HL Deb 10 March 2005 vol 670 cc880-903

27 Clause 1 1, page 12, line 44, leave out subsections (2) to (6)

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

27A Because adequate provision is already made for the review of the operation of the Act.

31 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

"Review of Act

  1. (1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee to conduct a review of the operation of this Act.
  2. (2) A person may be a member of the committee only if he is a member of the Privy Council.
  3. (3) There shall be five members of the committee of whom one each will be nominated by—
    1. (a) the Prime Minister;
    2. (b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons;
    3. (c) the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Commons;
    4. (d) the Convenor of the Crossbench peers in the House of Lords;
    5. (e) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
  4. (4) The Secretary of State may not refuse any nomination made under subsection (3).
    5. 881
  5. (5) The committee shall complete a review and send a report to the Secretary of State—
    1. (a) not earlier than the end of four months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; and
    2. (b) not later than the end of eight months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
  6. (6) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.
  7. (7) The Secretary of State may make payments to persons appointed as members of the committee."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

31A Because adequate provision is already made for the review of the operation of the Act.

32 Insert the following new Clause—

"Effect of report

  1. (1) A report under section (Review of Act) must consider the operation and effectiveness of the Act as a whole and any issues arising from the operation of individual control orders, and may make such recommendations as the committee sees fit including recommendations for future legislation.
  2. (2) Any recommendation made under subsection (1) shall not affect the operation of section (Limitation)."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

32A Because adequate provision is already made for the review of the operation of the Act.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I beg to move Motion C, that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 27A, 31A and 32A. I shall speak also to Lords Amendment No. 33, which will be decided on under Motion D. I will endeavour to speak slowly and clearly, just in case my command of English is insufficient to enable your Lordships to understand what I say.

Since we last discussed this matter, matters have moved on. As I said, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State must report to Parliament at quarterly intervals on the exercise of the control order powers. That provides Parliament with an opportunity to review the way in which the provisions are working. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to appoint a person to carry out reviews of the operation of Clauses 1 to 6—on the making, operation and duration of control orders—on an annual basis.

The Secretary of State would be obliged to lay the reports produced by these reviews before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable. The Secretary of State has further undertaken that he will ask the reviewer in carrying out his duties to take into account other counter-terrorism legislation and its relationship to control orders. The reason that is important is that we reasonably anticipate that there will be in a very short time further legislation that will come before both Houses so that we can better consider the whole issue of acts preparatory to terrorism. That is a matter which we have debated to some great extent in this House, particularly over the past few days. It will be important for the reviewer to assess and analyse the juxtaposition of this Act with any new legislation that falls within the same ambit of consideration.

In addition, we have now provided for an annual renewal of the powers so that both Houses will have an opportunity to reconsider and debate the legislation. Further, there will continue to be the existing committees—Home Affairs and Human Rights—with a locus in this area, which can review the legislation. Speaking practically for a moment, we will have our opportunity to consider at a little more leisure than we have now what we need to put into place in order to make sure that the full ambit of the new nature of terrorism is dealt with in a way that better addresses some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Lords opposite who were members of the committee. That is a very important opportunity.

In many cases where there is an annual review it is against a backdrop of there not being another legislative vehicle. One of the reasons that there is quite often a difficulty about annual reviews where both Houses have an opportunity to use the review forcefully is that there is nothing in place of that legislation. If you get rid of the Bill and there is nothing in its place the House may feel obliged to continue the legislation. In this instance we have a realistic opportunity for such another vehicle to come along. So if we have the annual review the House can consider whether the provisions in place are necessary, whether the new legislation is finished and whether the annual review is justified and can be renewed. It is important that we see the provision for the review in that light. We will talk more deeply about the way in which the annual review will work when I come to the next section.

I invite your Lordships to look carefully at the role that we have given the reviewer who will look at how this legislation interacts with any new legislation that we may have passed or be in the process of passing at the time he or she makes their report. There are ample review mechanisms in place and an opportunity for Parliament to consider the results. These provisions provide the appropriate means to keep the legislation under regular and proper scrutiny in the way that both Houses indicated is merited. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 27A, 31A and 32A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Kingsland

moved, as an amendment to Motion C, Amendment Cl:

Leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 27, 31 and 32".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this Motion I shall also speak to Motion D. As your Lordships are aware, we regard the substance of Motion C and Motion D as being intimately linked.

Motion C deals with the role that the Privy Council committee would play preparatory to the sunset clause biting. It is vital when we reconsider the Bill at the end of its life that proper preparation has been made for the new measure. Since the main purpose of the Bill is to deal with matters connected with security and evidence which derive from security sources, it is wholly appropriate that the committee charged with this responsibility should be composed of Privy Counsellors.

It is equally true that, without the sunset clause dealt with under Motion D, it would be extremely difficult for this committee of Privy Counsellors to be taken seriously. We have evidence about that from the experience of the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree. That committee spent a great deal of time investigating the issues that are currently before your Lordships' House under this Bill, yet its recommendations were wholly ignored. That would not be the case if there were a sunset clause.

As far as the Motion is concerned—the sunset clause—we have already had several long debates on this matter. There are two issues. First, should there be a sunset clause? Secondly, if there is, when should it bite?

Our view on the first issue is that this situation unquestionably requires a sunset clause provision. The Bill suspends the fundamental rights of the citizen of this country. It should he reconsidered by Parliament on a regular basis until we no longer need it. That complies with the most vital principles of our constitutional history. I hope that none of your Lordships would feel, in any way, that that principle ought to be questioned.

The second issue is when the sunset clause should come into operation. Our amendment gives the appropriate date as next. November. I gave the reasons for this in the course of the Committee and Report debates. The Bill has been looked at at such speed, and scrutinised so inadequately, that as soon as it can be replaced by a better version the better. In our view, November gives adequate time for the Government to consider these matters.

There is a particular issue here to which I trust the Government will give special attention—that is, the issue of devising a new offence for those who are in the process of preparing to commit a terrorist offence. It is vital that we get such an offence on the statute book as quickly as possible so that in future those who would largely be covered by control orders over the next six months are thereafter dealt with by the criminal law under a proper prosecutorial process ending up with the final decision taken by the jury. We want that measure on the statute book, I repeat, as quickly as possible. I see no reason why that cannot be achieved by November.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has also tabled a sunset clause; and we are delighted that she has been prepared to accept the principle that we regard as so important. For the reasons that she gave at Report, the noble Baroness feels that the November deadline is too tight. She would prefer a deadline of 30 March 2006. The noble Baroness will no doubt have the opportunity to talk to her amendment in the course of this debate and I look forward with interest to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to Motion C, Amendment Cl, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do not insist on its Amendments 27, 31 and 32".—(Lord Kingsland.)

1 p.m.

Lord Carlile of Berriew

My Lords, it may assist the House if I say a few words about the process of review. As the person who has had the responsibility of conducting the reviews of the detentions under the 2001 Act, I do not wish to speak about the uncertain consequences of my reviews, which have been brought home to me in recent days. I have had the experience of hearing my reviews cited in support of entirely opposite arguments on the same issue within minutes of one another, even on the much referred to "Today" programme. I shall reflect on the consequences of reviews that bring about that result.

I want to say something that I regard as important about the process of the type of review that I have been conducting, which would be removed if the Lords amendments, rejected by the Commons, were reinstated. The effect of one of those amendments would be to remove the role of a reviewer from the procedures. It may therefore be of assistance to the House if I explain very briefly some of the things that the reviewer has to do, which I do not believe can be carried out effectively by a committee—even, dare I say, a committee of Privy Counsellors.

That is not to say that I am venturing a judgment on the issue of whether there should be a committee of Privy Counsellors. The last committee of Privy Counsellors chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is sitting next to me, was very effective and it is not for me—indeed, it would be inappropriate for me—to give an opinion about whether there should be a committee of Privy Counsellors.

If control orders are to be introduced, even if they were only non-derogating control orders, they would have an effect on the lives of the controlees. There would be certain things that they would be able to do, certain things they would be completely unable to do and many things that they would be able to do only under the circumstances controlled by the court orders. In dealing with the detainees, I have done some of the following things that I do not believe could be done by a committee. I have sat with the detainees, having private conversations, at length, alone. I have taken steps to improve the dental care of detainees. I was involved in an interesting incident that arose from the description on a Belmarsh menu of one of the lunch options as "halal pork chop". I was told later in a letter from the Prison Service that that was a piece of inadvertence by a member of the staff—you can say that again.

I have been involved in looking at the prayer arrangements that are made, which could be a very significant issue for people who are the subject of control orders. I have been involved in issues concerning visits by families and the interpretation offered at those visits. I have been involved in issues concerning the visit of members of a detainee's family from abroad. I could cite a host of such issues which have been referred to only in the most general terms in my report.

What I really want to say is this: if there is to be no reviewer carrying out the kind of reviews that I have been conducting under this legislation, something potentially of significance and importance to the controlees will be lost. That would be detrimental. It would diminish the opportunity of people whose liberty is constrained to an extent by control orders, to enjoy to the maximum the civil rights that remain available to them. If there is to be any change in the draft legislation in relation to the reviews, it should not remove the position of the reviewer. In my view, the role that I have carried out—I am not making a personal point because I very much do not want to do that—on the 2001 Act and indeed the role that I and my predecessors have carried out—and there have been several much more distinguished predecessors than me—under the Terrorism Act 2000 and its predecessors have been of considerable value.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I voted with the Government in the previous Division in this House not because I was wholly tranquil or serene—in the words of the prayer—with the arrangements that we have finally come to about judicial control of control orders, burden of proof or any of those other matters. I did so because I believe that we are at the stage in our deliberations when we have to stand back and we have a responsibility seriously to focus on that with which we cannot hold. We must try to understand that other people have other issues about which they feel equally strongly.

In order to reconcile those points of view, I have come to the conclusion that we ought to stop arguing now about the specific details of parts of the Bill. There are two reasons for that. One is that we have improved the Bill considerably from its original drafting. The other is because I believe that it is better than Part 4 of the 2001 Act. That is fundamentally important to me.

I believe that control orders in some form are a necessary evil and that we are legislating to make them as palatable as possible. However, I do not believe that what we have done is incapable of improvement. The process by which we have done it has not been satisfactory in this House and, in another place, as we all recognise, it has been unacceptable in many ways. Therefore, my sticking-point is that we have the opportunity for a comprehensive reassessment of what we have done so far and to have proper legislation in a proper parliamentary process. That takes us to a sunset clause.

The reason that I tabled my amendment and do not wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is that frankly I do not believe that the timetable that he suggests is sensible or practical. I believe that my noble friend is right. Finding consensus on a new offence of "acts preparatory to terrorism" will be a complex and difficult issue that will require time and pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe that we will need a little experience of this legislation to be able sensibly to return to it and see in what areas it needs change, amendment and tweaking.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, would my noble friend also agree that, for much of the period until 30 November the House is in recess? This is not a job only for civil servants. It is a job for Members of Parliament; Members of this House. Am I right about that?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is also a job for other people as well. We have had very little opportunity to hear what interests people outside this House in terms of this Bill. We have not had the normal process where those with interest and expertise consult their own memberships, look at their own views, and put those forward to us. I want to see that before we next look at the legislation.

For the reasons that my noble friend has adumbrated, among others, November is not a sensible date, and nor would much longer than a year be acceptable, given that we all know we are dealing with imperfect legislation. I want a comprehensive review within a year's time. My noble friend, in her introduction, said that we can have that, but that the Government are giving it to us by different means; by an annual renewal order after a review. She explained clearly why; because there would be another legislative vehicle, there would be more opportunity than normal in a renewal order to have a proper look at this.

I am not yet convinced that that is true, not because I question the goodwill at all, but for two reasons. First, we have experience of renewal orders on Part 4 of the 2001 Act, on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act, and in all sorts of circumstances. It is easy for renewal to become a ritual rather than a proper review. Secondly, it is also very difficult. When you are simply looking at an order, you have no opportunity to amend, and you get to the situation where it is this legislation or nothing. We will have the same sorts of debate about how, if we do not have renewal, the security situation will be damaged. That is my fear of relying solely on renewal.

I understand that in another place yesterday and today my noble friends on the Front Bench are trying hard to make this "renewal plus"; to make it seem a better and more comprehensive procedure. Yet, for the very reason my noble friend put forward—that we will be having another legislative vehicle and these issues will inevitably be discussed as part of that—putting in the sunset clause seems less of a problem than it would normally be.

In recognising that we have not legislated perfectly—that we need to look at these provisions in more detail, not in the heat of a pre-general election campaign and not with a huge and artificial deadline before us—I hope that the Government will reconsider whether so much will in fact be lost from their proposal if they accept my amendment.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am struck by her amendment and the way she is putting it forward. However, will she not agree that the issue is not as simple as she has put it? Is there not a danger that we are all drifting into a situation in which we are accepting the historical and long-lasting inevitability of removing certain principles in our justice system when that is necessary? Is it not therefore vital for us to emphasise that it is essential to review this legislation, in the sense that it is incumbent on this House and the Government annually to prove that this legislation is necessary, rather than to prove that it is not necessary?

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, I do not think there is any incompatibility between what I am saying and what my noble friend says. I am being tougher than he is, and saying that we have only one review for this legislation because we only have one year of it. In the successor legislation, my noble friend may be exactly right. Because it will involve major issues of constitutional relevance, the House will want to consider what the review provisions are in that legislation. I am talking about this legislation now, and am afraid I believe it should be considered as a temporary measure.

1.15 p.m.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick

My Lords, I am glad again to follow the noble Baroness as I did a day or so ago, and again find myself in complete agreement with everything she has said. This House has a limited constitutional right to delay non-money Bills. It is said that the Bill before us could not be delayed because of the 14 March deadline, but I have never accepted that there was the urgency in this matter that others seem to have accepted. There is, so far as I know, no evidence that the danger today is any greater than it was in 2001—if anything, it is slightly less and, since then, this sort of legislation has not been applied to British citizens. The existing legislation has been adequate to protect us.

Let us suppose that there is the urgency which is suggested. If we cannot for that reason delay the Bill, surely we have a constitutional right to see that the Bill is considered again at the earliest opportunity. That is why, for all the reasons mentioned by the noble Baroness, I shall be voting for the sunset clause, whether for November, or for March as she suggests. It must be a sunset clause as a renewal of the Bill is not enough for all the reasons mentioned so often. It must come to an end at a defined date so that, before that date, we can have a chance to reconsider what the proper legislation is to put in its place.

On the question of what we could be doing until the sunset date, it seems apparent that the suggestion of a review by five Privy Counsellors is eminently sensible. However, I had not realised that the effect of the present situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has brought to our attention, is that if we have the five Privy Counsellors, we will not have him. I would be entirely against that. I had not realised that that was the effect, and am sure it is not the intended effect.

Clearly, the noble Lord must continue with the noble work he is already doing, but what he is doing is not enough for this purpose—that is no discredit to him because it is not what he is required to do. I am in favour of a review by the five Privy Counsellors, and do not see the difficulty—in entire agreement with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner—in that being done between now and November. What actually is the difficulty?

My last question is on the proposed new offence of preparing to commit an act of terrorism, which I am delighted to hear the Government now favours. I actually recommended this offence 10 years ago. Five years ago, I tried to get it into the Terrorism Act. 2000, but the Government resisted it. It is wonderful that even at this time they are at last converted to the idea, but again, why can we not have that before November, before the sunset date? It does not take that long to draft a new offence—we get one every three days anyway.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, we support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in proposing to set up the review by Privy Counsellors. It is a useful procedure. We support even more strongly the proposal for a sunset clause. It is not only useful but absolutely essential, for all the reasons proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

We believe that if we do not have a sunset clause, Parliament as a whole and in particular your Lordships' House will have no opportunity to reconsider this matter. If it is done simply by an annual review, an order to extend will be put before each House, which will of course be passed by the House of Commons with a government majority of whatever government may be in power at that time. Your Lordships have a long-standing convention that we do not reject, save in the most extreme circumstances, secondary legislation. The result would be that all that we would be able to do would be to pass a meaningless, non-fatal amendment to the Motion proposing the order.

To achieve an effective reconsideration, which is necessary because of the wholly exceptional speed with which this important Bill has been passed through your Lordships' House, it is absolutely necessary to have a sunset clause which will bring the Bill—or the Act, as it will then be—to a full stop, so that we will have to start over again with a fresh debate, with adequate time to debate these important issues.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

My Lords, the speech made a few moments ago by the noble Baroness. Lady Hayman, seemed to make eminent sense. Looking around your Lordships' House, I believe that there are few people—with the exception of those who are on the Government Front Bench and under instruction— who would disagree with the sense of that. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that the noble Baroness put, as she put them far more eloquently than I could. But there are a couple of other reasons why I believe that a sunset clause is important.

The atmosphere at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday was not good, and for the Prime Minister to characterise this as some sort of political test was not helpful. It is being suggested that the Conservatives and others should vote down this legislation and let the people decide. The sunset clause would put the legislation in place, the Government would get their Bill and the people could decide whom they wish to be the next government—but I am less concerned about that than about the parliamentary process itself.

One constitutional argument in favour of our supporting the sunset clause, on which my noble friend Lord Waddington touched at an earlier stage in our proceedings, is that the House of Commons has the right to consider the legislation properly. It has not had that opportunity. By having a sunset clause, there would be an opportunity after the election, when the atmosphere is less frenetic, for the House of Commons to consider it properly. If the elected House has a proper length of time to debate and consider all these matters and if people outside have a chance to make their representations, with a proper timetable between the various stages of considering the legislation, then I accept that the Government must have their legislation.

But for the Prime Minister to say that he is prepared to lose the Bill, rather than have a sunset clause, reminds me of a time when I was a Minister and my private secretary came in and said, "Now, Minister, you've got five minutes to throw your toys out of the pram, and then we'll focus on the reality of this issue". The Prime Minister is throwing his toys out of the pram at the moment. Any rational person would come to the conclusion that if he could have his Bill, provided that he made an opportunity for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to consider it properly at a later date—any Prime Minister who was concerned about the security of our country and the integrity of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—he would grab that with both hands.

I want to make one other point, which relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been saying repeatedly—I mean no criticism of making a point repeatedly if it is a good point. He has made the point repeatedly that perhaps 30 November may be too soon. Now, I am not wedded to the 30 November date; apart from anything else, it is St Andrew's Day, which does not seem to me an appropriate day on which to discuss such matters, as it is a day for celebration. So whether the date is 30 November or 31 March, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, suggests, seems to me a side issue. The real issue is that there should be proper consideration of this matter.

I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he should lean on his colleagues and draw their attention to the proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the feeling in this House, and not seek to get us into a game of parliamentary chicken on an issue as important as the security of our country.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I had not considered the issue of St Andrew's Day at all until now, but I am persuaded that we should not adopt the idea that 30 November is sacrosanct. For all the reasons adduced by my noble friend Lady Hayman, it is appropriate that we consider 31 March. For that reason, we should have an adequate opportunity to consider the effect of the Bill. I am very chary about certain aspects of it, but I may be wrong. But it is absolutely vital that at least we have a report from the review committee before us and can consider the effect of the position taken by people outside the Houses of Parliament.

I was very disappointed when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the idea of the sunset clause was not acceptable to the Government. I beg of them to think again about the matter. It is not as though we are considering a perfect Bill; in many ways, it is imperfect. I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, but there must be a provision that we consider the legislation again not on 30 November, which for reasons that I have already explained I believe is entirely appropriate, but on 31 March next year, which would be wholly appropriate.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury

My Lords, the Government are trying to have it both ways. I was in the other place yesterday, when I heard people on the government Front Bench repeat the argument that no sunset clause was needed at all and in the same breath say that if there were to be a sunset clause, the end of November would be too soon. As far as I can see, this Bill was put together in about two months. It is precisely because it was so hurried— although I understand the reasons for that—and precisely because it has such huge constitutional import, that we are saying that a total review is necessary and therefore a sunset clause is necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a good case for offering the Government an extended period for the sunset clause. That is a mark of good faith. But for the Government to go on saying that a sunset clause is not needed when this huge ramshackle Bill was put together in only two months seems to me a contradiction.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Because she put her case so clearly and because my noble friend Lord Forsyth made many of the points that I wished to make about the Prime Minister's stance, I can be very brief.

I sat in another place yesterday to hear the debate and I heard my right honourable friend David Davis say that if the Government came back and said that there would be a review after 12 months, he would not object. I also heard my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke remind the House that David Davis had been generous in saying that there had been eight days to debate this Bill, as in the House of Commons there were only three hours and the first hour and 10 minutes of those three hours was taken up by a speech from the Home Secretary. This was a completely new Bill for the Commons. It has been amended again, and when it leaves this House it will again be very different. So we can be certain that this is a deeply flawed piece of legislation.

Therefore, for all the reasons set out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we clearly do need a sunset clause, and the procedures of a 12-monthly review are wholly inadequate. All we need from the Government is to say, "Okay, we accept a sunset clause", and all the other disagreements can be put aside and we can get on with the legislation and deal with terrorism. There is a consensus in the House on so many of the issues and I believe that we can find a consensus on the time needed.

1.30 p.m.

There are clearly doubts among a number of noble Lords that the November deadline is adequate. In the light of the remarks made by my right honourable friend David Davis in another place and what has been said today I suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that we should seek a consensus on the issue, accept the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and go for a sunset clause that ends on 31 March.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, during the foot and mouth disease outbreak we used to say how sensible and well the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, presented her case. After about the third time she got frightfully ratty at the Dispatch Box and said that she was fed up with compliments from Members on our side of the House.

On this occasion I risk inciting her ire yet again. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will accept what she had to say. It is perfectly reasonable, although I dislike vast chunks of the Bill even as it stands, for it to he extended for another four months, which is not that much.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was so near to arguing for a sunset clause. She was saying that we are going to have something in place. That is why a sunset clause becomes possible. What happens if for some reason either this House or the other place decides not to renew the Bill under annual renewal? The Government would be in a worse position than they are now with Part 4 and Belmarsh. I strongly suggest that we support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which shows that it is an all-party matter and not just a Conservative matter to score party political points.

We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, about the necessity to have a proper Bill in place. By 31 March of next year it can be in place and the transition can be seamless.

Baroness Wall of New Barnet

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords opposite who have any involvement in business will know that in a partnership relationship in any business wherever we have an agreement we have a review clause. We do not renegotiate the whole of the agreement but we look at the consequences of the agreement into which we have entered and we review the effects.

I find it bewildering. I am talking to people who have a great deal of experience, which is mostly judicial; people who, I am sure, when it comes to legal matters, are extremely important. But in reality we are dealing with an issue that can he reviewed. There is already built into the Bill the opportunity to look at the orders on a yearly basis. I do not understand why there is a distinction between that and any other part of our lives.

Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws

My Lords, I want to say to my noble friend Lady Wall that we are talking about something much more substantial in our lives than making a business contract. We are talking about fundamental rights and liberty; the stuff that this House particularly can speak to in the interests of all the citizens of this country.

In supporting the propositions of my noble friend Lady Hayman I want to say that I have heard over the past 24 hours aggressive adversarial comment that the Bill is about party machinations. That has not been my experience in talking with people in this House—I cannot speak about elsewhere. I know that many people; particularly people who have spoken from the Labour Benches, are motivated by genuine concern about the quality of the Bill and the lack of time to discuss such important issues.

I would hate to see the issue being seen purely as to do with party positioning before an election. It is too important for that. In relation to my noble friend Lady Hayman's sensible propositions, because of the reservations about the Bill and because it is being presented as something to do with party politics, many people on the Labour Benches last night voted with the Government because they felt deeply uneasy about the fact that they were being accused of disloyalty. There was a sense that they were expected to vote for amendments coming from somewhere else that may have been motivated by party advantage.

On some issues we have to leave party aside. I strongly urge this House not to present these matters as opportunities for scoring points against the other side, but to discuss them in the interests of justice and liberty. Many people on these Benches feel alarmed about the Bill for good reason. The idea of a sunset clause weighs heavy on my heart because I think that the Bill should not be going through the House at all. I ask for a sunset clause only because it is a backstop so that we can reconsider such important issues at more leisure.

I say to all noble Lords: leave party aside for a moment and think about things that are about everyone's interest—the national interest—and about liberty and principles that we have fought for in this country for so many years. I know that some Members on our Benches have deep unease about the Bill but also feel a great sense of loyalty to party. They would feel relieved if some kind of veil would come down to enable us to think again and to start with a blank sheet so that we get the legislation right.

Lord Joffe

My Lords, having practised as a human rights lawyer in South Africa at a time when house arrest and a range of other oppressive laws had been passed allowing the authorities arbitrarily to deprive citizens of the protection of the courts, I would like to speak briefly. I will make only one significant point on the sunset clause.

Those laws in South Africa were used indiscriminately: both against individuals of whom the Government had good reason to be suspicious; and against those who in criticising the Government were simply exercising their democratic right to freedom of speech. They resulted in great hardship and harm both to innocent people and—perhaps even more importantly—to their spouses and children.

I do not for one moment compare the evil former South African Government with our own Government, many members of which in those days were ardent supporters of human rights in South Africa. However, sadly, in one respect our Government are using the same tactics as the South African Government used by insisting that the safety of the population is at risk unless the laws that they are seeking to rush through are urgently passed without proper consideration and deliberation.

In South Africa that unjustified urgency and implicit threat led to a spineless opposition—with the exception of one courageous Member of Parliament, Helen Suzman—that supported the appalling legislation, because they thought that they would be seen to be weak on terrorism. Fortunately, unlike the former South African opposition parties, the Opposition in this Parliament have behaved courageously and with integrity and a proper respect for the laws and traditions of this country despite the Government's efforts to portray them as weak on terrorism.

It makes no sense for the Government to suggest that a sunset clause would be an indication of weakness in the fight against terrorism. A sunset clause must surely be the rational response to the issues raised in the House. It gives the Government what they seek for enforcing the law until the clause becomes operative. It also gives the opportunity to those who oppose this legislation to ensure that proper and thoughtful legislation is crafted which will properly balance the requirement to defend the country against terrorism while ensuring that there is only the minimum diminution of the rights of individuals, through the protection of the courts.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, I think that I shall await the noble and learned Lord's answer to this debate with considerable interest. I shall be particularly interested to hear how he reacts to the speech that was made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It was a superb speech. It was a sincere speech. It had nothing to do with parties. I say in passing that I have frequently wondered since I have been in your Lordships' House how useful political parties are or how full of menace they can he when their power is abused, as it very frequently is.

I wish to avoid overstatement, because I have been pursued for this before now. I shall therefore content myself with saying that this Bill has not been widely applauded. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the article in the Times of yesterday, which said: Labour is facing its sternest test of how to handle the whole issue of terrorism … The inept handling of this Bill"— this is surely something for which the noble and learned Lord has to take a little blame— has had the worst possible effect. It has politicised an issue that should command a consensus among all responsible MPs to safeguard Britain and its liberties". I very much wonder what the Prime Minister's position is in the matter of a sunset clause. He is—I must not be too excessive about this—noted for the agility of his footwork. On 2 March, in answer to my right honourable friend Michael Howard, Leader of the Opposition, he said: I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that will effectively be subject to a sunset clause, because if we introduce it, and we will introduce it only if there is another vote of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, my understanding is that it becomes annually reviewable and renewable. In other words, that part of the Bill is already subject to a sunset clause".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/05; col. 953.] If this debate means anything, it means that there is no sunset clause of any value at all.

It has been said that this is not a matter for party politics. I agree. But perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us, when he comes to reply, what it was that the Prime Minister meant yesterday when he said: We will have this debate here, and we will have this debate in the country, and we will see where the shame lies; but in my judgment the shame will lie with the Conservatives, who, faced with legislation to prevent terrorism—faced with legislation on which we were advised by our police and security services—are going to vote against it. If they want to vote against it, let them: we will be content ultimately to have the verdict of the country on it".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/3/05; col. 1512.] Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain to the country, at some stage or other, why he has so flat-footedly refused to contemplate any sunset clause, which would give some effective chance for a review, instead of endowing what in most people's opinion is a rotten Bill. He is endowing it with, if not eternal life, a degree of survival which it does not merit.

I have been in Parliament for a very long time. I cannot recall any other occasion when I felt so deeply distressed and sick at what a government are doing. I say quite mildly to the noble and learned Lord, who appears to take so many of the serious points made against him with a light-hearted air and to think that the passage of this Bill and its effect in operation will not cast a long shadow over the future, that I think he is entirely wrong and will have something to be ashamed of for the rest of his days.

1.45 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, first, may I just bring us back to the group with which we are currently dealing? I will reply, and reply fully, when we come to deal with the next group on a sunset clause. I see the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, rising to his feet. I wonder whether I may ask him to remain seated for a brief moment.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We have had a debate on both Motion C and Motion D. In my very humble submission, I think it is appropriate now for the noble Baroness to sum up that debate in relation to both Motions so that we do not have to return to the issue on Motion D after we have voted on Motion C.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I understand entirely what the noble Lord says. I propose first to respond to Motion C, so that we have some clarity about what the House will be asked to decide on in that regard. I anticipate that, unless I persuade noble Lords otherwise, that will be the first issue on which the House is likely to be divided. I propose then to move on to the next Motion, on the sunset clause. I appreciate that, in the general debate, we have conflated the arguments on both Motions.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, may I remind the noble Baroness that when she started this debate she said that both these matters would be dealt with in one vote? She expressly said so herself.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

No, my Lords, with the greatest respect, I said that the two issues were linked. I put the background so that we could understand how the first Motion we were going to debate related to the second. I did not say that I was going to answer both Motions together. I absolutely understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he would speak to both Motions at that point. I did not rise to my feet to indicate that that was not something which we were perfectly happy should take place.

Perhaps I may therefore deal with the first Motion, to which I have spoken already. It brings us back to the import of the amendments that we have passed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is absolutely right. If the House insists on the amendment that it has made to the Bill, the role of the noble Lord, or someone in his position as a reviewer, will go, and in its place will come the committee. So it is a very important matter for the House to consider in determining how to vote on that issue. That is what we are saying. The Government have twice now said that we need someone to play the role that has been played by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in relation to Part 4. For all the reasons that he has given, the level and the depth of the scrutiny that such a reviewer pays to the detailed needs of those detained or adversely affected by Part 4 or who would have their rights and liberties restricted as is now proposed by the conditions attached to the new proposed orders, are significant.

The Government strongly believe that, just as it was necessary for someone to review independently those matters in terms of the operation of the Bill and how it infringes on the liberties of the individual, those matters still need the acuity and attention that such a reviewer would give. If this House insists, it will be telling the other place for the second time that the role of the noble Lord is not needed on this Bill. I cannot believe that that is the intent of your Lordships. Therefore, I urge your Lordships not to insist on that matter.

I will now address the sunset clause. This House has always had to bow in the end to the other place, because the other place is the elected House. That remains a fundamental part of the democratic arrangements between the two Houses. It is right for noble Lords to remember that in the debates in the other place the biggest majority was on the sunset clause. The other place spoke very clearly indeed, and this House also needs to remember the mood of that debate in the other place. It was clear that the House wanted to send a clear message to those terrorists and others who will be listening to what we say and looking and watching with a great deal of attention, that there will not be a gap and that there is no wavering on those powers.

There is too an element of disagreement between those who seek a sunset clause, and I noted with great care the concept of a blank sheet of paper. People have said that they wish to start again. That is the position of those who say, with all integrity, that control orders of themselves are fundamentally wrong, and we should not have them. That view has been eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others. That is one view. The majority of this House does not accept that position. The majority of this House and the other place accepts with the utmost reluctance, and some with a degree of pain, that control orders, in the situation in which we find ourselves, are an unfortunate, unwanted, unlooked-for necessity.

It is unlikely, whether we are talking about November or another date, that we will be facing a position where we say that it is safe to expunge control orders. We are going to have them in some way or another in relation to that small cadre of people who will not be amenable to prosecution. That has been said in debates over and over again. We all agree that there is that small cadre who cannot be prosecuted, even if we are successful in bringing new legislation on to the statute book.

I will address the issue of timing. Right around this House, it has been said that the legislation has been rushed; that there has not been appropriate time for consideration; that we have had a gun put to our heads as a result of the 14 March legislation; and that legislation made in haste is bound to be poor legislation. That is what the House was saying. What is our answer? The answer, if one were to push with the sunset clause, is to say, "We would like to do the same thing again".

Noble Lords

Oh!

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

It is, my Lords, because I have noted carefully what has happened on each occasion. My noble friend Lady Hayman is right that the procedure that we have now adopted on control orders is much, much better than Part 4. It is likely that we will have new opportunities to look at the legislation as to what else we need to put in place. I cannot envisage a position—particularly if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and others on the Liberal Democrat Benches stay in their place—where we will not have a really trenchant, difficult and testing debate on any such new provisions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is right that there is not absolute parity and agreement that the new provisions are the right way either. We will have to get that right. We will not, and should not, rush that position.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean

My Lords—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I wonder if I could finish. The noble Lord has been on his feet on a number of occasions, and this is the first time that I have been on mine for a significant time.

When it comes to timing, we must look at the reality of the position with which we will be faced. My noble friend was right in saying that this will need scrutiny, not just by those in this House but by individual agencies and others who will have a view. This House may think that acts preparatory is the best way forward. We do not know whether that will be universally accepted elsewhere; we need to have that debate. If we need to have pre-legislative scrutiny, which I can anticipate—the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, if nobody else, will voice that intent—that will take time. It is likely that we will be running with a timetable even if we were to accept my noble friend's date of March.

If we have an annual renewal, it will be in a situation where this House will be seized and know of the work that has been undertaken in relation to the new legislation. It will know whether those matters have been completed, and when it comes to renew that legislation this House will have the ability to have its say. In so many cases where annual renewal has been—

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I will not give way. I wish to finish this. In so many cases when we have had annual renewals, there has not been another legislative vehicle that could conveniently be used to have this debate.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords—

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I will give way once I have finished this.

That is an important difference. This legislation would be able to elapse if both Houses felt that was appropriate. There are big issues here, and the Government are clear that the review structure that we have put in place will enable the House to have its say.

Lord Maclennan of Rogart

My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps she will take the opportunity at this point of her speech to reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart that in the event of a review taking place of the kind that she described, it would be constitutionally unprecedented for this House to vote it down because it would be an order, which would have been approved by the other House. She seems completely to have overlooked that limitation on this House's ability to pass its view.

Lord Young of Norwood Green

My Lords, before the noble Baroness—

Noble Lords

No!

2 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, the annual review is an effective means for both Houses to make that clear. Noble Lords on all Benches have said on a number of occasions that the other place has absolutely the same sort of concerns. The annual renewal—renewal is what we are talking about—will enable both Houses to look at whether it is necessary to continue the legislation, and whether it has been developed, dealt with and undertaken in a proper way. It is an appropriate vehicle. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says about it, but it is possible. On renewal, the House can say yea or nay.

Lord Sheldon

My Lords, the House may say yea or nay, but it may not be able to offer alternatives. It is amendments that are required, not only a decision for or against a renewal. I can see no way to overcome the problem other than by having a sunset clause.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, there have been other ways. From this Dispatch Box, I do not need to remind noble Lords of the way in which annual renewals have been dealt with in other legislation. The contingencies Act also dealt with renewals. We have made the commitment for the new legislation. It is not beyond the wit of this House to put amendments in any such new legislation that will deal adequately with the matter. This House will have a vehicle that could be used effectively and creatively to meet the need. The most important thing is that we send no signal to those outside the House that this country is wavering at all in relation to its position.

Lord Young of Norwood Green

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government responded to a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman? In our previous debate, she said: I believe that it would be possible to provide perhaps for renewal, which would be more realistic, and then an absolute sunset clause, to allow the Bill to be enacted—as I think there is a universal feeling around the House that it should be—but not in such a straitjacket that it puts us back in exactly the situation we are in now. I earnestly hope that my noble friends will be able to respond to that".—[Official Report, 8/3/05; col. 656.] She again asked the Minister whether she could respond to a request for renewal rather than only review. Since then, the matter has gone back to the House of Commons and it has responded.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. When we were debating the issue last Tuesday, I said that the Government would listen, would continue to look at the matter and would respond. We responded. Bearing in mind the nature of that response—the fact that there is now a renewal provision, which was asked for— this House should be content and not insistent.

I have not dealt with the difference between the November and March timetables. It seems to be accepted by the whole House that the November timetable is totally unrealistic. We would say that, similarly, the March timetable is far too tight. It does not deal with the major issues, and we feel that renewal would be the better way forward.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. We have had a debate about Motions C and D, and shall now vote, successively, on amendments to them. Motion C concerns the Privy Council amendment, and the first vote will be on it if we press our amendment from this Dispatch Box. I shall not attempt to summarise the debate on the issue; it would be impertinent of me to do so. The case for the amendment has been made devastatingly throughout your Lordships' House.

So far as our amendment to Motion D on the sunset clause is concerned, I believe that the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the inadequacy of the review procedure were also devastating and have been accepted by almost all noble Lords who have spoken. The principle of the sunset clause has therefore been supported throughout the House.

However, there remains the question of when it should bite. We continue to believe that the principle that ought to be applied is that of "the earlier, the better". However, we have listened carefully to the arguments put for a later date—the end of March 2006—which have, again, come from all parts of the House. We would be prepared not to move our amendment, in favour of that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, so long as the noble Baroness can assure us that she will press her amendment when we come to it.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords—

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Baroness so that she can indicate whether she will do so.

Baroness Hayman

My Lords, it is difficult procedure; we are having to make it up a little as we go along. For reasons that I shall take a couple of minutes to explain, my view is that we need to vote on a sunset clause. I think that my noble friend is saying that she wills the same ends as the House—the opportunity to look at the Bill again—but that the means are those that the Government have put forward, rather than a sunset clause. Many around the House do not agree on that issue of means. They believe that the means best suited would be a sunset clause.

I take very seriously what my noble friend said about another place. I had the privilege of being a Member of it decades ago, and I understand that in some ways we in this House are B-movie politics. However, in constitutional issues, we have a responsibility. We have a right to ask again another place to think again on the issue. That is why it is important to keep the matter open.

A year is a much more sensible time frame than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, so, if he were not to move his amendment, I would maintain my support for my amendment. If I did not move it, I am sure that someone else would, to give the House the opportunity to express its view on the issue.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, moves her amendment on the sunset clause, I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of the noble Baroness's. I am delighted at the weight the noble Baroness's decision will give to the vote on the sunset clause, when we reach it. She is not only a distinguished former Front-Bencher from the government side but also, of course, a senior Privy Counsellor; and, in my submission, that adds. I repeat, great weight to her support for the principle of the sunset clause.

I now wish to press my amendment to Motion C, which concerns the Privy Council. After we have voted on that, the question of the sunset clause will arise.

2.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (C1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 225; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Ackner, L. Bledisloe, V.
Addington, L. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Ahmed, L. Boothroyd, B.
Alderdice, L. Bowness, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V. Bradshaw, L.
Ampthill, L. Bramall, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. Bridggeman, V.
Arran, E. Bridges, L.
Ashcroft, L. Brittan of Spennithorne, L.
Astor of Hever, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Avebury, L. Brougham and Vaux, L.
Baker of Dorking, L. Buscombe, B.
Ballyedmond, L. Byford, B.
Barker, B. Cameron of Lochbroom, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L. Campbell Of Alloway, L.
Bell, L. Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carrington, L. Knight of Collingtree, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B. Laing of Dunphail, L.
Chorley, L. Laird, L.
Clement-Jones, L. Lang of Monkton, L.
Cobbold, L. Lewis of Newnham, L.
Colwyn, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Cope of Berkeley, L. Liverpool, E.
Courtown, E. Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Craigavon, V. Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Crathorne, L. Ludford, B.
Crickhowell, L. Luke, L.
Cuckney, L. Lyell, L.
Dahrendorf, L. McColl of Dulwich, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B. Mackie of Benshie, L.
Dean of Harptree, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Denham, L. McNally, L.
Dholakia, L. Maddock, B.
Dixon-Smith, L. Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Donaldson of Lymington, L. Mallalieu, B.
D'Sonza, B. Mancroft, L.
Dykes, L. Mar and Kellie, E.
Eccles of Moulton, B. Marlesford, L.
Eden of Winton, L. Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Elis-Thomas, L. Michie of Gallanach, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Elton, L. Miller of Hendon, B.
Emerton, B. Monro of Langholm, L.
Falkland, V. Monson, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B. Montrose, D.
Fearn, L. Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Feldman, L. Moran, L.
Ferrers, E. Morris of Bolton, B.
Finlay of Llandaff, B. Moser, L.
Fookes, B. Mowbray and Stourton. L.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Fowler, L. Naseby, L.
Freeman, L. Neuberger, B.
Garden, L. Newby, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B. Newton of Braintree, L.
Garel-Jones, L. Northbourne, L.
Geddes, L. Northesk, E.
Glasgow, E. Northover, B.
Glenarthur, L. Norton of Louth, L.
Glentoran, L. Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Goodhart, L. [Teller] O'Cathain, B.
Goschen, V. Onslow, E.
Greaves, L. Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Greengross, B. Park of Monmouth, B.
Greenway, L. Perry of Southwark, B.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L. Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Hamwee, B. Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Hanham, B. Platt of Writtle, B.
Hanningfield, L. Plumb, L.
Harris of Richmond, B. Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Haskins, L. Quirk, L.
Hayhoe, L. Rawlings, B.
Henley, L. Razzall, L.
Higgins, L. Redesdale, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Rennard, L.
Hogg, B. Renton, L.
Home, E. Richardson of Calow, B.
Hooper, B. Roberts of Conwy, L.
Hooson, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Howard of Rising, L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Howe, E. Roper, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L. Rotherwick, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B. Russell-Johnston, L.
Hurd of Westwell, L. Ryder of Wensum, L.
Hylton, L. St John of Fawsley, L.
James of Holland Park, B. Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Jenkin of Roding, L. Sandberg, L.
Joffe, L. Sandwich, E.
Kalms, L. Scott of Needham Market, B.
Kennedy of The Shaws, B. Seccombe, B. [Teller]
Kimball, L. Selborne, E.
Kingsland, L. Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L. Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B. Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Sharples, B. Tombs, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L. Tope, L.
Sheldon, L. Tordoff, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L. Trefgarne, L.
Slim, V. Trumpington, B.
Smith of Clifton, L. Ullswater, V.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. Vallance of Tummel, L.
Southwell, Bp. Wade of Chorlton, L.
Stern, B. Wakeham, L.
Stewartby, L. Walker of Worcester, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L. Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Strathclyde, L. Walmsley, B.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Walpole, L.
Swinfen, L. Watson of Richmond, L.
Taveme, L. Wilcox, B.
Tenby, V. Williamson of Horton, L.
Thatcher, B. Windlesham, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L. Wolfson, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L. Grocott, L. [Teller]
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Harris of Haringey, L.
Council) Harrison, L.
Andrews, B. Hart of Chilton, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B. Haskel, L.
Bach, L. Haworth, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. Hayman, B.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Henig, B.
Bhattacharyya, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Billingham, B. Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Blood, B. Hollis of Heigham, B.
Borne, L. Howells of St. Davids, B.
Bragg, L. Hoyle, L.
Brett, L. Hughes of Woodside, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Brookman, L. Janner of Braunstone, L.
Campbell-Savours, L. Jones, L.
Carter, L. Jordan, L.
Christopher, L. Judd, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L. Kilclooney, L.
Clinton-Davis, L. King of West Bromwich, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Layard, L.
Crawley, B. Lipsey, L.
David, B. Lockwood, B.
Davies of Coity, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Dearing, L. McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Desai, L. MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Dixon, L. McKenzie of Luton, L.
Donoughue, L. Marsh, L.
Drayson. L. Massey of Darwen, B.
Dubs, L. Maxton, L.
Evans of Parkside, L. May of Oxford, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Merlyn-Rees, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Mitchell, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Moore of Wolvercote, L.
Chancellor) Morgan, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Filkin, L. Morgan of Huyton, B.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L. Morris of Aberavon, L.
Gale, B. Morris of Manchester, L.
Gavron, L. Nicol, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Paul, L.
Giddens, L. Pendry, L.
Golding, B. Plant of Highfield, L.
Goldsmith, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L. Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Goudie, B. Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L. Rendell of Babergh, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B. Rooker, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L. Truscott, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B. Tunnicliffe, L.
Sawyer, L. Turnberg, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B. Turner of Camden, B.
Sewel, L. Wall of New Barnet, B.
Simon, V. Warner, L.
Skidelsky, L. Weatherill, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L. Whitaker B.
Strabolgi, L. Whitty, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B. Williams of Elvel, L.
Thornton. B. Young of Hornsey, B.
Triesman, L. Young of Norwood Green, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

2.21 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Tordoff)

My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment D1 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment D2.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords—