HL Deb 24 June 1996 vol 573 cc620-33

. Section 1 of this Act shall not apply to an appeal by a young unaccompanied asylum seeker and accordingly paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act (special procedures for claims without foundation) as heretofore enacted shall continue to apply to such an appeal.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 101 which defines what is meant by a young, unaccompanied asylum seeker. So far as I am aware, nothing turns on the definition, and I can leave it unless anything arises at a later stage.

The amendment disapplies Clause 1 of the Bill in the case of a very vulnerable category of asylum seeker; namely, children who are 17 years old or younger and completely on their own in this country. The special case of these children was, to the great credit of the Government, recognised by the establishment, in 1994, under the auspices of the Home Office of the panel of advisers with a particular commitment to unaccompanied refugee children. With this amendment, I ask the Government to recognise the special problems of these unfortunate youngsters by leaving the law as it now stands in their particular case without subjecting them to the tighter disciplines of Clause 1 of the Bill.

Perhaps I may take up a few moments of your Lordships' time to explain briefly what the law now is and how Clause 1 of the Bill will change that law, so that your Lordships can decide whether you wish to see unaccompanied child refugees subjected to that change.

Under present law, when an asylum seeker arrives in this country his application for asylum is first considered by the Home Office. If entry is refused by the Home Office, the asylum seeker can appeal to a "special adjudicator". If the special adjudicator decides against the asylum seeker, the asylum seeker has an unrestricted right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. All that is laid down by the 1971 Act.

The 1993 Act added a restriction on the right of an asylum seeker to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The restriction is this. If both the Home Office and the special adjudicator agree that the claim of the asylum seeker is "without foundation", there is no right to appeal from the special adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The decision of the special adjudicator is final. "Without foundation" is defined as meaning "frivolous or vexatious". I do not seek to change that law in any way. I am content that unaccompanied refugee children should continue not to have a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal if their claims are frivolous or vexatious.

However, Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to impose a far greater restriction on appeals, whether by adults or children. First, the clause provides that if the asylum seeker comes from a designated country—that is, a country that has been designated by the Secretary of State as substantially persecution free—then and in that case the Home Office and the special adjudicator can agree that there should be no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

Secondly, Clause 1 gives an extended meaning to the phrase "without foundation". It means not only a claim that is frivolous or vexatious; it also covers this sort of scenario: unexplained failure to produce a passport; production of a false passport without disclosing its validity; delayed claims to asylum; or making untrue statements.

Taking into account the fact that we are dealing with children who may have fled from horrors that we can scarcely imagine, and who may be traumatised at finding themselves without parents or friends to accompany them in a country whose language they almost certainly cannot speak, is it right to add to their problems by subjecting them to the stricter regime imposed by Clause 1? Would not it be more humane to leave those children subject to the existing rule laid down by the 1993 Act and deny them a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal only when their claim is without foundation; that is to say, frivolous or vexatious?

We know from the Minister's own words at Committee stage that the objects of Clause 1 of the Bill are twofold: first, to bring down "the large backlog of unresolved cases"; and, secondly, to, send a strong signal that unfounded claims will be met by robust procedures".—[Official Report, 30/4/96; col. 1540.]

Will those two objects be furthered by impeding the right of appeal of a mere 600 children? Do we want to be seen applying robust procedures to children aged 17 and under who are here on their own?

Your Lordships may wish to know how this matter was dealt with by the Government at Committee stage. An amendment similar to this one was the first limb of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and ultimately withdrawn. I have carefully scrutinised the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batch, and only three arguments were submitted against the exclusion from Clause 1 of 17 year-olds and younger children who arrive here unaccompanied. First, Clause 1 does not change the special arrangements for considering applications from unaccompanied children put in place by the Home Office in May 1995. Their cases will continue to be given special priority and care by the Home Office. That is a reference to paragraph 350 of the Immigration Rules. Secondly, unaccompanied children 17 and under will continue to have the services of the Refugee Council's panel of advisers, the local authority and the Red Cross. Thirdly, the Home Office will take into account the child's particular circumstances and each case will be considered on its merits.

Those were the only arguments advanced by the Government at Committee stage. I do not see how they support the proposition that it should be made more difficult than it is already for unaccompanied 17 year-olds and younger children to appeal from the special adjudicator in a case which is not frivolous or vexatious.

To sum up, a child (like an adult asylum seeker) under existing law is barred from appealing to the tribunal if the claim is without foundation; that is to say, frivolous or vexatious. Do we want the claim of a child of that young age who arrives here alone also to be barred because, for example, it comes from a country designated by the Secretary of State as substantially persecution free, or has a false passport without disclosing its invalidity, or makes a false statement to an immigration officer? There are only about 600 children a year involved compared with a total tally of about 44,000 asylum seekers each year. I ask your Lordships to leave the law as it now stands with regard to child asylum seekers who are on their own and not to increase their problems.

Finally, this amendment is strongly supported by the Refugee Council, which is a government funded concern and is probably as well informed as anyone about the plight of children who are here on their own. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Ripon

My Lords, I am glad to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I thank him for moving it. It is good to see him in his place. We missed him sadly at the Committee stage of the Bill.

Children are among those who, at every stage in history, have been most vulnerable in situations of conflict. One has only to remember the Biblical story of the Massacre of the Innocents under Herod the Great. Children are always at risk during conflicts. They are particularly deserving of our close attention.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, made clear the legal consequence of this amendment. Particularly at stake is the right of somebody seeking asylum to have a right of appeal. Were the Bill to be made law as it stands, those young unaccompanied asylum seekers who fall under the provisions of Clause 1 would not have the right of appeal.

I want to add only one or two points to the noble and learned Lord's argument. Those of us who read the applications and determinations of asylum seekers realise how easy it is for all asylum seekers at times and in certain circumstances to be confused, disoriented and unable to present immediately a clear story. Time and again that comes through the papers that many of us read. If that is true of all asylum seekers, how much more true is it of those who are young, under the age of 17, particularly if they are unaccompanied and separated from their families, finding themselves on their own in an unfamiliar country, in an unfamiliar culture and among people whom they probably do not know. Also, they may have all kinds of difficulties in articulating the reasons which made them come to this country.

What will happen if the right of appeal is removed, even if only for those in certain circumstances? It might well be the case that such young children find difficulty in presenting their full case before the appeal stage is reached. I know that the Minister will say that those coming from countries declared safe will surely not be in situations where they suffer trauma. That may be true in general but it is not always true in particular circumstances. It is the case that children who arrive with false documents will fall under the provisions of Clause 1 and there may be many who arrive with false documents for perfectly good reasons. That may be the only way in which they are able to get into the country; they may not be able to obtain any kind of document until they reach the age of majority; or there may be a very inadequate system of registering births. There are all kinds of reasons why children arrive with false documents. Of itself, that does not meant that their cases should be given less attention.

It seems to me that our own legislation on the need to pay attention to the rights of children, together with those international obligations to which we are a signatory—for instance, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—should make us pay the sharpest attention to the situation of young, unaccompanied, asylum seekers. I am glad to support the amendment.

5 p.m.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, whom I am delighted to see back in his place, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, in supporting this amendment. They have said so much that I can be relatively brief in expressing further support for it.

The amendment and associated amendments—the House will bear with me if I refer to the group of amendments which deals with the issue of unaccompanied children—are extremely carefully phrased and try to deal with all the legitimate objections which might be raised. This amendment deals with the legitimate objection that some people may pretend to be younger or older than they are and therefore makes provision for reference to a panel of paediatricians to determine that issue. It may be that some young, unaccompanied asylum seekers will not have any knowledge about how to handle the issues before them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, pointed out, the amendment makes provision for them to be referred to the panel of advisers to the Refugee Council—the government-financed expert body.

The amendment tries to deal with the issue of placing young people in detention if they might abscond as distinct from placing them elsewhere in detention if they are likely to abscond. It recognises that it is better for young people under the age of 18 not to be detained with much older people and in conditions where they cannot receive continuing education. Our understanding, as the proposers of the amendment, is that children kept in detention, sometimes for weeks and even months, do not have access to education and in most cases are being held together with others.

The amendment tries to express its qualification to the Bill in the most moderate and carefully thought-through terms. At the end of the day it argues that young people under the age of 18 who are not accompanied by any responsible adult should be treated in more merciful and careful ways than those who are over that age or who are accompanied by a responsible adult.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon argued, many young people will need to obtain records from their home country to establish their position; in some cases they may need to go through a medical examination to establish their age and in some cases they are so traumatised that it is difficult for them to put their case together. The amendment pleads only that they should not be treated via the fast-track procedure; that they are rightly judged as being in a separate category and one to which we should show a more extensive understanding than we do in the case of adults. It gives me not only great pleasure, but also a sense of great honour to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and spoken to by the right reverend Prelate.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate, with whom I would have wished to agree on this occasion, that I am not able to do so save in one respect; that is, in relation to the absence of appeal from the designated states and false documents. On that—I am speaking to the group of amendments as a whole, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I have my reservations. I accept that this is a matter containing a strong moral element of which the law should take account otherwise than in the case of judicial review.

This series of amendments is designed to fill a gap. Apart from the reservation of which I have just spoken—a reservation made also by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the right reverend Prelate—in relation to the appeal, on an objective examination I can see no gap. The Immigration Rules provide that applications for unaccompanied children must receive priority. I made some inquiries—I am open to correction—and it appears that on arrival the child is seen and dealt with by a panel of advisers which is a non-statutory body funded by the Home Office and administered by the Refugee Council. Accommodation is found for the child; food and care are provided and also help with arrangements concerning the Home Office through an asylum directorate which last year dealt with over 600 children.

The asylum directorate was widely welcomed by local authorities, the Refugee Council, the international social services and others working for children. The Home Office has a special unit which deals with unaccompanied children and notifies the Red Cross. Broadly speaking, that is the regime which operates. It seems to me that those arrangements provide the necessary safeguards for unaccompanied children.

Clause 1 will not affect special arrangements for the initial consideration of claims by the Home Office and appeals made by unaccompanied children are already given priority by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Furthermore, on the question of removal, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/172 of 1994 reaffirmed the importance of family reunification. If that is not possible, it is the intention to return the children to other suitable carers. I am informed that the Home Office would not remove unaccompanied children to safe third countries unless it is confirmed that suitable arrangements are in place in the country concerned.

There is little else with which I wish to detain the House other than the question of detention. According to my information the children are only detained in exceptional circumstances and as a last resort.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I have not spoken to any amendment except Amendment No. 58. I am wondering whether we will get into a muddle and whether I at any rate will be pre-empted if your Lordships speak on other amendments before I have had an opportunity to express my views to your Lordships.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, with deference to the noble and learned Lord, I was not going to say much more and what more I was going to say shall not now be said. I do not wish to impose on the noble and learned Lord or the House.

My point is this. Leaving aside the issue of detention, which your Lordships will consider later, the question is whether or not the present regime is satisfactory. If it is, as I understand it to be, to what purpose do we add further administrative burden and complexity? It is reasonable to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, that I am speaking also to Amendment No. 60.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, defends the present regime. I do not think he has entirely taken on board the fact that the present regime is altered by Clause 1, from which this amendment would exempt unaccompanied children. Clause 1 of this Bill introduces a fast-tracking procedure, which may, we fear, be a little like getting into a current leading to a waterfall. In those circumstances the noble Lord's safeguards may no longer operate.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 58 and I shall speak only to that amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described in some detail the way in which the present system gives priority to children. One applauds that. However, the change that will be introduced by the Bill is that children may well be given priority, but they will not be given time. The consequences of the fast-track procedure are that although children may be given priority they will find themselves out of the country perhaps even faster than adults. They would not have the time they receive under the present appeals system. The whole purpose of the amendment is to prevent children being subjected to the fast-track appeals system.

We are talking about a very small proportion of asylum seekers—merely 600 children. It is said that traditionally this country has a reputation for fairness and generosity. It seems shameful that we should jeopardise that reputation by subjecting children to the fast-track procedure of appeals. Children fleeing persecution are even less likely than adults to present a coherent and convincing account of their ordeals and may have even more difficulty getting together the necessary paperwork. Therefore, it is inappropriate that they should be subjected to a fast-track appeals procedure. The amendment will give children the opportunity to present their case without the appearance of hurry and, therefore, rough injustice.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will listen sympathetically to what has been said. The position of children in this country apparently without proper documentation and the support of adults is a difficult one. I do not believe that many children are involved. The opportunity has been given to the Minister to make their position absolutely watertight and safe if this amendment were accepted. I hope very much that my noble friend will see the advantage of making absolutely sure that we do not treat badly the most pathetic cases of all, refugee children.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, when my noble friend replies, will she comment on two points? I understood that Clause 1 will not affect the special arrangements for the initial consideration of such claims by the Home Office. It is also my belief that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will support applying the accelerated procedure for children. I ask my noble friend to comment.

Baroness Seccombe

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene. I have listened with great care to what has been said. We all want the best for children in this situation. But no mention has been made of the families and parents of the children. Can the Minister say what happens when the parents are in other countries? What efforts are made to reunite the children with their families?

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, these amendments concern the procedures that should apply to the consideration of asylum claims made by unaccompanied children. As I have said previously during the passage of this Bill through this House, our proposals in Clause 1 to extend the accelerated appeal procedure do not affect the way in which asylum applications are considered initially by the Home Office. The issue of whether to certify a claim only comes into play after the application has been considered fully and a decision made to refuse. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that Clause 1 does not introduce a fast-track procedure but merely extends the circumstances in which the accelerated appeals procedure introduced by the 1993 Act can be triggered. That was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.

Children are given as much time as they need to prove their case. It is only when they have been found not to merit asylum that the specialist unit will consider applying a certificate. That certificate will only be applied and justified, given the maturity of the child. So all that will be taken into account.

The special arrangements we already have in place for considering asylum applications from unaccompanied children will not be changed by the provisions in Clause 1. So I can give my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter the assurance that special arrangements are in place and will continue to be in place to deal with children. As regards the exchange between my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend is absolutely right. We have in place special arrangements and the measures in the Bill do not alter them at all.

Before I address the precise terms of the amendment, it may be worth reminding the House of the safeguards. First, cases of such children are given special priority and care and are considered by specialist case workers in the unaccompanied children's team in the asylum directorate. When children under the age of 18 arrive, they continue to have their cases considered by the special unit even after they reach the age of 18. In order to minimise stress, children are interviewed about their asylum claim only when it has not proved possible to obtain sufficient information by written inquiries. It is rare for an interview to be needed, but if one is required an independent adult will be present to look after the child's interests. Staff who interview children have had special training to equip them for the task.

Secondly, the Government fund a panel of advisers for refugee and asylum-seeking children, which is managed by the Refugee Council. All unaccompanied children who claim asylum are referred to the panel which helps them in their dealings with the Home Office and other agencies. The British Red Cross Society is also given details of all unaccompanied children, whether asylum-seeking or not, for inclusion in its confidential register. Children are encouraged to use the Red Cross tracing service to restore contact with their families. In addition, the Department of Health has provided a practice guide and a training pack on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to assist social services departments in providing for their needs.

I felt that it was worth spending some time to show the range of measures already in place to ensure that the cases of unaccompanied children are given particular care and priority. As I said, Clause 1 of the Bill will not affect those arrangements. Moreover, the short procedure, which is an accelerated determination procedure for the initial consideration of asylum claims by the Home Office, is not applied to claims from unaccompanied children and we have no plans to do so.

Children are always given sufficient time to provide evidence to support their claim before an initial decision is reached. I should also state that the immigration appeal tribunal has recently said as regards unaccompanied children: We are satisfied that the Home Office has taken, and continues to take, the utmost care in assessing each individual case on its merits". I now turn to Amendment No. 58 which is coupled with Amendment No. 101. Is that right?

Lord Brightman

My Lords, it is coupled with the interpretation clause. That is perfectly correct.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, there is no conflict between our careful approach to applications from unaccompanied children and the proposals to extend the special appeals procedure. Children are not exempt from the current provisions for accelerated appeals, although the number of certified cases is very small. We expect the number to remain small. The amendment will not exempt children entirely from the accelerated appeals arrangements. Instead, it will leave them in the anomalous position of being the only category of claimants to whom the 1993 Act provisions applied.

Applying the accelerated appeals procedure to children is consistent with the UNHCR guidelines which emphasise the need for speedy determination of their status. Indeed, it is for that reason that appeals made by unaccompanied children already receive priority listing by the Lord Chancellor's Department. If a child has no claim to refugee status, the speedy return to its family in the country of origin can only be beneficial. Clause 1 will assist in that process. That has to be considered in conjunction with the amount of time that may be necessary for that claim to be made in the initial stages of stating a claim for asylum.

The Government recognise that applications from unaccompanied children raise sensitive issues and, for that reason, we do not propose to certify particularly complex or compassionate cases. Each case would, of course, be considered on its merits. That is particularly important. I say that in response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon who was concerned about taking a general view of the situation while recognising fully the particular situation of a particular claimant. That is properly recognised in our procedures.

The appropriateness of using the accelerated procedures would be given careful scrutiny in the light of the circumstances of each individual case. We would take into account a child's individual circumstances, including his ability to understand his situation and to take responsibility for his actions. It would not be reasonable, for example, to expect a young child to know whether the passport he had been given was valid, but the same might not be true in the case of a young person of 17. It is right that the Secretary of State should make those judgments on the merits of the individual case. Certification, and therefore the accelerated appeal procedure, could clearly be appropriate in some cases. I cannot accept, therefore, that all unaccompanied children should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 1, but I must stress that the specialist caseworkers who consider claims from unaccompanied children would only certify a refused claim when that was clearly appropriate in the individual case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The noble Baroness has said that the present safeguards would largely obtain even if Clause 1 were to be accepted by the House. Will she comment on what is at the heart of our concerns, which is that the accelerated procedure (followed by the accelerated appeal procedure under Clause 1) would make it particularly difficult for a child who might need to get records from the home country to make out the case for being treated as an asylum seeker? That is what is at the heart of our fears about Clause 1.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I have dealt with that point but I shall deal with it again. Because we have special procedures in place for children, the time to which the noble Baroness refers is allowed for in the initial stages. I am referring to the time that is needed to gain the documentation and to secure the information to support the claim. That time is allowed for in the initial stages. Certification follows that; it does not precede it. That is why we believe that the special procedures are an important safeguard. Albeit that that was one of only three arguments that I deployed on the first occasion, I believe that it is important. We do not accelerate the initial decisions. That is where the time is material. I am referring to difficult cases where a child does not and cannot understand, and where the time that is needed to support the claim may need to be prolonged. That is allowed for.

I turn now to Amendment No. 101 which concerns the definition of a "young unaccompanied asylum seeker". First, the amendment is relevant only if any of the new clauses on unaccompanied children in Amendments Nos. 58 to 62 is adopted. The Government oppose all of those amendments for the reasons that I have given.

Secondly, we consider that the definition proposed in Amendment No. 101 is unnecessary. Indeed, we believe that it is unhelpful. The Immigration Rules define "a child", whether accompanied or not as: a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age". That definition has the advantage of giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt. It makes clear that unless there is documentary evidence such as a valid passport, a person who appears to be under 18 should be treated as such. On the other hand, Amendment No. 101 makes no allowance for appearance and would make it more difficult for the young applicant to establish that he qualified to be treated as a child. The current definition of a child in the Immigration Rules contains the right balance and we believe that it should be retained.

There is a further difficulty with the amendment. In each case it would raise the issue of whether an adult who is here with the child is capable of looking after him. Such issues have no place in asylum legislation. They are legitimate in terms of child protection, but the Children Act and other legislation provide the necessary measures for safeguarding a child's welfare. The effect of the amendment could be to invite abusive claims that a child's parent or other accompanying adult was unable to look after him simply in order to bring him within the definition and to prevent him from being returned with his family to his own country. For those reasons, we have difficulty with Amendment No. 101.

I assure my noble friend Lady Gardner that she can be entirely satisfied on both the questions that she raised. My noble friend Lady Seccombe referred to reuniting children with their families. The Government's view is that unaccompanied children whose asylum applications have failed—after the special procedures consideration—should wherever possible be returned to the care of their family in the country of origin. That is in line with the principle of family unity which is contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 49/172 of 1994 reaffirmed the importance of family reunification. If that was not possible, consideration might be given to whether it would be possible to return the child to other suitable carers. The Government consider that it is better for children who have no basis of stay in the United Kingdom to return home voluntarily as that is the least stressful arrangement. The Home Office encourages that option. Only where voluntary departure cannot be agreed are steps taken to enforce return.

The Government made it clear during the passage of the 1993 Act that they will not seek to remove a child who is under 18 years of age unless it is possible to put in place acceptable reception arrangements in the country of origin. The Government remain firmly committed to that policy on humanitarian grounds. I therefore believe that the provisions that we have in place recognise fully all the concerns that have been expressed in the House about children, particularly unaccompanied children, seeking asylum.

Lord Brightman

My Lords, I can be brief. First, we are not concerned with any acceleration of asylum procedures. All that Clause 1 does—the clause from which I wish to exclude young unaccompanied children—is to cut the right of asylum seekers to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. It does nothing else. If I am wrong on that, I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me. My amendment is designed merely to preserve the existing right of young unaccompanied children to appeal to the Immigration Appeals Tribunal—that is, a right to appeal if their claim is not frivolous or vexatious. The amendment does not seek to do anything more than that.

I had intended to give your Lordships the numbers who would be affected by the provisions of the amendment. According to the Home Office figures, in 1995 only 486 unaccompanied children aged 17 and under applied for asylum, and only 99 children applied for asylum after entry. That is a total of 585 children out of a total tally of asylum seekers of 44,000 during that year. Your Lordships will see that the numbers involved are a drop in the ocean.

When making up your minds on this amendment I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that the amendment is strongly supported by the Refugee Council, a Government-sponsored body, which above all should know what the problems are. I understand that the definition provided in the amendment is that which has been operating since April 1994 under the panel of advisers which was set up by the Home Office. I do not think that there is anything objectionable in its wording. In the circumstances and having regard to the strength of view of the Refugee Council, I beg leave to seek the opinion of your Lordships.

5.29 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 58) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 132.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Judd, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Kilbracken, L.
Attlee, E. Kintore, E.
Avebury, L. Lockwood, B.
Bancroft, L. Longford, E.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
Berkeley, L. McCarthy, L.
Blease, L. McGregor of Durris, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brightman, L. [Teller.] McNair, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. McNally, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Mallalieu, B.
Carter, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Castle of Blackburn, B. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Clancarty, E. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Molloy, L.
Craigavon, V. Monkswell, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Nicol, B.
David, B. Ogmore, L.
Dean of Beswick, L. Onslow, E.
Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B. Oxford, Bp.
Diamond, L. Peston, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Dubs, L. Redesdale, L.
Eatwell, L. Richard, L.
Falkender, B. Ripon, Bp.
Falkland, V. Rix, L.
Gallacher, L. Rochester, L.
Geraint, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Russell, E. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Greene of Harrow Weald, L. Seear, B.
Gregson, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Grey,E. Serota, B.
Halsbury, E. Sewel, L.
Hampton, L. Shannon, E.
Hamwee, B. Shepherd, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Simon, V.
Haskel, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Hayman, B. Strabolgi, L.
Healey, L. Stafford, E.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Tenby, V.
Howie of Troon, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Hylton, L. Thurso, V.
Hylton-Foster, B. Tonypandy, V.
Iddesleigh, E. Turner of Camden, B.
Inchyra, L. Wallace of Coslany, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Jeger, B. White, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Wigoder, L.
Williams of Crosby, B. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Williams of Elvel, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Lane of Horsell, L.
Addison, V. Lauderdale, E.
Ailsa, M. Layton, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Liverpool, E.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L Lucas, L.
Balfour, E. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Lyell, L.
Bemers, B. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Blaker, L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Blatch, B. Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Brain, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Bruntisfield, L. Merrivale, L.
Burnham, L. Mersey, V.
Butterworth, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Milverton, L.
Campbell of Cray, L. Monk Bretton, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Carnock, L. Mottistone, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Chelmsford, V. Munster, E.
Chesham, L. [Teller.] Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Nelson, E.
Clark of Kempston, L. Newall, L.
Colwyn, L. Norfolk, D.
Courtown, E. Norrie, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Northesk, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] O'Cathain, B.
Cromer, E. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Cumberlege, B. Orkney, E.
Dean of Harptree, L. Oxfuird, V.
Denham, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Denman, L. Pender, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Downshire, M. Pike, B.
Eden of Winton, L. Rankeillour, L.
Ellenborough, L. Rawlings, B.
Elton, L. Reay, L.
Feldman, L. Renton, L.
Ferrers, E. Renwick, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L. Rodney, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Seccombe, B.
Geddes, L. Sharples, B.
Goold, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Goschen, V. Skelmersdale, L.
Granard, E. Skidelsky, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Slim, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Strange, B.
Harding of Petherton, L. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Harlech, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Harrowby, E. Swinfen, L.
Hayhoe, L. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Henley, L. Trumpington, B.
Hesketh, L. Ullswater, V.
Hogg, B. Vivian, L.
Holderness, L. Wakeham, L.
HolmPatrick, L. Wedgwood, L.
Howe, E. Westbury, L.
Inglewood, L. Wise, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Wolfson, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L. Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Kenyon, L. Wynford, L.
Kingsland, L. Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.38 p.m.

Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 59: Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause—