HL Deb 03 November 2004 vol 666 cc383-94

(1) For the purposes of—

  1. (a) improving the energy efficiency of residential accommodation;
  2. ( b) increasing the comfort level of occupants of residential accommodation; and
  3. (c) alleviating fuel poverty,
the Secretary of State shall take reasonable steps to ensure an increase in residential energy efficiency of at least 20% by 2010 based upon 2000 levels.

(2) In this section—

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can be brief. We have discussed this issue in the past. It is an important amendment to which we return. The amendment would require a 20 per cent improvement in domestic energy efficiency by 2010 based on 2000 levels. That is the target that the Government assured the public—they have done so no less than 15 times—would be set as the energy efficiency aim under the Sustainable Energy Act. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the House on 27 October 2003, said the same thing. That was until the Government reneged on those promises in April and reduced the level by 16 per cent.

The 20 per cent improvement is a target supported by the Energy Saving Trust, the Government's official advisers on energy efficiency; the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit, the Government's advisers on energy policy; and the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government's advisers on sustainable development.

It is also supported by more than half of the House of Commons: 340 MPs have signed Early-Day Motion 96 in support of that target. We are sometimes criticised for not supporting energy efficiency: we are now being criticised for taking it on board. But those, of course, are standards that the Government have set and should be implemented.

The DTI, Defra and the Government's Sustainable Energy Policy Network have all publicly stated in one way or another that they support the improvement that is suggested in this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, I support this amendment; I have put my name to it. The noble Baroness has laid out the important points. In responding to the previous amendment, the Minister said that we were being unfair in saying that the Government did not bring forward legislation. This target was set in the Sustainable Energy Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill that I saw through this House. Other targets have been set in other Private Members' Bills. Admittedly, we cannot get them through without Government support, but many of them have been Private Members' Bills.

However, this target was in the Government's own energy White Paper and is supported by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit. At a time when climate change is so important, when gas prices are rising—we see rises in the paper every day—it seems that that is not the time to go back on targets that will help to ensure that we have more energy efficient homes and will tackle the problems that we face with climate change. This amendment has my full support and the full support of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Lord Monson

My Lords, once again I run the risk of being accused of casting aspersions on motherhood and apple pie. This is a more extreme amendment than the previous one, which embraced only social housing. This one refers to "residential accommodation", which, as such, is not defined separately in the Bill. So it must include all residential accommodation in the country; that is, all houses and flats, including owner-occupied freeholds.

If just new housing was included, that would be all right. There would not be a problem. But this must apply to existing housing, so it would involve a considerable degree of compulsion. Again, I am surprised that it is proposed by the quarters from where it comes.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, should apologise for picking out the inconsistency of the Opposition: they are on a roll. We may have been caught out on this, but, in mitigation, I make the following plea. The Government have a coherent, consistent, informed and sensible approach to energy efficiency. That is the final sentence of my brief, which I thought that I would get in first before I give some information. I really resent the words used earlier, "The Government reneged". That is very unfair.

In the previous debates on this amendment, which my noble friend Lord Bassam has dealt with in the main, we have referred to the Government's existing aim, set out in the energy efficiency plan of action published last April, to secure annual carbon savings from the UK household sector of around 4.2 million tonnes by 2010.

We pointed out that savings of that size would be broadly equivalent to the 20 per cent improvement sought in this amendment. I can confirm today that that is indeed the case. Achieving 4.2 million tonnes is roughly equivalent to doubling the historic 1990s rate of energy efficiency improvement. As I have said, the action plan published in April sets out a robust and substantial package of measures to deliver the savings that we need.

We have also pointed out that we have the flexibility for review and, if necessary of course, to increase the aim; a flexibility that would not be afforded under the amendment. I can confirm today that this is indeed the case. Achieving a saving of 4.2 million tonnes is roughly equivalent to doubling the historic 1990s rate of energy efficiency improvement. The action plan published in April sets out a substantial package of measures to deliver the savings we need.

We have also pointed out that we have the flexibility for review and, if necessary, to increase the aim—a flexibility that would not be afforded under this amendment. I can also confirm today that we are taking up this opportunity to look again at the target as part of the Climate Change Programme review, on which Defra will be consulting shortly. We will also be formally reviewing our energy efficiency aim in 2007, ahead of the next phase of the Energy Efficiency Commitment that is to begin in 2008.

We have an appropriate vehicle in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 for prescribing and reviewing energy efficiency targets. The Government remain committed to energy efficiency as the most cost-effective way to meet our Energy White Paper goals and we are determined to make steady progress towards the kind of sustained savings that have been discussed.

Savings of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon represent a very significant increase in activity from current levels, and achieving those savings will require a demanding increase in activity for the energy efficiency industry. It is also important to note that the reduction in carbon savings from the household sector, compared with the White Paper estimate—which I think is what was meant by "reneging"—will be more than compensated for by an increase in projected savings from the business and public sectors. We estimate that the measures set out in the action plan will achieve carbon savings of around 12 million tonnes per year by 2010 across all sectors. That is 20 per cent greater than the original White Paper figure of 10 million tonnes and will save households and businesses more than £3 billion a year on their energy bills by 2010. If that is called "reneging" on our commitments, I am a Dutchman. I say in genuine mitigation that we have a very good tale to tell on this. A degree of inconsistency has been shown and I certainly hope that the amendment will not be pursued.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I was the person to use the word "reneging", but I do not propose to say any more. It was no more fair of me to accuse the Government of `reneging" on something than it was for the Minister earlier to try to pin various things about home improvement packs on the Opposition. We are quits.

I hear what the Minister has said. It is clear that the Government are making some efforts, and I recall quoting all those carbon emissions targets in my speech on Report. The noble Lord did not go through them all as I did and I would not dare to go through them again because I do not remember them all. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

7,13 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Addington, L. Howe, E.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Howe of Aberavon, L.
Attlee, E. Howe of Idlicote, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Inglewood, L.
Best, L. Jacobs, L.
Blatch, B. Jenkin of Roding, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B. Jopling, L.
Bradshaw, L. Kimball, L.
Bridgeman, V. King of Bridgwater, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Laird, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Burnham, L. Liverpool, Bp.
Byford, B. Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Cameron of Dillington, L. Luke, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Lyell, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Chadlington, L. McNally, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Maddock, B.
Colwyn, L. Mar, C.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller] Mar and Kellie, E.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Masham of Ilton, B.
Dean of Harptree, L. Methuen, L.
Dholakia, L. Michie of Gallanach, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
D'Souza, B. Miller of Hendon, B.
Dundee, E. Montrose, D.
Dykes, L. Morris of Bolton, B.
Eden of Winton, L. Murphy, B.
Elles, B. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Neuberger, B.
Elton, L. Newby, L.
Falkland, V. Newton of Braintree, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Noakes, B.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Northbourne, L.
Fookes, B. Northover, B.
Fowler, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Freeman, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Garden, L. O'Cathain, B.
Garel-Jones, L. Onslow, E.
Glentoran, L. Palmer, L.
Goodhart, L. Park of Monmouth, B.
Greengross, B. Peel, E.
Hamwee, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Hanham, B. Platt of Writtle, B.
Hanningfield, L. Powell of Bayswater, L.
Henley, L. Prashar, B.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Rawlings, B.
Howard of Rising, L. Razzall, L.
Reay, L. Smith of Clifton, L.
Redesdale, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Rees, L. Steinberg, L.
Rennard, L. Swinfen, L.
Renton, L. Taverne, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L. Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Rogan, L. Tope, L.
Roper, L. Trumpington, B.
Rotherwick, L. Vinson, L.
St John of Fawsley, L. Waddington, L.
Sandberg, L. Wakeham, L.
Sanderson of Bowden, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Seccombe, B. Walmsley, B.
Selsdon, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B. Wilcox, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Williams of Crosby, B.
Skelmersdale, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Alli, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Kirkhill, L.
Bach, L. Layard, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Leitch, L.
Borrie, L. Levy, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Lipsey, L.
Burlison, L. Lockwood, B.
Campbell-Savours, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Chandos, V. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Clark of Windermere, L. McKenzie of Luton, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Maxton, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Mitchell, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B. Monson, L.
Crawley, B. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Morris of Aberavon, L.
Drayson, L. O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Dubs, L. Patel of Blackburn, L.
Elder, L. Pendry, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. Prosser, B.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Rooker, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor) Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Filkin, L. Sawyer, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Gale, B. Sewel, L.
Gavron, L. Simon, V.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Snape, L.
Goldsmith, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L. Thornton, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Tomlinson, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Triesman, L.
Grantchester, L. Truscott, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Tunnicliffe, L.
Harris of Haringey, L. Turnberg, L.
Harrison, L. Turner of Camden, B.
Hart of Chilton, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Haskel, L. Warner, L.
Haworth, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Hayman, B. Whitaker, B.
Henig, B. Whitty, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Hoyle, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

7.24 p.m.

Clause 213 [Additional power to give grants .for social housing]:

Lord Best moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 165, line 18, at end insert ", to include measures to ensure— (a) that tenants of homes built under subsection

(2)(d) are afforded the same protection as tenants of registered social landlords in respect of—

  1. (i) legal rights;
  2. (ii) terms and conditions of occupancy;
  3. (iii) rent levels;
  4. (iv) bankruptcy of landlord or managing agent;
  5. (v) recourse to the Independent Housing Ombudsman;

(b) that all recipients of grant under subsection (2) are subject to the same regulation in respect of—

  1. (i) disposal of land or property which has been the subject of grant;
  2. (ii) accountability for the use of grant;
  3. (iii) requirements to repay or recycle grant."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for detaining the House for one more important amendment to the Bill. Amendment No. 53 seeks to improve Clause 213, the clause which would end the requirement that has prevailed for 30 years that social housing grant—previously housing association grant—can be paid only to not-for-profit, registered, regulated housing associations.

The Government's worthy intention is to produce more and cheaper affordable housing for the same amount of public money. To achieve this, the Housing Corporation would be empowered to pay grants directly to house builders and developers. At present, house builders will obtain planning consent for any significant development only if they incorporate 25 per cent or more affordable housing. That usually means having a housing association as a partner because only the housing association has access to grant. This partnership approach is going well and has provided many thousands of affordable homes.

But because the housing associations will own, manage and maintain those properties in perpetuity, they negotiate fiercely with the house builders and developers about the standards, the quality of the fixtures and the integration of the rented homes among the housing for sale. Some noble Lords heard yesterday from a number of housing associations how intense and hard-nosed the negotiations for Section 106 deals with house builders have to be.

But, freed from the constraints of having a housing association partner, undoubtedly the house builders will be able to bid for lower levels of grant. Naturally they will want to maximise profits and possibly cut corners; they may want to cherry pick the easiest opportunities—for example, putting the social housing on the worst part of a site in a ghetto that can lead to well known social problems later on.

I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the right honourable Keith Hill, for his helpful notes on how the Government hope to resolve the obvious conflicts of interest which will arise from switching grant from not-for-profit bodies dedicated to social housing provision to house builders who have so far often resisted and opposed social housing provision in their developments.

The Government hope that a contract between the Housing Corporation and the house builder will do the trick and will hold good for decades to come, even if the house builder merges, is taken over or goes bankrupt. But how can the Housing Corporation substitute for a partner housing association's intensive negotiations and on-site contract supervision? Where will all the new corporation staff come from to handle these local negotiations in place of housing associations? In terms of the powers of inspection, regulation and intervention, the Housing Corporation would be operating with one hand tied behind its back when dealing with house builders, despite the much higher risks involved. Gone would be the powers currently held over housing associations, which even include the power to dismiss and replace board members.

In terms of ongoing housing management, the Government hope that the house builders will use registered social landlords to do the managing, even though they will not own the property. But this has serious flaws. The housing association will be picking up the pieces after the homes are built, with whatever deficiencies the development contains. The housing association will be working with less grant aid for these homes than for their own and will have to levy 17.5 per cent VAT, reducing the amount from rents available for good services.

Moreover, and most significantly, if the housing association does not own the homes it will get no part of the long-term increase in property values. Tragically, the plan is that capital gains, which have to date been recycled 100 per cent for social purposes, will be split between the Exchequer and the house builder. The expectation of those future gains for house builders will also allow them to bid for less grant at the beginning, artificially undercutting the housing association's bids on day one.

What does the Treasury gain from Clause 213? A 10 per cent or 15 per cent cut, perhaps, in the level of social housing grant. But the Audit Commission has pointed out that the initial cost of a property for rent, when viewed over its life-cycle—with the constant spending on repairs, management, maintenance and improvements—represents only about 20 per cent of the total cost of provision. So savings of 10 per cent on the initial grant will save only, perhaps, 2 per cent over the longer term—and even that 2 per cent is only a saving at all if the standards are as high as under the present arrangements. Yet, in return for that small saving, there will be the losses to tenants and taxpayers of half or two-thirds of the growth in property values.

It is these capital gains that have fuelled the excellent work on community, environmental, social and welfare activities of housing associations in recent years, as exemplified by the report, Social Capital, published last week by London's 15 largest housing associations. If, in the Housing Act 1974, the Government had chosen house-builders, not housing associations, to receive the grants and to provide the social housing, all this good work would not be possible now. Thank God the housing Ministers of the past locked in all those future benefits for today's communities and residents.

If this radical and risky change is to proceed, I believe that exactly the same protections and constraints that have applied to date for housing associations, as Amendment No. 53 requires, should be demanded of the house-builders and developers. Otherwise I fear the short-term savings from some cheaper social housing today will prove illusory and, as with the efforts to accelerate the building of social housing back in the 1960s and 1970s, will end in tears. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Hanham

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best. We have had the most profound anxieties about this part of the Bill ever since we first saw it. As the noble Lord said, it is inexplicable why the Government would want to create another mechanism to ensure that social housing is provided and goes to the right people at all the standards to which the noble Lord referred. We have not even touched on the management of such accommodation.

I can only assume that this is tied up with the Deputy Prime Minister's wish to see hundreds of thousands of houses plonked all over the place, containing affordable housing, and a concern that the Housing Corporation and housing associations may not be able to cope. However, the housing associations have demonstrated that they can manage this and perfectly proper partnerships have been developed between private developers and housing associations for some time. That is a perfectly sensible way forward.

I simply do not understand the Government's insistence and requirement for this provision. I therefore support very heartily the noble Lord's amendment.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

My Lords, I believe that this is one of the most important amendments that has been tabled to the Bill. Without it, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, developers will be able to cherry pick and the Government can wave goodbye to any affordable housing in smaller rural settlements which, at a previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, defended so staunchly, because economies of scale simply will not encourage them. Any savings the Government think they might make will melt away as local councils have to pick up vast amounts of management costs from developments which developers have built and then walked away from.

The amendment proposes very modest safeguards to an otherwise very dangerous path.

Baroness Maddock

My Lords, I have supported the noble Lord. Lord Best, in his concerns in this area. He has put the case extremely well at every stage.

There are one or two things about which I have real concerns. The noble Lord talked about capturing equity. The reason that housing associations have managed to do so well in the past is because they recycle their money. Quite frankly, the note that we received from Keith Hill gives me no confidence at all. The Housing Corporation is therefore looking at ways of recovering a proper share of equity growth. Clearly, it has not worked out how to do it.

We have had no proof from the Government about whether this will actually provide better value for money. Yesterday, people in the housing association sector told us of a pilot experiment some years ago by a developer who was involved in the Housing Corporation and thought that this was the answer. After he did it and looked hack, it was found not to have worked, and he was extremely disappointed. I think that the Government should consider that.

I do not understand how the rent regime will work. The Government control the rents of registered social landlords and local authorities. Are they really saying that they will control the rents of these private developers? How will that work? I really cannot see it. The Government have not thought this out, and we will be in the same sort of mess as when we were desperately trying to build houses in the 1960s and 1970s. I beg the Government not to fall into that trap again.

The Lord Bishop of Liverpool

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I believe that the best housing associations have contributed significantly to social capital in our communities. The best housing associations have enabled local people to take a lead in the regeneration of their own neighbourhood. The Prime Minister has spoken very clearly about the importance of local leadership in neighbourhood community renewal. I believe that any move to circumvent the housing associations when it comes to playing their fullest part in the regeneration of local communities should be resisted. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I want to be brief, and I shall be. It is not a question of wanting to be brief and then taking a long time.

I refer noble Lords to the letter sent a few days ago by the Minister, Keith Hill, on this matter. It is a very long and detailed letter relating to Clauses 213 and 214, following the debate at Report. I certainly take second place to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in championing the housing association movement, but not to anybody else. I want to make that absolutely clear.

I shall not repeat everything in the letter. I have a long speaking note that I could use but, to be honest, I think your Lordships want to come to a decision on this.

My central point is that the amendment is unnecessary. It is not that I disagree with it, but it is unnecessary. It would restrict the Housing Corporation's flexibility to shape a competition that will curtail the non-registered social landlords in how they operate and make sure that we corral them. I am not in favour of restricting the Housing Corporation's flexibility in that way. I realise that it has not Clone this before.

The issues in the amendment are precisely those that need to be dealt with. They are all very important—I am not arguing about that. The longstop power of the Secretary of State to impose conditions will, of course, be available to use where the grant conditions are not protecting tenants' interests and public funds sufficiently. As Keith Hill said, we are determined to get value for money.

I accept the noble Lord's point that we will need to treat receipts differently. It goes without saying that we cannot require non-registered social landlords to recycle and invest their receipts as we can do with registered social landlords. The Housing Corporation will have to find alternative methods of protecting its claim on the proceeds to maximise the social benefit. I am not saying that they will not come back anywhere but they will have to come back by a different route.

This measure does not mean the end of investment in registered social landlords, as some people have said. The bids will he assessed for value for money and the risks to delivery. I think that I said in Committee, when the noble Lord put down his first amendments, that we were imposing so many rules and regulations—I shall not say restrictions—on non-registered social landlords that it made you wonder why anybody would bother to get involved. There will be conditions imposed by the Housing Corporation. However, we want to test whether innovation and change in another way of providing what is a small part of the sector can give us any material advantages. That is why the clauses are in the Bill.

The amendment is unnecessary because those points will be covered by the rules that the Housing Corporation will set for the bids to be assessed.

Lord Best

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support I have had from different parts of the House and also for the Minister's rather sympathetic response. However, if I may, I shall now test the view of the House.

7.39 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 5
CONTENTS
Addington, L. McNally, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Maddock, B.
Attlee, E. Mar, C.
Barker, B. Mar and Kellie, E.
Best, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B. Methuen, L.
Bradshaw, L. Michie of Gallanach, B.
Bridgeman, V. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Burnham, L. Morris of Bolton, B.
Cameron of Dillington, L. Murphy, B.
Carlile of Berriew, L. Neuberger, B.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L. Newby, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Northbourne, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Northover, B.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Craigavon, V. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Prashar, B.
Dholakia, L. [Teller] Razzall, L.
Dykes, L. Rees, L.
Falkland, V. Rennard, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Renton, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Roberts of Llandudno, L. [Teller]
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Freyberg, L. Rogan, L.
Garden, L. Rotherwick, L.
Goodhart, L. Seccombe, B.
Greengross, B. Selsdon, L.
Hamwee, B. Sharp of Guildford, B.
Hanham, B. Sharples, B.
Hanningfield, L. Shutt of Greetland, L.
Howe, E. Smith of Clifton, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B. Steinberg, L.
Inglewood, L. Thomas of Gresford, L.
Jacobs, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Tope, L.
Jopling, L. Waddington, L.
Kimball, L. Wakeham, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Liverpool, Bp. Walmsley, B.
Livsey of Talgarth, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L. Williams of Crosby, B.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Alli, L. Crawley, B.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council) Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Drayson, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Dubs, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Elder, L.
Bach, L. Evans of Parkside, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Borrie, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Burlison, L. Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Campbell-Savours, L. Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Carter of Coles, L. Filkin, L.
Chandos, V. Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Clark of Windermere, L. Gale, B.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Clinton-Davis, L. Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L. Morris of Aberavon, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Patel, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Pendry, L.
Grantchester, L. Pitkeathley, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller] Prosser, B.
Harris of Haringey, L. Radice, L.
Harrison, L. Rooker, L.
Hart of Chilton, L. Rosser, L.
Haskel, L. Rowlands, L.
Haworth, L. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Hayman, B. Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Henig, B. Sawyer, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B. Scotland of Asthal, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. Sewel, L.
Hoyle, L. Simon, V.
Hughes of Woodside, L. Snape, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Stone of Blackheath, L.
Jones, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thornton, B.
King of West Bromwich, L. Tomlinson, L.
Kirkhill, L. Triesman, L.
Layard, L. Truscott, L.
Leitch, L. Tunnicliffe, L.
Lockwood, B. Turnberg, L.
McDonagh, B. Turner of Camden, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B. Warner, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L. Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
McKenzie of Luton, L. Whitaker, B.
Maxton, L. Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.50 p.m.

Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 54:

After Clause 215, insert the following new clause—