HL Deb 14 July 1999 vol 604 cc412-23

27A That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. I shall speak also to Motions Nos. 28A and 30A.

All of the arguments about the criminal defence service have been canvassed exhaustively. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go over the territory explored so widely at Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I shall summarise my argument.

First, in an adversarial system, it is absolutely fundamental that a defendant should have full confidence that his legal representatives are genuinely independent. Secondly, in high-profile cases in particular the employed public defender lawyer may be unwilling to take a stand—as is frequently necessary—and criticise the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and so on. It is essential to the administration of justice that there be fearless advocacy on the part of an accused person.

Thirdly, if only limited resources are available to the public defender system, fewer and lower-paid lawyers will provide a poorer quality of service. The necessary work of tracing witnesses and instructing experts will not be carried out if budget limits are exceeded. By contrast, the resources of the prosecution in investigations through the police are unlimited in respect of individual cases. Consequently, the proposals will fundamentally shift the balance between the prosecution and the defence that exists under our system.

I have no doubt that the word "indignation" is written in large letters on the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's brief as he leaps to the defence of a class of persons—namely, public defenders—who have not yet been recruited. How dare I suggest that they will not employ professional standards and so on? But if the Government think that people employed for a fixed salary for fixed hours will put the same effort into a case that independent counsel and solicitors do at present, then they do not understand the realities of the criminal Bar.

I shall give a small instance. Tomorrow I shall go to a remand centre. It will take me two hours to get there. When I arrive I will be searched, my shoes will be taken from me and my coat will be taken from me. They will be put through a machine and any papers I may have on me will be removed if they do not appertain to the case. Recently, for example, I had a bill from the House of Lords Refreshment Department confiscated in case it gave the inmates of the prison I was in some notion or inkling of the bill of fare in your Lordships.' House.

These are the indignities that independent counsel are prepared to go through, and to spend the time. I should add that, under the graduated scheme, I will not be paid for a whole day's work, because it will take me two hours to get home. For that reason, I do not see that this level of service will ever be provided by a salaried defender service such as is proposed.

I do not believe either that the proposal will achieve the purposes for which it has been put forward; namely, the saving of money. I do not believe it has ever been pretended that it will improve the quality of justice to have a public defender system. Increases in the costs of defending criminal cases are, at least by implication, frequently put down to the activities of greedy lawyers trying to up their fees. What is never put into the reckoning is the cost of the measures which have been developed to improve the speeding-up of justice, a very necessary aim. In the old days of the assizes one walked into court and one did the case. Today we have systems of primary discovery, defence statements, secondary discovery, plea and directions hearings, public interest immunity applications, preliminary hearings on points of law, and frequently consultation with the client at various stages is essential. That is all commendable, but it is not quick and it certainly is not cheap. It costs time and money.

A further fundamental objection to the criminal defence service, to which I have referred on previous occasions, is the concept that a nationwide service will be set up with offices all over the country and that a defendant will have the right to choose whether he accepts the state service or whether he goes on legal aid to an independent legal representative. The idea that the choice will be made in favour of the state defence service is in my view ludicrous, and I do not see such a choice remaining very long for a defendant. We will be in a kind of "signs of the Zodiac" situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, at Second Reading.

We would have no objection if there were parts of the country where there were no independent solicitors. I know of none, but if that should be so, let there be a public office, but only in that very limited kind of circumstance. I do not believe that a public defender system can ever match the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the competitive, independent Bar where ability and hard work are the ultimate criteria.

No nationalised industry has ever proved itself as efficient as the private sector. Hence, in all fields other than this one, New Labour has accepted and acquiesced in privatisations carried out by the previous government. Indeed, even in the Bill the purpose of having contracts is to increase competitive tendering between solicitors. But here, a state nationalised service of defending is being set up. I do not believe that that is right in principle. I do not believe that it is practical, and I believe that it will fail. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.—(Lord Thomas of Gresford.)

Lord Borrie

My Lords, I did not intervene on this part of the Bill during its earlier stages in this House. However, I listened to many speeches, including at least two excellent speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, attacked the provision which would enable lawyers employed by the criminal defence service to provide not only representation but advice or assistance of any kind in the criminal courts. They attacked the provision—it has emerged once more in the speech we have just heard from the noble Lord—on the basis that the proposal might lead to the extreme of removing the choice of an accused person to have a private practitioner as his lawyer and advocate, if that is what he wants. It is thought, and it was repeated by the noble Lord, that the proposal might lead to the extreme of a comprehensive public defender system. The noble Lord used the word "nationalisation", no doubt because it has an emotive effect. There is the suggestion that it would replace the independent Bar, as it exists not just as we know it in London, but in Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle.

During the course of previous debates, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor denied any such extreme intention. There is no basis or evidence for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the extremes he envisages are likely to come about. Furthermore, there is no evidence, certainly in this country, of any lack of dedication or lack of fearlessness—qualities which the noble Lord of course regards very highly—on the part of an employed lawyer of a criminal defence service because we do not have one. However, this links up with debates we have had as regards civil courts, to which we may well return tonight.

There is a kind of distrust on the part of eminent practitioners like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that the employed lawyer, the in-house lawyer, is incapable of giving independent advice and independent representation and is incapable of being fearless because he is scared of losing his job or his present post. We shall come to that in due course. However, it seems to me—and of course the proposals are of a modest nature—that there is no basis for saying that an employed lawyer would not be capable of doing the very best he could for the accused person.

Let us not forget the importance of Clause 15. Rather rashly perhaps, I draw in aid my recollection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was very keen that employed lawyers should be subjected to a code—a code now set out in the Bill—which would involve consultation with the Law Society, the Bar and so forth, ensuring dedication, fearlessness, and above all duty to the court, which are so important, whether he or she is independent or an employed lawyer.

In conclusion, it is not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who is being extremist in the proposal that he is bringing forward. I am afraid it is the majority of this House who were extremist when they tried, by the successful anti-Government amendment, to make it completely impossible for the courts to allow any lawyer employed by the criminal defence service to act in any way, by advice or assistance or representation, in any court. That seems to be extreme, and there is no warrant for it.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Borrie, as I think I did—my memory does not go hack that far—in previous debates. If I merely made the speech to my wife, I apologise.

This is an extreme amendment, in that it casts doubt upon the ability of lawyers who operate in any salaried service, because the same criteria would apply, and that is wholly unjustified. Why should we have a Crown Prosecution Service? There is a very strong case for it. Anyway, it is establishing itself over the years. It has had difficulties, as one recognises, but they do not constitute a reason for saying that the Crown Prosecution Service has failed and should be abolished, or anything of that kind.

Therefore, I do not think that this form of extreme amendment puts the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in a good light. It is somewhat protectionist. In fact, if lawyers were to adopt that attitude they would be seen as being protectionist, and that is unhelpful. The job of a defending lawyer is to do his or her work to the best of his or her ability. In the United States it is seen as a valuable way of gaining useful experience, and subsequently many people in that position go on to offer their professional abilities to the private sector. I see nothing wrong with that. Therefore, the noble Lord should reflect further on an amendment which I think is wholly without cause.

Lord Hacking

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is clearly a great, persuasive advocate, because he has persuaded my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis to describe his amendment as extreme. In fact, it is not at all extreme, because all that he seeks to do is to remove Commons Amendment No. 27, which adds another sub-paragraph to Clause 14(2). The subsection, with the Commons amendment, would read: The Commission may comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) by … itself providing advice or assistance". The reason that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is being so persuasive is that he is not addressing at all the individual amendments that he is seeking to have removed. His speech did not address them either. It was directed towards the principle of the criminal defence service. As he argued strongly in Committee and on Report—and he may well have done so again on Third Reading—he has very strong views on the subject: he is opposed to it. But that is not the Commons amendment with which we are dealing. The principle of setting up the criminal defence service is in Clause 13(1). That is not what we are debating now.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

My Lords, the amendment raises a profoundly important debate. The fact that it arises now, at this late hour, much to the Government's convenience, does not make it any less profoundly important. Of course, we all now have to tear up the speeches that we would have made if the matter had come on at the proper time; we all have to curtail our arguments.

The case against the amendment can be put very shortly. No doubt I shall be accused yet again of smugness, of superiority, of special pleading and, as we have just heard yet again, of protectionism. The case can be put very simply. Let me spell it out.

Our democracy and our fundamental freedoms depend on the rule of law. The law is upheld first by an independent and uncorrupt judiciary. Secondly, it is upheld by the advocates—barristers and solicitors—without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn. The essential characteristics of the judge are those which are instilled into him and observed by him as an advocate: above all, independence and integrity. Thirdly, when the chips are down and the citizen is in danger of losing his liberty, his livelihood or his reputation, he can appeal to a jury of 12 ordinary people like himself, unbiased and, once again, independent—independent in each case of government, of police, of all the agents of power and privilege which bind together the structure of the whole criminal process, fought for over the years and correctly described as the bulwark of our liberties. That is the structure, and attacks on the structure are fierce and continuing.

Lord Hacking

My Lords, on a point of order. We should be addressing Commons Amendment No. 27. We should not be addressing Clause 13(1).

8.15 p.m.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

My Lords, I am at the moment addressing the submission that this House should not agree with this Commons amendment. The amendment has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Thomas, and I think everybody agrees that what we are discussing now, with all the other amendments that go with it, is the question of the public defender. It is to the question of the public defender that I am addressing myself. If I am out of order, no doubt someone will tell me, and I will sit down; otherwise, I intend to continue as I have begun.

The attacks on the structure that I have set out come mainly from politicians. The judges are criticised for being too powerful and too political. The right to jury trial, I understand, is now to be cut down. Attacks on the advocates have been sustained throughout the passage of the Bill in almost a violent form. But it must be blindingly obvious that to introduce under this clause a salaried defender, a staff lawyer from the bureaucracy of the criminal defence service, working in the office under the control of the legal services commission, watched over by the legal services consultation panel, in touch with his colleagues in the CPS, is to undermine the whole structure which I have described. This ominous figure is there to assess, we are told, value for money, not because he is more honest, more assiduous, more learned or more cheap. He is apparently to report back to his employer on the extent to which his colleagues in court are wasting public money—a kind of Treasury spy. His name perfectly describes his bureaucratic origins: "A quality assured public supplier of legal services", what we happen to call at the moment "counsel".

No codes, no guidelines telling such persons that they must behave as though they were independent, will clear the mischief. Once the public defender is introduced to complement the public prosecutor, the stage is set for a nationalised legal criminal service—the CPS against the CDS.

Although the Bill has some radical provisions, I suggest that this clause is an aberration, if not an abomination. It is difficult to see why the Lord Chancellor persists in a course which is so widely condemned. He deserves praise for introducing the Human Rights Bill, for which he will be remembered. But I ask him to listen to those who have fought the human rights battle for years where it really mattered to the citizen; that is, in the magistrates' and Crown Courts of this country. It may be more prestigious and remunerative to argue abstruse legal points at Strasbourg or in the Judicial Committee of this House, but I suggest that there is more to be learnt about human rights in the cells of the Old Bailey or in the squalor of Wormwood Scrubs. I sincerely hope that this House will not agree to the amendment.

Baroness Thornton

My Lords, I agree with my noble friends Lord Borne and Lord Clinton-Davis. I would not dream of calling the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, any name at all. However, I disagree with him and feel that he has a rather romantic view of the standing in which the legal profession is held in this country today.

We have had considerable discussions about the issues surrounding salaried defenders and the role that they might play in the new legal scheme being proposed. An ordinary person requiring legal services needs, most of all, a guaranteed standard—I am sure we all agree on that. Secondly, they need some choice. I believe that this proposal to establish salaried defenders gives them that choice.

People do not understand why members of the legal profession feel the need so fiercely to protect their interests and guarantee their incomes. It does not happen elsewhere; why should it happen to them? I also do not understand why noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel the need so fiercely to defend those interests.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that we are not here to defend the legal profession? We are here because we know something about it. We know something about criminal procedures and the way in which the criminal system works in this country. We are concerned about the quality of justice if the standard of advocacy in defence criminal work is reduced.

Baroness Thornton

My Lords, we are all concerned about the quality of justice, and the voice of the consumer who receives that quality of justice is extremely important. The consumers in this country have long felt that the legal profession needed reform, and have said so loudly on many occasions. That is what these proposals seek to do.

I urge the Liberal Democrat Benches to think carefully about the path they follow throughout this legislation. It is not in keeping with other things they do and policies that they pursue.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, we on these Benches support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for four reasons. First, we see no evidence for the need for this. Secondly, we do not understand how injecting a degree of nationalisation into criminal defence can enhance competition. Thirdly, we do not understand how the quality of criminal defence in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. Fourthly, we fear that the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice. That is particularly true when we consider that in future we are likely to be faced in many trials with not only the prosecution being represented by government officials in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service but also the defence being represented by a government official.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, in contributing to this debate I speak also, with your Lordships' leave, to Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 and 34 to 36. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, this is a course we have been round before.

I did not find as the noble Lord's most persuasive argument that it is only sturdy members of the Bar such as himself who are capable of enduring the indignities of the forfeiture of their restaurant bills as a condition of admission to prison, which he would have us accept would be completely beyond the resoluteness or sense of economy of salaried lawyers. I remind him that many salaried solicitors are employees with rights of audience who act for defendants in criminal cases and do so to a high standard.

The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, complained about our addressing this subject at around eight in the evening. But when the noble Lord was the industrious and much admired leading defence counsel that I recall, 10 minutes after eight would not have been regarded as late by him. He would probably just be getting round to considering his brief for the next day. If I may say so, he was in vintage form a few minutes ago and in fine voice.

Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 reintroduce powers for the Legal Services Commission to employ staff directly to provide some criminal defence services. Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative. They will provide the Legal Services Commission with the means to assess value for money provided by criminal defence services generally. They will increase the commission's flexibility in the provision of criminal defence services and they will provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.

The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the legal profession that it and it alone may provide publicly-funded legal defence services. And provided high standards are maintained, the public could gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of provision of legal services. I tend to wonder—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will forgive me for wondering—whether he is one of the last of the timorous souls who believe that the Bar cannot survive on its own merits but needs to be cocooned with restrictive practices and guarantees of state provided work.

As I said in Committee, I stress that it is not our intention that salaried defenders should supplant the independent Bar, or indeed the solicitors' profession. That will never happen. We see value in the commission having power to introduce into the system a salaried element, subject to appropriate ethical safeguards, but it will always be a mixed system. We are not—repeat "not"—establishing a comprehensive public defender system of the type found in many parts of the United States of America. Further, there will be consultation with the professions and others about the detailed arrangements for the introduction of salaried defenders. Following that consultation, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended across the country only after we had experience of salaried defenders in practice. We will learn from the example of successful overseas schemes and the current pilot in Scotland to meet the particular needs of England and Wales. Only against that background would decisions be taken, based on evidence.

It is clear from international research that mixed systems with salaried service defenders operating alongside private lawyers can be the most effective way of providing criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including those in Canada and America. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.

There are many methods of providing mixed systems, with some particularly good examples in Canada, which has more than 20 years' experience of mixed systems. In Scotland, a Public Defence Solicitors Office was established as a pilot project from 1st October last year. It is based at a single office in Edinburgh and employs a maximum of six solicitors. Initial reports about the Scottish pilot have been favourable. It allocates defendants to the PDSO, but a significant proportion—22 per cent—of clients already use it by choice. We shall take account of the results of the Scottish pilot evaluation when developing pilot arrangements under the Bill.

There are some very good public defender schemes abroad, but I acknowledge that others are less satisfactory. Adequate funding is the key to success. However, that is also true of schemes that purchase services from the private sector. Most of the schemes that have been criticised are not underpinned by a statutory framework such as that proposed in the Bill. That underpinning, which includes an obligation on me to fund the criminal defence service in its private and directly employed elements, will ensure the quality of services that suspects and defendants require.

However, unlike the Scottish pilot, which was based on assigning clients to the PDSO, Clause 15 builds choice into the system from the outset. Regulations cannot be used to require a person to use a salaried defender. We are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that it provides. I have that confidence and believe that the private professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representation.

Those who disagree with the amendment put forward in another place are effectively seeking to protect the vested interests of an established legal profession and to prevent the public from having the choice. I am surprised and disappointed by the Liberal Democrats' position. They are not prepared to accept that there might be lessons that we can learn from other countries and that there may be a case for considering arranging our legal services differently. I regret that restricted vision that is not prepared to accept that there can be merit in change and diversity.

Subject to the safeguards set out in the Bill, there is great merit in allowing criminal defence services to be provided by private practitioners—whether in independent practice or employed by law firms—and those employed by the criminal defence service. For those reasons, I commend Commons Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 to the House and invite the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw his Motions to reject them.

Commons Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 relate to Clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct for salaried defenders employed by the Legal Services Commission. However, it is likely that we shall wish to pilot the provision of salaried services, not only by lawyers employed directly by the commission but by those employed by separate not-for-profit bodies established and maintained specifically for that purpose. As originally drafted, the clause would not apply to salaried defenders in the latter situation. Amendment No. 34 ensures that the code of conduct will apply in both situations.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 reflect suggestions made by the now shadow Attorney-General, who led for the Opposition on the Bill in another place. Amendment No. 35 requires the code to include duties on employees providing criminal defence services who are members of a professional body—be they barristers, solicitors or legal executives—to comply with the rules of that body. Amendment No. 36 requires the commission to consult the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar before preparing or revising the code. In due course I shall commend Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 to the House.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I have been described as a romantic yet timorous extremist. I think that that is rather good and I shall have to tell my wife about it.

I have no fear that the independent Bar would beat any public defender service if the accused person was given any choice. I have never been afraid of competition and neither has the Bar. It is one of the most competitive professions in the country. This is not the dangerous step; it is when that choice is removed, as inexorably it will be. I cannot imagine any government sustaining on public funds two separate and competing services, as the Bill proposes.

I shall not weary your Lordships further. I seek the agreement of the House to the Motion.

8.37 p.m.

On Question, Whether the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 141; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ackner, L. Eccles of Moulton, B.
Addison, V. Eden of Winton, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B. Ellenborough, L.
Annaly, L. Elton, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Ezra, L.
Avebury, L. Falkland, V.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Fookes, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Gage, V.
Belstead, L. Gainford, L.
Berners, B. Gisborough, L.
Biddulph, L. Glentoran, L.
Birdwood, L. Goodhart, L.
Blackwell, L. Gray, L.
Blaker, L. Hamwee, B.
Blatch, B. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Harmsworth, L.
Bridgeman, V. Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hanowby, E.
Buckinghamshire, E. Hayhoe, L.
Burnham, L. Henley, L. [Teller.]
Byford, B. Higgins, L.
Cadman, L. Hogg, B.
Carlisle, E. HolmPatrick, L.
Camegy of Lour, B. Hooper, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Howe, E.
Chesham, L. Howe of Aberavon, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Hunt of Wirral, L.
Coleraine, L. Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Jacobs, L.
Courtown, E. Kingsland, L.
Crickhowell, L. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Cross, V. Lane of Horsell, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Leigh, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Dholakia, L. Lindsey and Abingdon, E.
Downshire, M. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Dundee, E. Lucas, L.
Eccles, V. Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Luke, L. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Lyell, L. Rawlings, B.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Razzall, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Redesdale, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L. Rochester, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V. Romney, E.
McNair, L. Rotherwick, L.
McNally, L. Rowallan, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Russell, E.
Marlesford, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Seccombe, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Methuen, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Miller of Chilthome Domer, B. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Munster, E. Stodart of Leaston, L.
Murton of Lindisfame, L. Tebbit, L.
Naseby, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Newby L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Northbrook L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Northesk, E. Thurso, V.
Tope, L.
Norton, L. Trefgame, L.
Norton of Louth, L. Trumpington, B.
Onslow, E. Vivian, L.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B. Waddington, L.
Park of Monmouth, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Parkinson, L. Wigoder, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. Wilcox, B.
Pender, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Peny of Southwark, B. Wise, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Grenfell, L.
Ahmed, L. Hacking, L.
Amos, B. Hanworth, V.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Hardy of Wath, L.
Bach, L. Harris of Haringey, L.
Barnett, L. Haskel, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hayman, B.
Berkeley, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Blackstone, B. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Borrie, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Bragg, L. Hoyle, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Burlison, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Castle of Blackburn, B.
Chandos, V. Islwyn, L.
Christopher, L. Kirkhill, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Lockwood, B.
Clinton-Davis, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Crawley, B. [Teller.]
David, B. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Mishcon, L.
Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B. Monkswell, L.
Desai, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Dixon, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Donoughue, L. Nicol, B.
Dormand of Easington, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Dubs, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Evans of Watford, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Rea, L.
Gilbert, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Sewel, L.
Goudie, B. Shepherd, L.
Gould of Pottemewton, B. Simon, V.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Strabolgi, L.
Grantchester, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L. Uddin, B.
Thomton, B. Warner, L.
Whitty, L.
Tomlinson, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.