HL Deb 03 November 1998 vol 594 cc142-53

3.10 p.m.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Sewel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Reserved matters]:

The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) moved Amendment No. 206X:

Page 67, line 43, at end insert (", or (c) any office in the Scottish Administration.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to make it clear that the reservation of the Crown in Part I of Schedule 5 does not have the effect of reserving the offices in the Scottish administration. It has always been intended that the Scottish parliament should have the ability to be able to amend the functions of office holders who comprise part of the Scottish administration and confer new functions upon them. This amendment ensures that Part I of the schedule should not have the effect of preventing the parliament from doing that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 206Y:

Page 68, line 5, at end insert— ("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the reservation by paragraph 1 of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments would reserve legislative competence over the interception of communications while devolving executive competence to the Scottish administration. They also make clear that the scope of the reservation of "interception of communications" does not include intrusive surveillance techniques.

The Bill at present provides for the devolution of the Interception of Communications Act 1985, to the extent that it relates to the prevention or detection of serious crime. This will have two main consequences. First, the Scottish executive will assume the Secretary of State's current power to authorise interception of telephone calls or mail for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime. That squares with the fact that policing and crime prevention are devolved and it would be anomalous if the Scottish police had to go to a UK government Minister for interception warrants against criminals operating in Scotland.

The second consequence is that the Scottish parliament will be able to legislate to amend the Interception of Communications Act, but only where that interception is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime in Scotland. On reflection, we believe that there would be practical problems in legislating separately on that sub-set of interception issues.

The Interception of Communications Act 1985 is in need of updating and work to replace it is under way. That work has underlined the importance of having a coherent interception policy throughout the UK. If different arrangements were to apply in different parts of the country in relation to serious crime interceptions it could undermine the interception policy and police operations in the remainder of the UK, especially by revealing some of the detailed techniques which are used.

The basis of the existing policy is sound. Devolution must ensure that it is the Scottish First Minister, rather than a Minister of the UK Government, who has responsibility for authorising interception for serious criminals in Scotland and is answerable to the Scottish parliament for that work. But an approach which might fragment the UK-wide legislation on this sensitive subject would be very difficult to operate in practice without prejudicing police operations and the fight against serious crime.

The amendments therefore reserve interception legislation. But we shall use the power in Clause 59 of the Bill to transfer to Scottish Ministers the important executive responsibility for authorising interception in serious criminal cases in Scotland. They alone will have the power to give such authority in such cases, and they will be answerable to the Scottish parliament.

In this way the Scottish parliament will retain a proper measure of control over interception policy in Scotland. There is considerable scope for Scottish Ministers to establish different policies on interception related to serious crime without devolving legislative powers. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

My Lords, perhaps I may say how appropriate it is that the noble Baroness has the opportunity to explain these sensitive matters to the House. She has done so clearly.

I well understand the reason why the Government have brought forward these amendments, and I should not wish to be associated with any suggestion that devolution should in any way complicate or frustrate the attempts that must be constantly made to fight cross-Border crime. The noble Baroness has provided a full justification for these changes.

On a point of interest relating to Amendment No. 206Y, which part of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 reserves the various functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters? It is not entirely clear to me.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

My Lords, I am pleased that it was not clear to the noble and learned Lord, because it was not clear to me either. I inquired about the matter and have been advised that it is the very first part, namely the Crown, which covers the three agencies named.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 207:

Page 68, line 21, at end insert— (" . Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Parliament from passing a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208 standing in my name.

The purpose of the amendments may initially be perplexing to some noble Lords. Their terms are clearly inconsistent. They address from different perspectives the issue of whether or not it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom. Clearly, I shall not invite the House to accept both amendments. My choice as to which one will depend on the Minister's reply.

This matter was debated in Committee on 21st July. On that occasion a number of amendments dealt with the issue of referendums or polls. The discussion addressed the basic question of whether it would be competent for the parliament to hold referendums before turning to the secondary, albeit important, issue of whether it would be competent to hold a poll dealing with the issue of independence. The initial amendment sought to explore whether it was necessary for the parliament to be given express power as part of its legislative competence to enable it to pass Acts of the Scottish parliament authorising such referendums and polls. Section 7 of the Government of Wales Act gives the assembly power to hold polls.

As regards the competence of a referendum on independence, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, dealt with the matter in his reply. He said: I wish the Committee to be in no doubt that as the Bill stands the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence as the union of the kingdoms is already a reserved matter under Schedule 5".—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]

He suggested that explicit reference along the lines of an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Rowallan was not needed. The noble Lord went on to say: In determining what relates to a reserved matter, the Government amendments tabled to Clause 28 are of help here, because they indicate that we must look at the purpose of what is being done. If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would thus clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the Union. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the Union and it would therefore be beyond the parliament's competence and would not be law".— [Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 854.]

He went on to give certain reasons for the view which he had expressed.

I read with care what the noble Lord said on that occasion, particularly in view of the fact that since then the Scottish National Party, I think in an interim policy document issued since July, and certainly in speeches made by leading members, has reiterated its intention to hold such a referendum in the event that the party forms the Scottish executive, or part of it. Even if it were not in such a position, there would be nothing to prevent it bringing forward a Bill and seeking to have it enacted by the Scottish parliament.

When the matter was debated in July, I expressed concern that, notwithstanding the views clearly and fairly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, it might still be possible to construct an argument in a court of law that it would be competent for the Scottish executive to hold a referendum touching upon or involving the issue of independence. I concede that such a referendum would be held not to obtain a vote that would bind the parliament or the Scottish executive but for the purpose of informing both those bodies of the thinking of the Scottish people on this issue. I believe that it could be successfully argued—and certainly that it could be argued in a rational way in a court of law—that it would be of assistance to the Scottish parliament and the executive to be aware of what Scottish people think on the issue to assist them in the discharge of other statutory duties which lie well within their executive and legislative competence.

In developing that argument on that occasion I made reference to the fact that, without any statutory authority, the Strathclyde Regional Council had on its own initiative held a referendum as to whether the water supply industry in Scotland should be privatised. I also referred to the fact that the Grampian Regional Council had made a financial contribution to the Scottish constitutional convention, albeit that the work of the convention touched on issues which were not within the direct statutory responsibilities of the local authority.

Since the matter was last debated in this House, the Supreme Court in Canada has issued a judgment in a very important and interesting case involving the consequences of a referendum in Quebec. The decision was dated 20th August this year and followed a reference by the governor, acting in council, posing certain questions for the Canadian Supreme Court. Against the background that it was held that the referendum held by the Quebec authorities in no sense bound the other members of the federation and had no binding effect, there is an interesting discussion as to how the expression of opinion which the referendum threw up placed upon the other parties to the federation a duty to negotiate in a responsible manner as to whether it would be appropriate for Quebec to receive its independence.

I can foresee that if, many years down the line, such a referendum were to be held in Scotland, reference might be made to that authority. As we have discussed on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comes to deliberate on how devolution issues should be resolved, it is anticipated that they will look to the jurisprudence of the Commonwealth for assistance on these matters.

As far as the practicalities of having a referendum are concerned, I believe that I am at one with the Government. I understand that the Government are opposed to a referendum being held. Their view is that it would be incompetent for that to happen under the present terms of the Bill. I agree. If the majority of the Scottish people wish to seek independence—and I believe that they certainly do not—they could make that clear by voting in a general election for sufficient numbers of members of the SNP. There is little doubt that, were that to happen, negotiations of the type referred to in the Canadian case might well begin.

Where I and the Government Benches differ is as to whether the matter should be clarified further on the face of the Bill. Time and again in our debates on the Bill there have been discussions as to whether some of the clauses are unnecessary and whether some of the amendments proposed are unnecessary and would serve to increase the length of an already complicated and detailed Bill.

If the second of my amendments were to be accepted by the Government, I believe that it would unequivocally prevent any attempt by either the Scottish executive or the Scottish parliament to hold a referendum unless it had been sanctioned by this Parliament. That is, therefore, the amendment which I favour, and I hope that it would be accepted. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 207.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, I believe that these two paradoxical amendments raise an important issue and that one of them should be on the face of the Bill. It is always important to reaffirm that Scotland has placed its sovereignty voluntarily in the United Kingdom and in this Parliament. The Bill is entirely in keeping with that constitutional theory. The Bill is being enacted because the people of Scotland have requested—or perhaps demanded—the return of some de facto sovereignty in the form of a parliament with powers devolved from this United Kingdom Parliament.

The issue of power to hold a plebiscite concerning secession from the United Kingdom is also central to that constitutional theory. The power must be lodged overtly somewhere. For the Bill to be silent on the issue, as if it would just go away, could be seen as confirmation that Scotland has been annexed on a de facto basis and that Scotland is not a voluntary member of the United Kingdom.

The scheme of devolution before us lays down that such constitutional issues are reserved matters and that it would be for the United Kingdom Parliament to deal with any demand for secession from the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland should be allowed to know—and should be under no illusion about the matter—that this is an issue which they ought to take up with their Westminster MPs in the future. I support Amendment No. 208, which clarifies the position as I have described it.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, in the Liberal Party we do think for ourselves occasionally. I regard these contradictory amendments as an extraordinary device in keeping with the attitude that the Conservative Front Bench has adopted throughout the debate of discussing everything ad nauseam. This is a Bill to devolve power to a Scottish parliament to look after its own affairs within the context, and with the advantages, of belonging to the United Kingdom. Why on earth we prolong this discussion, with extra contradictory amendments brought forward, I do not know. The Government have stated quite clearly that a referendum put forward by the Scottish parliament would not be legal and proper.

The situation in Quebec was quite clear. The referendum put forward by the Québécois Party achieved 49 per cent. support. The referendum more or less said, "Do you believe in an independent Quebec which will be rich beyond belief?" Its terms were such that any non-thinking person would vote immediately for it. There is no point in saying that a party such as the SNP would be able to bring forward a referendum. That is made clear in the Bill. I support the Government's attitude. The amendment will do nothing but stir up trouble.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon has been candid about these two amendments. I shall try to be as loyal and as tactful as possible in my comments on this situation.

The most important provision in this Bill is to be found in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5: The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is— (b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". Clearly, Amendment No. 207 is in conflict with that concept. Amendment No. 208 can be said to be consistent with it but, I believe, is unnecessary bearing in mind the clear, emphatic wording of paragraph 1(b).

I therefore assume, in favour of my noble friends on the Front Bench, that these two amendments have been tabled in order that noble Lords in every part of your Lordships' House can express their views on the matter but come to the conclusion that the union of the United Kingdom must be upheld.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, my noble friend, who is very wise on these matters, has expressed his view. My noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has expressed a similar view in different terms. With great respect to the noble Lords, they are forgetting how it will be determined whether something is or is not competent in this parliament. They are assuming that it will be like Westminster. It will not be.

The Scottish National Party is intending, we understand, to use the Holyrood parliament, not the Westminster Parliament, as the locus for continuing to attempt to persuade the people of Scotland that they will do best if they leave the United Kingdom. The locus for this discussion will be the Holyrood parliament. We are not even sure whether the Scottish National Party will be putting up any candidates for Westminster at the next general election. I do not think it has decided that as yet.

It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be crystal clear on this matter. If it is not crystal clear, it will be possible for the Scottish National Party majority—even a majority made up with other members of the Scottish parliament—to decide to legislate for a referendum. Whether or not that is within its competence under the terms of the Bill as it stands, it becomes a devolution issue. In the process there will be a long argument—it may last several months or perhaps a year—as to whether it will be competent to do that. During that time the Scottish National Party will have a marvellous opportunity to stir up discontent: to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the Holyrood parliament is not able to put forward their interests in deciding the future of Scotland.

This is the time when the Government should make it clear, in the kind of words in Amendment No. 208, that that is not within the parliament's competence. Then the matter cannot proceed. It is really important. To say amiably that because the constitution is reserved to Westminster this will not occur, is simply not realistic. We are not facing up to the facts. People will not change the way in which they behave because of the new parliament. They will continue to behave in a political way. I can foresee that that could happen.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I believe that the Bill is entirely clear. There is no ambiguity about where power lies. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said clearly that, while there are no limitations on the powers of the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish parliament is limited by this Bill which will become an Act. Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 makes absolutely clear where the powers lie, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out.

Whatever is written down, the Scottish National Party will behave politically whether or not we pass the amendment. If it wants to behave politically, then passing or not passing the amendment is entirely beside the point. There is no ambiguity. The Scotland Act will be clear as to where the power lies and any Bill to hold such a referendum will be ultra vires.

Lord Sewel

My Lords, I had hoped that we had succeeded in Committee in clarifying that, under the Bill as drafted, the Scottish parliament will not be able to legislate to hold a referendum on independence because the union of the Kingdoms is a reserved matter. It is not only the constitution that is reserved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, observed; it is absolutely explicit in paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 5 that, the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England", is reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton reminded us.

So that is it. I shall try once more to explain the position and apologise to the House that what I am about to say will unavoidably be somewhat repetitious. An explicit reference on the lines proposed by Amendment No. 208 is simply not needed. In determining what relates to a reserved matter, Clause 28, as amended in Committee, indicates that one must look at the purpose of what is being done—and that has been accepted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.

If the parliament passed an Act to hold a referendum about whether the Union should continue, it would clearly be legislating in relation to the reserved matter of the union. It is as crystal clear as that. Any such Act would be about the continuation of the union; it would therefore be beyond the competence of the parliament and would not be law. The position is quite clear on this point. Amendment No. 208 is absolutely unnecessary.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would it be competent for the parliament to discuss the question of the independence of Scotland from the Union?

Lord Sewel

My Lords, it would be possible to discuss that. That is not dealt with in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The amendment refers to passing a Bill and therefore limits itself to legislative competence. The legislative competence is already taken up in the terms of Schedule 5 and Clause 28. We are on the narrow point of legislative competence and not whether the parliament can or should discuss the matter of independence. That is a totally different matter and beyond the scope of the amendment.

While I appreciate the helpful way in which the noble and learned Lord has explained why he has tabled what are, as he recognised, two contradictory amendments, I do not think there is any means by which we can get away from the fact that we are dealing with an issue that is clear in the Bill. There is absolutely no need for this further attempt allegedly to make it clear. I should have thought that the great strength of the Bill is the very simple phrase in Schedule 5 dealing with the reserved matters: the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England". There can be nothing more explicit or clearer than that.

The noble and learned Lord referred to the powers of the executive. But the powers of the executive are linked to the legislative competence of the parliament. It would not be within the competence of the executive to incur expenditure on a referendum on independence; nor would it be within the legislative competence of the parliament to confer such a power on it. So I am still at a loss to understand the point on Report as I was at a loss to understand the point in Committee. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister is at a loss because the fault is entirely mine. I shall endeavour to explain a little more fully why I have this concern, and in doing so, I shall, like my noble friend Lord Renton, be as loyal and tactful as I can. However, I regret to say that on this occasion I part company from him as to whether the Bill is quite as clear as he suggests that it is. It is of course no surprise to have differing views on these matters from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure that the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was made in jest, and I take it in that spirit.

The crux of the matter is the new provision of Clause 28(3), which was introduced in Committee. It states: For the purposes of this section, the question whether a provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament relates to a reserved matter is to be determined, subject to subsection (4)"— that does not concern us— by reference to the purpose of the provision". If it is competent, as the Minister has accepted, for the Scottish parliament to debate the question of independence, one then assumes that it would be competent for it to discuss the question in a committee to which people came to give evidence, as covered by the provision in Clause 23.

If it is competent for the parliament to discuss the matter, would it not be possible to pass an Act of the Scottish parliament along the lines, "Because we are going to discuss the question of independence, we wish to know whether the people of Scotland know about it in order to inform our discussions. We fully accept that we do not have the competence to pass an Act which would bring about independence. We fully accept that that is a reserved matter under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Bill. But in so far as we are entitled to discuss the matter, we wish to be seized with knowledge of what the Scottish people think about the matter".

That seems to be the reasoning which lay behind Strathclyde Regional Council's decision to hold its referendum because there can be no doubt that the power to regulate the water supply industry and to decide whether or not to privatise it lay with the United Kingdom Government and indeed with this Parliament.

Both today and on a previous occasion the Minister has not responded to my two well-known examples. He may be correct when he says that he does not fully understand the concern I have raised but clearly that concern is shared by other Members of the House. Therefore, while I do not intend to press Amendment No. 207 to a vote, I shall seek to take the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 208. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 208:

Page 68, line 21, at end insert— (" . It shall not be competent for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Bill authorising the Scottish Executive to hold a poll in Scotland for the purposes of ascertaining the views of those polled as to whether or not Scotland should become independent of the United Kingdom.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

3.44 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 208) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 167.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L. Ferrers, E.
Addison, V. Gainford, L.
Ailsa, M. Gardner of Parkes, B.
Aldington, L. Gormanston, V.
Astor of Hever, L. Hanningfield, L.
Barber, L. Harding of Petherton, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Higgins, L.
Berners, B. Holderness, L.
Brentford, V. Hothfield, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Johnston of Rockport, L.
Bruntisfield, L. Kenyon, L.
Burnham, L. [Teller.] Kimball, L.
Butterworth, L. Kinloss, Ly.
Cadman, L. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Campbell of Croy, L. Knollys, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Lane of Horsell, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Lauderdale, E.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Liverpool, E.
Chesham, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Lyell, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Dartmouth, E. McConnell, L.
Davidson, V. Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B. Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Downshire, M. Mersey, V.
Dundee, E. Middleton, L.
Dundonald, E. Monro of Langholm, L.
Ellenborough, L. Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Elles, B. Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Montrose, D.
Erne, E. Mountevans, L.
Mountgarret, V. Rotherwick, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Munster, E. Sandys, L.
Nelson, E. Savile, L.
Newall, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Northesk, E. Sempill, L.
O'Cathain, B. Sharples, B.
Palumbo, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Park of Monmouth, B. Skelmersdale, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. Stair, E.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Pender, L. Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Swinfen, L.
Platt of Writtle, B. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. Tugendhat, L.
Quinton, L. Vivian, L.
Rankeillour, L. Waddington, L.
Rathcavan, L. Warnock, B.
Rees, L. Westbury, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L. Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L Gainsborough, E.
Addington, L. Gallacher, L.
Ahmed, L. Geraint, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L. Gilbert, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Gladwin of Clee, L.
Alli, L. Glenamara, L.
Amos, B. Goodhart, L.
Ampthill, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Annan, L. Goudie, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Gould of Potternewton, B.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Bach, L. Grenfell, L.
Barnett, L. Hamwee, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hardie, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Hardy of Wath, L.
Berkeley, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bethell, L. Harris of Haringey, L.
Blackstone, B. Haskel, L.
Blease, L. Hayman, B.
Borrie, L. Headfort, M.
Brightman, L. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Brookman, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Hoyle, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Hughes, L.
Burlison, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Calverley, L. Hussey of North Bradley, L.
Carlisle, E. Hylton-Foster, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Ilchester, E.
Carrick, E. Islwyn, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Castle of Blackburn, B.
Christopher, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Jenkins of Putney, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Kintore, E.
Clinton-Davis, L. Laming, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Craigmyle, L. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Crawley, B. Lockwood, B.
Dahrendorf, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
David, B. Lovell-Davis, L.
Davies of Coity, L. McCarthy, L.
Desai, L. Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Dixon, L. McFarlane of Llandaff, B.
Donoughue, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Dormand of Easington, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Ezra, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. McNair, L.
Falkland, V. Mallalieu, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Masham of Ilton, B.
Fitt, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Shannon, E.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Milner of Leeds, L. Shepherd, L.
Mishcon, L. Shore of Stepney, L.
Molloy, L. Simon, V.
Monkswell, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Montague of Oxford, L. Slim, V.
Morris of Castle Morris, L. Stallard, L.
Morris of Manchester, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Newby, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Nicol, B. Strabolgi, L.
Northfield, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Orme, L. Thomas of Macclesfield, L.
Paul, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Peston, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. Thornton, B.
Plant of Highfield, L. Thurso, V.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Tomlinson, L.
Prys-Davies, L. Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Puttnam, L. Uddin, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Varley, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Redesdale, L. Weatherill, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B. Whitty, L.
Richard, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Russell, E. Williams of Elvel, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Sawyer, L. Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Sefton of Garston, L. Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Serota, B. Winston, L.
Sewel, L. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, before we move to the pre-Budget Statement, I should like to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Back to