HL Deb 26 October 1999 vol 606 cc205-15

(".—(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, other than—

  1. (a) 400 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who are elected in accordance with subsection (2) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (5), and
  2. (b) 16 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who have declared to the Clerk of the Parliaments that they are ready to serve as Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords or in such other office as the House may require and who are elected in accordance with subsection (3) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (5).

(2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of peerages conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958. (3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held. (4) A person elected under this section shall continue to be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House throughout his life. (5) On the death of a peer elected under this section, a by-election shall be held for the filling of the vacancy. (6) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may make further provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections and by-elections under this section; and a person may be elected under this section by or in accordance with Standing Orders made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section. (7) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is associated with Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 21. It is a fairly simple amendment in so far as it enables life Peers also to be elected. After the Bill has passed, we shall be in the curious position that hereditary Peers will be the only ones who have been elected to your Lordships' House. It is a pity, therefore, that life Peers are not elected too.

Throughout the passage of the Bill we have heard a lot about the "legitimacy" or otherwise of hereditary Peers. It is a strange kind of word. It is rather like other Civil Service words such as "coherent", "cohesive", "effective" and "efficient". I never know what they mean. Now we come to "legitimate". The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said: The presence of the hereditary peerage has weakened the legitimacy and the effectiveness those are two of the words— of our second Chamber".—[Official Report, 20/1/99; col. 583.]

The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said, We believe that the House which will result from the passage of the Bill will be more democratic, more legitimate".—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1082.] The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that the Bill, will have the effect of providing a more legitimate House".— [Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1149.] The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General even talked about "illegitimacy", which is always a sensitive subject. He said: the present privilege of hereditary connection is illegitimate in our House".—[Official Report, 30/3/99: col. 42.] "Illegitimate" means "against the law". There is nothing remotely illegitimate about hereditary Peers being in Parliament when the law allows them to be there. That does not mean to say that there is not an argument—even if it is a rotten one—for changing the law. That is another matter. There is no question of hereditary Peers being illegitimate when they attend your Lordships' House. When Ministers talk about illegitimacy in this context they are using fine-sounding magisterial words which are wholly inappropriate.

I hate to pick on the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General again, particularly when he is not here—he has got plenty of people with howitzers to support him, if necessary—but he said that the House which will result from the Bill will be more democratic. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, what he says is complete nonsense. There is nothing remotely democratic in the way noble Lords are appointed by a Prime Minister, whether that is because one is his friend, one has contributed to party funds or any other cause. Then of course one may happen to have got onto the elevator that takes one up to the attention c f the Prime Minister. What on earth is democratic about that? The answer is nothing.

However, to use the Government's own terminology, when the 90 or so hereditary Peers have been elected they will be the most democratic and the most legitimate Members of the House, far more so than the life Peers who have arrived in the House by appointment. I simply ask noble Lords: why should not life Peers also be appointed? I beg your Lordships' pardon; elected. The word "appointment" trips so easily off the tongue nowadays because everyone is appointed.

After some thought, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stated that he had once been elected to the Bar Council. That is a start, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would top the poll in any election in which he stood. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has also gone through that particular election. I do not know. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has not because that is not her forte; in that her forte is not being a barrister rather than not in being elected. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may well have passed that hurdle and have been elected, because he is a legal gentleman.

If all life Peers were subject to election, as they have forced upon the hereditary Peers, then the Attorney-General and all the other life Peers would have the legitimacy—I use that lovely government word—of having been elected. It would be a democratic process, and what is wrong with that?

Plenty of Peers are given their peerages, but then never come to your Lordships' House. I shall not embarrass those noble Lords by rehearsing their names—

Viscount Cranborne

They are not here to be embarrassed!

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend has shown his usual intelligence and perspicacity by pointing out that they are not here to be embarrassed. However, I shall refer to one noble Lord who was also referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench. He mentioned the previous Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson. He has been given a peerage but understandably has said that he has no intention of attending here, because he holds an important job in Europe as the Secretary-General of NATO. However, he will be able to come here when eventually he leaves that position. However, others have held that post before him. My noble friend Lord Mackay referred to my noble friend Lord Carrington. A few years ago my noble friend occupid that post with distinction, but what will happen to him? Unless he puts down his name for election—I understand that he has not done so—he will be ejected from your Lordships' House. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, retires, he will be able to come here. Where is the fairness or the legitimacy, or indeed the democracy, in that?

It would be better if life Peers were also elected. That is the purpose of my amendment. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland said in his carefully argued speech on Amendment No. 8, to which I listened with fascination, the time will come when the House of Lords may well be elected, and most life Peers will then go too. I do wonder whether life Peers will want to go on to the hustings to seek the votes of the proletariat. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will visit B&Q to find out whether he can secure some votes there?

One also wonders whether the voting proletariat will wish to vote for the life Peers. I am sure that many will, but then many will not. I do not believe that the life Peers should smile so widely—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is smiling very cheerfully now—because the time will come when it will be their turn to be on the end of this greasy pole. The fact is that once the hare has been let out of the bag—namely, reform of your Lordships' House—you do not know where it will run. It would be better for the life Peers to get dug in to your Lordships' House, as it were, by seeking election now, rather than to wait for Boadicea's chariot to come round a second time with those long knives and chop them up as well. For all those reasons, I suggest that noble Lords approve this amendment. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Peston

My Lords, the noble Earl is following the lead of his noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in keeping our debating society going rather than discussing serious matters. However, he is right in saying, as was his noble friend Lord Kingsland, that when we come to build the new House of Lords, the life Peers will have to face up to their positions and their destinies. I look. forward to that happening soon, and I say only that compared to the behaviour of the hereditary Peers some of us will do that in a much more correct and proper fashion.

Noble Lords


Lord Peston

Oh, yes, my Lords. To echo the words that I know noble Lords opposite did not like when expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House, we will not be clinging to the furniture. We will know that reform implies that a considerable number of us must go. We will then have a House of a viable size, and that number will be much lower than anything suggested by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Kingsland. For the House to shrink to a sensible size, many of us must go. We shall have to face that fact, and I can say only that I look forward to it. I have had a great time here, as has the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, there comes a time when one must go. I do not see that as a problem, and I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has put down the amendment so that others can now place on the record their views.

I should like to record one more point. I do not have the slightest intention of standing for election, either among my fellow Peers or placing myself before the electorate. I have never stood for election to anything, and I firmly believe in achieving high positions by merit, or by being a hack—noble Lords can make their own interpretations. At this stage in my life I have no intention of seeking election to anything.

I believe that we should thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for reminding us that once the Bill has been passed, we shall have to face that harsh reality. I can say only that I look forward to facing it because, for the first time this century, we shall be building a decent House of Lords.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I rise only to say that there is quite a serious objection to a highly amusing amendment; that is, that it wholly pre-empts the work of the Royal Commission that has within its remit the constitution and reconstruction of this House, on recommendations which may well in due course impinge upon what has already been decided by this House on the Weatherill amendment. Furthermore, I do not believe that any of the life Peers can smile too much, certainly not an octogenarian such as myself. I have already made it plain that inevitably, sooner or later, the question of the life Peers will receive consideration. I assuredly would not stand for election for the simple reason that nobody would elect me.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, I rise briefly to say that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is a great entertainer, and once again he has treated the House to his amusing words. Those of us present at the time will remember his marvellous speech on the subject of whether the Bill should refer to "a hereditary Peer" or "an hereditary Peer". However, behind the wit the noble Earl has made a perfectly fair point. I believe that life Peers do recognise that we will have to go. I should like to summarise the attitude of the noble Earl with a misquotation from T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a giggle". I have to say that I think a giggle will be better than a whimper.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, perhaps I may add to the debate by saying how much I admire my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I am never quite sure what noble Lords opposite think of my noble friend, but his voice has been heard in this House for nearly 45 years and it is always of great benefit to the House. He has an unerring ability, always with good humour, to put his finger on the nub of the matter. He has an ability to identify illogicality in the case made by the Government and home in on it. That is why, sometimes, he appears to get under the skin of the Front Bench opposite. I suspect that he has done so again today.

I do not think that it is possible at this late stage to accommodate my noble friend's proposal in the Bill; and even he might acknowledge that. But I do think that he has raised a question that will not die and that it should be called the "Ferrers Question". Why, if the heirs to beneficiaries of patronage past are unacceptable in the House, are the beneficiaries of patronage present so acceptable? If it is right, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in a recent edition of the House Magazine, that the election of some hereditary Peers from among the total number of hereditary Peers gives those elected a greater legitimacy, why would the same not be true for life Peers? That is the nub of the argument made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.

The day that the Government began to push the hereditary peerage from this House was the day that the life peerage—the receivers of present patronage—moved to the front of the stage. This Bill has made it inconceivable that a reform Bill could be introduced without addressing the present status of the life peerage. We may find in time that the "Ferrers Question" becomes part of the Lords' answer, but that would be to anticipate much and to go far beyond any conclusion that our party has yet to reach. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment to a Division as I would be unable to support it. But, in so saying, I submit that the "Ferrers Question" will hang in the air, and the more Peers that the Prime Minister sends to this House, the more he will need to find an answer to it.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the "Ferrers Question", as I understand it, is that if the hereditary Peers who stay in the House are to be elected, why should not the life Peers who stay in the House be elected as well. That is how the noble Earl posed his question to us. The answer to the question is this: the purpose of the Bill has always been to remove the right of people to legislate on the basis of heredity. That is the limited purpose of the Bill and that has always been stated to be the limited purpose of the Bill. What the second stage of reform will be is a matter for the two Houses of Parliament to decide after the benefit of the Wakeham commission's report on the second stage of reform. So if the aim of the Bill is to remove the right to legislate on a hereditary basis, that is why the hereditary Peers go, subject to the Weatherill amendment, and the life Peers stay. That is the principle of the Bill and that is the principle often stated.

Accepting that principle, what is the point of choosing again between those life Peers who have already been chosen? Every life Peer in this House has been explicitly selected on the basis of his or her past career or potential contribution to this House for the purpose of being a Member of it. There is no other proper rationale for a person to be in this House as a life Peer. For as long as it is necessary to have a peerage to be a Member of the second Chamber, all those explicitly selected for that purpose, which is life Peers and hereditary Peers of first creation, should continue to have that right to sit. So that is my answer to the "Ferrers Question", as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, put it, and I think it is the answer that we have been giving throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Quite separately from the question of principle, the amendment itself also seems to be unworkable. First, for example, it provides for the electorate of the 400 life Peers to be all the holders of life peerages. Perhaps wisely in the light of last week's debate, it does not say anything about a party split. Neither, of course, does the present Clause 2 of the Bill; but nor does Clause 2 contain any provision ruling out the Standing Orders making provision for separate party elections. This amendment does. We think it highly unlikely that Standing Orders could ever override the specific provision in the Bill. Perhaps it is the noble Earl's idea that the House in the future should be entirely non-political. But we have to start from where we are and many life Peers are party political appointments.

Secondly, I am not at all sure where in the future the candidates will come from. Why should anyone accept a nomination as a potential working Peer if he has no guarantee that he will ever be called to work in the House? Why should anyone offered a peerage on the basis that he is good Cross-Bench material actually decide to stand for election? Could one force him to do so? I am also slightly puzzled as to why the noble Earl (who I thought was of the school that the existing life Peers, after the hereditaries had gone, would find it quite difficult to cope with the workload of the House) thinks that they could cope when their number was down to 400. If there are 400 who care enough about the House to stand for election, presumably they care enough to turn up and fulfil their responsibilities anyway.

As we have said again and again, this Bill is not about life Peers; it is about hereditary Peers. The Royal Commission will report shortly. That is the time to consider what transitional arrangements might be needed for life Peers. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that this was the continuation of a sixth-form debating society. I do not think that it was anything of the kind. It happens to be a very serious amendment, as I endeavoured to point out.

My noble friend Lord Campbell said that it is an amusing amendment. I do not know whether it is particularly amusing. He also said that the one reason why it could not possibly be accepted is that it pre-empts what the Royal Commission is going to do. But the whole Bill pre-empts what the Royal Commission is going to do. So that, even coming from my noble friend, is a rotten argument!

I knew that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would try to destroy my amendment through a mass of rhetoric; and he did not do too badly—in the eyes of some! Did your Lordships notice that he did not use the word "legitimacy"? He changed it to "rationale". I bet he crossed that out at the last moment. He said that my amendment would not work because there would not be enough noble Lords to undertake the workload and he asked who on earth would do it. That is not much of a compliment to the life Peers. I presume that they would just have to choose the very young, hefty packhorses to stay up all night.

I am interested in the amendment because I introduced an amendment in your Lordships' House earlier in the Bill's passage to suggest that your Lordships should be known not by their title—because that is not what people want to come here for—but by their surname followed by ML, which I knew would meet with the favour of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House because she wrote an article about it. However, when I came to put the amendment to the test I found that the Government Whips had been put on, and noble Lords on the government side marched into the Division Lobby in order to be able to continue to call themselves "Lords", including the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, because of course she was under the direction of the Chief Whip.

The Chief Whip made a curious remark this evening. He said that he did not think that we had had very many Divisions. I am going to have a Division on this amendment because, even if the Government have put on their Whips and said that the amendment is not acceptable, I just want to see all the noble Lords on the Benches opposite traipse through the Division Lobby in order not to be elected.

5.59 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 186; Not-Contents, 238.

Division No. 2
Ailsa, M Ellenborough, L.
Alanbrooke, V. Falmouth, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E. Fisher. L.
Annaly, L. Forester, L.
Arlington, B. Gage, V.
Arran, E. Gainford, L.
Ashbourne, L. Gisborough, L.
Balfour of Inchrye, L. Gormanston, V.
Banbury of Southam, L. Grantley, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. Gray, L.
Bell, L. Gretton, L.
Biddulph, L. Grey, E.
Blyih, L. Halifax, E.
Boston, L. Hambro, L.
Buccleuch and Queensberry, D. Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Burton, L. Hampden, V.
Byron, L. Hankey, L.
Cadman, L. Harding of Petherton, L.
Calverley, L. Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Carew, L. Harris of High Cross, L.
Chalfont, L. [Teller] Harris of Peckham, L.
Chesham, L. Hawke, L.
Chilston, V. Head, V.
Clanwilliam, E. Hemphill, L.
Clark of Kempston, L. Hesketh, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Holderness, L.
Clinton, L. HolmPatrick, L.
Clitheroe, L. Hothfield, L.
Cochrane of Cults, L. Iddesleigh, E.
Coleraine, L. Iliffe, L.
Coleridge, L. Inchcape, E.
Cowdray, V. Ironside, L.
Craigmyle, L. Iveagh, E.
Cross, V. Jeffreys, L.
Cunliffe, L. Keyes, L.
Dartmouth, E. Killearn, L.
DeLaWarr, E. Lansdowne, M.
Denbigh, E. Lauderdale, E.
Derwent, L. Lawrence, L.
Devonport, V. Lawson of Blaby, L.
Donegall, M. Leathers, V.
Dudley, E. Lindsey and Abingdon, E
Dundee, E. Liverpool, E.
Dunrossil, V. Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Long, V. Saint Levan, L.
Lonsdale, E. Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.
Lucas of Chilworth, L. Sandford, L.
Lytton, E. Sandys, L.
Macclesfield, E. Skidelsky, L.
Macpherson of Drumochter, L. Spens, L.
Marks of Broughton, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V. Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Milverton, L. Strathalmond, L.
Monckton of Brenchley, V. Strathcarron, L.
Monk Bretton, L. Sudeley, L.
Monson, L. Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Moran, L. Swansea, L.
Morris, L. Swinton, E.
Morton, E. Tebbit, L.
Mountevans, L. Temple of Stowe, E.
Mountgarret, V. Teynham, L.
Moyne, L. Torphichen, L.
Munster, E. Torrington, V.
Napier and Ettrick, L. Trenchard, V.
Napier of Magdãla, L. Verulam, E.
Naseby, L. Waterford, M.
Newall, L. Wedgwood, L.
Norrie, L. Weir, V.
Norton, L. Westmorland, E.
Nunburnholme, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller] Winchester, M.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. Wise, L.
Plumb, L. Woolton, E.
Rennell, L. Wrenbury, L.
Renwick, L. Wynford, L.
Romney, E. Yarborough, E.
St. Germans, E. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Acton, L. Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Addington, L. Clement-Jones, L.
Ahmed, L. Clinton-Davis, L.
Alderdice, L. Cobbold, L.
Amos, B. Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Annan, L. Congleton, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Crawley, B.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Cromartie, E.
Attenborough, L. Currie of Marylebone, L.
Avebury, L. Dahrendorf, L.
Bach, L. David, B.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E. DaviesofCoity, L.
Barnett, L. Davies of Oldham, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Desai, L.
Berkeley, L. Dholakia, L.
Blackstone, B. Diamond. L.
Blease, L. Dinevor, L.
Bledisloe, V. Dixon, L.
Borrie, L. Donoughue, L.
Bradshaw, L. Dormand of Easington, L.
Bragg, L. Dubs, L.
Brett, L. Eatwell, L.
Bridges, L. Elder, L.
Brightman, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Brookeborough, V. Ezra, L.
Brookman, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Falkland, V.
Burlison, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Carlisle, E. Filkin, L.
Carlisle, Bp. Gale, B.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Geraint, L.
Carter, L. [Teller] Gifford, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B. Gilbert, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L. Gladwin of Clee, L.
Chorley, L. Glanusk, L.
Christopher, L. Goldsmith, L.
Clancarty, E. Goodhart, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B. Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gould of Pottemewton, B. Newby, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Nicol, B.
Grantchester, L. Northfield, L
Greene of Harrow Weald, L. Ogmore, L.
Gregson, L. Orme, L.
Grenfell, L. Patel, L.
Hacking, L. Paul, L.
Hampton, L. Perry of Southwark, B.
Hamwee, B. Peston, L.
Hanworth, V. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Hardie, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Hardy of Wath, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Harris of Richmond, B. Puttnam, L.
Harrison, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Haskel, L. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hayman, B. Razzall, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Rea, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. Redesdale, L.
Hollick, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Rennard, L
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Renwick of Clifton. L.
Hooson, L. Richard, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B. Rochester, L.
Howie of Troon, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Hoyle, L. Russell, E.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Ryder of Warsaw, B.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Hutchinson of Lullington, L. Sandberg, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Sawyer, L.
Chancellor) Scotland of Asthal, B.
Islwyn, L. Sefton of Garston, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Serota, B.
Privy Seal)
Jeger, B. Sewel, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Shepherd, L.
Judd, L. Sheppard of Liverpool, L.
Kennet, L. Shore of Stepney, L.
Simon, V.
KilbracKen, L. Smith of Clifton. L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L. Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Kirkwood, L. Stair. E.
Lea of Crondall, L. Stern, B.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Strabolgi, L.
Lipsey, L. Strafford, E.
Listowel, E. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Lockwood, B. Taverne, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Longford, E. Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Lovell-Davis, L. Templeman, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Tenby, V.
Mcintosh of Haringey, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
[Teller] Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Thornton. B.
McNair, L. Thurlow, L.
McNally, L. Tope, L.
Maddock, B. Tordoff, L.
Mallalieu, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Mar and Kellie, E. Uddin, B.
Marlesford, L. Varley, L.
Marsh, L. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L. Wallace of Saltaire. L.
Merlyn-Rees, L. Walpole, L.
Meston, L. Walton of Detchant, L.
Methuen, L. Warner, L.
Miller of Chilthome Domer, B. Warnock, B.
Milner of Leeds, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Molloy, L. Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Monkswell, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Montague of Oxford, L. Weatherill, L.
Morris of Manchester, L. Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitty, L. Williams of Mostyn, L.
Wigoder, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
Wilkins, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Williams of Crosby, B. Young of Dartington, L.
Williams of Elvel, L. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 16: After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—