we shall be able properly to exercise the powers of your Lordships' House. It is our duty to do that and, until we have that information, we are unable to do so. The Minister, in his carefully worded reply, could offer us only, the normal channels of the appropriation accounts, and … the department's annual report".—[col. 784.] I shall treasure the description of "the department's annual report" given by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and I can echo it having been, through the courtesy of the Minister, presented with a copy of it just before last weekend. I forgot to weigh it. All I can say is that the report which has just been issued feels as though it is heavier than the one it replaced. But it is still the departmental annual report. That is hardly consistent with what we heard earlier this afternoon—minutes ago—about this Government's commitment to open and transparent transactions. Few things are less transparent than a departmental annual report. All that the Minister could offer us therefore was cold comfort, too little and too late.

The appropriation accounts and the departmental annual report are retrospective documents. They simply describe how money has been spent and we, when we receive them, may approve or loudly disapprove. But there is nothing whatever we can do about them. They do not provide a means of prior approval.

It is extremely difficult to see why the Government are so violently resisting that approach when they conceded it in the 1990 Education (Student Loans) Bill. That, surely, is a good, apposite and relevant precedent, and the Government should follow it by accepting the amendment.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I had not expected to be in the House this afternoon but it seemed a pity to leave before the Statements after Question Time, and therefore I find myself in the curious position of retrogressing in time. In 1990, as has been referred to, we had the original Education (Student Loans) Act. I ventured to tell your Lordships that it would not work; that it would be a source of major inconvenience to students and to universities. The fact that it is now being amended proves, if proof were necessary, that my prophecy was entirely correct.

I mentally made another prophecy, which was the reason I did not intend to take part in today's proceedings any more than in the preceding stage of the Bill. I privately prophesied that all argument about this Bill was quite unnecessary, a taking up of your Lordships' time, because it will never happen. There is no reasonable possibility of any private institution, unless run by people demonstrably unfit to run such an institution, taking on this burden. We cannot make private people do things, even by bribes, unless, on the whole, they believe that there is something in it for them. Apart from discouraging any student from banking with them in their future careers, it is difficult to see what effect the Bill could have.

There is another, more important, point. It is perfectly clear—the Minister is as well aware of this as any other Member of this House—that the whole question of financing universities and students is now in the melting pot. The Dearing Committee is seeking to find an appropriate new method of funding higher education. To my mind it is unthinkable that any government would rush into another complicated mechanism of this kind when the whole idea of student loans in their original form may be jettisoned as a result of the Dearing Report.

I cannot understand why, when we are always told how little time this House has for important discussions—for instance, we are told that we cannot have two or three days of debate on the IGC, which is an important event—time can be found for a Bill which has no dignity of ancestry and no hope of progeny.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I follow that intervention with some trepidation and mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says about the unnecessary taking up of your Lordships' time. As I made clear at Second Reading, I share his view that this Bill should never have been born in the first place and, with the announcement of the Dearing review, should have been withdrawn. Nevertheless, it is before us and I rise briefly to put on record the support of myself and my colleagues for the intentions of the amendments before us.

I cannot speak as eloquently as the movers of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris; nevertheless, we wish to echo all the comments made on the amendment. It has been said many times that the Government are seeking, through this Bill, a blank cheque; we do not know the payee nor any of the details. It was suggested at an earlier stage that it was a rather novel approach to be conducting our sensitive commercial negotiations through Parliament. That is not what is proposed. We are requesting the opportunity for Parliament at least to exercise its authority to express its view and judgment on the negotiations when they are completed, but not when they are a fait accompli.

Others are much more familiar than I am with departmental reports. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, described them at an earlier stage of the Bill as being totally indecipherable and in a boring form. If he says so, it must be true. Nevertheless, they are an extremely difficult and belated way for your Lordships to find out what has been agreed by the arrangements. The amendment therefore is right in seeking some form of parliamentary scrutiny of the arrangements that are reached with such institutions as may be entering into agreements, if and when they do. I hope that we are about to hear from the Minister how he proposes to meet the wishes that are widely held in this House.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I support the amendments and ask the Minister to give an assurance that the total cost of the loan under these proposals will be no greater than the total cost of a similar loan through the Student Loans Company. I appreciate that the Government may wish to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, but surely any responsible government would want to give an indication—for example, to the Chancellor—that the students in question will not be paying a total cost per loan that is greater as a result of this legislation. Whether the student loan in question is classified as a public sector loan or a private sector loan, that, plus the proposed subsidy, should not put a greater burden on the general public, including those students who repay.

Are we really to understand that the Government have decided that this legislation should go through whatever the cost to the public purse? I find it hard to believe that the Chancellor takes that approach. Can the Minister remind the House why the Government are proposing in the Bill to subsidise the private sector at all? Surely the private sector is there to provide loans. If the Government's view is that students should be able to get loans from the private sector, why should the public subsidise? Is it that the private sector is not prepared to embark on this scheme without some form of carrot?

3.30 p.m.

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

My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness's last point first. The simple reason is to allow the private sector to offer loans on the same basis as the Student Loans Company will also be offering them. We made that clear on a number of occasions at earlier stages of the Bill.

I start by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, when he paid tribute to the eloquence of my two noble friends. I hope and trust that he always takes such notice of what they have to say. However, he seemed to be moving on from their amendment. My noble friends, I think rightly, following the decision in Committee, have amended their amendment, moving away from the prior approval for which their earlier amendment seemed to be looking. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, it seems, is still looking for prior approval by Parliament of the contract. That, as I have made clear, is not acceptable to the Government and would be a constitutional innovation of a rather extraordinary kind.

Perhaps I may explain why we do not think that the amendment is the right way forward and try to allay some of my noble friends' fears. I shall describe how we hope to get the appropriate information to Parliament in order to meet the concern of both my noble friends that this should be forthcoming. Our first objective is to get for the student and the taxpayer the benefits of what the private sector does best, not only in personal lending generally but in the service, marketing and product standards that choice and competition bring. It would be futile to involve the private sector and then regulate away the advantages that that brings. The operation of choice in a competitive and diverse market is a far better safeguard than a raft of regulations.

Secondly, as made clear at an earlier stage, we could not possibly negotiate with the private sector tenderers within a straitjacket which an amendment like this could impose. I think my noble friend accepts that. I think he accepts that it could make the negotiations themselves inflexible, unwieldy and somewhat time consuming. Thirdly, we understand and accept noble Lords' concerns about the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the private loans scheme but we believe that the steps we are proposing to take will be appropriate for such scrutiny. A draft of the invitation to tender documents, as the House well knows, has been placed in the Library of the House. Those documents set out in some detail how the scheme will work. We have also made clear that we shall announce the names of the successful tenderers and do so to Parliament when the contracts are signed. I believe I made clear to my noble friend in the letter I wrote to him on 21st March that that could be by means of a separate statement to Parliament.

I appreciate that my noble friend has considerable concerns about what form that statement takes—whether it would be appropriate to make an oral statement or whatever. I have a sneaking feeling that an oral statement would be somewhat over-egging the pudding. Whether we respond by means of answering a Question put by my noble friend or someone else might be something we could address. I want to make clear that we intend that the statement to the House—to Parliament—will include broad details of the agreement we have reached with the tenderers. We shall give information on the financial institutions involved, the total value of the subsidies and the number of loans, the general nature of the arrangements, and the general details of repayment arrangements. However, the House will accept, I believe, that commercially sensitive information cannot be included. We shall ensure that the benefits of the private sector involvement will be realised as cost effectively as possible.

Although it is possible to give some sort of figure as to what the total cost will be after we have signed the contract, I think, again, that it would be wrong for me to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, by giving a top figure in advance. Parliament will have its opportunity in due course to scrutinise and to check when it considers the annual appropriation accounts. The National Audit Office will be following in our footsteps. Not only will it have access to our books; it will also have access to the private lenders' books. I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is safeguarded at an appropriate level. I do not believe that the amendment adds anything; it would possibly make the negotiations somewhat harder.

My noble friend Lady Park ranged more widely and talked about going beyond 50 per cent. of students' maintenance as currently allowed for by the 1990 Act. I can give an assurance that if we wanted to go beyond 50 per cent. an affirmative resolution of both Houses would be required. That is not a matter to consider now but certainly the Dearing committee of inquiry will address it in its study beginning some time after Easter and continuing over the coming months.

I hope that I have given my noble friend sufficient cause to feel that his pressure has been successful. I hope that I have moved a reasonable degree and that my noble friend accepts that I speak in good faith when I say that we shall make sure that information, in whatever appropriate form, is made available to the House.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy and for the genuine attempt he has made to understand our difficulties. I was deeply touched by the moving tribute paid to me by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. To say that I had improved him was indeed attributing to me almost miraculous powers. Persuaded, as I partially am, that I possess them, I shall certainly endeavour to pursue this high purpose in the future. I hope that the noble Lord will benefit from my efforts.

Our problem today is that there is a trebly blank cheque: payee, amount and date are left open. There will, I understand, be no new regulations called for. Therefore, there will be no opportunities under laid-down procedures for Parliament to scrutinise what has occurred.

My noble friend Lord Beloff, in one of those splendid interventions which are always so welcome, declared that we were all wasting our time because it will never happen. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that, if because a thing was unlikely to happen we did not take due precautions against the event, that would be to let governments loose in a way which I am sure that he would be the first to deplore. He said that it will never happen and that it has no "dignity of ancestry". What a splendid phrase! I am grateful to my noble friend for not inquiring into the dreadful possibilities of what that ancestry may be if it were revealed.

I made it quite clear to your Lordships the other day that I divided the House in anger and protest because the Government did not seem to understand the point at which the amendments were aimed. Today my noble friend has shown that he has moved quite a long way and that he understands the need for parliamentary scrutiny. I am not quite clear whether he understands that parliamentary scrutiny does not just involve being told; it also involves the opportunity to express an opinion. Therefore, I am still much concerned about the form that this special statement will take. An entry in the appropriation accounts does not have a deep or sufficient appeal to move me all that much.

What worries me very much is that Parliament will have less scrutiny when we have possibly new arrangements coming into being than it had when the old Student Loans Company had the handling of the matter. As I said to my noble friend, I have no desire to divide the House this afternoon. But I ask him, as a reward for my restraint, for an undertaking to take this matter away, look at it again and have sensible discussions with us as to the form that the arrangements which he has in mind might take. I hope that he will regard that as free from any aggressive intent.

Lord Henley

My Lords, with the leave of the House, and this being Report stage, I give an undertaking that the noble Lord and myself can have further discussions between now and next Monday.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of seeing my noble friend so soon. As regards free and meaningful discussions, I ask him to give a clear undertaking that they will have as a firm objective finding some acceptable form in which the special announcement can be made. We have had discussions before.

Lord Henley

My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I do not believe that my noble friend will expect me to set out my negotiating position in advance of those discussions. I made a promise to my noble friend and the House that we shall find some way of making a statement to the House after we have made the contracts. I gave some indication as to what information I believe could be available in that. I do not believe that I can go much further than that, other than to say that I am prepared to have discussions with my noble friend, should he so wish, between now and the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I am the first to sympathise with my noble friend for the shackles imposed on him from elsewhere which restrain him from doing what he would obviously accept is the right thing to do. In the circumstances I do not wish to divide the House because I have some burgeoning confidence—I may yet be proved an idiot—that in the course of the week we may be able to shift the Government into a more acceptable position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Noble Lords

No!

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, the Question is, That this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"?

Noble Lords

Content.

The Chairman of Committees

To the contrary, "Not-content"?

Noble Lords

Not-content.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I believe that the "Not-contents" have it.

Noble Lords

Content.

3.45 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No 1
contents
Ackner, L.	Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Diamond, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Avebury, L.	Donoughue, L.
Barnett, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Beloff, L.	Dubs, L.
Berkeley, L.	Elis-Thomas, L.
Blease, L.	Ezra, L.
Blyth, L.	Falkender, B.
Borrie, L.	Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Gallacher, L.
Carter, L.	Gladwin of Clee, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Grey, E.
Chalfont, L.	Hanworth, V.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Haskel, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Hayman, B.
David, B.	Healey, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Nicol, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Oliver of Aylmerton, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Ilchester, E	Peston, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Rea, L.
Kirkwood, L	Redesdale, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.	Richard, L.
Lauderdale, E	Sainsbury, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Seear, B.
Lockwood, B.	Serota, B.
Lovell-Davis, L.	Sharples, B.
McCarthy, L.	Shaughnessy, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.	Shepherd, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
McNair, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Mallalieu, B.	Taverne, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Mayhew, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.	Tope, L. [Teller.]
Merrivale, L.	Tordoff, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Molloy, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Monkswell, L.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Moore of Wolvercote, L.	White, B.
Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]	Williams of Elvel, L.
	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Nelson, E.	Winston, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Gerard, L.
Addison, V.	Goschen, V.
Ailesbury, M.	Granard, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Gray of Contin, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Haig, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Blaker, L.	Halsbury, E.
Blatch, B.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Harding of Petherton, L.
Boardman, L.	Hayhoe, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Hayter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Henley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	HolmPatrick, L.
Cadman, L.	Howe, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Inglewood, L.
Carnock, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Kimball, L.
Chorley, L	Kintore, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	Kitchener, E.
Cockfield, L.	Knollys, V.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Lane of Horsell, L.
Courtown, E.	Lindsay, E
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Long, V. [Teller.]
Crawshaw, L.	Lucas, L.
Cuckney, L.	Lyell, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	McConnell, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Davidson, V.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
De Freyne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Denham, L	Manton, L.
Derwent, L.	Mersey, V.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Elibank, L.	Milverton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Mountevans, L.
Elles, B.	Moyne, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Munster, E.
Forbes, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Gage, V.	Norrie, L.
Gainford, L.	O'Cathain, B.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]