LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 10 March 2005)

HL Deb 10 March 2005 vol 670 cc908-20 908

§ 38 Schedule, page 16, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—

§ "() The relevant rules of court shall be made by the Lord Chief Justice after consulting the Lord Chancellor."

§ 39 Page 17, line 5, leave out "by the Lord Chancellor"

§ 40 Page 17, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 18 and insert—

§ "() The rules of court must comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights."

§ 42 Page 18, line 23, at end insert—

§ (8) "Rules of court under this paragraph in relation to proceedings in England and Wales—

(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, cease to have effect at the end of that period."

§ The Commons disagree to Lords Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42, but propose the following amendments in lieu—

§ 42A Page 17, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

§ "(5A) Rules of court made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) must be laid before Parliament; and
(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of that period.

§ (6) Where rules cease to have effect in accordance with subparagraph (5A)—

(a) that does not affect anything previously done in reliance on the rules;
(b) the Lord Chancellor is to have power again to exercise the relevant powers, in relation to the proceedings in question, instead of the person by whom they are otherwise exercisable;
(c) he may exercise them on that occasion without undertaking any consultation that would be required in the case of rules made by that person; and
(d) the rules made by the Lord Chancellor on that occasion may include rules to the same or similar effect.

§ (7) The following provisions do not apply to rules made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12) (negative resolution procedure);
(b) section 56 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) (statutory rules procedure).

§ (8) In sub-paragraph (5A) "40 days" means 40 days computed as provided for in section 7(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36)."

§ 42B Page 17, line 12, leave out "and burden"

§ 42C Page 17, line 42, leave out from "required" to "in" in line 45 and insert "to comply with any provision of rules of court, or order of the relevant court, for the disclosure to a person other than the court or a person appointed under paragraph 7 of any matter in respect of which the Secretary of State has made such an application but on which he does not then rely"

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton rose to move Motion E, that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42A and 42B in lieu thereof, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42C but propose Amendment No. 42D in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 42C:

§ 42D Page 17, leave out lines 34 to end of line 1 on page 18 and insert—

§ "() that in control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings the Secretary of State is required (subject to rules made under the following paragraphs) to disclose all relevant material;

§ "() that the Secretary of State has the opportunity to make an application to the relevant court for permission not to disclose relevant material otherwise than to that court and persons appointed under paragraph 7;

§ "() that such an application is always considered in the absence of every relevant party to the proceedings and of his legal representative (if he has one);

§ "() that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to be disclosed where it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;

§ "() that, where permission is given by the relevant court not to disclose material, it must consider requiring the Secretary of State to provide the relevant party and his legal representative (if he has one) with a summary of the material;

§ "() that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain information or other material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest:

910

§ "() that provision satisfying the requirements of subparagraph (3A) applies where the Secretary of State does not have the relevant court's permission to withhold relevant material from a relevant party to the proceedings or his legal representative (if he has one), or is required to provide a summary of such material to that party or his legal representative.

§ "(3A) The provision that satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph is provision which, in a case where the Secretary of State elects not to disclose the relevant material or (as the case may be) not to provide the summary, authorises the relevant court—

§ (a) if it considers that the relevant material or anything that is required to be summarised might be of assistance to a relevant party in relation to a matter under consideration by that court, to give directions for securing that the matter is withdrawn from the consideration of that court; and

§ (b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely in the proceeding on the material or (as the case may be) on what is required to be summarised.

§ "(3B) In this paragraph "relevant material", in relation to any proceedings, means—

§ (a) any information or other material that is available to the Secretary of State and relevant to the matters under consideration in those"

§ The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Motion E, which is found on page 27 of the Marshalled List, covers Lords Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 and 42.

§ Lords Amendment No. 38 removed Paragraphs 3(2) to (4) from the Schedule and inserted a new paragraph that provided for the Lord Chief Justice to make the rules of court, after consulting the Lord Chancellor. Amendment No. 39, which we debated yesterday, removed the clarification in Paragraph 3(5) that the Lord Chancellor makes the first set of rules for Northern Ireland. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule provides that on the first occasion after the passing of the Act, the relevant power to make rules in respect of proceedings in England and Wales and Northern Ireland should be exercised by the Lord Chancellor, instead of the usual Rules Committee.

§ That provision is necessary to ensure that we have rules in place shortly after Royal Assent in those jurisdictions. We have dealt with the urgency of the matter previously. Since we last addressed the issue, draft rules have been published, so there is an opportunity for everyone to see the rules. I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said on a previous occasion, which is that the rules must be absolutely clearly appropriate for such a purpose. The Lord Chancellor sets them on the first occasion only for speed. In the current circumstances, it is appropriate that it should be the Lord Chancellor. I invite noble Lords and noble and learned Lords to consider whether that is the appropriate course.

§ Amendment No. 40 inserts Article 6. The reason we inserted paragraph 4 of the schedule is because it provides an important guide for the Lord Chancellor, and subsequently for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, to the areas with which the rules of court must deal in regulating the procedures to be followed in control order proceedings. I do not believe it to be in accordance with the will of the House simply to leave the coverage of the rules at large, and it is right in a situation like this that some indication is given to the rules' makers of the areas to be covered.

911

§ In particular, it is right that we express our view on the right for the rules to exclude the controlled person's lawyer from certain proceedings in closed session, but allow for a special advocate to act in his interests instead. The rules will also allow for some proceedings, such as an application for anonymity, to be determined on the papers without a hearing. These special rule-making powers and obligations are intended to ensure that a fair and reasonable balance is struck between the need to ensure that control orders are properly reviewed and the need to protect sensitive information in the public interest.

§ The proposed amendment suggests that we should merely stipulate that the rules need to be compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. I respectfully submit that this is unnecessary. I made it clear again on the previous occasion that we would comply with Article 6. We accept that obligation, and, indeed, there is a means of enforcing that: if the rules do not comply with Article 6, they can be struck down. It is not the same as a piece of primary legislation. That amendment is not necessary.

§ Noble Lords will know, because I referred to it last time, and I do not intend to refer to it again, that the rules in the SIAC process were considered by the Court of Appeal and were held both to be fair and to comply with Article 6. I do not intend to read again what the Lord Chief Justice said in relation to that.

§ Amendment No. 42 introduces a special affirmative resolution process for the rules: they must be laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House within 40 days, otherwise they will lapse. I cannot accept the amendment in the precise form in which it is drafted, but my Amendment No. 42A has a similar effect. We have got to the point we wanted to get to yesterday—the rules can be made, with immediate effect, and there is a process by which both Houses then have to affirm them. It is an affirmative process, not a negative one.

§ Amendment No. 42B alters sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 4 of the schedule to remove the power for the rules to make provision about the burden of proof in control order proceedings. We have reviewed the paragraph and redrafted it better to reflect the House's intention. The Bill clearly sets out the tests that must be applied by the Secretary of State and the court when considering the position in relation to control orders. We accept that the rules of court should not be capable of making changes to these tests. That is not the intention, and the amendment ensures that the rules of court cannot be used to do so.

§ Finally, regarding Amendment No. 42C, we had an important debate yesterday about how to balance national security against the need to be as fair as possible to the suspect in these proceedings. Our position is that we have to protect national security, but the special measures we take should go only as far as is necessary to achieve that aim. We accept the need for that. It was a view with which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, and the courts have all agreed. We want the rules to reflect that approach.

912

§ In response to the various concerns of noble Lords, I gave a commitment in Committee on 8 March to clarify beyond doubt the Government's position on the treatment of exculpatory material, and to give effect to the approach that we should give as much as we can consistent with national security. That is what my Amendment No. 42C would do.

§ Putting aside all the issues that have gone before, the Government have responded in detail to what this House has said on this issue. I earnestly suggest that. whatever view the House takes on the other amendments, this is one to agree to. This is a case where, looking at the detail and consulting widely, we have improved the Bill immeasurably.

§ Moved, Motion E, that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 42 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42A and 42B in lieu thereof, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42C but propose Amendment No. 42D in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 42C.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

§ Lord Kingsland moved, as an amendment to Motion E, Amendment El:

§ Leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 to which the Commons have disagreed, do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42A to 42C in lieu thereof, but do propose Amendments Nos. 42D and 42E in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 42:

§ 42D Page 17, leave out lines 34 to end of line 1 on page 18 and insert—

§ "() that in control order proceedings and relevant appeal proceedings the Secretary of State is required (subject to rules made under the following paragraphs) to disclose all relevant material:

§ "() that such an application is always considered in the absence of every relevant party to the proceedings and of his legal representative (if he has one);

§ "() that the relevant court is required to give permission for material not to he disclosed where it considers that the disclosure of the material would be contrary to the public interest;

§ "() that the relevant court is required to ensure that such a summary does not contain information or other material the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest;

913

(a) if it considers that the relevant material or anything that is required to be summarised might be of assistance to a relevant party in relation to a matter under consideration by that court, to give directions for securing that the matter is withdrawn from the consideration of that court; and
(b) in any other case, to ensure that the Secretary of State does not rely in the proceeding on the material or (as the case may be) on what is required to be summarised.

§ "(3B) In this paragraph "relevant material", in relation to any proceedings, means—

(a) any information or other material that is available to the Secretary of State and relevant to the matters under consideration in those"

§ 42E Page 17, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

§ (5) Rules of court made by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) must be laid before Parliament; and
(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days, beginning with the day on which they were made, cease to have effect at the end of a further period of 20 days.

§ (6) Where rules cease to have effect in accordance with subparagraph (5), that does not affect anything previously done in reliance on the rules.

§ (7) The following provisions do not apply to rules made by the Lord Chancellor by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) section 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12) (negative resolution procedure);
(b) section 56 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) (statutory rules procedure).

§ (8) In sub-paragraph (5) "40 days" and "20 days" mean 40 days and 20 days computed as provided for in section 7(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36)."

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall deal first with the final point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I thank the noble and learned Lord for drafting this new amendment regarding exculpatory material. In my submission, the noble and learned Lord has moved significantly from the position that first featured in the Bill. I am content with what the noble and learned Lord has done, and we will not be opposing the amendment.

§ As far as the group of amendments in Motion E is concerned, the crucial role they play in the scheme of things is to provide a judicial process for the judges that we substituted for the Secretary of State in the early part of the Bill. In our view, it would be wholly counterproductive to put a judge in charge of deciding whether a control order ought to be made, yet then require him to follow an executive procedure. Without these amendments, a judge will not, in effect, be operating in a judicial context.

§ The arguments have been well tested, both in Committee and on Report. I need refer to them only briefly. I begin by saying that the Lord Chief Justice, and not the Lord Chancellor, should make the rules. There are two reasons for this. First, the situation in Scotland is that the Lord President makes the rules; 914 and it is important that there is equivalence between ourselves and Scotland in the manner in which rules are made.

§ Secondly, as with this legislation generally, if these rules eventually find themselves on the statute book, they will have got there in an extremely rushed fashion, and will have been imperfectly scrutinised. The great value of having the Lord Chief Justice making the rules, therefore, is that he will be standing outside the process and will be able to take an objective view about which rules are appropriate to a situation where the interests of the country are being balanced against the interests of an individual. The Lord Chief Justice is in a better position to do that than the Lord Chancellor, who will nevertheless be consulted on the Lord Chief Justice's decisions.

§ The next point is that we think these rules should comply with Article 6 of the ECHR, the article which deals with due process. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, "We have already agreed to that. Why do you need it on the face of the Bill?", to which I respectfully retort that, if the noble and learned Lord is content that Article 6 should apply, what is the harm of putting it on the face of the Bill? If he is not prepared to do so, it suggests that one ought to be somewhat concerned about the nature of his undertaking. In my submission, your Lordships ought to vote to put the Article 6 requirement on the face of the Bill.

§ The final component of this group is one that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and would give your Lordships' House the right, once the rules had been drafted, to have them laid before your Lordships under an affirmative resolution procedure. Your Lordships would then not only have the guarantee of the rules being drafted by the Lord Chief Justice, but also the opportunity to look at them carefully and, at the end of the day, if necessary, reject them. That is what this group of amendments is about. I beg to move.

§ Moved, as an amendment to Motion E, Amendment E1, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 to which the Commons have disagreed, do not insist on its Amendment No. 42 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 42A to 42C in lieu thereof, but do propose Amendments Nos. 42D and 42E in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 42.—(Lord Kingsland.)

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, we are happy with the Government's new amendment, which, we accept, is a considerable step forward and deals with a problem that had been of some concern to us. We on these Benches are happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in his insistence on Amendments No. 38 to 40.
I shall spend a minute or two on our Amendment No. 42E. This arises from the matter mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the order, which I raised in an earlier amendment and was accepted by the Government, to apply an affirmative resolution 915 procedure to the first set of rules made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, which would come into force immediately but would cease to have effect if both Houses did not approve them by a resolution within 40 days.
When it came back from the Commons, certain provisions had been added, which effectively gave the Lord Chancellor power to make exactly the same orders all over again, immediately after the end of the 40-day period—and without any consultation. It seemed to me that that defeated the purpose of the amendment. I could see at the same time that there was a problem: that if, at the end of the 40-day period there had been no approval by both Houses, the orders would immediately lapse and they would have to be remade, and that might take some time.
In Amendment No. 42E I have included a provision that removes the power of the Lord Chancellor to make the old rules again, but gives a 20-day breathing period, following the end of the original 40 days, which would allow time for new rules to be made and to be brought into effect before the original rules finally expired.

§ Lord Mayhew of Twysden
My Lords, perhaps I may comment on the subject of exculpatory material. I am glad to see Amendment No. 42D, tabled by the Government and I associate myself with what has been said by the Front Benches. I said some harsh words a couple of nights ago on the basis that the Bill looked as though it gave authority for the Secretary of State to withhold from the suspect material that was exculpatory of him and I am glad to see that Ministers, as I would have expected, have demonstrated their good faith in that regard.

§ Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
My Lords, I speak very briefly just to seek some reassurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and/or the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, regarding the same debate about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was holding forth very strongly about exculpatory material and evidence. We were also talking about intercept evidence being put into court. The reassurance that I am seeking is that, as I read it now, intercept material would, of course, be seen by the Secretary of State, but that it would not be necessary for him to put that into the court. I seek this reassurance, especially because I heard the right honourable David Davis this morning on the radio, stating categorically a big list of things that his party would not go back on, including the inclusion of intercept evidence in court. Could I have some sort of answer?

§ Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, could I confess to some puzzlement about the amendment that says that: The rules of court must comply with the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights"? I had thought that Article 6 was among the articles in the ECHR which had been incorporated into the Human Rights Act and, therefore, was part of British 916 law. Surely, it is unnecessary to put on the face of a statute that the rules of court must comply with UK law?

§ Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I add my personal thanks for the drafting of Amendment No. 42D. it was a matter about which your Lordships may recall I was concerned at Second Reading. I am grateful that the Government have dealt with that in such a satisfactory way.
Amendment No. 40A raises a matter which I raised in Committee and on Report, concerning, the exclusion of evidence in control proceedings, where there is reason to believe that such evidence has been obtained by torture in any jurisdiction". We had a fruitful debate and concerns were expressed in various parts of the House about the Court of Appeal's judgment, which permitted evidence that had been obtained by torture to be used in court, provided that the torture was carried out by people who were not servants of this state. I have had quite a lot to say on that matter.
However, that amendment does not form part of the Motion, so it is not a matter that I shall press. I just hope that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords will come to the conclusion which, with his usual foresight, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said yesterday that they would come to. If that is not the case, I hope that we shall return to this topic at some later date.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, three points are left. First, why should it be the Lord Chancellor and not the Lord Chief Justice? The reason for that is that the orders need to be made in a hurry. It is wrong that the Lord Chief Justice should be in the special position. It should be the Lord Chancellor. The merit of that can be tested by the fact that the draft rules have now been published, so that people can form their own views in relation to it.
Secondly, I have made it clear that Article 6 does apply. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, knows that it would be bad drafting to put Article 6 in here and not in other statutes, because the Human Rights Act applied to every act carried out by a public authority, and the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee are public authorities. The noble Lord sends the wrong legal signal. Despite the earlier decisions of the House, the one thing that it should be doing is approaching these issues with some sense that we are moving forward and have reached a responsible conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, put. his point accurately regarding the effect of our position. We have put it that way, not because we would intend to come back with identical rules, but because you need to deal with the question of what would happen if there 917 were no rules. Of course, we would respect the conclusion of the House, or Parliament, if it had voted down the rules, but you need some provision which allows you to come back with something, if only for a temporary period. That is why we have done it and I hope that that will give the noble Lord pause for thought.
Finally, regarding the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, the material could go to the court—even material that might give rise to a national security problem. But if it did affect national security, it could not go to the suspect or his lawyers. That is where the firewall is. If it endangers national security, then it does not go to the suspect or his lawyers; it goes to the court.
I hope that, in the light of those explanations, the House would behave in the way that it normally does in relation to such issues by not pushing the amendments to a vote, as they are sensible responses.

§ Lord Kingsland
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. I shall glance this afternoon at the draft rules, if I have an opportunity to do so, since he has drawn to my attention that they are now available.
Regarding Article 6 of the convention, it was plain, when the Bill first came before your Lordships, that the rules proposed did not conform with Article 6. This amendment was tabled for that reason; and it is wholly appropriate that it should remain on the statute book. No derogation has been sought by the Government to resile from Article 6. The Government have stated politically that they will support Article 6.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, does the noble Lord dispute the proposition that the ECHR applies to the rules and that if they were in breach of Article 6, they would be struck down?

§ Lord Kingsland
My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that if they were in breach of Article 6 they would be struck down. My concern is that the noble and learned Lord accepts that a civil right is involved, but he does not accept that the later criminal provisions of Article 6 apply to the procedure. That is the difference between us and that is why we are keen that Article 6 remains on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may put it as I did in my opening remarks. Why is the noble and learned Lord so concerned about Article 6 being on the face of the Bill if he is confident that he will meet the obligation? I respectfully invite your Lordships also to accept the amendment to the noble and learned Lord's own amendment that has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (El) shall be agreed to?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 200; Not-Contents, 129.

920

Division No. 4
CONTENTS
Ackner, L.	Harris of Richmond, B.
Addington, L.	Haskins, L.
Ahmed, L.	Hayhoe, L.
Alderdice, L.	Henley, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Higgins, L.
Alliance, L.	Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Ampthill, L.	Hogg, B.
Anelay of St Johns, B.	Home, E
Ashcroft, L.	Howard of Rising, L.
Astor, V.	Howe, E.
Astor of Hever, L.	Howe of Aberavon, L.
Avebury, L.	Hurd of Westwell, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.	Hylton, L.
Ballyedmond, L.	James of Holland Park, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Bell, L.	Judd, L.
Berkeley. L.	Kalms
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.	Kennedy of The Shaws, B.
Bradshaw, L.	Kimball, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Kingsland, L.
Brittan of Spennithorne, L.	Knight of Collingtree B.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.	Laing of Dunphail, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Laird, L.
Buscombe. B.	Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Byford, B.	Lang of Monkton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Lawson of Blaby, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Liverpool, E.
Chorley, L.	Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Clement-Jones, L.	Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]	Lucas, L.
Courtown, E.	Ludford, B.
Crathorne, L.	Luke, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Lyell, L
Cuckney, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.	Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Dean of Harptree. L.	McNally, L.
Denham, L.	Maddock, B.
Dholakia, L.	Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Mancroft, L.
Donaldson of Lymington, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Dykes, L.	Marlesford, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Eden of Winton, L.	Mishie of Gallanach, B.
Elis-Thomas. L.	Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Elles, B.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Monro of Langholm, L.
Elton, L.	Monson, L.
Falkland, V.	Montrose, D.
Falkner of Margravine, B.	Moore of Lower Marsh, L.
Fearn, L.	Morris of Bolton, B.
Feldman, L.	Moser, L.
Ferrers, E.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Fookes, B.	Murphy, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Fowler, L.	Naseby, L.
Freeman, L.	Neuberger, B.
Garden, L.	Newby, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Northbourne, L.
Garel-Jones, L.	Northesk, E.
Geddes, L.	Northover, B.
Glasgow, E.	Norton of Louth, L.
Glenarthur, L.	Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Glentoran, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Goodhart, L.	Onslow, E.
Goschen, V.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Greaves, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Greengross, B.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Greenway, L.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Hamwee, B.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Hanham, B.	Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Hanningfield, L.	Platt of Writtle, B.

919

Plumb, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.	Southwell, Bp.
Quirk, L.	Steel of Aikwood, L.
Rawlings, B.	Stern, B.
Razzall, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Redesdale, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Renton, L.	Taverne, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.	Tenby, V.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.	Thatcher, B.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.	Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller]
Roper. L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Rotherwick, L.	Tombs, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.	Tope, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.	Tordoff, L.
Sandberg, L.	Trumpington, B.
Sandwich, E.	Ullswater, V.
Scott of Needham Market, B.	Vallance of Tummel, L.
Seccombe, B.	Waddington, L.
Selborne, E.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.	Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Selsdon, L.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Sharp of Guildford. B.	Walmsley, B.
Sharples, B.	Watson of Richmond, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.	Wilcox, B.
Sheldon, L.	Williamson of Horton, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.	Windlesham, L.
Slim, V.	Wright of Richmond, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.	Young of Hornsey, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Giddens, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the	Gilbert, L.
Council)	Golding, B.
Andrews, B.	Goldsmith, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.	Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Bach, L.	Goudie, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Gould of Brookwood, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Gould of Potternewton, B.
Bhattacharyya, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Billingham, B.	Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Grocott, L. [Teller]
Blood, B.	Harris of Haringey, L.
Borrie, L.	Harrison, L.
Bragg, L.	Hart of Chilton, L.
Brett, L.	Haworth, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.	Hayman, B.
Brookman. L.	Henig, B.
Campbell-Savours. L.	Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Carter, L.	Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Carter of Coles, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B
Clarke of Hampstead, L.	Howells of St. Davids, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Hoyle, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.	Hughes of Woodside, L.
Crawley, B.	Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Davies of Coity, L.	Janner of Braunstone, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]	Jones, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Jordan, L.
Desai, L.	Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
Dixon, L.	Kilclooney, L.
Donoughue, L.	King of West Bromwich, L.
Drayson, L.	Layard, L.
D'Souza, B.	Leitch, L.
Dubs, L.	Lipsey, L.
Elder, L.	Lockwood, B.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.	McDonagh, B.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord	Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Chancellor)	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Filkin, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.	McKenzie of Luton, L.
Gale, B.	Marsh, L.
Gavron, L.	Massey of Darwen, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.	Maxton, L.

920

May of Oxford, L.	Sawyer, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Mitchell, L.	Sewel, L.
Morgan, L.	Simon, V.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.	Snape, L.
Morgan of Huyton, B.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Pendry, L.	Thornton, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.	Triesman, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.	Truscott, L.
Radice, L.	Tunnicliffe, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.	Turnberg, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.	Wall of New Barnet, B.
Richard, L.	Warner, L.
Roll of Ipsden, L.	Weatherill, L.
Rooker, L.	Williams of Elve, L.
Rosser, L.	Winston, L.
Rowlands, L.	Young of Norwood Green,
Royall of Blaisdon, B.	L.

§ Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

§ On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

§ 3.11 p.m.