§ 1 Clause 1, Leave out Clause 1
§
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
§ 1A Because it is necessary to provide for the constitution of NHS foundation trusts.
§ Lord WarnerMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
I do not intend to go over the whole case for NHS foundation trusts, other than to reiterate two key points. First, foundation trusts are totally consistent with the founding values of the NHS. They are an integral part of it, and there is absolutely no evidence that they will damage local health economies. Secondly, the governance arrangements involve patients, the public and staff in their local hospitals in a way that has never been achieved before. The 2012 argument that nobody supports foundation trusts does not stand up. When people know the advantages, they come forward and want foundation trust status.
As I said in Committee, 25 NHS trusts are consulting on proposals to apply for NHS foundation trust status from next April and a further 30 or so have applied to be considered for coming on-stream in autumn 2004. If all those applications were successful, some 25 per cent of the population in England would have access to NHS foundation trusts by the end of 2004. By their irresponsible actions, the two Opposition Benches have sought to wreck the Bill and thwart those local people from securing the local freedoms that they want.
§ Lord WarnerNoble Lords should hear the rest of it. I acknowledge that there was scope for improving the original Bill. That is why the Government have proposed or accepted more than 200 amendments, 90 of them relating to NHS foundation trusts. That is clear evidence that we have listened and responded to concerns.
This House has discharged its scrutiny and review functions. It has asked the other place to think again, and it has done so. It has rejected clearly this House's removal of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, by 303 votes to 286. In that vote, 80 per cent of Labour MPs voted in favour of foundation trusts—with 19 extra converts since the previous vote on the issue. With two votes, at least, by the Commons on the issue, it is the clear will of the Commons, the elected House, to have Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as amended restored to the Bill. I do not think that it is for this House to resist restoration.
Even at this late stage of the proceedings, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has shown how much he has listened to the concerns expressed that we need to be in a position to learn from the experience of the first NHS foundation trusts before the rest of the NHS applies for that status. That is why he made it clear earlier in the other place that he was prepared to review how we proceed in the light of our experience and to learn the lessons from the early NHS foundation trusts that start up in 2004.
As he said then, there will be an opportunity to do that in the 12-month period before the end of the first wave of foundation trusts in autumn 2004 and autumn 2005. That is why my right honourable friend told the other place that he would ask the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—which will, of course, be accountable to Parliament, not him, under the Bill—to insist on that review. During the period of that review, the Secretary of State would not pass any new applications for a new NHS foundation trust to the independent regulator.
The Benches opposite have been calling for an independent review; and here is my right honourable friend offering it—an independent review at that. It will be able to consider the governance issues by which they are still troubled; it will be able to consider the 2013 relationship between NHS foundation trusts and others in the local health economy. It will be in the hands of CHAI. The report goes to Parliament, which will of course be able to debate it. What more do noble Lords have to quibble over? I urge the House to agree with the Commons reinstatement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as amended.
Before I finish, I should make absolutely clear that no matter how how many times this Bill goes back to the Commons, it will come back with Clause 1 and Schedule 1 reinstated. If that means that this House's action means that the Bill is lost, that will be a consequence of this particular House's; action. I want to make absolutely clear that that is the Government's position; it will be in the public arena shortly. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Warner.)
§ IB Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered Amendment 1 A, leave out "not".
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, today's vote in the House of Commons means that this House must once again make a decision about Part 1. It is an important decision for the health service as a whole and for its patients, and I have thought hard about what it is best for us to do. First, we must recognise that, having been asked by your Lordships to think again on foundation trusts, the elected House has reached a decision and has approved the Government's policy for a second time.
§ However slim the Government's majority in the other place—it was extremely slim—we should not lightly dismiss that result. Our second task is to consider the issue. Nothing has changed since the House debated it on Report the week before last. The Government have made no substantive concessions to address the two main concerns voiced by noble Lords about foundation trusts—the dangers posed for the wider NHS by the creation of an elite tier of hospitals and the threat to effective and good governance of foundation trusts stemming from the Bill's confused and cumbersome governance provisions.
§ Nothing has changed on those two fronts—and my mind has certainly not changed. What has changed is the majority in the other place. I do not see how this House can fail to give weight to the fact that a Government with an overall majority of 164 was reduced to a majority of a mere 17 in the vote earlier this evening. That was not simply a majority of only 17; that was a majority achieved only by virtue of the votes of 44 Scottish Labour Members whose constituents have no direct interest in the matter at issue, and whose own health service, being devolved, is one over which the Westminster Parliament has no say.
§ Those Members of course have a perfect legal right to troop through the Lobby in support of the Government, but the outcome of the vote and its significance for this House is, I suggest, devalued 2014 because of the part that they played in it. There is a real sense in which we can say that the House of Commons has not spoken on behalf of the man and woman in the street. I do not know how many noble Lords heard the comments of Mr Frank Field, who said that if the House of Commons had been given a free vote this afternoon, the Government would have lost by at least 50.
§ Whether we agree with that precise number or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Government did not succeed in winning today's vote by persuasion or on the strength of the argument. They won it by twisting the arms of their own supporters and flying a Minister back from Australia. In contrast, it is sometimes said that this House—the unelected House—is better able to reflect the public mind than the other place. I happen to think that we can say that with confidence on the issue of foundation trusts. It is not only Members of the House of Lords who are opposed to the Government, but the BMA, the unions and, indeed, the vast bulk of the general public.
§ Yesterday, NOP published a poll in which only 4 per cent of respondents said that their top priority was to have their local hospital run by a foundation trust. In contrast, 83 per cent favoured a well run local hospital with shorter waiting times and 84 per cent of people wanted public money aimed at improving all NHS hospitals. Only 7 per cent believed that more money should be given to the hospitals that are currently doing well.
§ The Government will no doubt wave those results away, but they reflect the anxieties and opinions of real people. That public feeling and the views of those working in the health service were very powerful reasons why this House was justified in returning Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the Commons two weeks ago. The provisions in the Bill on public consultation have been strengthened, I am glad to say. However, it is a matter of great concern that those patients and members of the public who are served by the first wave of applicant trusts will have been given no say whatever in the decision to apply for foundation status. If we had wanted proof of the Government's stated desire to involve local people in decision making on health, it would have been found in a genuine consultation exercise on the question, "Foundation status—yes or no?" That was one question that was never asked.
§ On an earlier occasion, I said that I was genuinely sorry to find myself opposing devolution in the NHS, and I am. However, when the detail of that devolution policy poses such dangers for the health service, I am in no doubt that opposition is necessary. I do not ask the Government to take the proposals away and never bring them back. I ask only that they take them away, refashion them in a manner that addresses the genuine concerns expressed in this House by noble Lords and by Members of another place and bring back their revised ideas in the next Session of Parliament.
§ To noble Lords who asked why we should resist these proposals the second time, I say this: 1 do not want to find that, in two or three years' time, the 2015 people in my village who are sent for treatment at a local hospital discover that that hospital is less well equipped than the foundation hospital 40 miles away, because it has been unable to invest on the scale that it needs to do because the foundation trust enjoyed easier, privileged access to capital funding. Nor do I wish to find that the foundation hospital serving my 82 year-old father-in-law has decided to skew resources away from services for the elderly, from dedicated stroke units and chronic pain management because its board of governors is working to an agenda dictated by a local and vocal minority of members.
§ By definition, it is the dispossessed and socially excluded who will lose out in that model of governance. I want no part of such an ill thought out system. This House is well within its rights to reject Clause 1 for a second time. I believe that it has a duty to do so for the sake of the NHS and all those who use it. I therefore beg to move.
§ Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A, leave out "not".—(Earl Howe.)
§ 10 p.m.
§ Lord Clement-JonesMy Lords, I support Amendment No. 1b,and I shall speak to Amendment No. 161CC.
Many of us heard a powerful debate in the other place, whether we were present in the Gallery or saw it on television. It was impressive to see many Labour MPs take a principled stand on the issue. The fact that, despite the concessions, the Government achieved half the majority that they had on an earlier occasion demonstrated that the Government's arguments are becoming thinner by the hour. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, today was characteristic of that: it was short, to the point and entirely devoid of reasoned argument.
I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning and also in the House. His understanding of history seemed to be completely flawed, and I felt like sending him a reading list. He should brush up on the history of the NHS: William Beveridge was a Liberal and one of the architects of the NHS. Instead of that, we heard that we were tearing down the NHS and that those of us on these Benches were partly responsible, along with all sorts of other villains and miscreants. That is a very partial view of history.
My honourable friend Paul Burstow made it clear during the debate today that Liberal Democrats had no argument with devolution in the NHS. We too wish to see NHS hospitals freed from micro-management and inappropriate targets. However, foundation trusts, in their present form, are not the instrument for that. They were not in the Government's manifesto at the previous election, and they were not in the NHS Plan. There was no consultation on the new system, yet Ministers have been cooking up the proposals and inviting applications since the beginning of last year.
2016 The method of selection, via the star rating system, is arbitrary, with the Secretary of State making the final decision.
Local consultation has also been flawed. Whole London boroughs have been excluded from consultation and from the governance arrangements proposed for applicant foundation hospitals. Much of the consultation has assumed the form of a fait accompli. The coverage of foundation trusts will be partial and potentially competitive, yet foundation trusts can and may have a profound effect on the balance of the local health economy and the services that local people need. It is hardly surprising that cancer networks, for example, are fearful of the future. The powers of the regulator are not spelt out and take insufficient heed of that fact.
As I said on Report, the key issue, ultimately, is whether there will be any resulting benefit for patients. The well respected Health Select Committee rightly asked whether such competition between hospitals would benefit patients. The poll referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, demonstrated the ignorance of the public about foundation trusts. Those who know what foundation trusts mean are against them. The doctors, nurses and other staff in the NHS are deeply sceptical about the proposals.
As my honourable friend said, in so far as foundation trusts secure freedom to act, it is hard to see how that freedom will not disadvantage the hospitals that are left behind. The rules for borrowing are a key example. Foundation trusts will have an advantage over other NHS trusts; they will have easier access to capital. The Treasury has ensured that there will be a zero-sum game, as we have pointed out relentlessly through the passage of the Bill. The NHS capital pot is fixed in size. If foundation trusts can dip into that pot more easily, it will be at the expense of the rest of the NHS.
My honourable friend also pointed out the short-term nature of the requirement for foundation trusts to adhere to Agenda for Change. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent foundation trusts, over time, varying their pay and conditions, in order to be better placed to expand. Foundation trusts will soon be able to compete on pay and conditions, at the expense of patients treated anywhere else in the NHS. So much for the assurances that the Minister gave about the duty of co-operation with other parts of the NHS that foundation trusts will have.
Our amendment deals, in particular, with the governance arrangements set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 amounts to the ramshackle and expensive construction of sham democracy, with self-selected members, powerless governing bodies and massively expensive servicing requirements. My honourable friend who, most unusually, reads Hansard for this House, noted that the most powerful speeches in regard to foundation hospitals and governance were those of the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Harris.
Finally, as Members on these Benches pointed out on Report, foundation trusts start at the wrong point. It is in commissioning where we need to give local 2017 control: to those who commission healthcare and who need to be responsive to local needs. The commissioners—the primary care trusts—should be democratically accountable. That is what Members on these Benches in both Houses have argued for. It remains a mystery why the Government did not accept that from the outset. Instead, new governance arrangements simply re-emphasise the dominance of acute hospitals at the expense of primary care, preventive health strategies designed to improve public health and reduce health inequalities, along with the integration of health and social care.
The Government have retreated to a great extent on this Bill. Now we have last-minute concessions that amend the Bill so that it will affect a shrinking number of applicants, now down to some.50 or so. The Government should make this retreal complete and drop Part 1. If the Bill as a whole is lost, then let us be quite clear: this has been an accident waiting to happen right from the outset—as a result of the Government's own actions, which are entirely self-inflicted. The Government should accept the verdict of this House and of NHS staff.
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathMy Lords, I hope that the House will support my noble friend and reject the Motion proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have debated the issue of foundation trusts through the many stages of this Bill. Although noble Lords have expressed some concerns and issues have been raised at each stage, the fact is that this House has asked the other place to think again, the other place has done so and, by a majority of 17 votes, it has decided to support the implementation of the policy to introduce foundation trusts.
Surely the role of this House, as a revising Chamber, has now been fulfilled. It has asked the House of Commons to think again, which it has done. We could argue about the size of the majority, but a majority is a majority and, for me, a majority vote of 17 is sufficient for the decision to have been made.
The role of this House is to question, to challenge and to revise. Were any objective commentator to look at the process of this Bill, he would conclude that the Government have listened. My noble friend has accepted a number of amendments proposed by myself and other noble Lords. In fact, a considerable number of amendments have been voted on and accepted by the Government.
Today, the Government have accepted a suggestion that the first wave of foundation trusts should go forward and then should be subject to review by an independent body before other NHS trusts are allowed to become foundation trusts. What could be fairer than that in terms of listening to, thinking about and accepting the views and concerns of noble Lords in this House? The Government have said that they will review the position. They will ask an independent body to look at what progress has been made before any further NHS trusts can become foundation trusts. Is not that the purpose of this House? Noble Lords have asked the Government to look again at their proposals and the Government have done so. They have 2018 modified their plans to accommodate a review of how the first tranche of foundation trusts goes forward before others are allowed to follow. On what possible basis can this House now say that it will reject the views of the elected Chamber?
What is the purpose of the creation of foundation trusts? Surely it is this: it is to ensure that, over the next few years, the NHS is governed and run in the most effective way possible. After the way in which the NHS has so far been run—through micro-management, central diktat and a central accountability to Parliament which inhibits and gets in the way of innovation and local implementation of national policies—does anyone suggest that we ought not to move on to a more devolved system of administration? That is what foundation trusts will do. Surely we should put our trust in local people to elect their fellow citizens to take part in the governance of the NHS in the future. That is what foundation trusts will do.
The Government have listened. They have revised their proposals and, ultimately, the other place has decided, through a democratic vote, the way in which it wishes to go. For the sake of the NHS, surely we should now allow these measures to go through.
§ Baroness Finlay of LlandaffMy Lords, at this late stage of the Bill I hesitate to return to the core issue, but I should like to do so. The devolved administrations of Wales and Scotland do not wish to head towards foundation trust status and yet people in central administration in those bodies are extremely close to the populations they serve. That is not in any way to swipe at Parliament as it stands, but it is worth noting.
It is also worth noting that the BMA wrote to MPs prior to the vote today and reiterated its arguments. It has been following closely the debates in this House and there is concern in the profession that this marks a return to the internal market of the early 1990s and that the establishment of foundation trusts will prove divisive and exacerbate the inequalities in the NHS— and no one denies that there are inequalities in the NHS.
The encouragement of competition could fly in the face of the fantastically good work that has been done with the establishment of collaborative clinical networks, particularly the cancer networks, that have been driving up improvements in clinical care.
Not all hospitals are of an equally high standard and we should aim to level up standards of care. There is a real concern that those in the first wave will have an advantage. What will happen if foundation trusts concentrate on the areas of service provision that are profitable and easy to manage, as seen within the private sector? Prior to coming into the Chamber today, I phoned a consultant in ITU to check that I had my facts right. Patients eligible for NHS treatment but treated in private hospitals are indeed transferred to NHS ITUs when resources are not available in the private sector. That is because the NHS as it stands is able to provide comprehensive care for the very sickest people in our population. But it is not profitable care 2019 and I cannot see how a foundation trust will want to indulge in the most unprofitable parts of care provision, particularly with the targets set as they are at present.
The primary care trusts' commissioning powers could potentially be undercut by these new providers within the hinterland of their governing body. I listened to the debate in another place and the Minister did indeed refer to a review after the first year. But, of the questions that were posed, two were not answered. First, what happens if these foundation trusts are failing? Will they revert to the NHS as they were before? The second question that was not answered was whether the review would address the impact of a foundation trust on the total health economy of the population being served. Unless a review addresses that, we will simply be putting blinkers on those conducting it regarding the way in which a total health economy could be affected by these changes.
It has been said that there is no evidence that foundation trusts will damage local health economies, but is there any evidence that they will improve care and the local health economies? I have pleaded on many occasions for evidence-based management in the NHS, and I make that plea again. We are looking at an idea driven by any political mantra that one might choose. I speak as a Cross-Bencher and not a party member, but I work in the NHS and I find myself in a bizarre position because of that. I see the burgeoning pressures on the service as it is now, the imbalance between capacity and demand. How do we put the patients' needs back at the heart of all aspects of healthcare?
Currently, the priority seems subtly and inexorably to have shifted from the patient to the paperwork and the management response to targets. I am not sure whether evidence as such—scientifically evaluated evidence—is really driving this debate or whether it is political ideas and headlines.
Perhaps the whole NHS needs a very simple message, and it may be completely obvious. First, every healthcare professional at every level should make sure that the patient is comfortable in body, mind and spirit, however that needs to be done. Secondly, they should ensure that the relatives are calm and understand what is happening. Thirdly— and this should be done only after the first two tasks have been completed—they should fill out the paperwork and see whether the management targets have been met. Perhaps we could prioritise patients again by going over to a mantra of "123", rather like "ABC" for resuscitation. I am not convinced that management changes at the top will achieve that.
The way in which the patient is made comfortable must be evidence-based. Similarly, management changes must be evidence-based. I ask the House to look at whether there really is evidence that these management changes will bring about the outcomes that are hoped for in the Bill.
I do not want to comment on the way in which votes have been cast in one way or another. It feels uncomfortable to be speaking with a time limit of the 2020 end of this Session of Parliament. I sincerely believe that if we had had more time to look through these proposals, more might have been achieved.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Lord Phillips of SudburyMy Lords, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose views on these matters the House respects greatly. He rested his case on the need for greater devolution in respect of hospitals. I think he would accept that these Benches need no lessons on the virtues of devolution. It is an article of faith for us that government has been far too centrally administered by this and previous Administrations, and that the more devolution we have, broadly speaking, the better for this country. The issue, however, as was well stated by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, is whether the means and extent of devolution which these proposals would entail might be discriminatory and unequal in their impact.
If we are to have devolution—and, in principle, these Benches are wholly in favour of it—let us have devolution for all. Let us avoid some of the discriminatory effects that will flow from the Government's proposals and the bureaucratic and governmental flaws that we believe are part of the proposed system.
§ Baroness NoakesMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe has already eloquently set out the views of these Benches on why we continue to believe that the foundation hospital proposals are misguided in this Bill and why they are harmful to the NHS overall. We are quite used to the Minister not listening to the views of these Benches—
§ Lord Davies of OldhamMy Lords, the noble Earl has the right to sum up on his amendment and wind up the debate, and this is a further contribution from the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Baroness NoakesYes, my Lords, it is indeed—it is a further contribution from the Front Bench. We believe that these matters to be so important that we should outline why we believe that the Bill should be sent back to another place.
I was about to say that we expect the Minister not to take account of those on these Benches. However, I am surprised that the well expressed views of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—who represents the views of so many in the clinical professions involved in the NHS—have not been listened to. We believe there to be very serious flaws in the concept of foundation trusts, and it is because of that that we oppose the Bill and believe that it should be sent back to another place and considered again.
I shall cover some areas that we believe to be particularly important, to show why we believe the concept to be so flawed. Noble Lords opposite may not want to listen, but we believe it to be important that the other place hears why we do not believe that the Bill should pass and that we believe that it has flaws that should be addressed.
2021 I should like to address first the issue of how the finances will work. When the idea of foundation trusts was first launched, it was supposed to give flexibility to NHS trusts, to give them more access, to finance. In practice, those freedoms have not been available. NHS trusts seriously wanted those freedoms because they are shackled by the double whammy of Department of Health bureaucracy and the financial constraints of the Treasury. They had no real freedoms, and they were desperate for freedoms so that they could start to borrow to develop their own delivery of healthcare for their local areas.
The idea of foundation trusts sounded almost too good to be true—and of course it was too good to be true, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer invented the zero-sum games to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. The zero-sum game means that for every pound that NHS foundation trusts borrow, the money available to the rest of the NHS will be reduced. The Chancellor will in effect be pulling the strings of the NHS in all ways, including all foundation trusts.
We believed that foundation trusts would be able to access new sources of finance in the commercial sector, but that, too, is an illusion. We learned only yesterday about the fact that they will be fully borrowed, with virtually no capacity to borrow extra from the private sector.
There is a sketchy borrowing code in the Bill, and borrowing limits that seem not to have any meaning whatever. Others have already touched on governance structures, which are deeply flawed, and do not make clear the respective roles of the board of governors and board of directors.
There are other issues in the Bill that are simply not worked out properly. The Minister constantly told us about flexibility, but flexibility really means that the Government do not know the answers. For those reasons—that they have not delivered on financial freedoms, that the government structures are weak and ill thought-out, and because there is so much detail lacking—we believe that the Bill should be sent back to the other place.
§ Lord WarnerMy Lords, I was not intending to speak again but, having listened to some of the contributions from the Benches opposite, I cannot resist it.
The debate is taking place as though we had not spent nine days considering the Bill, and as though there had not been 200 amendments that the Government have moved or accepted, 90 of which were on foundation trusts. Those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to operate on the basis that they can rake up all the things that they have discussed over those nine days. They have not moved amendments on them; if they are so keen to get the Bill right, why have they not moved amendments on those matters and carried them through the House? We have actually 2022 accepted a lot of the things that they have moved, and they have withdrawn their amendments, but they continue to talk about those things as though the Government had not listened. They simply have not had the nerve to move those amendments and to put them to a vote if that is what they wanted to do.
We have had the same old story from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the zero-sum game. The Benches opposite simply do not accept the billion pounds more that have been put into the NHS in both capital and revenue. There was a zero-sum game under the administration of the Benches opposite, when people did have to queue for money. However, we are talking about a hugely enlarged pot. It has always been the case that, ultimately, both under their administration and under this Government, the pot is finite. However, this is a much bigger pot in which everyone in the NHS is sharing.
We had the dreary old story of the Scottish MPs. As I understand our constitution, all MPs in the House of Commons are equal. Perhaps the Conservative Front Bench is a bit short of Scottish MPs and that is part of its problem. We also had the same old story from the Liberal Democrats about the first foundation trust applicants being chosen on the basis of star ratings. That is simply not true. If noble Lords go back to Hansard they will see that I have said that that is not true. The Secretary of State will judge those applications on a much wider basis.
I could go on, but the brute fact is that the House of Commons has voted to reinstate Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The Benches opposite do not like it because there was a clear majority. They did their best to ensure that that majority was not sufficient. However, it is a clear majority. It is the will of the House of Commons that Clause 1 and Schedule 1 should be restored to the Bill. I urge noble Lords to let the will of the Commons prevail in this area, to reject Amendment No. 1B and not to insist on Amendment No. 1.
§ Earl HoweMy Lords, I want to be fair to the Government this evening. The Minister conveyed the Secretary of State's offer to conduct a review of the Government's arrangements after a period of time; that offer is certainly not to be dismissed and I do not dismiss it. I understand the offer to me that the review would precede the approval of further applications for foundation status. If that is right, then I think we ought to recognise the downside of the offer. It will serve to entrench the two-tier system for even longer than will currently be the case. If only the Government had taken the trouble to listen to people before embarking on this policy, if only they had taken their time to get the detail of it right, we would not be having this debate this evening.
Nothing the Minister has said persuades me that this House is wrong in opposing once again these deeply flawed proposals. That is why I now ask the House to accept my amendment.
§ 10.28 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 101.
2025| Division No.5 | |
| CONTENTS | |
| Addington, L. | Higgins, L. |
| Alderdice, L. | Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. |
| Anelay of St Johns, B. | Hogg, B. |
| Arran, E. | Holme of Cheltenham, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Home, E. |
| Attlee,E. | Howe,E. |
| Avebury, L. | Howe of Aberavon, L. |
| Barker, B. [Teller] | Howell of Guildford, L. |
| Bell, L. | Hunt of Wirral, L. |
| Biffen, L. | Hurd of Westwell, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Jacobs, L. |
| Bradshaw, L. | Jenkin of Roding,L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Jopling, L. |
| Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. | Kimball, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | King of Bridgwater, L. |
| Buscombe, B. | Kingsland, L. |
| Byford, B. | Kirkham, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Knight of Collingtree, B. |
| Campbell of Alloway, L. | Laing of Dunphail, L. |
| Carlile of Berriew, L. | Laird, L. |
| Carlisle of Bucklow, L. | Lamont of Lerwick, L. |
| Chadlington, L. | Lester of Herne Hill, L. |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | Linklater of Butterstone, B. |
| Chester, Bp. | Liverpool, E. |
| Clement-Jones, L. | Livsey of Talgarth, L. |
| Colwyn, L. | Lucas, L. |
| Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] | Luke, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Lyell, L. |
| Crathorne, L. | McAlpine of West Green, L. |
| Crickhowell, L. | MacGregor of Pulham Market, |
| Cumberlege, B. | L. |
| Darcy de Knayth, B. | Mackie of Benshie, L. |
| Denham, L. | Maclennan of Rogart,L. |
| Dholakia, L. | McNally, L. |
| Dixon-Smith, L. | Maddock, B. |
| Dundee, E. | Mancroft, L. |
| Eccles of Moulton, B. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Elton, L. | Marlesford, L. |
| Ezra, L. | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Falkland, V. | Mayhew of Twysden, L. |
| Finlay of Llandaff, B. | Methuen, L. |
| Flather, B. | Michie of Gallanach, B. |
| Fookes, B. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Forsyth of Drumlean,L. | Monro of Langholm, L. |
| Fowler, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. |
| Freeman, L. | Montrose, D. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Glentoran, L. | Naseby, L. |
| Goodhart, L. | Newby, L. |
| Goschen, V. | Noakes, B. |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Northbourne, L. |
| Greaves, L. | Northbrook, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Hamwee, B. | Northover, B. |
| Hanham, B. | Norton of Louth, L. |
| Harris of Peckham, L. | Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. |
| Harris of Richmond, B. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Hayhoe, L. | Onslow, E. |
| Henley, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Hereford, Bp. | Peel, E. |
| Phillips of Sudbury, L. | Sharman, L. |
| Plumb, L. | Sharp of Guildford, B. |
| Prashar, B. | Sharples, B. |
| Prior, L. | Shutt of Greetland, L. |
| Rawlings, B. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Razzall, L. | Smith of Clifton, L. |
| Reay, L. | Steel of Aikwood, L. |
| Redesdale, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Rees, L. | Strange, B. |
| Rennard, L. | Swinfen, L. |
| Renton, L. | Thomas of Gresford, L. |
| Richardson of Calow, B. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Roberts of Conwy, L. | Thomson of Monifieth, L. |
| Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Rogan, L. | Trefgarne, L. |
| Roper, L. | Ullswater, V. |
| Rotherwick, L. | Waddington, L. |
| Russell, E. | Wakeham, L. |
| Russell-Johnston, L. | Wallace of Saltaire, L. |
| Ryder of Wensum,L. | Walmsley, B. |
| Sandwich, E. | Watson of Richmond, L. |
| Scott of Needham Market, B. | Wedderbum of Charlton, L. |
| Seccombe, B. | Wilcox, B. |
| Selborne, E. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Selsdon, L. | Worcester, Bp. |
| NOT-CONTENTS | |
| Acton, L. | Hayman, B. |
| Alli, L. | Hogg of Cumbernauld, L. |
| Andrews, B. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Howells of St. Davids, B. |
| Ashton of Upholland, B. | Hoyle, L. |
| Bach, L. | Hughes of Woodside, L. |
| Bassam of Brighton, L. | Hunt of Chesterton, L. |
| Billingham. B. | Hunt of Kings Heath, L. |
| Birt, L. | Irvine of Lairg, L. |
| Blackstone, B. | Jay of Paddington, B. |
| Bragg, L. | Jones, L. |
| Brett, L. | Judd,L. |
| Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. | Kennedy of The Shaws, B. |
| Brookman, L. | Kilclooney, L. |
| Burlison, L. | Layard, L. |
| Campbell-Savours, L. | Lea of Crondall, L. |
| Carter, L. | Lockwood, B. |
| Chandos, V. | Macdonald of Tradeston, L. |
| Christopher, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Clark of Windermere, L. | McIntosh of Hudnall, B. |
| Corbett of Castle Vale, L. | MacKenzie of Culkein, L. |
| Craig of Radley, L. | Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L. |
| Crawley, B. | Mallalieu. B. |
| Davies of Coity, L. | Massey of Darwen, B. |
| Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] | Mitchell, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Morgan of Huyton, B. |
| Desai, L. | Morris of Aberavon, L. |
| Dubs, L. | Pendry. L. |
| Elder, L. | Pitkeathley. B. |
| Evans of Temple Guiting, L. | Plant of Highfield, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Powell of Bayswater, L. |
| [Teller] | Radice, L. |
| Faulkner of Worcester, L. | Randall of St. Budeaux, L. |
| Filkin, L. | Rees-Mogg, L. |
| Gale, B. | Rooker, L. |
| Gibson of Market Rasen, B. | Sainsbury of Turville, L. |
| Gilbert, L. | Sawyer, L. |
| Golding, B. | Scotland of Asthal, B. |
| Goldsmith, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Goudie, B. | Simon, V. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Smith of Leigh, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Stone of Blackheath, L. |
| Greengross, B. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Grenfell, L. | Temple-Morris, L. |
| Hannay of Chiswick, L. | Thornton, B. |
| Harris of Haringey, L. | Tomlinson, L. |
| Harrison, L. | Turnberg, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Warner, L. |
| Warwick of Undercliffe, B. | Wilkins, B. |
| Whitaker, B. | Williamson of Horton, L. |
| Whitty, L. | Woolmer of Leeds, L. |
§ Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ 10.39 p.m.