HL Deb 24 June 1996 vol 573 cc596-607
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

It may assist the House if I make a brief announcement regarding the Government's intentions following the Court of Appeal decision on the vires of the regulations made in February on asylum seekers. Those regulations restricted the circumstances when income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit could be paid to asylum seekers. The Court of Appeal found the regulations to be outside the Secretary of State's powers and quashed them. The Government propose to restore their policy—the policy agreed in both Houses.

It is the Government's intention to introduce amendments aimed at restoring Parliament's intention at the Third Reading of the Bill next week. The amendments will provide the powers that the court said were lacking and restore the regulations to exclude from benefit people who have entered the United Kingdom illegally or as visitors and only later claimed asylum and those who have been found by the immigration authorities not to satisfy the UN convention criteria for refugees.

It is our intention that entitlements gained by those groups purely as a result of that judgment will cease as soon as the amendments become law and no new entitlement will arise. In the meantime we will of course implement the law as expressed by the court and pay the entitlements arising under the current legal position. Our amendments will seek to put a stop to those unintended entitlements at the earliest opportunity. It is our intention that entitlements gained purely as a result of that judgment will cease as soon as the amendments become law.

We have examined the judgment with great care and noted that the prime focus of its concern is the impact of the regulations on the genuine refugee rather than on the large number of economic migrants. We intend to introduce arrangements which will enable us to make provision for those who are at the end of the day found to be genuine refugees. We will shortly bring forward measures to enable genuine refugees to claim income support and housing benefit in respect of housing costs in respect of the periods during which they had been excluded from benefits while their asylum applications were under consideration. Once those arrangements are in place, voluntary bodies and charities which support those that they consider to be genuine refugees will do so in the knowledge that the refugee will be in a position to repay them for their support.

Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for being candid with the House and Parliament at the outset of the Motion further to consider the Bill on Report regarding the Government's intentions following the dramatic judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown last Friday. In case it seems too simple from the Minister's explanation, perhaps I may quote some of the more startling conclusions to which Lord Justice Simon Brown, supported by Lord Justice Waite, came. He said: the 1993 Act confers on asylum seekers fuller rights than they have ever previously enjoyed". It must be noted that he referred to "asylum seekers" without reference to whether or not they are genuine. He continued: the right of appeal in particular. And yet these Regulations for some genuine asylum seekers at least must now be regarded as rendering these rights nugatory. Either that, or the Regulations necessarily contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it". Lord Justice Simon Brown went on to say that he would hold it: unlawful to alter the benefit regime so drastically as must inevitably not merely prejudice, but on occasion defeat, the statutory right of asylum seekers to claim refugee status … some basic provision should be made, sufficient for genuine claimants to survive and pursue their claims … For the purposes of this appeal, however, it suffices to say that I for my part regard the Regulations now in force as so uncompromisingly draconian in effect that they must indeed be held ultra vires". He founds his decision on the: wider ground that rights necessarily implicit in the 1993 Act are now inevitably being overborne. Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution. Primary legislation alone could in my judgment achieve that sorry state of affairs". It is now apparent that the Government intend to introduce primary legislation in order to achieve what Lord Justice Simon Brown calls a "sorry state of affairs". It appears that the Government, affected only by the wording of the judgment in the Court of Appeal and not in any way by the humanitarian implications of that judgment, intend to create a situation where asylum seekers—whether genuine or not remains to be determined until the case has been heard—will be forced either to abandon their claims or to live in a state of "utter destitution". That cannot be right as a principle of policy. It cannot be right for the Government to seek to do that and we will oppose such an effort with every power that we have.

In relation to this issue the question goes much further. The Minister has just told us that the Government will bring forward next week at the Third Reading amendments to give statutory effect to the "sorry state of affairs" to which Lord Justice Simon Brown referred. That would be a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure. The time available between now and 1st July, which is the date set down for Third Reading, is quite inadequate for the preparation of complex amendments which the Government would have to carry out and, much more important, the time available would be quite inadequate for proper parliamentary consideration of those amendments by this House. I remind the House that this is the last stage of a Bill which has gone through all its stages in the House of Commons and will have gone through all its stages by 1st July next and which would have completed all but one of its stages by tonight.

The ruling also makes a nonsense of the debates to take place this afternoon on Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill because they will put into effect the provisions which complement the regulations now declared unlawful. The House will note that in his statement the Minister did not say that the Government are proposing to appeal against last Friday's judgment to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. Therefore, what is proposed this afternoon is the Report stage on clauses which will compound the lack of legality. Under those circumstances it would be totally improper for us to consider this afternoon Clauses 8 and 9 or indeed any part of the Report stage of the Bill.

The least that the Government can do, having decided to abandon all humanitarian principles and seek to overturn the judgment of the Appeal Court (which refers specifically to such humanitarian principles), is to postpone consideration on Report of this Bill and to propose to the House a timetable which will give a proper opportunity for parliamentary consideration of the primary legislation which they propose. I invite the Minister to respond to that. I give him notice that unless there is an entirely satisfactory response, I intend to ask my noble friends to vote against the Motion that the Bill be further considered on Report.

Earl Russell

My Lords, on these Benches we, too, are not content with further consideration on Report. While I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the Government's intention, he has not begun to realise the legal difficulty of what he is attempting to do.

Throughout it has been the Government's intention that their regulations were put forward to deal with bogus asylum seekers. It has been the finding of the Court of Appeal that these regulations render nugatory a legitimate right to seek asylum in a genuine asylum seeker. The Court of Appeal has therefore found a conflict between the regulations and the 1993 Act of Parliament: in fact, they are contrary to primary legislation that the regulations have no vires to alter. But more than that, I do not believe that the Minister understands that the regulations have also been found by the Court of Appeal to be contrary to common law and the basic principle of humanity set out in the judgment of Lord Ellenborough in 1803, from which Lord Justice Simon Brown quoted.

For an entirely different purpose I happened to be reading the Renton report yesterday. It states as a basic principle of parliamentary drafting that it is impossible to alter a well-recognised principle of the common law unless by a statute which says so. But that is not all. The basic right to seek asylum, which the Court of Appeal has found to be taken away by these regulations, does not just rest on an Act of Parliament but on an international treaty. Is the Minister suggesting that it is within the power of an Act of Parliament to change an international treaty? If so, this is legal doctrine which will call for a great deal of thought and discussion of a kind we are certainly not going to get between now and next Monday.

The Minister will say that Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill are not on all fours with the regulation struck down by the Court of Appeal because the point of vires in relation to the 1993 Act is not the same. But he may save his breath because that will not get round the fact that the conflict with our international obligations, as set out in the UN Convention on Refugees (1951), is identical in Clauses 9 and 10 to what is in the regulations which have been struck down. The Minister says that that is not his intention. Many people have stood in the dock and said that. As a point of fact, the Court of Appeal did not find that to be correct.

Should the International Court of Justice find on the facts what the Court of Appeal has already found, on the same ground it will strike down Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. By inflicting destitution on innocent claimants for asylum it would be depriving them of an attempt to exercise legitimate rights. To whisk through a measure which risks a judgment of that sort at Third Reading in the Second House at the 59th minute of the 11th hour is not the kind of proceedings which brings Parliament into good repute. We on these Benches will not support it.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I shall be brief. Surely the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is making a political meal out of a situation which is legalistic. There can be no doubt that Parliament and not the judiciary is supreme. I have not read the transcript, but I gather that there was a minority opinion. I have no doubt that the majority of the court held that if this were to be done, it could be done by primary legislation. That is precisely what the Government are proposing to do.

I want to make one further point. The Court of Appeal, even on a unanimous verdict, in my puny experience has been reversed five-love in the House of Lords on more than one occasion. Because it is the Court of Appeal it is idle to say, "It is the law". I assume that the only reason why the Government—and I am not privy to their thinking on these Benches—are not seeking the opinion of your Lordships' Appellate Committee is that they want to get on with the job of stopping the abuse of which they and most of your Lordships disapprove and to go to the Appellate Committee will only waste time.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, it will not do to pretend that this is a narrow technical matter, as we have heard regularly over the weekend from junior Ministers, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, merely legalistic; that the problem is that the Government were seeking to do by regulation what they should have done by primary legislation; and that it is only a matter of paths, not purposes. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh made clear when he quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown, the judges made it absolutely explicit that not only do the regulations subvert the principles of the primary legislation but they also subvert the UK's convention obligations, reaffirmed in the 1993 Act. The regulations subvert the basic principles of our welfare state and of our international obligations.

What is the principle of that welfare state? For over 200 years anyone who cannot work—the Government forbid asylum seekers to work—and anyone who cannot support themselves—the means test is evidence of that—is entitled to, and should be supported from, public funds. That applies to Britons and foreigners alike. No one should be left deliberately destitute when they cannot remedy that wrong by any act of their own.

Ministers have previously talked about JSA and job seekers' sanctions. In any other part of the social security system where there is a refusal, a denial or a cut in benefit, that can be overturned if the claimant changes his or her behaviour, whereupon the benefit is reinstated. Therefore, the claimant can make good the loss of income and avoid destitution. Uniquely, asylum seekers cannot do that. Once they cross our border and apply (perhaps only four hours after arriving in this country), they have removed themselves irrevocably from a right to income support and they cannot regain it by any action of their own. The Minister has said—this is a welcome move—that if they go to appeal and win their appeal, their benefits will be reinstated but, as the judges said, they will have nothing to live on in the meanwhile and they will be starved out of their right to appeal.

In no way can asylum seekers regain their right to benefit. Uniquely in the history of social security over the past 200 years, there is nothing that asylum seekers can do to make good that initial loss of benefit which means that they face destitution. Uniquely, Parliament is constructing destitution deliberately by Act of Parliament.

The sense of moral outrage at this attack on the principles of our welfare system and the attack on our obligations under international law has been confirmed by the remarks made by my noble friend who quoted Lord Justice Simon Brown saying that the regulations, contemplate for some a life so destitute that to my mind no civilised nation can tolerate it". Is there anybody in this House who believes that they can be civilised and tolerate the denial of any means of subsistence to asylum seekers, as expressed by Lord Justice Simon Brown?

With such issues at stake, how can this House proceed to debate Clauses 9 and 10 later this afternoon? How can this House expect to consider properly in the space of three or four working days the primary legislation that is required? I put it to your Lordships that we should not be manipulated because it is expedient for the Government to seek to overturn a ringing condemnation of government policy by the Court of Appeal. I support my noble friend.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his statement, but must express concern at the path that he has outlined will be followed. Does the Minister accept that the basis of the judgment given was not on legal grounds alone but was also on broad moral grounds? Indeed, it seems to me that the moral language used is as strong as the legal language. It is not merely a question of the regulations needing to be corrected by primary legislation; the way in which the regulations have been framed is bringing about a situation which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, is producing a sense of moral outrage in many parts of our society.

Perhaps I may quote the sentence in the judgment which follows that which has already been quoted by noble Lords opposite. Lord Justice Simon Brown goes on to say: So basic are the human rights here at issue that it cannot be necessary to resort to the European Convention of Human Rights to take note of their violation". That is strong moral language indeed. In fact, I find it stronger than the language which some right reverend Prelates have used from these Benches in relation to this Bill.

Of course, we all accept that those who abuse the asylum system should not benefit from it. I take it that that was the broad agreement to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred a moment ago, but if in trying to bring about a situation in which those abuses are prevented another wrong is perpetrated, surely we are right to express a sense of moral outrage at what is being achieved. And what is being achieved here is that genuine asylum seekers either have to abandon their claims for refugee status or they have to persist in those claims while reduced to a state of utter destitution. I quote again from the words of the judgment in which Lord Justice Waite argued that that rendered the rights of a very large number of asylum seekers, rights recognised by Britain under international law, as being "valueless in practice".

I believe that there will be a very widespread sense of moral concern and, indeed, moral outrage beyond your Lordships' House if the Government go ahead with their proposals as outlined by the Minister—

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, as my name has been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, perhaps I may shortly say, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, that it is essentially a legal problem because the problem is that the judges strayed into morality on judicial review.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, in response to that perhaps I may simply say that if the law does not have some element of morality within it, I fail to see why we are so concerned about it in any case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for fully explaining the Government's intentions to the House. I should like to make one or two brief points, in addition to those which have already been made so eloquently, about why there would be grave problems in continuing at this stage with the Report stage of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, argued that this is not a matter for the judiciary; that it is one where the judiciary has strayed into the area of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is perhaps worth quoting just once more something said by Lord Justice Simon Brown: Parliament cannot have intended a significant number of genuine asylum seekers to be impaled on the horns of so intolerable a dilemma: the need either to abandon their claims to refugee status or alternatively to maintain them as best they can but in a state of utter destitution". The point which is made again and again in that judgment is that Parliament has expressed its intentions already on a number of occasions: in the 1993 Act and in its decisions to accept the United Nations Conventions on the Status of Refugees and on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, what is at stake here is not some trespass by the judiciary but the judiciary's attempt to explore in detail what were the intentions of Parliament. It is impossible to see how we can explore those intentions in adequate depth with only six days before the Bill's Third Reading. We will not even know in sufficient time the Government's detailed intentions in terms of amendments.

The reference made by Lord Justice Simon Brown to the failure of Parliament's intentions, which cannot have been that asylum seekers should be left in a state of utter destitution, is borne out by a report made available today by the Refugee Council which states clearly that a number of asylum seekers are already in a state of destitution. I understand that very recently the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford visited a church—no doubt he will speak to this—which had been, and is being used, to house refugees living on food parcels and sleeping on pews who were desperately wondering whether they could maintain themselves until such time as their cases are fully heard.

My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the common law. He quoted a case in 1803. I quote one sentence from the judgment of Chief Justice Ellenborough dealing with the responsibilities of a civilised state: As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaining the different methods of acquiring settlements, the law of humanity, which is anterior to all positive laws, obliges us to afford them relief to save them from starving". What was true in 1803 is true in 1996. Before anyone has had an opportunity to set out his or her case, or for that case to be considered, a civilised state cannot allow such a person to starve. I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that further consideration of this Bill be deferred until we know a great deal more about the Government's intentions in the light of the decision of the court.

Lastly, I refer to a newspaper which is not normally considered to be a strong supporter of the Opposition Benches in this House. I refer to The Times.

Noble Lords


Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, if anybody considers The Times to be a strong supporter of the Opposition Benches I do not know in what world he lives. I did not say that The Times was a supporter of the Government. I chose my words very carefully. I said that that newspaper was not known to be a supporter of the Opposition Benches. Surely, any fair-minded person regards that statement as true. The Times concluded its remarks by saying that if the Government sought to persist in this mistaken policy it would compound the injustice identified by your Lordships in the Appeal Court.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the one sure thing about this issue is that it has been debated on a great number of occasions in your Lordships' House and in the other place. Nobody can claim that the proposals which I announced would be brought forward at Third Reading of this Bill come as anything of a surprise. They will underline and bring into primary legislation that which I have defended at this Dispatch Box on secondary legislation, at Question Time and on other occasions during the course of this Bill and the Housing Bill. I do not believe there is any force in the argument that somehow a great deal of time will be needed either to look at the details of the Government's policy intentions or to debate them, because they have been made very clear. Over the past decade in this country there has been a huge rise in the number of people claiming asylum. Most of them are found not to be genuine asylum seekers at the end of the procedures. Last year, out of every 100 people who applied, seven were found to be genuine asylum seekers and were granted asylum.

Of course, the cost to the taxpayer is never mentioned by those who oppose the Government's policy. I stand here unashamedly on behalf of the British taxpayer. I quote just one passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown. There are a few others, but this is to be a quarry of selective quotes and I will select mine. The learned judge said: I for my part have no difficulty in accepting the Secretary of State's right to discourage economic migrants by restricting their benefits". If I had heard a single word from the Benches opposite in any of the debates about how they would address this problem I would have had a good deal more sympathy with their argument.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that asylum seekers who get benefit already have restricted benefit; that is, it is only 90 per cent. of the standard rate, and that "restriction" is not the same as "abolition"?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, a restriction can be anything from 90 per cent. to zero. The fact is that 90 per cent. has not made any difference to the flow of asylum seekers and the increased flow to this country, as opposed to almost all, if not all, of our European neighbours. Every time the noble Baroness and I cross swords on this issue the noble Baroness singularly fails to address that point. She is perfectly happy to see it increasing at a faster and faster rate in this country, against the background of decreases in other countries.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Minister boasted of his selective quotation. Does he recognise that Lord Justice Simon Brown also said: Not for one moment would I suggest that prior to that time their rights are remotely the same, only that some basic provision should be made sufficient for genuine claimants to survive and pursue their claims"? Is it not that which the Government propose to overturn?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, if they apply at the port of entry, which I believe is the logical step, they receive benefit at the 90 per cent. level while their claims are considered by the Home Office. It is worth remembering that the whole issue has been thrashed out before five judges, three of whom have come down on the side of the Government and two against. It just so happens that it was, so to speak, in the wrong order. Three out of five is not bad. Three judges say that we are perfectly entitled to proceed and two say that we are not.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has the advantage of almost every other noble Lord who has contributed to this short debate, including myself, in that he is a senior lawyer. He pointed out quite rightly that the Court of Appeal held that this could not be done by secondary legislation but by primary powers. That is exactly what we are doing. The Government will take powers in primary legislation. I suggest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon that that is the correct way. Parliament is supreme. Inevitably, that means that it is up to this House, if it so decides, to legislate in such a way as to put right something which, in Parliament's view, the Court of Appeal has found the wrong way. That is perfectly constitutional and legitimate.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, does the Minister accept that when it appears to some of us in conscience that legislation is against what we profoundly believe to be right, we ought to express that view in your Lordships' House?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, that is absolutely correct. I never try to stifle debate on these matters. I have taken part in a great many debates. I do not deny the right of Lords Justice Brown and Waite to give their views on this piece of government legislation. They have done so in a fairly robust way. I almost believe that they have read some of the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but that is perhaps another matter.

That bring me to the business this afternoon. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill seek primary powers. Surely, that is what your Lordships want the Government to do. That is what the Court of Appeal has said we should do. We should deal with these matters through primary powers and not by secondary legislation. There is no argument for stopping this afternoon's consideration of Clauses 9 and 10 on those grounds.

I was interested in the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She appeared to base her whole argument on the fact that only some of those who were found to be genuine asylum seekers would have their benefit backdated at the end of the process. If she reads my speech closely she will discover that she has created a question all of her own making. I did not refer only to those who had to appeal after they had been refused and then were granted it; I referred to those who were eventually granted it. That would include any person who made an in-country application which was eventually successful. I believe that the noble Baroness has stepped back and hit her own wicket as far as concerns that argument. What I said this afternoon answered the point that she made, if only she had listened carefully and properly to what I said.

Earl Russell

My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I should be most grateful if he would address the question I raised as to how Parliament can alter our international treaty obligations.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, the position on international treaty obligations is that none of the changes we make has or will have any effect on them. There is no conflict between what we are doing in the benefit system and our international treaty obligations. That is a point I have made before, and I underline it again. It is a question of the UK's benefits system, and how many people receive benefits over many, many months, in fact into years, who are found not to have a legitimate call on those benefits.

We intend to take the actions that I have outlined to do what the Court of Appeal said. It said, "You can't do this by secondary legislation. If you are going to do it, you must do it by primary legislation". That is what I have announced we shall do. I trust that we will get on with Clauses 9 and 10 this afternoon, which relate to primary legislation. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, divides your Lordships' House on whether or not we should carry on considering the Bill on Report, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Division Lobby.

3.41 p.m.

On Question, Whether the Bill be now further considered on Report?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1
Aberdare, L. Campbell of Alloway, L.
Addison, V. Campbell of Croy, L.
Ailsa, M. Carnock, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Chelmsford, V.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L. Clanwilliam, E.
Astor, V. Cockfield, L.
Balfour, E. Constantine of Stanmore, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Courtown, E.
Beloff, L. Craigavon, V.
Berners, B. Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Blaker, L. Cumberlege, B.
Blatch, B. Davidson, V.
Bowness, L. De Freyne, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Dean of Harptree, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L. Denham, L.
Brigstocke, B. Demton of Wakefield, B.
Bruntisfield, L. Downshire, M.
Butterworth, L. Ellenborough, L.
Caithness, E. Elles, B.
Ferrers, E. Moyne, L.
Flather, B. Munster, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L. Nelson, E.
Gainford, L. Newall, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Noel-Buxton, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. Norfolk, D.
Goold, L. Northesk, E.
Goschen, V. O'Cathain, B.
Granard, E. Onslow, E.
Gray of Contin, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Greenhill of Harrow, L. Oxfuird, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. Palmer, L.
Harding of Petherton, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Harlech, L. Pender, L.
Harmsworth, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Hayhoe, L. Rawlings, B.
Henley, L. Renton, L.
HolmPatrick, L. Renwick, L.
Hooper, B. Richardson, L.
Howe, E. Rippon of Hexham, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Romney, E.
Iddesleigh, E. St Davids, V.
Ilchester, E. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Inglewood, L. Seccombe, B.
Ironside, L. Shannon, E.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Sharples, B.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Kenyon, L. Skelmersdale, L.
Lane of Horsell, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Lauderdale, E. Strange, B.
Leigh, L. Strathcarron, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Lucas, L. Tebbit, L.
Lyell, L. Tenby, V.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Terrington, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Trefgarne, L.
Trumpington, B.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L. Vivian, L.
Macleod of Borve, B. Waverley, V.
Masham of Ilton, B. Weatherill, L.
Merrivale, L. Westbury, L.
Mersey, V. Wharton, B.
Miller of Hendon, B. Whitelaw, V.
Milverton, L. Wise, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V. Wolfson, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Wynford, L.
Addington, L. Eatwell, L.
Annan, L. Ezra, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Gallacher, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Avebury, L. Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Bancroft, L. Greene of Harrow Weald, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Gregson, L.
Berkeley, L. Grey, E.
Birk, B. Hampton, L.
Blease, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Haskel, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Hayman, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B. Hayter, L.
Clancarty, E. Healey, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Henderson of Brompton, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Dahrendorf, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
David, B. Hooson, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Howie of Troon, L.
Desai, L. Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Diamond, L. Hylton, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Irvine of Lairg, L.
Donoughue, L. Jay of Paddington, B.
Dormand of Easington, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Dubs, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Judd, L. Rochester, L.
Kilbracken, L. Russell, E.
Lockwood, B. Sainsbury, L.
Longford, E. St. John of Bletso, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Scanlon, L.
McCarthy, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
McGregor of Durris, L. Serota, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Shaughnessy, L.
McNair, L. Shepherd, L.
McNally, L. Simon, V.
Mallalieu, B. Stallard, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Strabolgi, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Strafford, E.
Milner of Leeds, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Molloy, L. Tonypandy, V.
Monkswell, L. Tope, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Nicol, B. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Ogmore, L. White, B.
Peston, L. Wigoder, L.
Phillips of Ellesmere, L. Williams of Crosby, B.[Teller.]
Prys-Davies, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Rea, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Redesdale, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Richard, L. Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.