HL Deb 18 November 1998 vol 594 cc1275-87

3.3 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I beg to move that the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be agreed to. In the light of the amendment to the Motion on the Offices Committee's Sixth Report, agreed by the House in July, referring the proposals to refurbish Old Palace Yard back to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, it seems appropriate, in moving this Motion, to speak briefly in amplification of the proposals.

I believe that there was on that occasion some misunderstanding about the rationale behind this important project. The scheme is designed to restore the historical character of Old Palace Yard which, according to English Heritage, may well be the oldest definable public square or space in London. It will restore the original features with authentic designs which will improve the appearance and character of the palace and in particular of your Lordships' House.

The improvements will embrace the resurfacing of the square with granite setts, the replacement of street furniture and the elimination of car parking on the west side of Old Palace Yard. These measures are all consistent with the historical appearance of Old Palace Yard.

The Administration and Works Sub-Committee has considered with great care the reservations expressed in the previous debate. I shall touch on the more important of these. I can assure your Lordships that the scheme will have no adverse impact on road journey times to and from the House. With regard to cost, the scheme should be seen by your Lordships in the context of general expenditure on both the Palace of Westminster and the Abbey. The cost will be spread over three years, with no significant expenditure arising until the Summer Recess in the year 2000.

Questions were asked about car parking. Let me emphasise that that is an entirely separate matter which has no bearing on the Old Palace Yard scheme at this stage and which will be considered on its merits in due course by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. This was the point on which there was the greatest misunderstanding. That was probably my fault for taking it too much for granted that we all understood that this is emphatically not a car parking plan. In mitigation, I point out that the project has now been under consideration by your Lordships' committees in three Sessions of Parliament. Your Lordships have had full knowledge of the proposals and there has been an exhibition in the Royal Gallery.

If your Lordships approve the Motion, the project will be the Palace of Westminster's contribution to the enhancement of this World Heritage Site. Since the end of World War II little attention has been given to the historical importance of Old Palace Yard and the overall setting of Parliament. I believe that we now have a unique opportunity to redress the situation, for which future generations will be grateful. I have no hesitation in commending the proposals to the House. I am not defending the project on behalf of your Lordships' committees; I am advocating it.

Moved, That the Seventh Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 153).— (The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod.

Old Palace Yard

On 22 July the House agreed to an amendment to the Committee's 6th Report, which required that proposals to refurbish Old Palace Yard should be referred back to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee have reconsidered the proposals and have had the advantage this time to hear the views of English Heritage and of Westminster City Council, who both fully support the scheme.

The Sub-Committee have again agreed the scheme put to the House in July. This provides for:

the replacement of the tarmac surface of the whole area, including the carriage way, with granite setts (as can now be seen in position in front of Chancellor's Gate);

the replacement of street furniture. This will include, among other improvements, the provision of globe lamp standards and railings to designs by Sir Charles Barry, the rationalisation of the plethora of road markings and the simplification of the pedestrian crossing; and

the elimination of car parking on the West side of Old Palace Yard, so increasing the space available to pedestrians.

The Committee wish to emphasize that the scheme is not to enhance the House of Lords car park. Indeed, the House may in future years wish, on environmental and aesthetic grounds, to reduce substantially the number of cars now able to park in front of the Palace.

Nor will the proposals impede access to the House. The refurbishment of Old Palace Yard is linked with, but is not dependent on, a wider scheme known as World Squares for All. This entails improvements for pedestrians and better urban design in adjoining areas such as Trafalgar Square. These improvements could have implications for traffic around Parliament, but any adverse consequences should not be attributed to the Committee's proposals, which do not affect traffic movement.

The Committee's proposals are entirely directed to improving the environment of an historic part of London, which enjoys the status of a World Heritage Site. The cost of £2.44 million, spread over three years, should be seen in the context of the substantially greater total sum which has been spent in recent years on the exteriors of the surrounding buildings, such as Westminster Abbey, the Palace of Westminster and 6–7 Old Palace Yard. Because of the reference back to the Sub-Committee, the work cannot now begin until the summer recess 2000 and the money would therefore be spent in the financial years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03.

The Committee recommend that the scheme to refurbish Old Palace Yard, as again endorsed by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, should be adopted.

3.8 p.m.

Lord Strabolgi rose to move, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, after ("That") insert ("noting that the proposal has the support of many notable bodies, including the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the House's Advisory Panel on Works of Art and, on Division, a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said, this is not just a question of refurbishing the car park. The proposals go far wider than that. The Palace of Westminster has the status of a World Heritage Site. Old Palace Yard is probably the oldest public square in London. It is proposed to replace the ugly tarmac surface by granite setts, both in the car park and covering the whole area of Old Palace Yard, thus linking the Palace of Westminster with the Abbey. It is also proposed to install globe lamp standards and railings to designs by Charles Barry, the architect of this great building.

The proposals to restore the historic area conform with the World Squares for All master plan to promote a high standard of urban design in historic places. The scheme will eliminate car parking outside Nos. 6 and 7 Old Palace Yard, on the west side—the other side of the road—thus increasing the space for pedestrians. I stress that car parking spaces outside the Palace will not be reduced. The main road traffic flow outside this building will also not be affected. I stress that because one or two noble Lords were concerned about it the last time it was debated in July.

The costs are part of a much greater sum spent on the whole of the parliament building, which is certainly one of the most beautiful neo-gothic buildings in Europe—probably the most beautiful—and the most beautiful parliament building in the world. As the noble Lord has said, the costs have been approved and will be spread over three years.

The scheme restores an historic area and recreates the dignity and coherence of Old Palace Yard. It has the support of the notable bodies connected with the arts and national heritage, as listed in my amendment. I hope your Lordships will approve it.

Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, after ("That") insert ("noting that the proposal has the support of many notable bodies, including the Royal Fine Art Commission, English Heritage, Westminster City Council, the House's Advisory Panel on Works of Art and, on Division, a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee").—(Lord Strabolgi.)

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak now. I imagine that these two amendments would have been grouped together had we had a formal Marshalled List. I am getting a little worried about how we conduct our business. We have colleagues who serve on these committees who work conscientiously. We frequently do not have debates at all on the reports that come before this House—they go through on the nod—because our committees always try to move towards consensus. This is an unusual case because, on 22nd July, I moved the reference back of this particular part of the report and it was carried by the House. That was extremely unusual. At that time I quoted to the House what was said to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee when the matter was proposed: In conclusion, it was proposed that the sub-committee should examine the proposals in detail before confirming they should go ahead".—[Official Report, 22/7/98; col. 882] The Chairman of Committees said that that would be impractical. So it was not really looked at in detail.

On 22nd July, the House referred the matter back and once again it went before the committee. In the minutes of 3rd November it is said that the committee had had the benefit of being addressed by English Heritage and that it put the case very strongly for the proposal. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, my old colleague, for the wording of his amendment. With my natural innate diffidence I have simply put into my amendment: in view of the substantial disagreement amongst the members of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee". My noble friend has been much more specific by saying that the matter was approved on a Division and that a majority of the House's Administration and Works Sub-Committee voted in its favour.

As my noble friend raised the matter of the Division, I should like to look at that in a little more detail. I was there when the Division took place. The matter was carried by seven votes to five with two abstentions—this is after three years of being on the organs, going round and round. If we look at the two abstentions, one of those was by somebody who had changed their mind. That person would have voted against but felt that, in view of previous involvement in the matter, an abstention was better. Of the seven in favour, three included the Chief Whips. I do not complain about that because the job of Chief Whips is to push the business on—I have done it myself over a long period of time—but it does not exactly ooze the close scrutiny that we had been promised. We had a very close vote here even after all that consideration. I do not believe that it gives us the mandate or the authority in this House to spend £2.5 million of public money in this way.

Lord Berkeley

My Lords, perhaps I may speak to both amendments. First, however, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for being late. My train was an hour late this morning.

I am a member of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, as your Lordships know, and I voted against the proposal in July. As to the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, his proposal does have the support of the Westminster City Council, English Heritage and the Royal Fine Art Commission. But if one reads their submissions to the committee it will be noticed that they are based on the premise that now or later some or all of the existing cars in the car park at the front of your Lordships' House would be removed. In other words, they supported a world square that looked like a square.

My concern with the amendments of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, is that we appear to be going ahead with the proposal to resurface the square and make it look like a square again, without any commitment in the short, long or medium term to reduce the number of cars at the front. We are not to discuss the car parking arrangements in your Lordships' House until the next meeting, which will take place in one or two weeks' time.

I have received some information from the Director of Parliamentary Works, who said that the number of cars in the front car park is probably only one-sixth of the total car parking spaces available to your Lordships at the moment. The House has taken steps to reduce the number in the Church House car park because they are not being used. I accept that some Members of your Lordships' House need car parks at the front because they may have difficulty in walking too far, but there are an awful lot of us who are quite capable of walking a few minutes further if that would reduce the number of car park spaces outside the front. That may start making the square look like a square rather than a car park.

I support the idea of a "world squares" project. I support the idea of making the square look like a square, but unless we take steps at the same time to reduce significantly the number of car parking spaces there, and make more space for pedestrians, then it will be seen by the outside world as resurfacing your Lordships' car park at the cost of £2.5 million. I cannot support that.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, after the references to the Old Palace Yard being the most ancient public square in this capital, does it not follow that the roadway ought to be removed altogether? This is what is being done in a number of parts of Westminster along with the changes in Trafalgar Square. Surely the Houses of Parliament, on the basis of the eulogistic statements that have been made, is much more important even than Trafalgar Square. Should not the whole of the area be pedestrianised as part and parcel of the proposal now before your Lordships?

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees for introducing this debate. Following the very useful review of the plans that we had after the last debate in July, has the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in fact sought expert highway engineers' advice on the proposed layout of what will continue to be a major thoroughfare, running from Parliament Square to Millbank across Old Palace Yard? If my noble friend remembers, I raised the query about the road layout as it was depicted on the plans. They provided no facility for vehicular traffic travelling north towards Parliament Square to wait in the middle of the thoroughfare for a gap in the traffic to enable them to drive into the car park at the entrance to your Lordships' House. It is also important that the advice of professional highways engineers should be obtained about the proposed surface, which I believe is to be granite setts imported from France, and whether that is a satisfactory and safe surface for the volume of traffic that will be using it.

Lord Ampthill

My Lords, I wish to make a brief point about granite setts. They were insisted on by the chairman of the Royal Fine Art Commission for Black Rod's garden. They added £500,000 to the cost of the operation. They are excessively uncomfortable for men to walk on and I dread to think what they will do to noble Baronesses who may be on their stilettoes.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate but I cannot resist coming to my feet on this occasion. The whole House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for what he has done. He has reminded the House that it is the authority which decides whether plans brought forward by various committees of the House should or should not go forward. He is correct to remind the House that very rarely are committee reports scrutinised effectively by the House. From that point of view, I am grateful to him for bringing the matter forward. However, this is the second time he has done so.

My interest in the subject is that I sit on the Administration and Works Sub-Committee and have dealt with this issue twice. I was impressed by the arguments brought forward by the proposers of the scheme. Old Palace Yard, which is at the front of the palace, has become increasingly degraded over the past few years. The quality of the tarmac is poor. The new designs are aesthetically much more attractive for such an important site. Your Lordships will also have noticed that over the past few years an enormous amount of money has been spent on this palace and on Westminster Abbey. The contrast between what was before and what we have now is quite striking.

I think it is right that we should now agree the report introduced by the Chairman of Committees. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, who has provided a great service to the House, will feel that he has had a good go on the issue and that he will let the matter drop. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will feel that he does not need to push his amendment any further. But if he does, I shall be supporting him.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, we on these Benches, having considered most of the issues that have been discussed, have come to the conclusion that we support the plan although we recognise the concerns raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks.

We know that there are two matters that exercise noble Lords' minds outside this Chamber: their accommodation and their car parking. I do not think that anyone looking at the prospect of changing the nature of Old Palace Yard could disagree that at the moment it is a mess. It is a mess largely because of the car parking to the west of Old Palace Yard. Part of the scheme is to take away the car parking on the other side of the road from your Lordships' House and to effect changes which fall in line with the World Heritage view that it is a unique site. It is a unique collection of buildings.

The proposal, with the pedestrianisation, will be a return somewhat to the character of Old Palace Yard before the fire in 1834. It will make sense of the old Jewel House which to many tourists is a great puzzle. Most wonder why it is on the other side of the road. They think that the road has existed since 1066, which of course it has not. Some of the other buildings are also unique. As well as your Lordships' House, there is 6 to 7 Palace Gardens, the Jewel House and Westminster Abbey. I have it on good authority that the architectural adviser to Westminster Abbey, a Dr. Buttress, has given the view that if the plans were to go ahead one of his first considerations would be to remove the railings around Westminster Abbey, which would contribute to the enhancement—if that is the right word—of what is a unique collection of buildings and a unique site not only for tourists but for visitors of all kinds.

While parking considerations are important, it is possible, if not probable, that there will be fewer Members of your Lordships' House in the future and that one might be able to anticipate less demand for car parking space. I am sure that car parking can be dealt with separately from the issues we have before us. It is paramount to make good at last what is a unique English site. We have a collection of extraordinary buildings of great architectural value. Paving and pedestrianising will to an extent bring it up to the standards which are required by, for example, World Squares for All.

Taken overall, the cost seems quite in line with what one would expect for alterations of this kind. To assume that the cost is being incurred to enhance the parking outside the House of Lords is mistaken. That is probably what has concerned many people who have not thought deeply about the issue. We take the view that, at a time when we are undergoing constitutional change, if we take some of the living historical remnants from the Palace of Westminster we can at least retain some of the buildings and enhance their historical importance. If there is anything those of us who may be leaving your Lordships' House shortly can do, it may be to contribute to that. Having said that, I hope that once the report is agreed the work can go forward with expedition.

Baroness David

My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee who voted for the scheme, I should like to put in a word for it as several criticisms have been made. I do not think we can say that we are spending £2.5 million on improving the car park. That is nonsense. When we remember that it cost £4 million to clean the Victoria Tower, that puts it in proportion, and the cost is spread over three years. I walked on the granite setts that were put outside Chancellor's Gate. It did not seem uncomfortable to walk on and I thought it looked very good. I hope therefore that the House will show some imagination and think of it as a big project which will enhance the area considerably.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I wonder if I may say a few words as an ordinary Member of your Lordships' House and as a member of the committee and not as the Government Chief Whip. As we have heard, we are now considering what is the oldest open public space in London. It is a unique site. We have a responsibility to the architectural heritage. Furthermore, the proposals before us have no effect on the House of Lords car park, which I know has concerned many of your Lordships. That is a matter for separate decision later and will be taken into account by the committee when we come to consider this proposal and its effect on car parking.

Those noble Lords who have seen the plan—I believe that it was available for all your Lordships to examine—will realise that it returns the square to something like the intention of Charles Barry. The plan is coherent in its own right and not dependent upon the World Squares project. It is worth reflecting that, in addition to the organisations referred to in the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, there have been consultations with the police, the Traffic Director for London, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Government Office for London, the Royal Parks Agency, the International Council for Monuments and Sites, Westminster Abbey, the Lord Chairman's Office and the Thorney Island Society. All of those bodies in one way or another have expressed support for this proposal.

Those of us who are lucky enough to come here every day and work in this building have a responsibility for the architectural heritage that we have inherited. I hope that there will not be a Division on these amendments and that the report of the Procedure Committee will be agreed to. If there is such a Division, as an ordinary Member of the House I shall be content to agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi but not my noble friend Lord Cocks.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I mention first the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I leave it to him to decide whether or not to press his amendment to a Division. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that given a free hand—I am not in that position because I am in your Lordships' hands—I would be inclined to leave my Motion as it is. But if, as the noble Lord has every right—I am sure that it would be perfectly acceptable to noble Lords—he decided to press his amendment to a Division I would support what has been said by the Opposition Chief Whip. He supports that amendment. I would not be voting on the amendment, but your Lordships will appreciate that I would be very sympathetic to the decision of the Opposition Chief Whip to support it. I make one other comment about the very interesting and pertinent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. I thank him for his remarks about the report of the Offices Committee.

I refer next to the proposed amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. Here again I find myself in agreement with what more than one noble Lord said, in particular the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the previous proceeding and these proceedings. I agree with him that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, has indeed performed a service to the House. I told him as much very soon after his victory on the 22nd July on which I congratulated him. I am sure that he will not object if I reveal to noble Lords—as I said to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee when it had a very lengthy discussion about this matter recently—that I told the noble Lord that there were both benefits and disadvantages arising from the reference back by your Lordships to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. The disadvantages are obvious. If the project is to go ahead we cannot now start work on it until later than we intended. On the other hand, the benefit is that it has given time for pause and reflection and for your Lordships' committee to hear representatives of the various bodies who have already been mentioned, not least English Heritage and Westminster Council. That has been valuable. Even though the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be disappointed that we have returned to the original recommendation made to your Lordships at least he has the comfort of knowing that a very thorough examination has been made with the help of those experts.

Since the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has referred to the narrowness of the majority in the Administration and Works Sub-Committee—seven votes to five—it would be wrong to fail to point out that he has not indicated his unhappiness with the narrowness of the majority on his amendment on 22nd July which was 148 votes to 142 votes. That was a majority of six in a total vote of 290. The sub-committee's vote was a majority of two in a total of 12. I hope that that helps to put the matter into perspective. I am sure that I shall not offend the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, whom I value very highly as a Deputy Speaker and Deputy Chairman—for one thing he does late turns very frequently and performs a considerable service to your Lordships' House—if I say that as a distinguished Government Chief Whip in another place he would have regarded, as I do, a majority as a majority. Whatever the size of the majority that he achieved in his period in another place as Government Chief Whip I am sure that he would have been very happy with these majorities.

I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time than is necessary because of the weighty business that is to follow. I reply as briefly as I may to the other points that have been raised. A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to car parking. This proposal will not affect what we decide to do eventually one way or another. Those options on car parking remain open. I note his comment about the abandonment of some car parking spaces in Church House. He will also be aware that there are parking spaces set aside in the Abingdon Street car park, not all of which are fully used. Those are matters that your Lordships will also wish to take into account in due course in considering the overall provision of car parking. All of the options are left open.

The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, referred to the roadway. I reveal that your Lordships' committees did not consider as an option the removal of the entire roadway. However, that is in any event a matter for Westminster City Council. Other matters have been referred to in this connection. For example the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked about highway advice. The matters upon which he touched are largely for Westminster City Council. I have no doubt that with that council's customary efficiency it will have sought all of the expert and technical advice necessary for that purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, referred to the granite setts. I believe that some comfort has been provided to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who has tested them. They are not like the lumpy granite setts or cobbles with which your Lordships will be familiar. I urge those of your Lordships who have not already examined the granite setts at the south end of the car park to do so. Noble Lords will be thoroughly reassured that they will be both attractive and convenient to walk upon—far better even than tarmac. I do not believe that your Lordships need have any fear whatever on this matter.

I am also grateful for the points that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland—he referred to the value of the area—which have been endorsed in the evidence from the experts who appeared before your Lordships' committee.

As far as concerns the proceedings this afternoon, I am not allowed to refer to the Government Chief Whip as the Government Chief Whip for the reasons that he has given. I am not quite sure about the extent to which we should be guided by that. I find it difficult to divorce the noble Lord from his office, so I shall refer to him as the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I confirm his remarks about the support provided by the various bodies referred to during the course of this afternoon's debate. To have that support has been a very great comfort to those of your Lordships who serve on the committees as I hope it will be to the House as a whole.

I hope that I have answered sufficiently all those who have taken part in this short debate. It only remains for me to remind noble Lords, if noble Lords need to be reminded, that this is a major project. It is of national and international historic importance. I am in no doubt whatever that the project will assist and attract future generations in this country and that in view of the attraction of this area countless thousands of visitors from overseas will also benefit. It is for that reason that I have no hesitation in commending the Motion that I originally moved to the House.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate and for the support I received from all parts of the House. I noted carefully what my noble friend Lord Cocks said. He is my old boss, and I have the greatest respect for him.

As regards the sum being spent on the scheme, as my noble friend Lady David said, that should be seen in the context of the whole expenditure on the refurbishing of this wonderful building of which we are the custodians for future generations. I sense the feeling of the House and in view of that I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the Chairman of Committees, for the kind remarks they made about me. The Chairman of Committees dwelt a little on my previous existence as Chief Whip. In order to refresh your Lordships' memories, perhaps I might say that we lost our majority in government when the late John Stonehouse crossed the Floor of the House. By the time we finally fell, he was out on parole.

As regards the size of majorities, we had a Division on one occasion. I was not in the Chamber, I was talking to my friend, Ian Aitken, the former lobby correspondent. The result went up, and we had won by two. I turned to Ian and said, "There you are Ian, overkill". So I am quite familiar with those matters.

I do not want to go into the details of the scheme although I understand that if the surface is restored to its original condition it would not consist of granite setts but gravel. But I am not surprised by all the support from other bodies because the one thing that everyone is excellent at doing is spending somebody else's money. They are queuing up to approve of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that it is no good looking at this matter or thinking of it as £2.5 million being spent on a car park. I understand that, but that is how it will be viewed from outside. At this time, your Lordships are receiving a great deal of publicity. At the same time, in juxtaposition, we are asked to approve this scheme to spend £2.5 million. As stated by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, constitutional change is in the air. I should have thought that any scheme such as this should be postponed. Therefore, with great regret and resisting the blandishments, I beg to move my amendment.

Moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to approve the Seventh Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 153), in view of the substantial disagreement amongst the members of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee on the question whether the scheme to refurbish Old Palace Yard be proceeded with at a cost of £2.44 million.").—(Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.)

3.43 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 190.

Division No. 1
Ailesbury, M. Chapple, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Christopher, L.
Berkeley, L. [Teller.] Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Berners, B. Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. [Teller.]
Blatch, B. Cope of Berkeley, L.
Blease, L. Cross, V.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Davidson, V.
Butterworth, L. Dean of Beswick, L.
Cadman, L. Dixon, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Downshire, M.
Ewing of Kirkford, L. Northesk, E.
Gallacher, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Harding of Petherton, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Harlech, L. Perry of Southwark, B.
Hesketh, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Platt of Writtle, B.
Hooper, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Howie of Troon, L. Scanlon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Islwyn, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Jopling, L. Shepherd, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Skidelsky, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Stockton, E.
Molyneaux of Killead, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Monkswell, L. Tebbit, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Ackner, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Acton, L. Dubs, L.
Addington, L. Elis-Thomas, L.
Alderdice, L. Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Aldington, L. Erne, E.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Exmouth, V.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Ezra, L.
Alli, L. Falkland, V.
Amos, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Ferrers, E.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Forbes, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Gainsborough, E.
Astor of Hever, L. Geraint, L.
Attlee, E. Gilbert, L.
Bach, L. Goodhart, L.
Barnard, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Barnett, L. Goudie, B.
Beaverbrook, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Beloff, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Blackburn, Bp. Gray of Contin, L.
Blackstone, B. Grenfell, L.
Bledisloe, V. Grey, E.
Borrie, L. Grimston of Westbury, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Hardie, L.
Bragg, L. Hardy of Wath, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Bridges, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Brightman, L. Haskel, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hayhoe, L.
Bruntisfield, L. Hayman, B.
Burlison, L. Hayter, L.
Burns, L. Headfort, M.
Calverley, L. Henderson of Brompton, L.
Carlisle, E. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Carnarvon, E. Holderness, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Hothfield, L.
Carnock, L. Hoyle, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Hughes, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Chorley, L. Ilchester, E.
Clancarty, E. Jacobs, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Jellicoe, E.
Cockfield, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Cranborne, V. Kenyon, L.
Crawley, B. Kilbracken, L.
Cuckney, L. Kimball, L.
Cumberlege, B. Knight of Collingtree, B.
David, B. Lauderdale, E.
Dearing, L. Layton, L.
Denham, L. Lewis of Newnham, L.
Dholakia, L. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Dixon-Smith, L. Lockwood, B.
Donoughue, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. Sawyer, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
McNally, L. Seccombe, B.
Maddock, B. Serota, B.
Mar and Kellie, E. Sewel, L.
Merrivale, L. Sharples, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Shore of Stepney, L.
Milner of Leeds, L. Simon, V.
Milverton, L. Simon of Highbury, L.
Montague of Oxford, L. Slim, V.
Monteagle of Brandon, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L. Stair, E.
Mottistone, L. Stallard, L
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Strabolgi, L.
Stafford, E.
Munster, E.
Nicol, B. Strathcarron, L.
Norfolk, D. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Sudeley, L.
Northbourne, L. Swinfen, L.
O'Cathain, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Onslow, E. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L. Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Thornton, B.
Porter of Luddenham, L. Thurlow, L.
Puttnam, L. Tomlinson, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Tordoff, L.
Rawlings, B. Trumpington, B.
Redesdale, L. Uddin, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B. Varley, L.
Renton, L. Walpole, L.
Renwick, L. Walton of Detchant, L.
Renwick of Clifton, L. Warnock, B.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Westbury, L.
Rowallan, L. Whitty, L.
St. John of Bletso, L. Wigoder, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Sandwich, E. Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Motion agreed to.