HL Deb 13 December 2001 vol 629 cc1420-33

5 Clause 17, page 7, line 7, after "authority" insert "to a relevant public authority"

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:

5A Because it is not appropriate to limit the power conferred by this clause in the manner proposed by the amendment.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof— 5B Page 7, line 23, at end insert— ( ) No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. We believe that the way in which the Bill was left after your Lordships had dealt with Part 3 would have been counter-productive. We all want to prevent terrorism and to catch the terrorists. The amendments would have made it more difficult for public authorities to disclose potentially vital information. Public authorities, by definition, are rarely experts in terrorism. They often will not be able to satisfy themselves that information is linked, even indirectly, to terrorism.

With our original drafting they could disclose for any crime. Therefore, vital information would reach the police. However, we are not giving a blanket disclosure power just for information relating to crime. Our new amendment will, we hope, clarify the position on the face of the Bill to your Lordships' satisfaction. The public authorities will have to take into account, before disclosing, the proportionality of their disclosures. Bulk disclosure of information without regard to the seriousness of the offence in question would not be proportionate and would therefore not be permitted by these provisions.

In the example offered in the other place by the Shadow Home Secretary a public authority would not be able to disclose vast swathes of tax information to the Baltimore Police Department if it had stopped someone in respect of a driving offence. In the unlikely event that a UK public authority had information that related to specific driving offences, it could disclose only that information which directly related to the offence. If there was a suspicion that the individual was involved in more serious crime, it could disclose information to the investigatory authorities.

Under your Lordships' amendment it could only do so if it believed that the crimes were terrorist or national security related. It may be that drugs are found in the car. Under our drafting a public authority could pass relevant information to the individual. That could help to show a connection with the funding of terrorism.

I shall give a couple of examples which I do not think have been given before. I hope that they will clarify the position. It has been said previously that the complex task of operating a terrorist cell may involve the smuggling of drugs into the UK which are not obviously linked to terrorism. Customs do not know that they are for a terrorist cell and information does not therefore reach the police. The police would ask only if they already have some evidence. So far as concerns the Customs, they have what has been smuggled but they do not have any connection.

The Inland Revenue has previously been unable to disclose to the police that a drug dealer was citing drug dealing on his tax returns. I read that slowly because I gulped this morning when I read it. If a drug dealer is arguing for taxation purposes and he puts "drug dealing" on his tax return the Inland Revenue is unable to disclose that to the police. We know that drugs are used to finance terrorism because that crook bin Laden was selling drugs to finance his terrorist activities, bringing not just death but misery to millions of people. That could prove to be a vital piece of intelligence but it cannot be passed over under your Lordships' amendment because the Inland Revenue has no idea that the drugs are linked to terrorism.

Terrorist groups rely on work in the construction industry—that is to say, mobile industry without any factories—to provide income and a cover while in the UK. While monitoring that industry for national insurance contributions evasion—in which the industry has a good record, but a bad record so far as concerns the Inland Revenue—it may obtain information which points to the operations of a terrorist cell but it has no idea that they are terrorists so the information never reaches the police. We think that that goes too far.

Frankly, I do not think that that was in the minds of noble Lords when the original amendments were passed to the Bill as presented. I hope therefore that, bearing in mind the debates in this House and indeed the other place and the fact that we want to put on the face of the Bill a test of proportionality, the new operation of Part 3, in terms of disclosure, will meet with your Lordships' favour.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A but do proposed Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.) 5C Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do propose Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 5". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The amendment restores the position to when the Bill went to the Commons.

It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships very briefly why we passed the amendment. Clause 17 of the Bill provides that a public authority—some 40 plus are listed in Schedule 4—may be required to disclose information in its possession about an individual or a company—medical records, bank records or company records—to anyone considering initiating any criminal investigation whatever anywhere in the world. It is not limited to the United Kingdom; it is not limited to the United Kingdom law enforcement agencies; and it is not limited of course to terrorism or suspicion of terrorism.

Many people will say, "Well, I have nothing to hide. People can look into my affairs if they want. It is a price worth paying for security. In times of danger security comes before privacy". We on these Benches entirely agree with that sentiment. Our amendment ensured that these unprecedented powers were given to the agencies in this country and abroad simply for the purposes of the Bill: namely, information believed—or even just suspected to be—related directly or indirectly to a risk to national security or to the existence of terrorism.

A further restriction was put on: that the information should not be released to anyone, which is what the clause stated as originally drafted, but a relevant public authority. Therefore, the effect of the amendment was to give to the clause that focus which the Bill should have in dealing with anti-terrorism measures.

Clause 19 concerns the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise and provides that they may release their files and records, for the purposes of any criminal investigation", anywhere, to anyone in the world.

The addition of subsection (2)(a) was quite significant because it was an addition to the Bill as originally drafted and brought before your Lordships and withdrawn before the general election. This Bill, unlike the original Bill, gives power to the commissioners of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to make disclosure, for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by any of the intelligence services of any of that service's functions". So the Bill widens the provision from the ordinary police investigating authorities to the intelligence services for any of their purposes.

The amendment passed by your Lordships' House simply restricted the scope of such disclosures to the disclosure of information believed or suspected to relate to a risk to national security or to a terrorist. I emphasise the word "suspected". All that is required is that a person carrying out an investigation should say to the public authority, "I am investigating terrorism"—or the possibility of terrorism, or the existence of a possible terrorist—"and I should like your co-operation". We have no objection to that. We and, I am sure, all of your Lordships think it essential for the security of this country that such powers be granted in that limited way.

However, the Government have not listened in the other place and have returned the Bill to us seeking to reverse our decisions. All that has been added is a proposal that, No disclosure of information shall be made by virtue of this section unless I he public authority by which the disclosure is made is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it". That merely restates the existing duty under the Human Rights Act 1998, because proportionality is a basic principle of that Act. If there is an invasion of privacy, it should be permitted only by means proportionate to the need that requires it.

We must ask: what is meant by the words, proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it"? If an investigating authority comes to this country from overseas and says, "I am investigating a drugs matter. Please release all your records", is it proportionate if the public authority releases information to that agency? Let us take the example given a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, of drugs being found in a car. That information should be passed to the police, but it is for the police to make the connections when they receive the information.

When it comes to income tax and Customs and Excise authorities, it is unlikely that a person will write down "terrorist" as his occupation. Consequently, it is for the police or other investigating authority—that is, the security services—to go to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or Inland Revenue to say, "We are investigating X because we suspect that he is a terrorist or engaged in terrorist activities. Can we see his files?" In other words, the initiative should come from the police to the public authority.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is just window dressing. It adds nothing to the previous provision and does not assist your Lordships. The purpose of my amendment is that the position on which we decided after a great deal of debate should be maintained.

Moved, That, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed and do propose Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof, leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on their Amendment No. 5".— (Lord Thomas of Gresford.)

3.45 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, in rising to speak to this group of amendments, I should say straightaway that Her Majesty's Official Opposition take a different approach from that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We are grateful to the Government for, as we see it, responding to our concerns—concerns that we expressed during each stage of consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Indeed, it is fair to say that we have worked hard to persuade the Government that there is a fundamental problem with Part 3 as drafted. Their proposals for disclosure of information go way beyond the agenda that we all want to support. That agenda is the fight against terrorism.

Part 3 as drafted is draconian, not measured, and the question of proportionality would in practice only arise, and possibly bite, in the event that an individual or class of person felt aggrieved and acted on that grievance after disclosure had been made and the damage done. The government amendment recognises that thought must be given by the relevant investigatory authorities, such as the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad and the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, as to whether the request for information is proportionate—in other words, in comparative ratio—to the investigation at hand before that request is made.

Time will tell whether that works in practice. We shall wait and see. On that basis, we shall support the government amendment.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, this particular Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition tends to agree with the other part of the opposition. The government amendment does not go far enough. It is rather sad that we on these Benches have been seen to cave in to what I would describe as waffle. There are many ways to beef up the amendment a little. If someone puts "drug dealer" on his tax return, it is always possible that he is actually a manager of' Boots the Chemists, but he probably is not. It strikes me as hard to believe that the Inland Revenue could not say to the police, "We have someone admitting a crime. Why do you not investigate?" I am sure that that happens now.

I am afraid to say that if the Liberal Democrats push this to a Division, I shall be trotting through the Lobby with them. I believe that it is the duty of your Lordships' House to protect, as much as we humanly can, the individual rights and liberties of the subject. This is a minor blip—that is all—on the otherwise impeccable behaviour of those on my Front Bench. They have conceded too much on this matter.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I wish to say one or two words in support of the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The government amendment is indeed a piece of window dressing. If the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will forgive my saying so, I find it a bit pathetic that a piece of window dressing should wholly satisfy the Official Opposition.

If we penetrate the true legal position and the government amendment, it is much more complicated than appears at first sight. I want to explain the position because public authorities may be liable as a result of the legal uncertainty that will remain if the Government have their way.

My noble friend is completely right when he says that the government amendment begs the question when it says, proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it". If the Liberal Democrat amendment is not passed, the answer to the question is partly given in Clause 17(2). In other words, without any link with terrorism on the face of this part of the Bill, if the disclosure of information is for the purposes of any criminal investigation, criminal proceedings and so forth, the question will be whether the disclosure is proportionate to those matters and not to any link to terrorism.

I recognise that under Article 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights it is permissible to invade personal privacy not only to protect national security but also to prevent or detect crime. I therefore recognise that a power of the width which is being conferred by Clause 17 is capable of falling within a legitimate aim in terms of the ECHR and that then a test of proportionality necessarily comes into place not because of the government amendment but because of the various provisions of the Human Rights Act, to which this amendment adds nothing of substance.

However, in practice it means that if anyone discloses information acting under Clause 17 in a way that breaches Article 8 of the human rights convention—the guarantee of personal privacy—for any of the aims stated in Clause 17(2), although he may be pursuing a legitimate aim he must do so only in a proportionate way.

The word "proportionate" is not defined in the amendment but it means that the means used to accomplish one of those aims must be necessary—and no more than necessary—to achieve that legitimate aim. They must involve the least sacrifice compatible with human rights, as the House of Lords recently held in the case of Daly. That is what proportionality means.

Therefore, there is quite a strict test, but the problem is that the poor old public authority or other body which makes the disclosure will be potentially liable under a Bill conferring powers which are broad and not well defined. If we reject the link with terrorism which the Liberal Democrat Benches have sought to make and leave it to the window dressing of the amendment about proportionality moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, all we shall be doing is dumping the problem on the public authorities and in the end on the courts. There will be great legal uncertainty and it will be unsatisfactory.

However, I concede that ultimately when people are properly advised and can afford to bring their cases and sue, the courts will provide effective protection. For those who understand their legal rights that will be so. But I regard the position as a mess—and an unsatisfactory mess. Therefore, I very much hope that even at this late stage the Official Opposition will join with the rest of us on these Benches in standing firm to clarify the position so that we can avoid lawyers such as myself earning far too much money, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, would say, in arguing such cases.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am perhaps a little more easily persuaded by the Government than noble Lords who sit to my right. That is partly because we still anticipate that the Bill will have a short life and that it will be on the statute book for an experimental period; and partly because, seeing my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley in the Chamber reminds me that in the Church of England marriage service those entering into the state of matrimony are advised not to do so wantonly or ill advisedly. A similar caution appears to be pointed at the public authorities in question.

I have only one question to ask the Minister and if he will answer it satisfactorily, he will greatly increase my comfort in what he proposes. It is a question I asked when the Bill was previously in this Chamber. What connection can there be between terrorism and information given under Section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, I absolve the Front Bench of the Official Opposition from what I am about to say. I feel that this House is behaving like the Grand Old Duke of York. It was but a week ago that we went into the Lobbies in great and convincing numbers to introduce into the Bill the provision which is now to be struck out of it. We did so for extremely good reasons. First, because this Bill will extend the right of state surveillance of citizens' confidential information in an unprecedented way; secondly, because we felt it went beyond the purview and intention of the Bill, which is to deal with emergency terrorism and risks to national security; thirdly, because we considered that the issues involved run very deep in our tradition of civil liberty and that it was unsafe and unwise to give such vastly extended powers to non-terrorist situations, as the Bill provides.

I agree with other noble Lords that this is a real sop to Cerberus. Perhaps I may remind the House that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord McIntosh, said on no fewer than six occasions during debates on the Bill that it was quite unnecessary to have reference to proportionality on the face of the Bill because it was absolutely inherent in the Bill; it was inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights; and it was inherent in the Human Rights Act. They said that such reference was wholly unnecessary. Yet today, apparently the Official Opposition are content with the single change to the Bill as originally drafted; namely, to bring on to the face of it that which was inherent in any event.

l want quickly to refer to the extent to which I believe the Government spokesmen have never understood either their Bill or the amendment we passed a week ago. Only on Monday this week, David Blunkett stated in an article in The Times that the amendment we passed a week ago would prevent the police and security services investigating terrorist networks if, they are forbidden to look at anything that cannot immediately be proven to he linked to terrorist activity". As your Lordships well know, the amendment we passed was of the mildest kind. Far from requiring immediate proof of linkage with terrorism, our amendment provides that the information can be requested or disclosed only if there is a suspicion that it may indirectly relate to a risk to national security. That is a vastly different proposition.

I ask the House why the Home Secretary would so misrepresent an amendment passed by the House. "Why?", I ask. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in responding to the speech I made in proposing the amendment last Thursday, referred to information that was related to a terrorist threat. Again, our amendment does not limit disclosure to information related to a terrorist threat; it is information which may relate indirectly to the risk of a terrorist threat.

It is not good enough for this House to sit down under a Bill which goes way beyond its scope and exposes, I believe, well established civil rights to such a risk. We have had a lot of soft soap about public authorities acting responsibly and not engaging in bulk disclosure. Clause 17 of the Bill goes way beyond the public authorities which we normally associate with that phrase, which is why we tried to restrict the measure to the police and intelligence services. It goes way beyond that. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, it goes to foreign public bodies which may operate in countries which may have standards vastly different from those to which we adhere in this country.

I shall not repeat all that was said but a week ago, but I believe that we should continue to resist the proposal and uphold the amendment which we passed last Thursday.

4 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I turn to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the Inland Revenue. It may come as a surprise to the noble Earl to learn just how restricted the Revenue is—and rightly so. The current statutory position is that the Inland Revenue is able to pass on of its own volition information only where it relates to murder or treason. I can tell the House that there have been cases where a heroin dealer has declared heroin dealing to be the source of his income. The Inland Revenue is not able to pass on that information. Consider that position: from where does heroin originate? The vast majority of the drug comes from Afghanistan and a link could be made. That is the fact of the matter at the present time. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in a moment, if he insists.

We are unnecessarily fettering ourselves in dealing with the management of information which ordinary people may think is already passed on. Members of the public believe that one part of government would obviously pass on information concerning the tax affairs of a drug dealer to another part of government if the dealer chose to put that information on his tax return. But the fact is that we do not. That is the way that the rules operate at the present time.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Surely he has been advised that the amendment that was passed last Thursday would allow the Inland Revenue to release exactly such information, along with a great deal more.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I have been advised to the contrary. The amendments passed last Thursday make the Bill worse than it was when it came to this House from the other place.

Perhaps I may address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with regard to the final words of the amendment. Those words are, the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it". What is sought to be achieved here certainly relates to investigations and criminal proceedings. It also means that there would be no disclosure of information on the off-chance. In other words, the wording offers a protection on the face of the Bill. I know that in court the lawyers might argue about exactly what is meant by the wording, but it means that there will be less opportunity and less possibility of information being disclosed on the off-chance. The information must have a purpose and that purpose is to be measured in a proportionate way as regards the inquiries being made.

I do not think that the wording constitutes soft soap or window dressing.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, if the wording is not window dressing, can I ask the Minister whether the purpose is to be terrorist-related or is it to be wider?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, that takes us back to first principles: we do not know. That is the whole point.

When investigations are taking place, no linkages may have been made. That is the point where, I believe, there can be no meeting of minds between myself and the Liberal Democrat Peers. I cannot argue on their level simply because there is a lack of acceptance—from beliefs genuinely held; I accept that—of the fact that we cannot initially argue that there may be the possibility of a terrorist offence having been committed.

When stopping a vehicle or investigating a twitcher close to a military base, terrorism is a million miles away from the minds of those who make the initial investigation of what might be simply a breach of the peace or a misdemeanour. It is not possible to make the link; that is, to draft the Bill in such a way that such a possibility can be defined. I accept that there is nothing that I can say to Liberal Democrat Peers that will convince them of the case. To that extent, I admit that I have a failure on my hands.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Let us return to the case of the twitcher. The twitcher is stopped while looking at an Indian ring-necked parakeet perched on the tail of an aeroplane. He has been stopped for a speeding offence. But something leads the policeman to believe that there is more involved than looking at the Indian ring-necked parakeet sitting on the tail of the Tiger Moth, or whatever. The policeman comes to the conclusion that a terrorist investigation should be carried out. Under those circumstances, the amendment passed on the previous occasion was valid.

However, if the policeman stops a twitcher on the basis, "I just want to look at this chap's record on the off-chance that he has been involved in drug smuggling", but has no grounds for harbouring such a suspicion, then it is to that circumstance that we object. We object to the ability to trawl just for fun. If the policeman thinks that an act of terrorism is taking place, then fair enough. His actions are absolutely right and no one would argue with that. However, noble Lords are arguing over the possibility of a trawl.

It is on that point that my mind is slightly attached to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—but only temporarily, I hasten to add—and divorced from that of the noble Lord opposite.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I was reluctant to interrupt the noble Earl in full flow, but we are operating under the rules of the Report stage. Interventions should be restricted to questions on matters of fact.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, to be honest, I shall not be able to convince the noble Earl either. However, I think that he destroyed his own case when he said that the investigators would trawl for the fun of it. We are not in that business. The authorities are not in that business. It is demeaning to use that kind of term because it does not strike at the heart of the seriousness of these matters.

The Bill is a very precise piece of legislation. We are keeping as tight a control over the authorities as is possible. Noble Lords must understand that most of the information that can be exchanged under the terms of the clause is already disclosable in other circumstances. All the Bill seeks to do is to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosure can be made. It is not the case that the information cannot be disclosed. It can be disclosed, but in the Bill we seek to harmonise the situation.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, from memory I had thought that the question of the Diseases of Fish Act had been dealt with, but clearly not. That looked to the barriers to investigations in terms of legislation. We seek to ensure that the statutory barriers to disclosure do not prevent the authorities from the proper exercise of their functions.

It is not the case that all the gateways will be used, but we have looked at the statutory barriers to disclosure which, it should be pointed out, are not in place once criminal investigation proceedings are under way. We seek to marry the two. No new powers have been introduced in terms of disclosure; rather it is a question of harmonisation. Having listened to the debates in both Houses and having considered the concerns expressed, I do not think that it is either window dressing or soft soap to put on to the face of the Bill, so that it is in place in primary legislation—an Act of Parliament—that the disclosure must be proportionate. That is an important point.

It is no good to say that it would be taken for granted because it is in place under other legislation. Many elements that noble Lords have argued against could attract the counter argument that in any event the safeguards are already in place. Here I refer specifically to other parts of the Bill such as the retention of data. I have referred repeatedly to data protection legislation and human rights legislation. However, noble Lords have responded by saying, "Oh, that doesn't matter. We still want our amendment". I am dismissed when I put those arguments.

Here we are putting a form of words on to the face of the Bill to concrete the intention, made up-front for all to see, but it is dismissed as soft soap. I do not accept that.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may say that you are being provocative.

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House. Twice the noble Lord has said that this is a harmonisation measure. However, is it not the case that the clause is entitled, "Extension of existing disclosure powers"? There is no reference to harmonisation.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, it is the case that many of the Acts listed under Schedule 4—we could have a further debate on the schedule if noble Lords so desired, although I suspect that that might be out of order—already allow for disclosure at the investigation stage. The point is that we are discussing the stage prior to investigation. To that end I cite the Utilities Act 2000, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 and the Water Resources Act 1991.

The Bill seeks to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosures can be made. For that reason, I rest my case and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, the Minister probably did not intend to do so, but he gave the game away by referring to the current restrictions on the powers of the Inland Revenue to disclose information. The noble Lord commented, "and rightly so", to the fact that disclosure is restricted at the present time. Having made that concession, he proceeded to argue that the doors of the Inland Revenue should be thrown wide, that tax offices throughout the country and the Cumbernauld centre should be opened so that anyone will be able to walk in. When the Minister said, "I have been advised that these amendments make the Bill worse", noble Lords may have thought that he was referring to the gentleman in the Box. But yesterday, Mr Blunkett said: Our law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job".—[Official Report. Commons, 12/12/01; col. 896.] Later, at col. 921, in relation to another amendment, he said: The security services made it absolutely clear to me…that they would bring no cases forward if we used the normal court system and attempted to use public interest immunity". Who is running this country? It looks as though the security services are advising the Minister, not the Home Office officials behind him.

My noble friend Lord Lester was right when he pointed out that, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it will be for the public authorities to make a judgment as to what is proportionate. Is disclosure to be made wantonly or ill advisedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said? How on earth are they to judge? When he introduced his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that public authorities are not experts in terrorism. As they are not experts in terrorism, why, without any guidance from Parliament, is this burden of determining what is proportionate to what is asked of them being thrust upon them?

We regret on these Benches that the Conservative Front Bench has taken the meagre size 14 fly which has been whisked past their nose, but we are swimming on. I beg to seek the opinion of the House.

4.13 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5C) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Monson, L.
Avebury, L. Newby, L.
Barker, B. Nicholson of Winterbourne, B,
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Northover, B.
Bradshaw, L. Oakeshott of Sieagrove Bay, L.
Bridges, L. Onslow, E.
Clement-Jones, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Cobbold, L. Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Dholakia, L. Plumb, L.
Dundee, E. Razzall, L.
Ezra, L. Reay, L.
Falkland, V. Redesdale, L.
Geraint, L. Rees-Mogg, L.
Goodhart, L. Rennard, L.
Greaves, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Hamwee, B. Roper, L. [Teller]
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller] Scott of Needham Market, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L. Sharman, L.
Hooson, L. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Hussey of North Bradley, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Jacobs, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L. Stoddart of Swondon, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L. Taverne, L.
Lucas, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L. Thomas of Walliswoocl, B.
McNally, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Maddock, B. Wallace of Saliaire, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Walmsley, B.
Methuen, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Williams of Crosby, B.
Mishcon, L. Willoughby de Broke, L
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Christopher, L.
Ahmed, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Clinton-Davis, L.
Alli, L. Colville of Culross, V.
Amos, B. Condon, L.
Andrews, B. Cooke of lslandreagh, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L. Craig of Radley, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Crawley, B.
Attenborough, L. Currie of Marylebone, L
Bach, L. Darcy de Knayth, B.
Barnett, L. David, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Davies of Coity, L.
Berkeley, L. Davies of Oldham, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.
Bhatia, L. Desai, L.
Billingham, B. Dormand of Easington, L.
Blackstone, B. Dubs, L.
Blackwell, L. Elder, L.
Bledisloe, V. Emerton, B.
Borrie, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Brennan, L. Evans of Watford, L.
Brett, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Brightman, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Brookman, L. Filkin, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L. Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Gale, B.
Burlison, L. Gibson of Market Rasen. B.
Campbell-Savours, L. Gilbert, L.
Carter, L. [Teller] Gladwin of Clee, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B. Golding,B.
Chalfont, L. Goldsmith, L.
Chandos, V. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Chorley, L. Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Patel, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Paul, L.
Greengross, B. Pendry, L.
Grenfell, L. Peston, L.
Grocott. L. Pitkeathley, B.
Hardy of Wath, L. Plant of Highfield, L.
Hattersley, L. Puttnam, L.
Hayman, B. Radice, L.
Healey, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Rea, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Howie of Troon, L. Renwick of Clifton, L.
Hoyle. L. Richard, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Rooker, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Scotland of Asthal, B.
Cliancelhr) Sewel, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. Sheldon, L.
Jones, L. Simon, V.
King of West Bromwich, L. Slim, V.
Lea of Crondall, L. Stallard, L.
Levy, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Lipsey, L. Strabolgi, L.
Listowel, E. Strange, B.
Lockwood, B. Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Macfarlane of Bearsden, L. Tenby, V.
McFarlane of Llandaff, B. Tomlinson, L.
Mclntosh of Haringey, L. Turner of Camden, B.
[Teller] Varley, L.
Mclntosh of Hudnall, B. Wakefield, Bp.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Walker of Doncaster, L.
Mallalieu, B. Weatherill, L.
Marsh. L. Wedderbum of Charlton, L.
Masham of Ilton, B. Whitaker, B.
Massey of Darwen, B. Whitty, L.
Merlyn-Rees. L. Wilkins, B.
Milner of Leeds, L. Williams of Elvel, L.
Mitchell, L. Williams of Mosty n, L. (Lord
Morgan, L. Privy Seat)
Morgan of Huyton, B. Williamson of Horton, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Nicol, B. Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.22 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)

The Question is that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.

On Question, Motion agreed to.