HL Deb 27 November 1990 vol 523 cc902-5

.7 p.m.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will notice that this is an unusually long and detailed instruction. The reason is that it will allow your Lordships to consider the clauses relating to Scotland in parallel with the clauses relating to England and Wales where these cover exactly the same point of policy. This has been agreed through the usual channels in order to make the consideration of the Bill in this House as convenient for your Lordships as possible.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the New Roads and Street Works Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

  • Clauses 1 to 5,
  • Schedule 1,
  • Clause 6,
  • Schedule 2,
  • Clauses 24 and 25,
  • Clause 7,
  • Clause 26,
  • Clauses 8 and 9,
  • Clauses 27 and 28,
  • Clause 10,
  • Clause 29,
  • Clause 11,
  • Clauses 30 and 31,
  • Clause 12,
  • Clause 32,
  • Clause 13,
    • 903
  • Clause 33,
  • Clause 14,
  • Clause 34,
  • Clause 15,
  • Clause 35,
  • Clause 16,
  • Clauses 36 and 37,
  • Clause 17,
  • Clause 39,
  • Clause 18,
  • Clause 40,
  • Clause 19,
  • Clauses 20 and 21,
  • Clause 38,
  • Clauses 22 and 23,
  • Clauses 41 and 42,
  • Clause 97,
  • Clause 43,
  • Clause 98,
  • Clause 44,
  • Schedule 3,
  • Clause 45,
  • Clause 99,
  • Clause 46,
  • Clause 100,
  • Clause 47,
  • Clause 101,
  • Clause 48,
  • Clause 102,
  • Clause 49,
  • Clause 103,
  • Clause 50,
  • Clause 104,
  • Clause 51,
  • Clause 105,
  • Clause 52,
  • Clause 106,
  • Clause 53,
  • Clause 107,
  • Clause 54,
  • Clause 108,
  • Clause 55,
  • Clause 109,
  • Clause 56,
  • Schedule 4,
  • Clause 110,
  • Schedule 6,
  • Clause 57,
  • Clause 111,
  • Clause 58,
  • Clause 112,
  • Clause 59,
  • Clause 113,
  • Clause 60,
  • Clause 114,
  • Clause 61,
  • Clause 115,
  • Clause 62,
  • Clause 116,
  • Clause 63,
  • Clause 117,
  • Clause 64,
  • Clause 118,
    • 904
  • Clause 65,
  • Clause 119,
  • Clause 66,
  • Clause 120,
  • Clause 67,
  • Clause 121,
  • Clause 68,
  • Clause 122,
  • Clause 69,
  • Clause 123,
  • Clause 70,
  • Clause 124,
  • Clause 71,
  • Clause 125,
  • Clause 72,
  • Clause 126,
  • Clause 73,
  • Clause 127,
  • Clause 74,
  • Clause 128,
  • Clause 75,
  • Clause 129,
  • Clause 76,
  • Clause 130,
  • Clause 77,
  • Clause 131,
  • Clause 78,
  • Clause 132,
  • Clause 79
  • Clause 133,
  • Clause 80,
  • Clause 134,
  • Clause 81,
  • Clause 135,
  • Clause 82,
  • Clause 136,
  • Clause 83,
  • Clause 137,
  • Clause 84,
  • Clause 138,
  • Clause 85,
  • Clause 139,
  • Clause 86,
  • Clause 140,
  • Clause 87,
  • Clause 141,
  • Clause 88,
  • Clause 142,
  • Clause 89,
  • Clause 143,
  • Clause 90,
  • Clause 144,
  • Clause 91,
  • Clause 145,
  • Clause 92,
  • Schedule 5,
  • Clause 146,
  • Schedule 7,
  • Clause 93,
  • Clause 147,
  • Clause 94,
  • Clause 148,
  • Clause 95,
  • Clause 149,
    • 905
  • Clause 96,
  • Clauses 150 to 153,
  • Schedules 8 and 9,
  • Clauses 154 to 156. (Viscount Davidson.)

Baroness White

My Lords, would it not have been advisable to have withdrawn the Bill and reprinted it in a logical order rather than have this arrangement, which I do not believe that I have ever seen before on an Order Paper?

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, it might have been, but the usual channels did not agree.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it is an unusual Bill. There are parallel clauses running through separate parts of the Bill. This seems to be a logical way of dealing with what could otherwise have been an awkward situation. I support the Motion.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am grateful to a usual channel for his support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.