HL Deb 18 November 2004 vol 666 cc1620-32

49 Clause 34, page 21, line 32, after ''Act" insert ", except for the provisions of Part 2"

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

49A Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A.

The idea of sunsetting Part 2 of the Bill, originally raised by the Joint Committee that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, was discussed in detail on Report, at Third Reading and in another place. The Government have made it clear that they consider the arguments against a generic sunsetting provision for Part 2 of the Bill to be compelling both in terms of logic and precedence.

That view will not change for three key reasons. First, there is no logic in the argument that generic provision to deal with emergencies will cease to be needed. Secondly, the exercise of the powers under Part 2 is already subject to sunsetting, but after 30 days rather than a year. Thirdly, the Government already provide Parliament with regular opportunities to debate civil contingencies and the operation of legislation in this area.

Sunsetting legislation is appropriate where the powers it contains are expected no longer to be needed after a certain period or where that Act's existence should be reviewed by Parliament. The Bill does not meet either of those criteria. Time-limiting the Bill is clearly not appropriate; no one believes that emergencies will stop happening in three years' time. If Part 2 of the Bill were to be repealed, something else would simply have to be put in its place. This, as has been made clear in debate, is not the principal concern behind the original amendment. The issue is parliamentary review of the use of Part 2 of the Bill.

The purpose of review by Parliament on a triennial basis, it is suggested, is that, given the nature of the powers, Parliament should assess whether it is appropriate for them to continue to exist, in light of the way in which they have been exercised. While the Government understand the thinking behind that approach they do not believe it to be appropriate. If Part 2 of the Bill itself implemented matters such as those listed at Clause 22, if the Bill itself requisitioned property or prohibited the movement of persons or prohibited assemblies, then I would agree entirely that regular reviews would be appropriate. But that, as noble Lords know, is not the case. As has been made clear during earlier debates, it is the regulations that may be made under the Bill that will contain the powers needed to deal with the emergency. Part 2 of the Bill itself affects no one.

12.15 p.m.

Any suggestion that the regulations will not receive very close and detailed scrutiny is simply unfounded. The Government have made very clear that any regulations made under Part 2 must be debated and approved by both Houses. Uniquely, Parliament has the power to amend the regulations, further strengthening the robustness of the scrutiny process. It should be remembered, too, that emergency regulations contain their own sunset clause—they lapse 30 days after they are made. It is arguable that this is one of the most aggressive sunset clauses to be found in any legislation on the statute book. Fresh parliamentary approval is then required to make any further regulations, should it still be necessary, right and proportionate to do so.

The Government make regular parliamentary Statements about civil contingencies issues. For example, the Home Secretary issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 25 February setting out much of the work under way. There are also regular debates under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Noble Lords are free to ask questions on all aspects of civil protection activity.

It should be kept in mind that emergency powers are for dealing with only the most serious emergencies. It seems unthinkable that any emergency they are used in connection with will not be debated in full while it is happening and that the Government's handling of it, including the use of emergency powers, will not be subject to detailed review after the event. Because of that, the amendment would be nugatory.

I believe that there is a compelling argument that it is the regulations themselves that should and will receive very close and detailed scrutiny and review. I do not consider that the Bill, which, of itself, confers no powers on a day-to-day basis and is simply a mechanism for making temporary legislation, needs to be subject to review.

Turning to the amendments originally proposed by this House, I would therefore question the utility of review every three years, given that Part 2 is a last resort option for dealing with only the most serious emergencies where existing legislation proves insufficient. It is not intended for regular use. It is worth noting that there was a 29–year gap between the use of the powers under the current legislation. It simply would not have been necessary or sensible to review the 1920 Act every three years during that period. In most cases, the Act would not have been used at all in the preceding three years and quite likely not for a good many years before that. The same applies to this Bill. It is a last resort option to be used very rarely, one hopes never, and it would be of limited utility to review it every three years as enabling legislation that had not been used during that period. This is in contrast to legislation such as the Terrorism Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, where a review mechanism is appropriate, because the powers they contain were intended to be used on a continuing basis and not subject to parliamentary scrutiny when exercised.

In summary, the Government cannot agree to these amendments. We are replacing a very long-standing generic framework that is entirely unsuitable for sunsetting and effective arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny are already set out in the Bill in relation to the regulations made under it.

I should turn now to Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I fear that I am going to have to disappoint the House on these amendments too. We cannot accept them and will resist them. The Government consider the arguments against sunsetting to be compelling, both in terms of logic and precedence, whether that may be either before or after the use of emergency powers under Part 2 of the Bill.

At the risk of repeating myself, I must stress that emergency powers contain significant safeguards. In other words, they can be used only when they are necessary, proportionate and right for the purposes of dealing with an effect or an aspect of the emergency. Emergency powers are subject to the affirmative procedure and both Houses have the unique opportunity to amend the regulations laid before them. Emergency regulations themselves are sunsetted after a maximum of 30 days, and parliamentary assent is needed for any new set of regulations made after that.

This procedure offers the ability to scrutinise and limit the use of emergency powers. Sunsetting the whole of Part 2 is simply not the right way to scrutinise the powers. This must be the right approach. It provides the appropriate level of scrutiny without being overly mechanistic and introducing arbitrary time limits on what is a longstanding mechanism for acting with the approval of Parliament.

It also does not seem apt for Part 2 of the Bill automatically to fall one year after emergency powers established under it have been made. I suggest that that is an arbitrary timescale which does not fit with the fact that this country will still require the ability to make such regulations, if necessary, at that time or as the last resort. I do not think that anyone doubts that we would still require this part of the Bill one year later or that its disappearance from the statute book would leave a gap in our capabilities which we would simply have to fill with a replacement of a similar nature. Indeed, its use will doubtless only reinforce the case for its continuing existence. If it works, that will he all to the good. If it does not work—unlikely as that seems, given the effective modernisation that we are now undertaking—the Government will not wish to wait a year before overhauling the provisions.

In summary, while I appreciate the tenacity of the noble Baroness in pursuing this issue at each turn and finding a different and more suitable—and, in this case, more subtle—variation on the argument, we run into further difficulties. I believe that logic and practical experience of the way in which emergencies play out during both the response and the review phases lend weight to the Government's position. I urge the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendments.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A.—(Lord Bassani of Brighton.)

Baroness Buscombe

rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 49B in lieu thereof'':

49B Page 21, line 33, at end insert "subject to the provisions of subsections (2A) and (2B) below"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49B, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50. With these amendments, I am urging the Government once again to consider the importance of inserting into the Bill a safeguard that would allow your Lordships and honourable Members in another place to review the use of the emergency powers under Part 2.

I listened with care to what the Minister said at Third Reading and today in response to my amendment proposing a sunset clause. In addition, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote to me setting out the reasons why such a clause was not necessary or appropriate. She said: It is the Government's view that sunsetting legislation is appropriate where the powers it contains are expected to no longer be needed after a certain length of time or where their application should be reviewed by Parliament". With some sadness, we agree with the Government. This kind of legislation will most probably be needed for some time to come so that we can respond to emergencies as yet unforeseen. In other words, we accept that this legislation may have a long shelf life. We also accept that the powers under Part 2 may not be used for some time to come.

However, in the event that the powers are triggered by a threat of an emergency or an actual emergency—some unprecedented act—we believe it is important that we in Parliament have the opportunity to review the use of those extraordinarily wide powers and to debate whether they have been used appropriately. The effect of Amendments Nos. 49B and 50 would be that, in the event that the powers in Part 2 were triggered, Parliament would, within one year of their use, have to debate and decide whether or not that use had been appropriate.

In responding to what the Minister said today, we also want to be sure that the powers are used only when necessary and proportionate. We accept that, under the provisions of the Bill, the regulations themselves are sunsetted after 30 days. However, the power to invoke emergency powers under Clause 20 is not currently sunsetted.

Perhaps I may give an example of where we think this could come into play. Let us suppose that the government of the day—not necessarily this Government—decided that they wanted to extend the life of Parliament for political reasons. They could dress that up by saying, "We must have a state of emergency and trigger these emergency powers because there is an outbreak", for example, "of foot and mouth"—an outbreak that, in fact, would not necessarily require a state of emergency or the extension of the life of the Parliament. But, for some reason, the government might be unpopular and so choose, under Clause 22(3)(j), to use the powers to extend the life of Parliament, disapplying the various Acts that ensure that Parliament continues to sit and continues to be constituted. That is just one practical example of why we believe it to be hugely important to have these regulations.

Perhaps I may give another example using the analogy of the car. If you purchase a car and then keep it in the garage, you can leave it be. But if you drive it, it should be serviced. With this approach, we are saying that if the powers are used, let us in Parliament have the opportunity within one year of the use of those powers to pause, reflect and debate whether the extraordinarily wide powers have been used in a way that is proportionate and necessary. I believe that our amendments are common sense and pragmatic.

In her letter to me dated 15 November, the Minister wrote: Where the nature of the powers is such that it is appropriate to enable Parliament to assess whether it is appropriate for these powers to continue, in the light of the ways in which the powers have been exercised, a sunset clause may also be appropriate. The Government does not believe that the Civil Contingencies Bill falls into this category of legislation". I find that statement extraordinary. If the use of the emergency powers contained in the Bill does not in any event deserve scrutiny, then I cannot think what does. Indeed, it may be that, following their use, Parliament will decide that the provisions are in some way defective, such that they have hindered a satisfactory response to an emergency. If that is the case, our amendment would give Parliament a clear opportunity to seek to put that right by amending the provisions accordingly.

I hope that the Government have given serious consideration to this amendment, although I fear that they have not. It is worth stressing that we are not proposing to require a review of civil contingency planning; we are simply urging the Government to ensure that proper safeguards are placed in the Bill—safeguards that would go some way to allay the fears of noble Lords and many beyond your Lordships' House who genuinely believe, as we do, that these powers are extraordinarily wide. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 49B in lieu thereof''.—(Baroness Buscombe.)

12.30 p.m.

Lord McNally

My Lords, not for the first time during the passage of the Bill, I find myself torn between two tenacious and persuasive ladies—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, being in lieu of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, today. The balance of the arguments is very fine, and my approach to this matter is not that of a lawyer but that of a jobbing politician.

Having listened to the debate as it has unfolded, Ministers have constantly emphasised their good will, their good intention and their awesome responsibility in preparing such emergency legislation. Parallel to that, all sides of the House have been concerned that the powers contained in the Bill, if ever used, are truly awesome. Over the past six or seven years, one of my concerns has been that, through a ratchet effect, little changes have been made to legislation that nibble away at civil liberties. Every time such provisions are put forward with the purest of motives. My real worry is that we suddenly find ourselves in a less liberal society than the one we thought we were defending.

While accepting that this legislation will sit safely on the shelf and gather dust, as a jobbing politician I am not that confident that the opportunities to debate orders, and so on, will focus minds in the same way as the proposals that we have tried to put forward in various ways, because of the nature of the legislation and the powers that it contains.

I do not want this legislation just to sit on the shelf and gather dust. I want an opportunity to see whether we have it right: right in terms of what the Government are doing to ensure it is in working order and right in terms of whether the powers in it are commensurate with the threats that we face. Let us be optimistic. There may be a period when we are not under such an imminent threat of terrorism and it may be that a future Parliament would want to look at whether all the powers are appropriate to a different age, or there may be changes in the technologies or the nature of a threat.

I wish that the Government had come up with a thought on this point. I still believe that it should not just be left on the shelf in this way. I really believe that we need to build in a mechanism. At an earlier stage, my noble friend Lord Avebury put forward the idea of someone, such as my noble friend Lord Carlile, taking a look at it and reporting to Parliament. There have been many attempts by this side of the House to push this matter. I do not understand why Ministers have resisted them. Such a measure would focus attention and allow Parliament to return to the matter at a set time if the emergency powers are used.

The three Acts that we are replacing are respectively 60, 80 and 90 years old. If those Acts had come under the kind of threat of, say, 9/11 , I am not sure that we would have found that they were all in such wonderful apple-pie order, as demanded by the circumstances. Due to the need to consider civil liberties aspects from time to time and an assurance that the powers are in working order to meet a threat, it would have been wise to include something along the lines of the amendments. For that reason we on these Benches support them today.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, it is welt to remember that no government can be trusted. When considering our present Home Secretary, one looks back at my right honourable friend Michael Howard not as a hard Home Secretary but as the founder member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. As the noble Lord, the excellent jobbing politician, has just said, we are concerned about the gentle jacking up of the removal of liberties here, there and everywhere. The noble Lord may shake his head, but the list is quite long and rather frightening. Burke said, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". We must all be eternally vigilant.

I would trust the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, with my wallet, but I do not trust any politician with the amount of powers that the Bill will provide. Parliament must check the Act in some way. I would not trust the noble Lord's party or my own party with it. We must draw a halt to this gradual ratcheting up of the loss of our liberties which we have seen progressively over the past seven years.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood

My Lords, can the Minister say whether passing Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B would significantly limit the power and capacity of the Government to respond to the very serious situations that they properly envisage?

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I have attended some of the debates during the passage of the Bill and on one occasion said that I found some of the provisions chilling. I have heard the responses and I have read Hansard, and although I find the reassurances offered by Ministers full of sincerity—I do not doubt them—somehow they do not work for me. I do not feel reassured. It is for others in the House to judge whether I am alone in that.

One reason why I am not reassured is that the gentle and reassuring words uttered in the Chamber have to be juxtaposed with the very strong rhetoric that is used in public and conveyed to the media of a government that are determined to do something about the risks that our society faces. Which face are we to look at when considering an amendment of this kind? I would support almost any proposal that limits the Bill simply because it is a way of registering that the reassurance has not really reassured us.

I have another worry. It is almost a prayer that the day will not come when elected Members on the government side in another place find themselves in opposition, forgetting that they supported these provisions and that Back-Benchers on the opposition side of another place find themselves in government, forgetting that they opposed them. Those are my worries and for those reasons I support the intentions behind the amendment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put his finger on the point very eloquently. Governments forget that they will be in opposition and fairly quickly oppositions always forget that they were in opposition. The death of a government can be brought about by finally forgetting that it will ever be replaced by someone else. If we have lived a few years, we have seen it happen.

The amendment answers the objections made to it in the letter to my noble friend. We accept that there is a 30–day review of any instrument that is produced. That is not in question. However, what is in question is how often the whole mechanism will be reviewed. The noble Lord pointed out that a predecessor of the Bill sat on the shelf, or as my noble friend would say, in the garage, for 20 years before it was used. If it had been a car, it would have been hopelessly out of date and not fit for service. The longer this Bill remains unused as an Act on the shelf the more likely it is to be unfit for service. That is one good reason for reviewing it.

The other good reason is that given by the right reverend Prelate. The Bill offers sweeping powers that could be misused to keep citizens from justice and from democracy. No one believes that it will happen now, but everyone should be afraid that it could happen in the future, because if they are not afraid of that, it will happen in the future. For that reason my noble friend's amendment should be carried by the House and accepted by another place, which would be swept away by such a cataclysm just as quickly as this House.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend's amendment. I do not see that the Minister has made a case for the provision causing any difficulty to the Government at all. He said that after the use of these powers it would be inevitable that Parliament would want to debate them extensively. That may be so, but they can have a resolution to vote on the matter at the end.

That is scarcely an additional imposition on the Government. It is only when the Government might wish to avoid such a debate, which this Government assures us that they would not, that there would be any question of imposing something on the Government. Under those circumstances, it is something that I would wish to see imposed.

The noble Lord says that we are unlikely ever to want to do without legislation of this sort. I agree. But if there were unhappiness with the way the Act works, I would expect the process of having the debate on these amendments to extract some concessions from the Government as to ways in which the legislation would be used in the future, or as to amendments which would be made by a subsequent Bill. When we see how this mechanism that we invented and put into place works, it will be absolutely necessary for us to review it properly and ensure that we understand how all the safeguards, which we have taken so much time over, work in practice. People are not capable of putting together a perfect mechanism. You have to work it through, see how it works in practice, improve it and then come back and work it through again.

It is not within our capacity to write the perfect computer program, as anyone in air traffic control will know, or to put together the perfect computer system, as many government departments will know. The idea that we can produce perfect legislation is ridiculous. We have to see how the provision works in practice. When it has worked in practice, we have to take a formal look at it. That is what the amendment is for.

Beyond anything else it provides, as the right reverend Prelate has said, another level of comfort that these powers will not be misused. It does so in a way that causes the Government—now or of the day—no inconvenience whatever.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive my ignorance of the Bill. He asks us to be comforted by the fact that after 30 days a regulation falls in. Is it possible for the Government to renew that regulation immediately and to go on doing so? Therefore, how much comfort is that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I have listened with care to previous debates on the issue and with care to the comments and points that have been made during this morning's relatively short exchange on the matter. Although I have some sympathy with the heart-felt pleas of all those involved, ultimately I remain to be convinced that the Government do not have the matter right.

What the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said about sunsetting overlooks the quite aggressive sunsetting which is within the current legislation. I repeat the point because I think that it is an important one—the effect of Part 2 of the Bill comes into play only when those regulations are made and are in place. A regime which means that those regulations come to a close after 30 days and have to be urgently reconsidered is a very aggressive sunsetting approach in itself.

I make that point because I have heard sunsetting debates on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I think that the noble Lord. Lord McNally, was certainly here when we had some vigorous debates about sunsetting in relation to anti-hooliganism measures. There we agreed to sunsetting for the very good reason that outbreaks of hooliganism can, as we all know in so far as concerns the footballing season, take place in the immediate circumstances pretty much when there is a game going on or before and after that game. Because that is a continuing feature it seemed right to us to have the facility for a sunsetting consideration and to review the effectiveness of that legislation; and to see whether it worked, was workable and was fit for the purpose. That is because it would be a continuing situation.

It is for that reason that we put sunsetting in place regarding crime and security and anti-terrorism measures. That was the appropriate way to look at that legislation. It matched that sort of consideration and those criteria. So, I think it is appropriate in those circumstances.

12.45 p.m.

The Bill puts in place far more protections than we have ever had with previous emergency powers legislation. There has been a lot of debate and discussion this morning about the fact that some legislation has been on the statute book for a very long time without being used. In one case there was a gap of 29 years without the powers being used. There was no need during the course of that time for there to be any sunsetting. This Bill contains more robust safeguards than earlier emergency powers legislation. Certainly, it contains more robust powers than the legislation put into place in 1948.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the point that we have been nibbling away at liberties. This Government have a very good record on liberties. They have put in place a fundamental piece of legislation—the Human Rights Act—that protects all our liberties; they have put in place the data protection legislation which does exactly the same; they have protected freedom of information: and they have put in place discrimination legislation. That is four pieces of legislation which go in completely the other direction to the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

So we have taken steps to protect liberties; and I would argue that the Human Rights Act is a fundamental protection in that regard. That brings me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the "what if?" question; namely, that a government in the future might decide to abuse emergency powers and to extend the life of Parliament for political purposes. I thought that she used a strange example—the foot and mouth powers—which we might want to use to extend the life of Parliament. I put that on one side. The case is that the Government would be able to use emergency powers only if the situation was a very serious emergency. The Government would have to demonstrate that the extension of these powers was a proportionate response. They would have to have regard to the use of regulations to protect the activities of Parliament. If none of those conditions held good, Parliament, or the courts for that matter, would simply strike down the regulations.

So I do not foresee the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I just cannot see a government—certainly not this Government or, indeed, a Conservative government—abusing the powers in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.

The triple lock helps us in that regard. Emergency regulations can only be made for the purposes of dealing with the emergency. So I cannot see the circumstances or the scenario that the noble Baroness paints as being one where a future government would abuse their position and powers in terms of Part 2, and in terms of using regulations to extend the life of a Parliament.

Finally, I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland: would these amendments hinder response? The answer to that question must be "no", but the problem with the amendments is that they are in a sense otiose rather than damaging, unless of course Parliament could not agree to their renewal. Inserting the sunsetting provision in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, and as supported by other noble Lords this morning, would create an atmosphere of uncertainty. That would be extremely unfortunate.

We do not need these provisions. There is a rigorous and aggressive sunsetting provision built into Part 2 of this Bill. That is an important protection. Moreover, the protection that we have put in place in any event by introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 is overriding in that regard. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment this morning. It is not in the best interests of the Bill and how it is intended to work.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords, as well as the right reverend Prelate, who have supported me and spoken in favour of the amendment. Although there is sunsetting on the regulations, I repeat the fact that the amendment allows a review of the emergency powers themselves, not the regulations. That is a very different point and I am sorry that the Minister has not taken that on board. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote a letter to me on 15 November about sunsetting provisions and, in her penultimate paragraph, she states: The Government shares fully the belief that effective protection and scrutiny must be in place to ensure the Bill cannot he misused". That is what we are seeking to do today. It was Edmund Burke who said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. The amendments offer the Government the opportunity to do something, even at this late stage, properly to safeguard our freedoms, liberties and democracy. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.

12.52 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 1
Addington, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Ampthill, L. Burnham, L.
Attlee, E. Buscombe, B.
Avebury, L. Byford, B.
Barker, B. Caithness, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Black well, L. Carnegy of Lour, B.
Blatch, B. Carrington, L.
Bowness, L. Chadlington, L.
Bradshaw, L. Clement-Jones, L.
Bridgeman, V. Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]
Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B. Neuberger, B.
Dean of Harptree, L. Newton of Braintree, L.
Denham, L. Noakes, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Northbrook, L.
Donaldson of Lymington, L. Northesk, E.
D'Souza, B. Northover, B.
Dykes, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Onslow, E.
Elis-Thomas, L. Palmer, L.
Elton, L. Palumbo, L.
Erroll, E. Park of Monmouth, B.
Ezra, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Perry of Southwark, B.
Feldman, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Ferrers, E. Plumb, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Flather, B. Reay, L.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Rees, L.
Garden, L. Renton, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Geddes, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Glenarthur, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Glentoran, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Goodhart, L. Roper, L. [Teller]
Goschen, V. Rotherwick, L.
Greaves, L. Ryder of Wensum, L.
Hamwee, B. Saatchi, L.
Harris of Richmond, B. St John of Fawsley, L.
Higgins, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Scott of Needham Market, B.
Home, E. Seccombe, B.
Hooper, B. Selborne, E.
Howard of Rising, L. Selsdon, L.
Howe, E. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Howell of Guildford, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Jacobs, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Jopling, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Kimball, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
King of Bridgwater, L. Southwark, Bp.
Kingsland, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L. Stewartby, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Swinfen, L.
Liverpool, E. Taverne, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L. Tebbit, L.
Lucas, L. Thatcher, B.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L.
McNally, L. Trumpington, B.
Maddock, B. Vincent of Coleshill, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Waddington, L
Masham of Ilton, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Walmsley, B.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Walpole, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Wilcox, B.
Monson, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Montrose, D. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Morris of Bolton, B. Wilson of Dinton, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Windlesham, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Worcester, Bp.
Acton, L. Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Ahmed, L. Bhatia, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Andrews, B. Borrie, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Bragg, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Brennan, L.
Bach, L. Brett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Lockwood, B.
Carter, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Carter of Coles, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Chandos, V. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Christopher, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. McKenzie of Luton, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Marsh, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Crawley, B. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
David, B. Morris of Aberavon, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller] Moser, L.
Dixon, L. Ouseley, L.
Drayson, L. Parekh, L.
Dubs, L. Patel of Blackburn, L.
Elder, L. Pendry, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Plant of Highfield, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Prosser, B.
Filkin, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Gale, B. Radice, L.
Gavron, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Richard, L.
Giddens, L. Rooker, L.
Golding, B. Rosser, L.
Goldsmith, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Grabiner, L. Sawyer, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Sewel, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L. Simon, V.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Slim, V.
Harris of Haringey, L. Snape, L.
Harrison, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Temple-Morris, L.
Haskel, L. Tenby, V.
Hattersley, L. Thornton, B.
Haworth, L. Tomlinson, L.
Hayman, B. Triesman, L.
Henig, B. Truscott, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Tunnicliffe, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Turnberg, L.
Howarth of Breckland, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Howie of Troon, L. Uddin, B.
Hoyle, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Warner, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Whitaker, B.
Jay of Paddington, B. Whitty, L.
Jones, L. Wilkins, B.
King of West Bromwich, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Lea of Crondall, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
Leitch, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Lipsey, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

1.3 p.m.