HL Deb 27 July 1999 vol 604 cc1420-31

Lord Gray rose to move, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the course of consideration of the House of Lords Bill, we have debated amendments that address the question of the continuing statutory representation of Scotland in this House. None was acceptable to the Government, who argued that the right to such representation was spent.

I will not revisit the details of those discussions, but will briefly explain why I seek referral to the Committee for Privileges. There is a wholly reasonable case to answer. I submit that the House of Lords Bill breaches a fundamental element of the Union bargain. (That it may also deny the rights of individual Peers of Scotland is a subsidiary issue). The fundamental principle is the right of Scotland to continue to have specific representation in this House guaranteed by statute.

Without provision for Scottish representation in the Parliament of Great Britain there would have been no Union: hence provision was written into the Acts for both this House and another place. The mechanics of implementation were dealt with in subsidiary legislation which was, in turn, deemed to be part of the treaty. From 1707 until 1963 representation was derived directly from the treaty. Sixteen Peers of Scotland were elected for each Parliament by holders of Scottish peerages.

They received no Writ of Summons but took their places by right of election as Article XXII of the Act of Union required as being: the 16 Peers by whom Scotland is to be represented".

In 1963, on grounds that the House had greatly increased in size and the number of non-representative Peers was small—at that time it was 15: today it would be 25— Section 4 of the Peerage Act admitted all Peers of Scotland and relevant repeals ended the elections. The 1963 Act—this is critical—in no way undermined the principle implicit in the Union Acts. But the House of Lords Bill will do so. The Government are using the actual wording which enlarged Scottish representation in 1963 to eliminate individual Peers via Clause 1 of the Bill.

When amendments were debated mention was naturally made of Scots life Peers. At Report stage amendments were moved which called for a guaranteed minimum number of Scots life Peers resident in Scotland to continue the effect of the Acts of Union in the interim House. The Government were not persuaded to have such a guarantee on the face of the Bill. Faced with refusal to acknowledge Scotland's statutory right to representation, I have tabled this Motion.

The question is less a matter of which Act of Union provisions may or may not be specifically entrenched. It is rather the question as to what the architects of the Union intended should endure while the Union exists— the broad purpose approach as opposed to emphasis on actual words. Various passages of the 18th century legislation and their interplay indicate both permissiveness and permanence.

The Government case has been that Article XXII is spent, because it was repealed via legislative house-keeping after the passages relating to this House were superseded—but this is wholly irrelevant. The words are still there for us to read and interpret. Incidentally, Article XXII also dealt with representation of Scotland in another place. To argue that its repeal ended the right of representation in this House is to argue that it ended the statutory Scottish right to be represented by Members in the Commons, which is ridiculous.

I said earlier that without representation in the Westminster Parliament guaranteed by statute there would have been no Union. The negotiators were not thinking just about 1707, 1709 and 1710, but about an ongoing arrangement. At this stage of our constitutional settlement it is singularly important that we respect the Union and the Acts which created it, and singularly inappropriate that a fundamental provision should be swept away as a side-effect of the House of Lords Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Question whether the House of Lords Bill (as amended on Report) would, if enacted, breach the provisions of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland be referred to the Committee for Privileges.—(Lord Gray.)

4.57 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, to my mind, it is unthinkable that hereditary Peers of Scotland should be treated differently from all the other Peers who would be affected by this House of Lords Bill. But a very strange technical position arises, and I think that my noble friend Lord Gray is right to draw attention to the rather strange position, technically, of the Scottish Peers.

To my mind, that position is due to the fact that, although some provisions of the Act of Union have been repealed, especially the repeal resulting from the Peerage Act 1963, other provisions have not been repealed and which seem to indicate that the Scottish Peers have certain constitutional rights. I will not weary your Lordships with all the detail, but I think I should just make a brief reference to the articles concerned in what is technically called the Union with Scotland Act 1906. Article XXII was repealed, but not until the Statute Law Repeals Act 1993 got rid of it. Therefore, our minds are at ease on that matter.

As far as concerns Article XXIII, that was only partially repealed. The heading refers to the privileges of the 16 Peers of Scotland. Since the Peerages Act 1963, the number has not been limited to 16. Without troubling your Lordships with all the detail, Article XXIII of the 1706 Act preserves various privileges for Peers of Scotland. The two other relevant provisions are contained in paragraphs VI and VII of Article XXV of that Act. The sidenote reads: Recital of Acts of Parliament of Scotland for settling election of the 16 Peers and 45 Members for Scotland". Very strangely, that has not been repealed. The last reference reads: The said Act declared valid as if it had been part of the said Articles of Union". Again, that refers to the 16 Peers and 45 MPs to represent Scotland.

If the Committee for Privileges had not been required anyway to consider the Motion that has just been passed by a majority of your Lordships, I would have been reluctant to support my noble friend Lord Gray. But as that committee is to consider the matter, perhaps even during the Summer Recess when it will have plenty of time to do so, it is only right that it should consider the unusual position, technical though one may think it to be, of the Peers of Scotland under the Act of Union of 1706. For that reason, I support my noble friend. The Committee for Privileges may well reach the conclusion that there should be introduced into the House of Lords Bill a schedule to repeal those parts of the Act of Union to which I have referred.

5 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, we have discussed the issue of Scottish Peers and the interplay between the Bill to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House and the Treaty and Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Renton has just explained that in 1963 some provisions of the Act of Union were repealed, but I believe I am right in saying that there can be no repeals of the provisions of the treaty since the two bodies which were party to that treaty no longer exist. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Gray said, whatever Parliament might have done in 1963, or may do today, the words of the treaty remain. Clearly, Article XXII makes clear the position of Scottish Peers.

One of the questions that must be asked is to what extent the words in the treaty were entrenched. In the treaty and the two Acts which followed it, one passed by the Scottish Parliament—the Union with England Act—and the other passed by the English Parliament— the Union with Scotland Act—some matters were certainly entrenched; some were clearly not entrenched; and on other matters there is silence on whether or not they are entrenched.

Previously, I quoted the judgment of Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. I shall not recite all that I have quoted before because I do not believe that to be necessary. However, it is worth reminding noble Lords, and the Government Front Bench, of one sentence in the judgment of the Court of Session in 1953: Further, the Treaty and the associated legislation, by which the Parliament of Great Britain was brought into being as the successor of the separate Parliaments of Scotland and England, contain some clauses which expressly reserve to the Parliament of Great Britain powers of subsequent modification, and other clauses which either contain no such power or emphatically exclude subsequent alteration by declarations that the provisions shall be fundamental and unalterable in all time coming, or declarations of a like effect". The declaration in Article XIX setting up the Court of Session and the High Court of Judiciary states: That the Court of Session or Colledge of Justice do after the Union and notwithstanding thereof remain in all time coming within Scotland as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom". That is just a flavour of one of those areas where clearly something has been entrenched.

When we discussed this matter previously, the Government's case was that the provision for the 16 Scottish Peers was not entrenched. Interestingly, one can argue that the first part of Article XXII, which refers to the 16 Peers, is not related directly by non-entrenchment to the second part which is concerned with the method of election. Clearly, the method of election was not entrenched. One can argue that the first part dealing with the 16 Peers was entrenched.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who argued these matters so well at Committee and Report stages—I am glad that there is a measure of agreement from the Government Front Bench—pointed out that if the position of Scottish Peers had been entrenched, the 1963 Act would not have been possible. But the 1963 Act did not remove the right of Scottish Peers to sit here; it extended the right from 16 to whatever number then existed. There were not many more than 16 at that time, but the number was certainly greater than 16. Therefore, there was not a reduction, but an increase, in the number of Scottish Peers in your Lordships' House.

In this Bill we are faced not only with a reduction but the removal of that right in the Treaty of Union. There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament would not have agreed to the Treaty of Union if the position of Scottish Peers in this House and of Members of Parliament in the other place had not been entrenched.

There are lots of Scottish life Peers in your Lordships' House. No doubt whoever answers the debate will point out that there are more than enough of us—perhaps sometimes too many—but that is not a very good argument. A future government may simply allow the Scottish resident life Peers to wither on the vine and may have a second Chamber composed wholly of Peers from England and Wales. I do not suggest that that will happen, but it could.

In conclusion, the Treaty and Acts of Union are not dull old documents of interest only to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a few other historians; they are the foundation stones of this kingdom and Parliament. We must ensure that we do not breach them. A powerful party in Scotland, represented in considerable numbers in Labour's Scottish Parliament, is determined not only to breach them, but to tear them up. We must not give those people any succour. They will not go away and will continue to be argued with.

We should put beyond doubt the impact of the present Bill on the Treaty of Union and the Acts of Union. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, because other matters; are to come before the Committee for Privileges, it seems right and proper that noble Lords should agree with my noble friend Lord Gray and ask that committee to look also at this matter and to reach a judgment so that we may all know that the Bill is entirely consistent with the important building block that makes up the United Kingdom.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is correct when he says that this Bill kicks away the guaranteed representation of Scotland. However, I have a slightly different concern. There is no doubt that this Bill removes the special protection that was negotiated with such difficulty during the spring and summer of 1706 with the English Whig government—I say this perhaps with a degree of surprise—led by the Earl of Godolphin.

Earlier in our proceedings on this Bill I tabled an amendment which called for a replacement group—in fact the amendment called for 8 per cent of life Peers to be domiciled in Scotland. It was rejected by the Government. I can express my concern in a single question: how much more of the treaty can be violated before it folds? I can think of no more central part of the treaty than the representation. I suppose that my watchword should be "no legislation without guaranteed representation". I hope to hear that there will be new treaty negotiations in the light of the successful passage of the Bill.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I shall not detain the House long on the second Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. All that I have said in the previous debate about the dangerous precedent of the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, applies even more to this Motion. Indeed, I suggest that it is in itself an example of the dangers of establishing the idea that recourse to the Committee for Privileges during the passage of a Bill should be accepted as part of the consideration of a Bill—

Viscount Cranborne

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way and I apologise as the House wants to move on. The noble Baroness said that she had tried this argument out on the best minds of the Cabinet Office. That is a most impressive origin for this argument. But perhaps she might care to look at the argument again. After all, if I am right, she is implying that every Bill, no matter what its subject, would come within the remit of the Committee for Privileges if this precedent were followed. I thought that the remit of the Committee for Privileges was matters appertaining to Peerages in this House.

5.15 p.m.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, although neither the noble Viscount nor I are lawyers, it is perfectly understandable to me—and I am sure that if it is understandable to me, it will be clear to him—that the role of the Committee for Privileges has heretofore been to consider individual claims of Peerage within the context of an existing law. The point relating to the present reference suggested by the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, is to establish the role of the Committee for Privileges in the legislative process and to consider a Bill, which, as 1 attempted to explain in my response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is unprecedented. I do not believe that that is a matter which I need to refer again to the Cabinet Office. I shall ask it once more, but I believe that that is fairly well established.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that one of the problems relating to the second Motion is that it begins to follow a precedent while the result of the Division which achieved the first reference to the Committee for Privileges is still hot off the press. To that extent, it is in a sense even more inappropriate. To add the reference to the Scottish Peers and to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in his comments on his Motion, cannot be easily added to the Committee for Privileges' consideration of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She keeps saying that this is in character a total departure from anything that the Committee for Privileges has been invited to do in the past. But I draw her attention to the Companion, which says that: The Committee hears and makes recommendations upon any matter of privilege, or claim of peerage, referred to it by the House", and on the preceding page, it states: The following are aspects of privilege of Parliament: Freedom from interference in going to, attending at and going away from Parliament". I can think of no more substantial interference with that than being told that you are shut out by an Act the validity of which you question.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I am sorry that I am evidently being extremely unclear in my point on that matter. All the points referred to by the noble and learned Lord relate to individual claims and not to a Bill, or, potentially, a statute passed by the sovereign Houses of Parliament. As I said in reference in my previous reply to the case of the noble Marquess, Lord Bristol, it was specifically stated in the ruling on that particular case that any interpretation of peerage law could be overcome by a statute of the sovereign Parliament. That is a simple point and it is one on which I rest. I do not believe that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, about individual cases is relevant to that point.

I should like to continue with a number of points I have to make relating to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. The first point is that we have extensively debated the issues which he now seeks to refer to the committee, both in Committee and on Report. We have calculated that we have already spent some four and a half hours discussing the question of the rights of Scottish Peers in relation to your Lordships' House. I must say that, having listened with attention to the points made this afternoon both by the noble Lord and from the Opposition Front Bench, I have not heard novel points which were not considered during those debates.

That form of debate is, of course, the right and legitimate way of raising those issues, as I have already commented in relation to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I am certainly not complaining about that. However, I should remind the House that we have not only exhaustively debated the question, but we have voted on it. The noble Lord, Lord Gray, moved one of his amendments to a Division. It began with the words, In order to continue the effect of Article XXII of the Treaty of Union". Are we now to establish a situation by these types of Motion where noble Lords who dislike the decision of the House, whether in Committee, on Report or at another stage of the Bill, are to be permitted to seek an opinion of the Committee for Privileges in an attempt to overturn a decision by the House?

Secondly, the reference in the Motion is extremely broad. At least the Motion which we discussed before, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, had the advantage of being fairly specific about the question which the Committee for Privileges was to discuss. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, simply asks whether the Bill as a whole is compatible with the treaty as a whole.

I believe that that unwarrantedly stretches the jurisdiction for the Committee for Privileges. It asks the committee of this House to decide whether a proposed piece of legislation is compatible with a treaty. He may say—and indeed, he did so—that the point on which that turns is on the rights of a branch of the peerage, although my recollection from our earlier debates is that the noble Lord has been very insistent that the rights of the Scottish Peers to membership of your Lordships' House have always been statutory and not established by custom or common law. But that is not the question which he seeks to put to the committee. He is effectively seeking a ruling from the committee of this House that this Parliament is not sovereign.

My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has explained at length, and on several occasions during the four and a half hours in which we have debated these points, that the Government are entirely confident that the Bill does not breach the Treaty of Union, and certainly cannot breach the Acts of Union, as the relevant provisions of those two Acts of Parliament have been repealed. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said on 22nd June that he was persuaded that what the Government are doing in the Bill does not infringe the Treaty of Union. On that basis, he withdrew an amendment in his name and that of the Opposition Front Bench. I am interested that he has now changed his mind on the matter. I wonder whether that goes back to the points which I was making earlier about the intent behind the Motions which we have before us this afternoon.

If the noble Lord, Lord Gray, insists on pressing his Motion to a Division, I hope that on this second occasion your Lordships will see the sense of not burdening the Committee for Privileges with the matter and will not support the Motion.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if I heard her correctly, she was saying that the treaty between England and Scotland in 1706 was a treaty between two countries, but not an Act of Parliament. But in the Union with Scotland Act of 1906 which I have obtained, as amended, from Volume 10 of Halsbury's Statutes, on constitutional law, we find that the treaty is embodied in that statute and is therefore still part of the law of the United Kingdom. We cannot escape that fact.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, as I said when replying to the original points made, I am not a lawyer. I hear precisely what the noble Lord says. But I and the Government Front Bench are advised—it is a point we have made consistently throughout the nearly five hours of discussion on this issue throughout the stages of the Bill—that the relevant Acts and treaties are not inapplicable in relation to the Bill.

Lord Gray

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Renton, and for that: of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am sorry that the accord that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I established on Amendment No. 77 at Report stage has not carried over to my Motion.

As regards the length of time we have spent on the issue, it would be fair to say that much of that time has been taken with speeches on representation in other areas of the country which were way off the amendments being discussed at the time, although perfectly proper within the general context.

I believe that the Committee for Privileges will be perfectly able to understand the Question I put. When the time comes, it will be for someone else to argue the case. I need say no more today. I think that it would be best if I merely say that I commend the Motion to the House.

5.21 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 275; Not-Contents, 185.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addison, V. Clark of Kempston, L.
Ailsa, M. Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Adenham, L. Clinton, L.
Aldington, L. Cobbold, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Coleraine, L.
Ampthill, L. Coleridge, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B. Colwyn, L.
Annaly, L. Cope of Berkely, L.
Arlington, B. Cork and Orrery, E.
Arran, E. Courtown, E.
Ashboume, L. Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.
Astor, V. Cowley, E.
Astor of Hever, L. Cranborne, V.
Attlee, E. Cranbrook, E.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Crathome, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Crawshaw, L.
Barnard, L. Crickhowell, L.
Bathurst, E. Cross, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Cunliffe, L.
Bell, L. Dacre of Glanton, L.
Belstead, L. Davidson, V.
Berners, B. De Freyne, L.
Biddulph, L. De L'Isle, V.
Biffen, L. Dean of Harptree, L.
Boardman, L. Deedes, L.
Boston, L. Denbigh, E.
Bowness, L. Denham, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L. Denman, L.
Braybrooke, L. Derwent, L.
Bridgeman, V. Digby, L.
Bridges, L. Dilhome, V.
Brookeborough, V. Dixon-Smith, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Donegall, M.
Bruntisfield, L. Donoughmore, E.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D. Dulverton, L.
Buchan, E. Dundee, E.
Burton, L. Dundonald, E.
Buscombe, B. Dunleath, L.
Butterworth, L. Eccles, V.
Byford, B. Eccles of Moulton, B.
Cadman, L. Eden of Winton, L.
Caithness, E. Ellenborough, L.
Caldecote, V. Elles, B.
Calverley, L. Elton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L, Erroll, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Exmouth, V.
Camegy of Lour, B. Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Carr of Hadley, L. Falmouth, V.
Cavendish of Furness, L. Feldman, L.
Chesham, L. Feversham, L.
Chilver, L. Fisher, L.
Clanwilliam, E. Forbes, L.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Monson, L.
Gage, V. Montrose, D.
Gainford, L. Morris, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Mountevans, L.
Geddes, L. Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Gisborough, L. Moyne, L.
Glentoran, L. Moynihan, L.
Grantley, L. Munster, E.
Gray, L. [Teller.] Murton of Lindisfame, L.
Gray of Contin, L. Napier and Ettrick, L.
Greenway, L. Napier of Magdala, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L. Naseby, L.
Hanham, B. Nelson, E.
Hanningfield, L. Nelson of Stafford, L.
Harlech, L. Newall, L.
Harmsworth, L. Noel-Buxton, L.
Harris of High Cross, L. Norfolk, D.
Harrowby, E. Norrie, L.
Hawke, L. Northbrook, L.
Hayhoe, L. Northesk, E.
Hemphill, L. Norton, L.
Henley, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Higgins, L. Nunbumholme, L.
Hogg, B. O'Cathain, B.
Holdemess, L. Onslow of Woking, L.
Hollenden, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Hooper, B. Oxfuird, V.
Howe, E. Palmer, L.
Howell of Guildford, L. Patten, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Huntly, M. Peel, E.
Iddesleigh, E. Pender, L.
Inchcape, E. Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Iveagh, E. Platt of Writtle, B.
James of Holland Park, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Polwarth, L.
Kelvedon, L. Prentice, L.
Kenilworth, L. Pym, L.
Kimball, L. Radnor, E.
Kingsland, L. Rathcavan, L.
Kinloss, Ly. Reay, L.
Kinnoull, E. Rennell, L.
Kintore, E. Renton, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B. Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Lane of Horsell, L. Romney, E.
Lang of Monkton, L. Rotherwick, L.
Lawrence, L. Rowallan, L.
Leathers, V. Saint Albans, D.
Limerick, E. St. Davids, V.
Lindsay, E. St John of Fawsley, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E. Saint Oswald, L.
Long, V. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sandys, L.
Luke, L. Savile, L.
Lyell, L. Seccombe, B.
Lytton, E. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
McAlpine of West Green, L. Selsdon, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Sharpies, B.
McConnell, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
MacFarlane of Bearsden, L. Skelmersdale, L.
McGowan, L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V. Stevens of Ludgate. L.
Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Strange, B.
Mancroft, L. Strathcarron, L.
Marlesford, L. Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Masham of Ilton, B. Sudeley, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Swansea, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L. Swinfen, L.
Merrivale, L. Taylor of Warwick, L.
Mersey, V. Tebbit, L.
Middleton, L. Teviot, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Milverton, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Torphichen, L.
Townshend, M. Westbury, L.
Trefgame, L. [Teller.] Wigram, L.
Trenchard, V. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Verulam, E. Willoughby de Eresby, B.
Vivian, L. Windlesham, L.
Waddington, L. Wrenbury, L.
Wynford, L.
Waterford, M. Yarborough, E.
Wedgwood, L. Young, B.
Weir, V. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Ahmed, L. Goudie, B.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Gould of Pottemewton, B.
Alli, L. Graham of Edmonton, L.
Amos, B. Grantchester, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Gregson, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Grenfell, L.
Avebury, L. Hacking, L.
Bach, L. Hamwee, B.
Barrett, L. Hardy of Wath, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bath and Wells, Bp. Haskel, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Hayman, B.
Berkeley, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Blackstone, B. Hogg of Cumbenauld, L.
Blease, L. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Borne, L. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Bradshaw, L. Howie of Troon, L.
Bragg, L. Hoyle, L.
Brett, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Brookman, L. Hussey of North Bradley, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Hylton, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Hylton-Foster, B.
Burlison, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Burns, L.
Carlisle, E. Islwyn, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.] Jacobs, L.
Christopher, L. Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Clancarty, E.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Jeger, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Kirkhill, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Kirkwood, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Lea of Crondall, L.
Crawley, B. Lockwood, B.
Croham, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Currie of Marylebone, L. Longford, E.
Dahrendorf, L. Lovell-Davis, L.
David, B. McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]
Davies of Coity, L. Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Desai, L. McNair, L.
Dholakia, L. McNally, L.
Diamond, L. Maddock, B.
Dixon, L. Mallalieu, B.
Donoughue, L. Marsh, L.
Dormand of Easington, L. Mason of Barnsley, L.
Elder, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Methuen, L.
Evans of Watford, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Ezra, L. Milner of Leeds, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. Mishcon. L.
Falkland, V. Molloy, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Monkswell, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Montague of Oxford, L.
Geraint, L. Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Gilbert, L. Morris of Manchester, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gladwyn, L. Newby, L.
Glanusk, L. Nicol, B.
Glenamara, L. Ogmore, L.
Goodhart, L. Perry of Walton, L.
Peston, L. Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L. Simon of Highbury, L.
Pitkeathley, B. Simpson of Dunkeld, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Prys-Davies, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Puttnam, L. Strabolgi, L.
Quirk, L. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B. Tenby, V.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Rea, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Redssdale, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B. Thornton, B.
Rennard, L. Thurlow, L.
Richard, L. Tomlinson, L.
Rochester, L. Tope, L.
Rodcers of Quarry Bank, L. Tordoff, L.
Roll of Ipsden, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Russell, E. Uddin, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L. Varley, L.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Sandberg, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Sawyer, L. Walpole, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B. Warner, L.
Sefton of Garston, L. Warwick of Undercliff, B.
Serota, B. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Sewel, L. Weatherill, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B. Whitty, L.
Shaughnessy, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Shepherd, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Shore of Stepney, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Simon, V. Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.