HL Deb 17 November 2004 vol 666 cc1554-66

1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "is" insert—

  1. "(a) registered, or
  2. (b)"

1A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting.

Lord Whitty

My 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. For the convenience of the House, I, and probably other speakers, will wish to address the other Motions with which it is grouped; that is, all the Motions on the Marshalled List apart from Amendments Nos. 46, 46A, 46B and 46C.

I think that we all know where we are. I have consistently told the House that it needs to take account of the strength of feeling in the other place and that that feeling would be exacerbated were this House not to move at least some distance into a compromise position.

We are now in the position where the Commons has rejected the suggestion from the Lords. As expected, the amendments which were sent to the Commons by your Lordships were not acceptable. By envisaging allowing deer hunting and hare coursing, broadening the scope of the utility test and proposing an unrealistic commencement provision, this House in effect has disregarded what were already clearly the Commons' expressed concerns.

Had this House adopted another course last week or if the package of measures proposed by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I do not know how far that would have changed the view but at least it would have gone further towards the Commons' position than the amendments that were moved yesterday in the Commons. In the event, they were not accepted.

It is clear that many Members of the other place see the failure here to engage properly last year, and the whole history of this proposal, as simply being an intransigent defence of deer hunting. In those circumstances, they have insisted once again on the Bill which is, in effect, a ban on fox hunting, deer hunting and other non-exempted forms of hunting.

However justifiable, we are now in a position where your Lordships have thrown out the baby with the bath water and we are in a directly confrontational situation. As I said in the gentlest possible terms the other night, we bear some responsibility for that situation.

The position now is that I can see no realistic prospect of the Commons agreeing to the batch of amendments tabled today. By proposing to return to them, and not moving at all from them, we are still on the path of confrontation. I suspect that those noble Lords who moved those amendments will not be swayed by my arguments, so I shall not prolong them.

One set of amendments does not entirely fall within that category; namely, those standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I regret that the other night when I excepted the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from my general less than complimentary remarks about other contributions at Third Reading and this Bill do now pass, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, had also made a constructive suggestion which, effectively, proposed an exemption for the uplands.

That, again, is tabled today. However, in the present circumstances, whatever the merits of the exemption might have been in different circumstances—I believe that it had some—propositions which exempt a significant amount of hunting from the general provisions of the Bill are not likely at this late stage to receive a great deal of support in the Commons.

Indeed, there are other problems with the noble Lord's amendments, which effectively give the Secretary of State fairly wide-ranging powers, which it would normally be the inclination of this House to reject, in terms of either increasing a large number of exemptions or of, effectively, moving to a registration system by the back door.

I do not think that that would be acceptable to the House even were we in a more rational negotiating position. The fact is that we are not in that position. Your Lordships now have to consider whether simply to throw back the Bill that the Commons has already rejected or whether, in effect, we accept the Commons' position. Behind all that is clearly the prospect of the Parliament Act being automatically triggered if we reject the Commons disagreements with the last position of this House.

I suggest that we do not insist on those amendments and that we agree with the Commons at this late stage in our proceedings.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu rose to move Amendment No. 1B, 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 1A, leave out "not".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1B. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2B to 44B and 47B to 54B standing in my name.

The purpose of all of those amendments is to insist on the compromise registration Bill, which this House voted for so overwhelmingly during the various earlier stages. In the case of those amendments, that is to be achieved in almost every case by seeking to omit the word "not" from the question, that this House do not insist on its Amendment".

I should briefly point out that Amendments Nos. 10C, 12C and 52C, because they involve financial provisions, on the advice of the Clerks, have minor changes that are tactically necessary in order to restore the Bill. They are therefore described as amendments in lieu.

I should also mention the technicality in relation to Amendment No. 45. That is a money amendment. I am told that there are no means by which the House can reinstate this provision after its rejection by the Commons. If, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, the Commons should agree to our Bill when it returns to them, I alert the Minister to the need for a consequential amendment to reinstate that clause.

As we know, the Commons voted to restore what has become known as the Banks Bill, although it is of course a government Bill that was introduced by a government Minister. I ask the House to consider whether it is right, even at this stage and given what the Minister has said, that this House should support a Bill which is rank bad. At no point during its passage through this House has the Minister even tried to say one word in defence of its provisions. That was the case at Second Reading and at every stage thereafter. Its foundations are naked prejudice and wilful ignorance. It is without rationality, without principle, and it runs counter to all the evidence gathered so painstakingly at the Government's own inquiries.

A Bill which allows terrier work to continue lawfully in order to protect a pheasant or a partridge but not to protect a lamb or a curlew, which allows the hunting of rats but not mice, rabbits but not hares; which destroys jobs, loses people their homes, divides communities and the nation, and does economic damage particularly in the most fragile rural economies—and does so without compensation; a Bill which has unquestionably adverse animal welfare implications, not only for the quarry species but also for the 20,000 hounds which will be redundant and, on the strong advice yesterday from the British Horse Society, a charitable organisation, countless horses as well, is a bad Bill for people and for animals. I cannot believe that Members in another place who celebrated so joyfully last night's vote have any inkling of the suffering and distress that what they have done will cause.

If the Minister is right, this Bill seems to be heading for the statute book. But it is a Bill that has never had detailed scrutiny either in this place or in the other place, either on the last occasion or on this one, and that lack of scrutiny shows. It is a Bill which also almost certainly does not comply with the Human Rights Act.

Last night it did not have the support of the leader of any one of the three main political parties. It does not have the support of Parliament as a whole. At Second Reading in this House it did not even have the support of a majority of Labour Peers. This is the worst sort of gesture politics. Worst of all, a Bill like this is bad for democracy because the criminalisation of a minority by an elected majority for no compelling reason is an abuse of democracy.

If this Bill becomes an Act by unjust means, I predict that it will come to grief, and perhaps do so much sooner than any of us currently envisages. It cannot and will not provide a lasting solution to this issue, but it can and will cause serious damage to the fabric of what remains of our country communities and our wildlife. Above all, it will do inestimable damage to the reputation of our Parliament.

This House should have nothing of it. This House should insist on returning a reasonable compromise, not lunacy. For that reason, I 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 numbered 1A, leave out "not".—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

7.30 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I rise to repeat a phrase that has been used more than once during these debates: everything that can be said has been said, but not by everyone. I believe that everything has been said by everyone. Few fresh arguments can be deployed, but I had intended to sit here and acquiesce in what I know is the will of the House of Lords and allow these amendments to pass. But when, in her speech, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu talked about naked prejudice, wilful ignorance and lunacy, I align myself with my colleagues in the other place who had the courage and the guts to stand by their convictions.

Over the past few weeks a great deal has been said in this Chamber about integrity, compassion and rightfulness. Those attributes do not belong to one side of the argument. They belong to people who share my view both here and in another place. I think it is deplorable that the arguments being deployed in favour of the continuation of hunting have had to rely on scurrilous language of the worst possible kind. In the main, it has come from that side of the Chamber over to this side.

My colleagues in the other place, who have been dreadfully maligned more than once, have had the courage of their convictions in the knowledge that what they have said they believe in will be tested more than any other issue in their constituencies at the next election. Therefore I take great offence at the manner in which individual Members of Parliament who stood their ground in 1997, in 2001 and remained firm against repeated pressure last night have been referred to. They are ordinary Members of Parliament.

I have been in Westminster for 30 years, for 10 years in the other House and for 20 years here. I have been in a minority more often than in a majority, simply because of the change in the complexion of governments. I say this to the House: it ill becomes this House, having a point of view which has been expressed and repeated, to go down the road of denigrating the wisdom, integrity and honesty of purpose of colleagues down the other end.

So far as I am concerned, I intend to vote against the proposition that we should send this Bill back to the other place. I shall explain why. It would be easy to accept the fact that any vote here will be overwhelmingly in favour of hunting, but I believe that my colleagues in the Commons and in the country at large need to know—not the size of that majority; they already know it—that there are still people in this House who, like me, are prepared to stand up and be counted.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I shall speak for a few minutes to the further amendments that I have tabled. The first concerns what will happen if the Bill we are considering goes on to the statute book in the form in which it left the Commons. If it does not work out, it seems to me that the Government may well be in a corner from which they cannot escape without primary legislation.

The Bill currently favoured by the other place is a general banning Bill, but not a universal banning Bill. There are exemptions that permit hunting with dogs, but they cannot be extended if circumstances turn out to demand it. My amendment provides for the Government to have that power through secondary legislation. It is specified that the power should he restricted to two years, so it is not a Trojan horse for a subsequent government to turn the whole piece of legislation on its head.

I have brought forward this matter because it emerges from points that I raised during the passage of the Bill, but given the current febrile political atmosphere—I am most grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks and for his guidance—I offer it to him now because I think that the Government may have drawn Schedule 1 too tightly to be able to deal satisfactorily with events as they might develop. While this is a free vote, the Government will be responsible for what flows from it.

I have also tabled an amendment about fell hunting, about which I have spoken at length. The amendment once again draws a distinction between cases where hunting is the only responsible way of managing foxes and those others where it may be merely the best or most desirable way. Despite disagreements over the detail, no one has objected to the general thrust of my argument, and no one here has produced any alternative that deals properly with the problems faced by the uplands.

Those communities and the people who live in them are small minorities in this country who have the misfortune now to find that they themselves and their proper, legitimate way of life and business, which are so very much admired, respected and supported right across the country, are caught up in a much wider political wrangle in which they really have no part. Of course, like many innocent victims of war, it looks as though they are about to be splattered all over the floor. That is wrong; it is as simple as that.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth

My Lords, I support the principle of registration, which is what Amendment No. 1B is all about. It is difficult to comprehend Commons Reason No. 1A, which states: Because it is undesirable to permit registered hunting". Why is that? Surely the crux of the debate is a ban versus registered hunting—rules or a ban—a compromise which the majority in the Commons refused to accept.

Surely it is in the interests of pest control and the protection of livestock and wildlife that registered hunting produces the most sustainable solution for foxes, livestock and wildlife; it produces and maintains a balance in the countryside. A ban will result in a decimation of the fox population through shooting. My local hunt, the Brecon and Talybont, killed four foxes in the past month. I know of two young farmers who went out on two consecutive nights and shot four foxes. It is likely that foxes will be decimated without hunting.

I agree with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, with regard to exempt hunting, especially hunting on foot in the uplands. They are a big improvement on the amendments tabled on Report. The way ahead must be registered hunting.

Lord Hoyle

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Graham, I feel deeply offended that people in the other place should be accused of an act of lunacy. It is the wrong word to use if we are seeking any kind of compromise.

I do not want to go into the merits of the issue. I simply want to point out that a small minority—however vociferous—cannot claim to speak for the whole of the countryside. It is wrong to suggest that; it is also untrue.

As to pest control, the facts remain the same. Only 6 per cent of foxes are killed by hunts, so what happens to the other 94 per cent?

I do not wish to speak any more about hunting but about the constitution and the grave consequences that could follow an unelected House challenging an elected House. The way in which we have behaved over the Hunting Bill will bring about the reform of this House sooner rather than later.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I hesitate because I have not taken part in any of the debates, although I have read them. My link to this subject is principally that the matter began with a Private Member's Bill proposed by the honourable Member for Worcester.

I wish to make two points. In a matter that is regarded by both sides of the debate as one of conscience, compromise is extremely difficult to achieve. It has been a feature of the debates in this House that those who favour the position adopted by the other place on the issue have needed a great deal of courage to say so.

It has been said repeatedly in the debates—by both sides—that the other side is intransigent. Let me explain my understanding of compromise to those who believe that the Bill as passed by this House is a compromise: it needs two things. First, it needs face-to-face encounters. Compromise does not reside in texts but in conversation. That is the only way to achieve it.

That brings me to my second point. In the steep learning curve that I have experienced since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, the absence of any structure which, in the context of a free vote in the other place, could avail us of the opportunity for any negotiation to take place has been incredibly noticeable. I do not believe that negotiation and conversation are ever completely impossible, but I have not been able to avoid noticing that there are no structures for conversation, as I understand it, between the two Houses if the Bill is not a government Bill. It is not clear to whom one should talk.

Whatever may be the outcome of this vote and the vote in the other place and whatever may proceed to the statute book, I hope—as a rather ignorant person when it comes to procedures—that a structure of communication between the two Houses will be invented which does not consist of messages but which, in the context of free vote majorities in the other place, enables conversation to take place. I cannot believe that we would not be a good deal further forward by now if such structures existed and the spirit was there, on both sides of the argument, to achieve some kind of agreement.

7.45 p.m.

Lord Jopling

My Lords, I speak more in sorrow than in anger because this is the last chance for your Lordships to decide whether to insist on everything which is being practised today in the business of hunting with dogs. Do we want it all to go, or are we going to try to identify something that can be saved from this wholly bigoted Bill?

I am much distressed to find that a Whip has been passed round a number of my noble friends urging them to vote against the amendment that my noble friend Lord Inglewood has brought to our attention yet again. That advice to vote against my noble friend's amendment is mean, narrow and dog in a manger-ish. As he said, we have heard no criticisms during the progress of the Bill of the need to control foxes in the upland areas in the interests of agriculture by exempting the fell packs.

The Commons have never yet during the past two years had a chance to deal with this kind of amendment. It has been said that the Fell Packs Association does not want its members left as the only ones to continue hunting. I am not sure who they are. I represented lakeland fells in another place for 33 years. I did not practise hunting there, but I fully supported it—it is almost a religion—in order to control foxes in those areas. I cannot recall the Fell Packs Association contacting me over the past 40 years, and certainly not over the past few weeks.

I believe that it has been conned—I use the word advisedly—into a false unity with every other kind of hunting. It has been conned into taking the view that, if we cannot have hare coursing and we cannot have deer hunting, we cannot have fell hunting either. But it is the only form of hunting that is crucial to the economic livelihood of those upland areas.

I hope that the people of the Fell Packs Association know what they are doing. I know the people who follow them—as I say, I represented them for 33 years—and their fury will be enormous when they hear that the Fell Packs Association has been a party to trying to persuade those of us who believe that this is a totally bigoted Bill not to try to save the fell pack activities.

I have experience of what can be done with a Whip. If it states that we should vote against my noble friend's amendment, the chances of the amendment being agreed are very slight. But at least let us leave it on the table in the hope that somebody in another place may pick it up and run with it.

Lord Campbell-Savours

My Lords, I intervene only because I want to try to explain to the House why I believe that it has engaged itself in a huge misunderstanding of what is happening in the House of Commons over the Hunting Bill.

Many Members of this House are simply unaware of the fact that at the time of a general election, Members of Parliament—indeed, all candidates at times of general elections—receive from their constituents requests for answers to simple questions on public policy. I have fought six general elections and, in all but the first, I received correspondence from the anti-hunting lobby asking me precisely where I stood in the event of a Division in the House of Commons.

Most Labour Members of Parliament gave, at the last general election, or in correspondence since the last general election, clear undertakings to their constituents that, in the event that a Bill came before Parliament to ban hunting, they would vote for it. That is not a negotiable position. I say to the right reverend Prelate that, while I agree with his view that there is a need for a process of dialogue between the two Houses and a process for negotiation, in this case there was very little room. Undertakings had been given, and I know for a fact—many of these people are my friends—that they were not going to break those undertakings.

Therefore, when, two weeks ago, I moved my amendment in Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, moved his on Report—amendments that would have dealt with the problems that existed in the national parks and upland areas—we did so in the knowledge that there would be no movement at that end and that any amendment that was likely to be treated reasonably or considered properly in the other place had to be based on a Bill that would ban hunting. We started off with that proposition. I say to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that it was inevitable that whatever amendments went before the House of Commons, it had to be borne in mind that hunting was going to be banned.

To my knowledge, there have been only three amendments during the proceedings on the Bill that have dealt with that as the central proposition which they sought to amend. I refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sewel in Committee, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and my own. They were the only three amendments that could be debated reasonably in the House of Commons and considered in the context of a ban on hunting. What happened to those three amendments? One was defeated, and other two could not be pressed to a vote because we did not believe that the House of Lords was prepared to consider them reasonably due to this preoccupation and obsession with driving through an amendment to return to registration and licensing that was never going to command a majority in the House of Commons.

We have that amendment before us again. It is Amendment No. 1F. There are noble Lords in the House who, I know, are in favour of hunting but are prepared to compromise. I appeal to them to vote for the amendment, because at least, at this last stage, we may have an opportunity of seeking some consideration of these matters in the House of Commons. It is probably too late, but let us try.

To my noble friends on this side who have historically voted against hunting, I say that Amendment No. 1F is the only one which stands any chance. I appeal to them to vote for it this evening.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. We have been through this debate before; I should just like to put a couple of matters in context.

I hope that the House still feels resolved to take the stance it took with a big majority earlier in the Bill's passage. The noble Lords, Lord Hoyle and Lord Graham, said that Members at the other end—the elected end—have felt bullied. I assure noble Lords that some of us in this House have also felt very bullied by the stance taken by those at the elected end, who said, "Whatever you do, we will override you". That is no way to try and get dialogue and compromise.

We were told that we did not address the Bill, that last time we threw it out. In fact, enough time was not given. We have been through that argument, but it should be put on the record. Alun Michael referred to it the last time, saying that if the House of Lords had sent back an amended Bill, there could have been a debate between the two Houses. There was no chance of that—the Government did not give us scheduled time. It was impossible.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that we completed the Committee stage of the Bill this year in just 46 minutes more than was allocated to it last year, when noble Lords talked at such length that we got only as far as Clause 5?

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. He may want to refer to minutes, but in fact, we took three days. At the end of the time allocated to the Bill, there was another whole section to be debated and several of my amendments to be moved.

Lord Jopling

My Lords, let us put this in perspective. The amount of time that this House was promised last year, if it had been taken up, came to less than half the time that another place took in considering the Bill. So let us have no more of this stuff about this House having talked the Bill out or rejected it. What we were given for debate was less than half the time the others took.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend.

Yesterday, Alun Michael said: it is not this place"— by that he meant the Commons— that will insist on using the Parliament Act should that become necessary to resolve this issue, it will be the House of Lords that has provoked the application of that measure".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/04. col. 1291.] I find that very unsatisfactory, and I wish to place that on the record tonight.

We have been bullied by the other end. They have not really wanted our compromise; all they wanted was a ban. That should be on the record. I support the noble Baroness's amendment.

Baroness Mallalieu

My Lords, I sense that these are arguments that we have had many times before and that the House is anxious to get to a vote tonight. I hope that, having heard all that has been said, noble Lords will follow me into the Content Lobby.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, it may be helpful to inform the House that, if Amendment No. 1B in the name of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 1C and lE cannot be called. I apologise for intervening at an inappropriate time, but that is important for the House to know.

7.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 188; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 3
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Feldman, L.
Ampthill, L. Ferrers, E.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Arran, E. Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Astor, V. Freeman, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Geddes, L.
Attlee, E. Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.
Baker of Dorking, L. Glenarthur, L.
Baldwin of Bewdley, E Glentoran, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Golding, B.
Bell, L. Goodhart, L.
Best, L. Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Blatch, B.
Bledisloe, V. Goschen, V.
Borrie, L. Greenway, L.
Bowness, L. Grenfell, L.
Bragg, L. Hanham, B.
Bramall, L. Harris of Peckham, L.
Brennan, L. Henley, L.
Bridgeman, V. Heseltine, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L. Higgins, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Hogg, B.
Burnham, L. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Buscombe, B. Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Byford, B. Home, E.
Caithness, E.
Cameron of Dillington, L. Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L. Howe of Idlicote, B.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Howie of Troon, L.
Chadlington, L. Hunt of Wirral, L.
Chester, Bp.
Chorley, L. Inglewood, L.
Colville of Culross, V. James of Holland Park, B.
Colwyn, L. Jopling, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Kalms, L.
Courtown, E. Kimball, L.
Cox, B. King of Bridgwater, L.
Craig of Radley, L. Kingsland, L.
Crathorne, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Crawford and Balcarres, E. Liverpool, E.
Cuckney, L. Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Cumberlege, B. Luke, L.
Dahrendorf, L. Lyell, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. McAlpine of West Green, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Donoughue, L.
D'Souza, B. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B. Mallalieu, B. [Teller]
Eden of Winton, L. Mancroft, L. [Teller]
Elis-Thomas, L. Mar, C.
Elles, B. Masham of Ilton, B.
Elton, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Erroll, E. Miller of Hendon, B.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Monro of Langholm, L.
Falkland, V. Monson, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Montrose, D.
Moore of Lower Marsh, L. Rotherwick, L.
Moran, L. Ryder of Wensum, L.
Morris of Bolton, B. St John of Fawsley, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L. Sandwich, E.
Neill of Bladen, L. Seccombe, B.
Neuberger, B. Selborne, E.
Newton of Braintree, L. Selsdon, L.
Noakes, B. Sharman, L.
Norfolk, D. Sharples, B.
Northbourne, L. Shaw of Northstead, L.
Northbrook, L. Simon, V.
Northesk, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Norton of Louth, L. Slim, V.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. Southwell, Bp.
Onslow, E. Steel of Aikwood, L.
Palmer, L. Stevens of Ludgate, L.
Palumbo, L. Stewartby, L.
Park of Monmouth, B. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Patten, L. Strabolgi, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L. Strathclyde, L.
Peel, E. Taverne, L.
Peterborough, Bp. Thatcher, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Plumb, L. Tordoff, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. Tugendhat, L.
Prys-Davies, L. Vinson, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L. Waddington, L.
Reay, L. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Redesdale, L. Wakeham, L.
Rees, L. Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Renton, L. Warnock, B.
Renton of Mount Harry, L. Wilcox, B.
Richard, L. Wilkins, B.
Roberts of Conwy, L. Williamson of Horton, L.
Rooker, L. Willoughby de Broke, L.
Roper, L. Windlesham, L.
Andrews, B. Greengross, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L. Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Avebury, L. Grocott, L.
Bach, L. Hamwee, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Harris of Haringey, L.
Brett, L. Harris of Richmond, B.
Brookman, L. Harrison, L.
Burlison, L. Haskel, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Haworth, L.
Carter of Coles, L. Henig, B.
Chandos, V. Hoyle, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Jones, L.
Craigavon, V. Judd, L.
Crawley, B. Laird, L.
David, B. Leitch, L.
Davies of Coity, L. Lockwood, B.
Davies of Oldham, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Dixon, L. McKenzie of Luton, L.
Dubs, L. McNally, L.
Elder, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Evans of Parkside, L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Maxton, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller] Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Fookes, B. Northover, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. Pendry, L.
Gale, B. Prosser, B.
Garden, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Rennard, L.
Gilbert, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Goudie, B. Rosser, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller] Sawyer, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Greaves, L. Snape, L.
Thornton, B. Warner, L.
Tomlinson, L. Whitty, L.
Triesman, L. Worcester, Bp.
Tunnicliffe, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.
Wall of New Barnet, B. Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

8.9 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 1C and 1E not moved.]

Motion, as amended, agreed to.