HL Deb 18 December 1995 vol 567 cc1407-18

3.3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, during the past couple of weeks I have been sorely tempted to move a procedural Motion to prevent the House moving itself into a Committee on the Bill. The way in which the House and Parliament have been treated as regards the introduction and first debates on the Bill is quite deplorable. The Bill was printed long before it was ready and before the supporting material necessary for proper debate in your Lordships' House was made available.

I shall deal first with the issue of whether the Bill was ready to be printed. On Second Reading the Minister said that there were three subjects on which the Bill needed to be amended. She properly gave notice that she would be proposing amendments on those three subjects. We now have almost 100 government amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill in the first Chamber. We are used to government departments consulting and producing amendments late in the proceedings of a Bill. We know that that happens and that sometimes there is good reason for it. However, for a Bill to be introduced and printed when almost 100 government amendments are needed immediately following Second Reading is not acceptable.

I deal secondly with the code of practice. On Second Reading many noble Lords, not only from these Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches but from the Government Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Alexander of Weedon and Lord Campbell of Alloway—and from the Cross-Benches the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said that without the code of practice, which is the basis of Part II, it would not be possible to have a sensible debate on Part II. Of course, Part II, which deals with the initial preparation of the disclosure of material by the police and its disclosure to the prosecution, affects Part I, which depends on information that has not already been disclosed.

We wrote immediately to the Government Chief Whip and made it clear that in our view the code of practice should be made available in very good time before the Committee stage. Despite all the Minister's best efforts—I am sure that she used her best efforts and that the same is true of the Government Chief Whip—we received on Wednesday 13th December a document dated llth December which is the code of practice. That is quite inadequate to enable us to put down amendments to Part II, and therefore to Part I, and the major controversial matters on which the Bill is based. Already our debates on Parts I and II are less effective because we have not been given the material.

I return to the government amendments, which virtually rewrite large parts of the Bill from Part III onwards. We had prepared a number of amendments to those parts of the Bill. They have had to be torn up and thrown away, the Government having written in a large number of new clauses and a complete new schedule, presenting not a fixed target, which we could effectively address, but a moving target. That is not good enough.

Tomorrow we shall debate the code of practice. We have taken the initiative of making it available to your Lordships by writing it into the Marshalled List as a new schedule. However, that code of practice conflicts in a dozen, 20 or 30 places with the text of the Bill in Part II. Whereas the Bill in Part II is acceptable in many ways, the code of practice is much more vague and is not acceptable. In other words, as regards every part of the Bill, proper debate in your Lordships' House has been inhibited by the inefficiency of the Home Office and its unwillingness to delay printing and presenting it to Parliament until it was ready to do so properly. That is not satisfactory. We need at the very least pro found apologies from the Government.

Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

My Lords, on behalf of Members on these Benches, I strongly support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In some 25 years of parliamentary life I can remember no occasion on which a Bill that was not urgent has come forward so ill prepared and carelessly drafted. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, described the events of last week when the Government tabled 102 amendments in a single day. The Minister kindly sent to me copies of the letter which she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as she had on the previous day when the code of practice became available. However, we are dealing not only with the convenience of this place but, as regards a Bill of this kind, the legitimate interests of outside organisations.

The Bill is not substantially controversial as between the political parties. I wish that we had a procedure by which such a Bill could be considered at leisure upstairs when outside organisations could make their representations. If for whatever reason that were not possible, this House should have been given a full opportunity to consider the amendments, to hear what the Minister had to say about them and to consult widely.

The truth is that the Bill has been rushed forward in a most extraordinary way. The disclosure consultation document was published in May and consultation continued until the end of July, which was entirely proper. However, those Members of your Lordships' House, and there are many, who have experienced these things, know that if consultation is completed at the end of July there must be interdepartmental discussions and decisions by Ministers before the Bill goes for drafting. On that timetable the Bill should not have received its Second Reading three weeks ago but should have been in the pipeline for Second Reading early in 1996.

If for whatever reason the Government believed that the Bill should come forward earlier there was a simple solution which would have avoided many problems. If we were having the Second Reading today the Minister and her department would have had three weeks in which to bring forward the amendments incorporated in the delayed Bill. Then we would have proceeded to the Committee stage immediately after the Christmas Recess. The Government would have lost at most two days of parliamentary time, which could have been filled with other business. They could easily have restored the timetable of the Bill.

This is a deplorable proceeding. I wish only that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had chosen, with our full support, to endeavour to prevent the Committee stage taking place today.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the rights of the House include the rights of Back-Benchers, and for the purposes of this Bill I speak as a Back-Bencher. I appreciate that the Minister has taken great trouble to make the code of practice available to those principally interested. When I arrived here today I understood that no code of practice had been made available. At lunch-time I discovered that it had been made available but that there were no copies in the Printed Paper Office. There was no copy in the Library. A copy was found for me but I have not discovered from where. It was made available to me after the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, had begun to speak. That is not sufficient time to judge the questions which that code of practice raises. Those questions are all the wider because of the very general and permissive way in which Clauses 6 to 19 are drafted.

Over and over again, those clauses repeat that the code of practice "may". In the time since the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rose, I have been quite unable to establish whether the code of practice in fact "does". But those questions are of considerable importance as regards which amendments need to be tabled to the Bill. Those clauses savour of what I have christened the Cambyses clause, which says that the Secretary of State may, like King Cambyses of Persia, do whatever he likes. In those circumstances, the House deserves a proper opportunity to consider what was in the code of practice. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has done what she can about this, but for my part I am sorry to say that it is not enough.

Viscount Runciman of Doxford

My Lords, having heard what I have just heard, I feel bound to echo the concerns voiced by other noble Lords about the position with which we are confronted. I do so on the basis of having been extremely grateful to Ministers for the extent to which the recommendations of the Royal Commission bear directly on what we shall discuss this afternoon. Those matters should be given ample time for consideration and debate. It seems to me a great shame that this situation has arisen. At this stage, time is still necessary in order for this House to do what it does best; namely, to propose and discuss amendments which, in some important cases, I hope the Minister will consider seriously. Those amendments seek to achieve not only the objectives of the Royal Commission but also the Government's own legislation in the form in which it was debated in this Chamber on Second Reading.

I agree that it is deplorable that the opportunity for informed debate on some important issues should be foreshortened in the way that it appears, from what I have heard today, is likely to happen.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, as my name has been mentioned, perhaps I may say that but for the good offices of the Government Chief Whip and the Minister we should not be in the position in which we are today even to be able to debate these issues.

Lord Shepherd

My Lords, I believe that the House would wish to have a reply from the Leader of the House. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that this is not a matter only for those on the Front Benches or those who are directly involved with the Bill. Sooner or later, as it is a Committee stage, the ordinary Back-Benchers may be called upon to participate in a Division.

I have listened extremely carefully to what is being said. I believe that this is a unique occasion because there is major unease in nearly every quarter of the House as to whether, in the interests both of the House and the legislation with which we are involved, we should proceed today.

I know that it is very difficult for the Leader of the House to say, "We will lose a day in Committee". It may well be that a whole day would not be lost if he were to meet the anxieties expressed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. This Bill is particular to this House. I do not believe that the other place, with all our respect for it, will be able to look at all the detail of the legislation which is now proposed. I am not talking in terms of the policy and what is behind it, but I listened to the Second Reading debate and anxiety was expressed as to the way in which the policy was to be implemented and the way in which it would affect those who had to implement it.

This is not party politics at all, but there is a sense of unease. Perhaps the Leader of the House would think it right to allow 10 minutes for consultation to see whether it would be possible to resolve and overcome the problems that have been mentioned. If that cannot be done, I should be one of the first to support my noble friend in the Division Lobby on the Motion before the House.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, first, without reservation, I apologise to the House for what has been a difficult timetable. I should say also that on Second Reading I made absolutely no secret of the outstanding issues which would need to be addressed by amendment in Committee. There are no subjects which were not trailed on the Second Reading which arise for consideration now. Much has been made of the number of amendments but many of the amendments deal with one single point but are relevant to many different parts of the Bill. Therefore, many of the amendments are repetitious and deal with a single issue. That accounts for the number of amendments.

At every opportunity since Second Reading until today, I have written to noble Lords with an update of the situation reached. I have copied the information to all interested Peers on all sides of the House. On every occasion I have made sure that a copy of what I have written has been placed in the Library to be available to all Members of the House. Therefore, I am perplexed by the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because my understanding is that a copy of the code of practice and the covering letter that was sent with it were placed in the Library of the House.

Having said that, and having admitted the difficulties that they impose on noble Lords, I have noticed no reticence on the part of noble Lords in coming forward with amendments. I did not see the amendments until Sunday evening when they were sent to me for consideration. Therefore, I too have burnt a good deal of midnight oil in considering the amendments, and there are a great number of them. We are about to begin the detailed Committee stage, when all the detail will be considered, as will both government and opposition amendments. There will then be a Report stage which 'will allow further opportunity for discussion.

It is not unprecedented that a code of practice does not accompany a Bill when it is first published. The code of practice will continue to change. It is not at all a definitive code of practice. It continues to be subject to consultation and to change as a result of debates in this House and what is said at all stages of the Bill. Even after that, the Bill is still a draft as it goes out in its definitive stage before it is approved by the House. I hope that the House will feel that we can now proceed with this Bill in Committee.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and if the House will allow me, she will know that I did not accuse her of any personal discourtesy and I thanked the Minister and the Chief Whip for their efforts to retrieve the situation. But that does not improve matters. It is still the case that it is the Government and the department who were responsible for the unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves.

I am sure that the noble Baroness will acknowledge also that we have made every effort to give her as much advance notice as possible of our amendments. The amendments which the Minister received only on Sunday afternoon were faxed to her office well before four o'clock on Friday afternoon. It is not our fault that it took 48 hours for the amendments to reach her.

If the Minister, the officials concerned, other Members of the House and I have to work over the weekend in that rushed way, that confirms and reinforces my view that the procedures and preparation are inadequate. It cannot be good for the House to have to work in that way. How much worse is it for the Minister to have to work in that way?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, perhaps I may make two further points. First, the Bill has been in print. As I said, I trailed all the issues that would arise by amendment on Second Reading. Secondly, since I have appeared as a Front Bench spokesman on this side of the House, I have seldom seen amendments coming from the other side until something like a day or two before the next stage of a Bill. Indeed, it is not unusual for noble Lords to place amendments very late in the day and for me to have to do last minute work; that also applies to my colleagues on these Benches.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly join the debate. The House will have heard my noble friend Lady Blatch apologise unreservedly for the way that the matter has been brought to the attention of the House. I entirely agree with her; it is regrettable when occasionally such issues arise. However, as regards the rest of the debate on the Bill as it goes through the House, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they can put the matter behind them and carry on dealing with the amendments in a constructive manner.

It may also be helpful to your Lordships if I announce that, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the outcome of the Madrid Summit.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.


Clause 1 [Application of this Part]:

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 20 and insert ("to any offence in respect of which a person charged has not already indicated an intention to plead guilty").

The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I should like, with the leave of the Committee, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14, 19, 29, 61, 62 and 130. The amendments are designed—which I believe the Committee will find throughout the Bill—to help the Government to produce a sensible, rational and workable procedure for disclosure, rather than being wrecking or damaging.

We made it clear on Second Reading that we support the principle of the Bill and our concern is to ensure that it works properly. This is the classic case where inadequate thought has forced the department and the Government to propose something which is simply unworkable. The Bill proposes that there should be primary disclosure by the prosecution—we shall deal in later amendments with what that primary disclosure should be—only when the accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge or when the matter has been referred to the Crown Court. That is madness. If the defence is not going to receive the information from the prosecution as to the nature of the case until a plea of not guilty has been made, any solicitor in his right mind will advise his client to plead not guilty in order to get hold of the material.

Let us not forget that the Bill covers not only major cases in the Crown Court and major miscarriages of justice (which prompted the setting up of the Royal Commission in the first place) but also every single small case appearing before magistrates. It is a Bill which is about riding a bicycle without a light; indeed, it is a Bill which is about almost everything except tiny traffic cases which are dealt with outside the court. At present in nearly all of those cases the accused goes to the magistrates' court knowing what the charge is but hearing for the first time on that occasion the case against him and acting accordingly. In other words, the matter can very often—indeed, normally—be dispatched rapidly.

However, where the defendant has a solicitor or is smart enough himself he will say, "In normal circumstances I would let it go; I would assume that they had enough to convict me. I know what is in their case and, therefore, I shall leave it alone and let the normal procedures take place". But now, under the proposed procedures, the solicitor or the accused may say, "I don't know. It may be worth while pleading not guilty to see whether they have enough evidence". That is what he will do and the courts will be clogged up with all the minor cases which could have been disposed of in the speedy and effective way that they are now dealt with.

I can assure the Committee that we are trying to help the Government. We are trying to make it a workable Bill. The Minister said on Second Reading that the prosecution might be unable to prepare its evidence for disclosure at an earlier stage than that envisaged in the Bill. But, now we have seen the code of practice, we see from that document that once the investigation is over the police will be obliged to prepare a detailed schedule of evidence for the prosecutor and pass on material which supports or appears to undermine the prosecution case. Therefore, we now know from the code of practice what we did not know on Second Reading; namely, that the information will actually be there. It will have been produced to the prosecutor almost as soon as the investigation is over.

I turn now to Clause 34 which provides for the accused in either-way cases to indicate a plea in advance. The idea, very sensibly, is to make savings in preparation work which would be unnecessary if the accused were going to plead guilty. But the fact that the information will not be available from the prosecution until a plea of guilty has been entered means that Clause 34 will not work properly. Indeed, Clause 34 could actually be extremely effective if it were not for the Bill's provisions as presently drafted.

There is no good reason why that information which we now know will be available should not be passed on to the defence straight away, without waiting for a plea of not guilty. I urge the Government in their own interests to accept at least the principle of the amendments. They may be complex, but I am sure that they are right. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

The principle of the noble Lord's speech and of the amendment warrants serious consideration with reference to the code of practice and Clause 34 for the reasons that he gave. I only ask that that consideration may perhaps be given.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the amendments offer an alternative description of the circumstances in which Part I of the Bill is to apply. Instead of describing the circumstances with reference to the classification of the offence and the mode of trial, Amendment No. 1 would apply Part I to all cases where the accused has not indicated an intention to plead guilty. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are purely consequential on Amendment No. 1.

However, Amendments Nos. 14 and 130 would effect a serious change of substance. So far as concerns offences which are triable either way, the amendments between them would require the prosecutor to make primary prosecution disclosure, and to give the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material, in a period of time which begins when the accused is charged and ends when the mode of trial decision is taken under Clause 34 of the Bill. This means that a schedule would have to be prepared, and the prosecutor would have to consider what material needed to be disclosed and disclose it in all these cases whether or not the accused intended to plead not guilty. Either way, in cases where the accused intends to plead guilty, disclosure is not needed. That is why the Bill does not require primary prosecution disclosure under Clause 1(1) until a not guilty plea has been indicated and the court proceeds to summary trial. The amendments would place a heavy and completely unnecessary burden on the prosecutor.

Members of the Committee opposite have argued that the accused needs to know what the prosecutor thinks might undermine the prosecution case before he decides whether to plead guilty or not guilty, and that in the absence of prosecution disclosure he will simply plead not guilty to see what turns up. I disagree. The accused will have received advance information under the Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985, consisting of either copies of the statements of proposed prosecution witnesses or a summary of the facts and matters of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence in the proceedings. That is designed to enable him to make an informed decision about mode of trial. He does not therefore also need to know what might undermine the prosecution case to determine whether he should plead not guilty and whether he should elect Crown Court trial.

I must also point out that Amendment No. 14 will fall if the Committee accepts the separate government amendment replacing Clause 3(8) and (9), which is Amendment No. 13 and which will be moved first. Although it may make no difference in practice, the amendments would also make a substantive change to Clause 14. They abolish most of the common law rules on disclosure, effective immediately before Part I is brought into force, from the moment a person is charged with an offence (rather than from when he pleads not guilty at a summary trial) or the proceedings are transferred to the Crown Court. For those reasons I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

3.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I am disappointed, and the Committee will be disappointed, that the Minister has chosen to look at drafting considerations in later amendments rather than address the thrust of the most important amendment, which is Amendment No. 1. No attention whatever was paid in the Minister's reply to what I said about the process in a magistrates' court. There was no acknowledgement that if a full statement is available only after a plea of not guilty, a solicitor or an intelligent defendant is going to plead not guilty in order to obtain the statement of evidence, at the very least on the basis that the evidence may be incomplete in some way or may provide further support to a defence case. The Government, in rejecting these amendments in effect out of hand, are doing enormous damage to the practical effects of the. Bill and the chance of it working properly.

Baroness Blatch

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have been accused of not referring at all to that particular point. In fact I did refer to it. said that the accused will have received advance information under the Magistrates' Courts (Advance Information) Rules 1985, consisting of either copies of the statements of proposed prosecution witnesses or a summary of the facts and matters of which the prosecutor proposes to adduce evidence in the proceedings. That is designed to enable the accused to decide how to plead.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

There is a considerable difference between information which is made available under rules which can be changed without parliamentary approval and a new wholly statutory provision—as there is in Part I—for primary disclosure by the prosecution. The opportunity should have been taken, following the report and the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and indeed following the consultation which took place on the publication of the consultation paper, to make sure that the facilities which are available to the defence under the principle of equality of arms should be made available by statute, as elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister's reply is not satisfactory; it is a self-contradictory response. I shall have to seek the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 1.

Viscount Runciman of Doxford

I am, I fear, doubly disadvantaged—

Noble Lords


Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I said I would have to seek the opinion of the Committee but I have not actually done so.

Viscount Runciman of Doxford

I am grateful to be spared an impending embarrassment. I must confess I am particularly disadvantaged because I did not see the amendments until the middle of this morning. I was not prepared to cancel my appearance at the Christmas head office lunch of a substantial multinational conglomerate which I chair in order to do some last minute homework which I think would have been inadequate in any case. Therefore I make my two points tentatively but I feel bound to make them.

My first point is one of principle. It would be disturbing if the effect of the Bill were that a person accused of a serious offence—I am particularly concerned with Crown Court offences—was expected to decide on plea before being fully informed of the nature of the offence. Surely that cannot be right. I should be grateful for some assurance from the Minister that that will not be the unintended consequence of a refusal to accept the amendment or a similar one.

The other point is the practical one. l endorse what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said. Within the Royal Commission we found that it was not merely helpful but essential, on these recommendations and others, to consult widely and as far as possible among experienced practitioners, asking about the effect upon the defence and its ability to look after, as it should, the interests of clients if there were to be change along the lines proposed. We recognise that duty to the client will—as up to a point it should—require defence solicitors and counsel to do whatever they can to avert the possibility of their client being prematurely pressed into disclosing his or her hand or proceeding in such a way as might undermine a legitimate defence at a later stage. In purely practical terms the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has made of the Bill is a disturbing one. I do not feel entirely satisfied with the Minister's response.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

There are some practical problems. I shall speak briefly. I hope that we shall not have to divide at this stage on this amendment which involves an important question of principle which ought to be considered carefully. I hope that my noble friend the Minister may without commitment be able to say that she will at least meet, discuss and consider the practical implications. If she were to do so without commitment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might not take the opinion of the House.

Baroness Blatch

Before the noble Lord decides what to do about this matter, I wish to answer the question posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. It will not be a consequence of the Bill that a person has to decide plea without information on the case against him. It is only unused material that will be disclosable after plea.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is persuasive as always but he does not seem to realise that it is on issues of principle that we take the opinion of the Committee. That is exactly why we have the voting system in this Chamber. Whether there is subsequent consultation on the practicalities of the Bill is a matter for the Government and for those of us in the Chamber who are concerned with the issues. I can assure the noble Lord that, if I take the opinion of the Committee, whatever that opinion may be if there is any advantage in further consultation and discussion with the Government I shall seek that further discussion and consultation, as I always do. I am quite sure that the response from this Minister will be, as it always is, one of complete co-operation.

The issue has not been resolved by the answer given either to me or by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. As a result of the further exchange I am confirmed in my view that I should take the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 1.

3.40 p.m.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1
Ackner, L. Ilchester, E.
Addington, L. Jay of Paddington, B.
Airedale, L. Jeger, B.
Annan, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Kilbracken, L.
Attlee, E. Lovell-Davis, L.
Avebury, L. McGregor of Durris, L.
Bancroft, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Barnett, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. McNair, L.
Berkeley, L. Mallalieu, B.
Blackstone, B. Mar and Kellie, E.
Blease, L. Marsh, L.
Brain, L. Mayhew, L.
Bridge of Harwich, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Molloy, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Monkswell, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Nelson, E.
Dahrendorf, L. Nicol, B.
David, B. Ogrnore, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Peston, L.
Desai, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Richard, L
Donoughue, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Runciman of Doxford, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Russell, E.
Gallacher, L. Sainsbury, L.
Geraint, L. Sandwich, E.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.] Seear, B.
Greenhill of Harrow, L. Serota, B.
Greenway, L. Shaughnessy, L.
Grey, E. Shepherd, L.
Hanworth, V. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Hams of Greenwich, L. Stallard, L.
Haskel, L. Stedman, B.
Hayter, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Henderson of Brompton, L. Strabolgi, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Tordoff, L
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. White, B.
Hylton-Foster, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Aberdare, L. Brabazon of Tara, L.
Addison, V. Braine of Wheatley, L.
Ailesbury, M. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Ailsa, M. Burnham, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Butterworth, L.
Ampthill, L. Cadman, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Barber, L. Campbell of Croy, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Carnegy of Lour, B.
Beloff, L. Carnock, L.
Blaker, L. Cavendish of Furness, L.
Blatch, B. Chelmsford, V.
Blyth, L. Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Boardman, L. Clanwilliam, E.
Borthwick, L. Colnbrook, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Courtown, E.
Cox, B. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal] Macleod of Borve, B.
Cuckney, L. Manton, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. Merrivale, L.
Cumberlege, B. Mersey, V.
De Freyne, L. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Dean of Harptree, L. Moyne, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Munster, E.
Ellenborough, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elles, B. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Elton, L. Newall, L.
Faithfull, B. Norrie, L.
Flather, B. O'Cathain, B.
Forbes, L. Orkney, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Orr-Ewing, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Oxfuird, V.
Gainford, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Geddes, L. Pender, L.
Gisborough, L. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Goschen, V. Prentice, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Rankeillour, L.
Harding of Petherton, L. Reay, L.
Hayhoe, L. Renwick, L.
Henley, L. Romney, E.
Holderness, L. St. Davids, V.
HolmPatrick, L. St. John of Fawsley, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Inglewood, L. Seccombe, B.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Selborne, E.
Kimball, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Knollys, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Lane of Horsell, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Lauderdale, E Strathcarron, L.
Leigh, L. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Swansea, L.
Liverpool, E. Swinfen, L
Long, V. Terrington, L.
Lucas, L. Trefgarne, L.
Lyell, L. Vivian, L.
McConnell, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Wolfson, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Wynford, L.
Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The Earl of Courtown

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.