Skip to main content

Motion A

Volume 670: debated on Thursday 10 March 2005

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

rose to move, Motion A, that this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 A and 1B to Lords Amendment No. 1; do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 37Q to 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 8; do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 370 in lieu of those Lords amendments; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 17; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37X in lieu.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we meet again, over 24 hours after this sitting in this House started. Before I say anything else, may I join the whole House in thanking the staff and officers of this House for the fantastic service that we have received in what has been a very interesting but difficult 24 hours? The debate on the issues that remain in play appears to have moved in two respects. The Conservatives have indicated that they are no longer holding out for a Privy Counsellor committee and are instead content with an independent reviewer. The Liberal Democrats are content with a reference to the chief officer of police rather than the DPP.

So, the burden of proof and the sunset clause remain in issue. That is after a series of concessions that have rightly been made to this House throughout the passage of the Bill. A judge has been put in at the beginning of the process. The case has to be considered in detail inter partes within seven days. A requirement has been put in to ensure that there is an independent reviewer's report and that it will be available in good time for an annual review. There is now a requirement on the face of the Bill to confirm that prosecution is not possible. There are arrangements for annual renewal. There is a new procedure to confirm the rules of court. There are steps to ensure an even wider role for the independent reviewer. Detail of the rules has been changed to ensure that exculpatory material must be made available in every case.

These are good, solid concessions, which improve the Bill. It has been a good result for this House. Our views are being respected and given effect to. But our ability to change legislation brings with it responsibility. That responsibility is from the unelected House to the other place. Whatever our views, ultimately we have to bow to the other place. We bow, believing this House to be right because that is what the majority voted for at an earlier stage in the process, but we bow nevertheless, because of the primacy of the Commons. Whatever we say, we cannot seek to arrogate to ourselves the final decision—for example, because we believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, that the Members in another place are simply "temporary politicians" or because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said yesterday, the electoral system does not justify us giving the respect that we should to the other place.

There is no graver issue on which the responsibility of this House should be demonstrated than antiterrorism. We have heard the arguments again and again about the sunset clause. I believe that the majority of both Houses of Parliament believe that control orders are necessary. Both Front Benches say so. Almost everybody who has intervened in the debate here takes that view. The security services believe that the threat will continue for the foreseeable future. We cannot afford to be without terrorist legislation. So we cannot accept the sunset clause; nor should we. That is the wrong thing to do. We have thought about this carefully and we have done so each time the Lords has sent the matter back to the Commons.

Let me read to the House the words of a former Home Secretary—not a Labour Home Secretary and not a Home Secretary long deceased but a Home Secretary who, I am happy to say, is here with us this very morning. In the Queen's Speech debate in November 1989, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said:
"There is one acid test of a commitment to rights and the responsibilities that go with them. That is the determination of a Government to protect the citizen's right to safety from a terrorist attack".
I shall go on with the quote—it is, I should say, a splendid quote—from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He continued:
"I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench share my revulsion for the terrorist and his works, but for so long as their determination to safeguard the citizens turns on mere words, their expressions of revulsion are valueless".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/89; col. 255.]
The time has come—

11.45 a.m.

My Lords, having paid me the compliment of drawing me into this debate, does the noble and learned Lord appreciate that one of the things that worries me is the constant harping on by members of the Government about the rights and privileges of the other place and the supremacy of the House of Commons? It sticks in our throats to hear such language when for eight years Mr Blair has dedicated most of his efforts to trying to neutralise—to neuter—the House of Commons.

My Lords, one has only to look at the guillotine on this Bill to see that what I am saying is correct. It really is a bit much to go on about the privileges of the other place when there is an extra burden put on us here simply because the Prime Minister has made sure that there has been inadequate debate on this measure in the other place.

My Lords, the time has come for Parliament to make a decision about this Bill. So far as this House is concerned, it can heed the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in the quote that I read, or it can continue to prevent there being an anti-terrorism Bill.

The time has come to respect the supremacy of the Commons, to put aside our disputes on the debate and join together to fight the terrorist threat that we revile.

Moved, That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 A and 1B to Lords Amendment No. 1; do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 37Q to 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 8; do not insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 370 in lieu of those Lords amendments; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 17; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37X in lieu.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

rose to move Amendment A1, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1A and 1B to Lords Amendment No. 1; do insist on its Amendments Nos. 37Q, 37S and 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 8; do insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37A to 37C and 37E to 370 in lieu of those Lords amendments; do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments No. 17H to 17M to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 17; do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37X in lieu; do not insist on its Amendment No. 37R and do propose Amendment No. 37Y in lieu thereof:

After Clause 3

37Y Insert the following new Clause—

"Power of court to make control orders

(1) On an application to the court by the Secretary of State for the making of a control order against an individual, it shall be the duty of the court—

  • (a) to hold an immediate preliminary hearing to determine whether to make a control order imposing obligations against that individual; and
  • (b) if it does make such an order against that individual, to give directions for the holding of a full hearing to determine whether to confirm the order (with or without modifications).
  • (2) The preliminary hearing under subsection (1)(a) maybe held—

  • (a) in the absence of the individual in question;
  • (b) without his having had notice of the application for the order; and
  • (c) without his having been given an opportunity (if he was aware of the application) of making any representations to the court;
  • but this subsection is not to be construed as limiting the matters about which rules of court may be made in relation to that hearing.

    (3) At the preliminary hearing, the court may make a control order against the individual in question if it appears to the court—

  • (a) that there is material which (if not disproved) is capable of being relied on by the court as establishing that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity;
  • (b) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the imposition of obligations on that individual is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
  • (4) The obligations that may be imposed by a control order in the period between—

  • (a) the time when the order is made; and
  • (b) the time when a final determination is made by the court whether to confirm it;
  • include any obligations which the court has reasonable grounds for considering are necessary as mentioned in section 1(1C).

    (5) At the full hearing under subsection (1)(b), the court may—

  • (a) confirm the control order made by the court; or
  • (b) revoke the order;
  • and where the court revokes the order, it may (if it thinks fit) direct that this Act is to have effect as if the order had been quashed.

    (6) In confirming a control order, the court—

  • (a) may modify the obligations imposed by the order; and
  • (b) where a modification made by the court removed an obligation, may (if it thinks fit) direct that this Act is to have effect as if the removed obligation had been quashed.
  • (7) At the full hearing, the court may confirm the control order (with or without modifications) only if—

  • (a) it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the controlled person is an individual who is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity; and
  • (b) it considers that the imposition of obligations on the controlled person is necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.
  • (8) A control order ceases to have effect at the end of a period of 6 months beginning with the day on which it is made unless—

  • (a) it is previously revoked (whether at the hearing under subsection (1)(b) or otherwise under this Act);
  • (b) it ceases to have effect under section 4; or
  • (c) it is renewed.
  • (9) The court, on an application by the Secretary of State. may renew a control order (with or without modifications) for a period of 6 months from whichever is the earlier of

  • (a) the time when the order would otherwise have ceased to have effect; and
  • (b) the beginning of the seventh day after the date of renewal.
  • (10) The power of the court to renew a control order is exercisable on as many occasions as the court thinks fit; but, on each occasion, it is exercisable only if—

  • (a) the court considers that it is necessary, for the purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for a control order to continue in force against the controlled person; and
  • (b) the court considers that the obligations to be imposed by the renewed order are necessary for the purposes connected with preventing or restricting involvement by that person in terrorism-related activity.
  • (11) Where, on an application for the renewal of a control order, it appears to court—

  • (a) that the proceedings on the application are unlikely to be completed before the time when the order is due to cease to have effect if not renewed, and
  • (b) that that is not attributable to an unreasonable delay on the part of the Secretary of State in the making or conduct of the application,
  • the court may (on one or more occasions) extend the period for which the order is to remain in force for the purpose of keeping it in force until the conclusion of the proceedings.

    (12) Where the court exercises its power under subsection (11) and subsequently renews the control order in question, the period of any renewal still runs from the time when the order would have ceased to have effect apart from that subsection.

    (13) It shall be immaterial, for the purposes of determining what obligations may be imposed by a control order made by the court, whether the involvement in terrorism-related activity to be prevented or restricted by the obligations is connected with matters in relation to which the requirements of subsection (3)(a) or (7)(a) were satisfied."

    The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have now got to the stage of daylight, having sat through the night. Perhaps in the light of day it is time to take a bit of the heat out of the debate which we had yesterday, particularly, perhaps, at our most recent meeting early this morning.

    Amendment A1 has been returned by us with a significant omission to show our willingness to negotiate with the Government over this. That omission, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned, is that we no longer insist on the direct involvement of the DPP or require him to give a certificate before a full control order can be made.

    However, we are of course a revising Chamber. A revising Chamber does not and should not defeat a Bill on the grounds that we do not like it. It is plain beyond doubt that the amendments that we and the Conservatives have moved are in no sense wrecking amendments. We cannot be a revising Chamber unless we have some power to make the Government listen to our revisions. We cannot say in this case that the Government have not given an inch. They have given an inch, but no more than that.

    The normal practice is that, when there is disagreement at this stage of a Bill's progress, there are serious negotiations. That happened, for example, in a somewhat similar circumstance—the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—when the Government accepted that, to get that Bill through, they would have to make substantial amendments. There have been no such moves in this case, and none of the amendments that the Government have proposed as a move towards us can be described as substantial.

    The citizen's right to safety does not justify doing anything whatever that the Government think it right to do. I shall take the extreme case: I believe that nobody here would say that the citizen's right to safety justifies legitimising the torture of suspected terrorists. That is something that we would totally reject. There is always a balance between protecting the citizen—that is, of course, the most important consideration, but it is not the only one—and preserving the liberties of the citizen.

    Our amendments would do no damage to the protection of the safety of our people, but they would help considerably in protecting their civil liberties. That is why we move the amendment. I beg to move.

    Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B to Lords Amendment 1; do insist on its Amendments 37Q, 37S and 37T in lieu of Lords Amendment 8; do insist on its insistence on Lords Amendments 12,13, 15, 17,22, 28 and 37 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement and do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 37A to 37C and 37E to 370 in lieu of those Lords Amendments; do insist on their disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 17H to 17M to the words restored to the bill by the Commons insistence on their disagreement to Lords Amendment 17; do disagree

    with the Commons in their Amendment 37X in lieu; do not insist on its Amendment 37R and do propose Amendment 37Y in lieu thereof.— (Lord Goodhart.)

    My Lords, I shall be brief. The House will know that I voted against the Government on their proposals for non-derogating orders. The Government have moved a long way since then, and I am satisfied on the principle of judicial involvement. It is a matter of vital importance. There have been other solid concessions since then.

    I say in passing that, as Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, I appointed the first special counsel, after discussion with the Bar; likewise in England and Wales. The situation has developed since then, and it can and, I am sure, will be improved. However, on the burden of proof I say, with my limited experience, that it is not possible to import what is essentially a civil connotation into what is essentially an assessment of a threat, not an assessment of whether an offence has been committed. Indeed, the test in criminal law would be much higher. You cannot cobble together a civil concept of that kind with the assessment of a threat.

    Since then, I have voted for the Government on all amendments, save one, although the Bill is far from perfect, and I doubt that I would have started from the position that the Government first took. I fear that there was a lack of realpolitik in the Government's proposals and a failure to understand what is constitutionally important.

    I voted against the sunset clause specifying 30 November. The period was ridiculously short. I abstained from voting on the proposal for a period of one year made by my noble friend Lady Hayman. There was no magic in one year. I understand, as we all do now, the distinction between an annual review and a sunset clause.

    I have only modest and limited experience of intelligence problems, as a Defence Minister in the 1960s, disappointed by intelligence sources, and as Attorney-General here, and in Northern Ireland. in the 1990s. I know a little from five departments of state the difficulties of drafting sound legislation. I believe in the primacy of the Commons. The comments made last night would make David Lloyd George, my boyhood hero, turn in his grave. He had some choice expressions. Certainly in his Poplar speech, which is too insulting to repeat, he talked about the then membership of the House of Lords. I suspect—and I say this to the Liberal Democrat Benches—that he would have had something to say tonight.

    Honour has been talked about. I heard it on the airwaves today. More important, I would suggest, is a recognition of the importance of Parliament and the place of the Commons. Is it too late for common sense to prevail? If the date of 30 November is too short—ridiculously short—and one year is felt to be too short, why not in two years from now end the present Bill, which was cobbled together in its original unsatisfactory form in two months? If the date is not acceptable, surely a proper sound Bill could be prepared in two years, which the Government intend to do in any event. Is not saying two years a way forward and a way to save the reputation of both our Houses?

    My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, yesterday and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred—as I must confess all Welsh politicians do from time to time—to David Lloyd George, the great Welsh wizard and inspiring Liberal leader—too mercurial, it was said, to be a safe companion for tiger shooting.

    Certainly, Lloyd George attacked the wide powers of this House of his day. It was rather different in composition. What he said about their Lordships, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, did not seem to be inclined to tell your Lordships today, was that they were 500 men, ordinary men, chosen accidentally from amongst the unemployed. There is no point in trying to engage the Liberal Democrats today by reminding us of the battles we fought and won more than 100 years ago over the aristocratic few—the owners of the soil who, as Lloyd George said, made our forefathers trespassers in the land of their birth.

    This House today takes and maintains a form which was the precise choice and responsibility of this Prime Minister. This House may properly claim a particular constitutional responsibility to act as a check upon overweening executive power. That is particularly so when power is exercised in the manner of an elective dictatorship, bolstered by an electoral system which throws up an overwhelming and, save for some very courageous voices, mainly supine House of Commons.

    On which side of today's argument would Lloyd George have been—the very question the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, posed'? He said just over 100 years ago last November in Bristol:
    "Britain stood practically alone in the world for constitutional freedom".
    He said that for generations it stood,
    "for freedom, for a free press, for free speech, for free conscience, and for a free Parliament".
    Legislation fashioned by the secret services? LG would have led us singing through the "Content" Lobby on this Motion.

    My Lords, I intervene to support the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I have been privileged to serve with the noble and learned Lord in a number of governments and have learnt to respect his judgment. I believe in the primacy of the House of Commons. But I also believe that this House has one right, which is the power of delay. In a democracy that is a very valuable power for a revising Chamber. It is one in my judgment on which we should not be expected, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to bow to the House of Commons.

    For a variety of very good reasons it seems to me that there is a clear majority in this House who do not think that we should delay the legislation. The Law Lords' judgment and the nature of the new world of international terrorism in which we live make it wise and prudent for this legislation to come into being, even though many of us may have the deepest reservations about it.

    And so you come to the sunset clause. It seems to me that the sunset clause is purely and simply a delaying mechanism in circumstances where we are ready not to exercise our delaying power on this legislation. It is a way of effectively retaining the power of delay. I do not feel very strongly about whether it is a nine months' delay, a year's delay, 18 months' delay or even, at the uppermost limit, two years' delay; however, I cannot understand the argument of the Lord Chancellor that we are in some way challenging the House of Commons in an unconstitutional way by voting for a sunset clause.

    It seems to me that a sunset clause has everything to recommend it in these circumstances. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that we have to look at the way in which the House of Commons takes its decisions. It is not our responsibility but, when we weigh our judgment in exercising our power of delay through a sunset clause, it is wholly legitimate to take into account the procedures that have been followed.

    Many of us have spent many of our years in the House of Commons. It is almost without precedent that legislation of this magnitude and this importance should have been handled in the way in which it has been in the House of Commons. It seems to me—and this is the only matter I have voted on and the only one I intend to vote on—that I have heard no argument against a sensibly constructed sunset clause. I hope that the usual channels will come to a compromise on the timing of that period.


    My Lords, I have not intervened in arty of the debates so far but I think the House may recognise that, by force of circumstance, I have had experience in some of these matters through the posts that I have held in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Defence, and through my appointment by two successive Prime Ministers as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I presume to indulge on your Lordships' time to make a few comments.

    Let me deal with one point right at the start. Noble Lords on both sides of the House may feel that the most regrettable aspect is the suggestion that this has become a political football about whether one side is or is not soft on terrorism. The Lord Chancellor, I know, would not wish to be associated with that. He knows that there are on these Benches, including myself, the survivors of serious terrorist attacks, whether in the Grand Hotel at Brighton or the mortar attack when what was then called the War Cabinet was meeting. I myself have been the personal subject of IRA interest at my own home. I do not underestimate the challenges and fears that are involved. There is no question that throughout the House there is a resolute determination to face up to terrorism. But the reality is that in facing up to terrorism we have a responsibility to ensure that we approach it in the most constructive way. From my time in Northern Ireland—and I have heard the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and Ministers say this—I know that it is often said that if the security services make proposals to you, then who are you to resist them. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, invited those of us on these Benches who have held ministerial office to bring our experience to bear on these matters.

    Proposals, including a number of sensible ones, were made to me by the police, by the RUC, by the Army and by the security services; and some proposals, including some fairly foolish ones, were made by my colleagues. One or two of my colleagues may remember what they were. But it is the Minister's job—it is what he is there for—to decide which ones are sensible and helpful.

    Anyone in Northern Ireland gets a fairly good training in recognising a recruiting sergeant for terrorism when he sees one coming down the road. I share the fears expressed by others about the way in which some of the implications of this legislation may affect the attitude of the Muslim community, as the nationalist republican community was affected when internment without trial was introduced in Northern Ireland. In the Maze prison we had a university of terror. Perhaps because of that, Chancellor Kohl was subsequently to describe the IRA as the most sophisticated and effective urban terrorist group in the world. How many deaths and scars and how much human tragedy flowed from the decision to impose that system of executive action in Northern Ireland?

    Against that background, simply passing a law, sounding resolute and taking decisive action is not enough. It is the responsibility of us all, and most of all of those with previous experience of these issues, not simply to embark on it and hope that it comes out all right in the end.

    Having listened to some of the arguments, there is no question that this has been an extraordinarily rushed parliamentary procedure. Of course guillotines have been imposed before by both sides, but I cannot recall there ever having been quite such a truncation of the House of Commons. Indeed, has not the Lord Chancellor conceded the point? When it reached this House, this was a very bad Bill. If it had not been for the House of Lords it would have been enacted in the exact form in which it was introduced in the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor has now been gracious enough to admit that a significant number of improvements have been made. That would never have happened if we had simply said, "The House of Commons has primacy. Who are we to interfere if the Prime Minister has been given detailed advice by his security advisers?". The Bill would simply have been pushed through in that way.

    Against all that, the Government must have their Bill. They must have in place the requirements necessary to deal with the immediate circumstances. But I join with the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in saying that there must be a way through.

    A suggestion arose to appoint a committee of Privy Counsellors, although I know that the Government have not accepted it. In all modesty it is possible that I would have been one of those nominated to serve on such a committee. I would not have served on it if I thought that we were going to be treated like the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Newton when it was asked to look at these matters. Its findings were totally ignored. And with great respect to any future reviewer, if a review is produced and laid with a government response, and with a whipped majority at its present scale in the House of Commons, the idea that we will get any kind of adequate assurance is nonsense.

    I do not know if the Lord Chancellor has any other way of approaching this, but I have to say to him that we must have a bankable assurance. A sunset clause set at whatever length of time seems appropriate must be the reasonable way forward. With it, the Government and the whole House can be confident that there will be a chance of looking again at these matters.

    I want to make a brief point. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we could hold people in detention without charge for an initial period of seven days. Having just discussed it with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, I recall that owing to a judgment in Europe, the detention period had to be reduced to either four or five days. At that point, on a certificate signed by myself or subsequent Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, the period could be extended for a further two days. Otherwise, the detainee had to be released. In the circumstances we sought, as closely as we could to fight terrorism, under the law. Despite all the suggestions being made for toughening up our approach, we were determined that we were not going to let terrorists destroy the basic principles of justice in our country, principles that we were seeking to preserve.

    Noble Lords may recall an incident when a large shipment of arms from Libya was intercepted by the French police. The ship was called the "Eksund". If that shipment had arrived successfully, it would have caused an absolute disaster in Northern Ireland. A vast quantity of Semtex was found on board, along with sniper rifles, high-calibre machine guns. and a load of Kalashnikovs. The French seized the ship and managed to bring it into territorial waters. Under the sensible French system of the examining magistrate—I plead guilty to not knowing the exact title—the French authorities were able to hold without charge the captain and the Irish crew members for some three or four years. The examining magistrate system required no derogation from the European law.

    I do not recommend that, but this is not the only way to go. Time is needed to consider an approach that is much closer to our basic system of justice than the approach represented by the Bill. In the short term, the Government must have the Bill, but there must be time for a proper, guaranteed review and a guaranteed opportunity for the Bill to be replaced.

    My Lords, on the anniversary of the Madrid bombing, I ask whether a Tory Home Secretary would repeal control orders that were introduced by this House and the Commons, in the unlikely event that the party that supported internment and exclusion orders won the forthcoming election.

    My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord heard the report today that the Mayor of Madrid, on the anniversary of 191 people being killed and 1,200 other Spaniards being seriously wounded, has expressed his determination—he made it absolutely clear—that in fighting terrorism, he was not prepared to interfere with or seriously degrade the system of justice. He has faced just the sort of tragedy that the Government face, a threat that is, I acknowledge, in many significant ways much greater than those to which I had to respond in my time. The story is entirely anecdotal, but I understand that the Mayor of Madrid, when asked if he would like to move in the direction that the British Government propose with the Bill, was heard to say that he thought that it would be a very bad idea.

    My Lords, I shall be brief. I have only two or three things to say, but I cannot help being provoked, yet again, by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, whose Lloyd George would not be recognised in Criccieth. There would be absolutely no chance of that. Perhaps I should not go on about David Lloyd George. It would take a long speech and would probably bore many people in this place. He was one of my boyhood political heroes, and I was surprised to hear him being dragged into the arguments coming from the other side of the House.

    Over the past few days, the House has narrowed the area of disagreement considerably. From the speeches that have been made so far this morning, it now seems that there is only one major issue left between the parties: a sunset clause of some kind or another. I had assumed that the review that the Government have offered would be in a position, if it wished, to recommend that there should be changes in the legislation. That seems to me to be implied. I see heads nodding on the Government Front Bench. If that is so and there has to be a review, and if in the course of that review the reviewers can say, "We don't like the Bill very much. We would prefer it if it were cast in a different light, or if it were amended in a certain way", the difference between that and what is being argued for so passionately on the other side is very small.

    I have not been in this House as long as some other noble Lords, merely about 16 years, but I have not come across a situation like this. I have never known ping-pong to be played with such intensity between the two Houses. In 15 years in this place, however, I have learnt that primacy between the two Houses must lie with the House of Commons. In all the arguments about reforming the composition of the House of Lords and looking at its powers, everyone agreed that the primary of power should lie down the Corridor and not with this House. Now, in effect, to eat into that principle by talking about "temporary politicians who happen to have been elected" is—

    12.15 p.m.

    My Lords, that is the second time that quotation has been referred to. I will now say exactly what it was: I am here on my honour, as is everyone else. Temporary politicians should not be allowed permanently to remove the right of habeas corpus. That is the point, that is why I am here on my honour, and I will stand by it because I think that habeas corpus is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, yelled, "Shut up". If that is what the other side think about habeas corpus it shows exactly how intelligent their arguments are over it.

    My Lords, the House will have heard what the noble Earl had to say, and will no doubt be in a position to judge what he said. There is no doubt that he used the words "temporary politicians", and there is no doubt about to whom he was referring: the people at the other end of the Corridor. The noble Earl is claiming for himself and for this House the right in certain areas to have primacy over what goes on at the other end. That is totally wrong.

    My Lords, I do not see how the constitution of this country can run on any basis other than that the House of Commons is indeed superior to the House of Lords. Otherwise, there is chaos. Chaos is in front of us if on any given issue this House can decide, "We think that this is so important that we are going to stick. We are going to stand with our principles and we do not care what happens down the other end". That is just plain wrong. I therefore appeal to the House at this stage, having been through all these debates and had all these votes in both Houses, to accept that the time has now come for Parliament to decide that, in accordance with constitutional tradition, principle and the rules of both Houses, on this issue the House of Commons should prevail.

    My Lords, I have taken no part in these proceedings. I want just two minutes to express my support for the view put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord King. After the past 24 hours, there is a risk that, as we become more tired, tempers will begin to fray and sentiments will be expressed that are best not expressed.

    Yesterday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quite rightly upbraided a Member of this House—I do not know who it was—for suggesting that the Government were behaving as they were because if there were a terrorist outrage during the election they could blame the opposition. That was a very unworthy remark, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was right to condemn it. I have with me the report of yesterday's proceedings in the House of Commons. I also object to the phrases used by the Leader of the House, Mr Hain, who talked about the,
    "Conservative-controlled House of Lords",
    ignoring the fact that even if not a single Conservative Peer had voted, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Goodhart would still have been carried. That is an important point.

    In any case, it was clear that the mood of this House was not being dictated by the Conservative Benches. Mr Hain said that the House of Lords was,
    "playing politics with our constituents' safety and security".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/05; col. 1689.]
    That sort of language is not helpful. I am very glad that he was taken to task by the Father of the House, Mr Dalyell, who said:
    "My right hon. Friend should be a bit more careful. In whole sections of the country, the Bill is not seen as Commons versus Lords".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/05; cols. 1691.]
    I agree. Mr Hain and I go back a very long way. In his young days, when he was falsely accused of a bank robbery, I appeared in the witness box at the Old Bailey as a character witness. I am not certain that I would be willing to do so again today.

    To be serious, there are two clear, conflicting, important principles, on which we are probably all agreed. The first is that no legislation should arbitrarily remove the fundamental right of a citizen to liberty. The second is that exceptional legislation is needed to counter the very real threat of terrorism.

    I believe very strongly that former party leaders should not tell current party leaders what to do. I am sure that I carry the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, with me when I say that. I know Mr Kennedy well enough to realise that if I attempted to do that he would tell me where to go. However, I think that it is perhaps time either for the usual channels or, indeed, for Mr Blair himself, to invite Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy to look at the possibility of a compromise. It would be wrong if he were to behave like a Chinese emperor and be worried about loss of face. The press have a responsibility not to portray the arguments in that way. The party leaders should get together and proceed on the basis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, have talked about, and extend the proposed sunset clause.

    I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with all his experience does not recognise the fundamental difference between a review conducted by a government with a majority and a sunset clause. They are light years apart.

    I conclude by saying that the weakest argument, which the Government have advanced all along, is that the security forces and the police want these powers. There are many countries where what the security forces and the police say is the law; fortunately, this is not one of them. It is because we do not want it to be one of them that we cannot allow this Bill to be part of our permanent legislation.

    My Lords, I am a relatively inexperienced Cross-Bencher who is bemused by what is happening in this House and wants to make the right decision on which way to vote. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor willing to summarise the precise reasons why the Government oppose the sunset clause?

    My Lords, the Government have accused us of intransigence in the course of the past 24 hours. Yet their concessions during this period have been derisory compared to our own. We have conceded on the rule-making powers of the Lord Chief Justice. We have conceded on placing Article 6 on the face of the Bill. We are conceding today on the insertion of a committee of Privy Counsellors to review the Bill. Yesterday we conceded on the time for the kicking in of the sunset clause.

    This morning we hear that the Liberal Party has decided to table its amendment after removing the very important role of the DPP. We shall support the Liberal amendment when it is moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, although we are extremely sad about its dilution.

    My Lords, the situation has changed in a certain material respect. We have had debates in this House in which disquiet has been repeatedly expressed. The situation that will be considered by the review committee is rather different from before. The Government would be very unwise to ignore what has happened in this House. Does the noble Lord concede therefore that when we consider the review committee we are considering something very different from what we were considering before?

    My Lords, I certainly do not make that concession. I was not actually talking about the review committee when the noble Lord intervened; but nevertheless since he asks whether I would make that concession I do not. It is wholly different from the sunset clause and entirely unacceptable to us. Quite apart from anything else, it would not give your Lordships' House the opportunity to amend the Bill before it was renewed; and there are many other reasons why we should oppose it.

    If I may return to the DPP, this would have been a very important guarantee on the face of the Bill had we been able to sustain it as part of the amendment. This is because control orders should be kept to the absolute minimum. The most important way to deal with terrorism is through the prosecutorial process. It guarantees the individual the right to have a fair trial. Control orders do not. If the DPP is not obliged to investigate every case thoroughly, there is a danger that the control order system will be abused. So we regret the removal of the DPP although we will be supporting the Liberal Democrat Party in its amendment.

    In his opening speech, the noble and learned Lord addressed everything except the merits of the Motion he moved. Now is not the time to go through the arguments that have been adduced on either side during these debates. I just say this about our amendment on the sunset clause. We have been flexible on the question of time. The noble and learned Lord has, on more than one occasion, suggested that our attempt to amend the Bill has in some way assisted the terrorist cause. We wholly repudiate that suggestion and, indeed, remind the noble and learned Lord that all the advice he has been getting, on his own admission, is that the insertion of the sunset clause would not in any way affect the effectiveness of the Bill in the light against terrorism.

    My Lords, the noble Lord said that the review would not enable this House to move amendments to the legislation. I suggest that neither would a sunset clause, which would bring the legislation to an end. The review can make recommendations about amendments to the Bill. Then it would be up to the Government and the two Houses, after the procedure had been renewed, to come forward with amendments to the Bill on the grounds of the reviewers' recommendation.

    This is not a question of permanently withdrawing individual rights or habeas corpus. The legislation will not remain on the statute book for ever.

    My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord King, himself, and several other Members referred to the Government's proposal that the whole question of the regulation of terrorism and the removal of the threat be looked at carefully so that we can all agree on the fundamentals of a new Bill—a comprehensive Bill—which will come to both Houses at a later date. So I think that we are exaggerating the importance of a sunset clause in comparison with the assurances and the amendments that have been made to the review process by the Government.

    My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention and her question. I am afraid that I have, most respectfully, to disagree with her. The whole point of the sunset clause is that the Bill dies and you have a new Bill, so we can formulate it in any way we want. We cannot do that with the clause that the Government have inserted.

    My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord King, is right. There has been a time limit in practice on the Bill; it has come from the decision of the Law Lords, which we respect. One could have extended for a short time the Part 4 powers but, ultimately, because the Law Lords said that the earlier part was incompatible with human rights, we rightly took the view that we should introduce a new Bill.

    I also accept the noble Lord's definition of what has happened. There has been a significant number of improvements made in this House. That is what this House is for, and I do not for one moment shirk from that. But there comes a point when a decision has to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, quite rightly asked us to summarise the arguments for not having a sunset clause. We accept the proposition that the Bill should be kept under review. That is why we have introduced, as the Bill has gone through, provisions for renewal, which mean that annually the Bill has to be debated by both Houses, and only if both Houses approve it does it continue. We have also introduced a review by an independent reviewer. In the ping-pong that has been going on over the past 24 hours we have introduced a provision that says, in effect, that that review must be available before each annual renewal, so that at the time when the Houses of Parliament debate the renewal they are informed by the criticisms, if there are any, or the recommendations, if there are any, made by the reviewer on it.

    12.30 p.m.

    Should we go one step further and say that there is no law on terrorism if both Houses of Parliament cannot agree? That is the critical point why we do not go as far as a sunset clause. We have done what is done so often and so sensibly in this House: to introduce a review clause. I accept that the consequence of not having a sunset clause is that there is not hanging over the terrorist law the possibility that there will be no terrorist law. The reason why we do not think that that is the appropriate course is that we are advised by the security services that there is a threat and that it will continue.

    The noble Lord, Lord King, is absolutely right: no government should accept what is said by the police or the security services on a proposal such as this without interrogating them as firmly and as effectively as one possibly can. But we have done that, and we have decided to take their advice. I anticipate that people with such records as those of the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Waddington, Lord Baker or Lord Brittan, would equally have taken the same advice.

    My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made the point that the reason against the sunset clause is that it runs the risk that there will be no law. At the very beginning of his response this time, he recognised that there was universal support in this House, in all parties, that there has to be law to deal with these issues. Therefore, whatever was the government, it is inconceivable that any government would not recognise the responsibility; use their majority to achieve it if necessary; and look to the responsible response of opposition parties to ensure that at all times in this country—because no one party has the monopoly of responsibility for the security of our citizens—there would be a law in place.

    My Lords, I quite agree that no one party has such a responsibility. We seek to agree on these issues. But the power to renew with the review ensures, if we are all agreed on what should be done, that the Bill—or the Act as it then would be—could be amended. We should not introduce a provision that says, "It is possible there could be no anti-terrorism law" at a time when we agree that the threat will continue.

    My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. Perhaps I may ask him directly the following question. In a situation where the difference between a review and a sunset clause depends to a very great extent on the belief in this House that such a sunset clause would oblige a recasting of the legislation, and in the light of what happened in the Newton committee—some doubt about whether that would be equally the case with regard to an annual review—perhaps I may suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he has in his hands the capacity to unite this House and another place in a united determination to overcome terrorism. You do not overcome terrorism if there are deep divisions between the parties, exacerbated by a general election, in a way that now confronts us all and that could present the greatest possible danger to this country.

    My Lords, the noble Baroness puts her finger on the problem: we do want to try to unite both Houses. That is why throughout this 24-hour period and before we have introduced sensible provisions, very similar to the provisions introduced where there are problems of this sort, which go as far as we believe we can—that is, the review and the renewal procedures—without going as far as leaving open the possibility of there being no anti-terrorism law. Does this House think it possible that it would not agree with the detail of a terrorist law that the Government produced? Look at the debates that have gone on in relation to this.

    The other place does not want a sunset clause. They have expressed that opinion time and time and time again over the past 24 hours.

    We have been striving, over the past 24 hours and before, to get to the point where there is that review but there is no uncovered period. I earnestly ask noble Lords to look and see what has been done about review and renewal through this process and to accept that it is a bona fide attempt to deal with the quite legitimate points made by noble Lords in this House.

    My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving way. Is not the fatal inadequacy of the renewal procedure he is pressing on the House the fact that a statutory instrument effecting the renewal is unamendable?

    My Lords, that is absolutely true but, in order for there to be a new terrorist Act, there needs to be agreement between both Houses. I think the time has come, has it not, for our disputes to be put aside? We have listened very carefully to the sunset clause argument and we have made progress in relation to it. There will be informed debates as to the efficacy or otherwise of the Bill. The difference between us is that some Members of the House want a position where an axe can fall on this anti-terrorism legislation. and we cannot accept that. I invite noble Lords to accept the amendments put forward by the Commons.

    My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he said that in order for a new piece of legislation to flow from the review procedure there would have to be agreement between both Houses of Parliament, if I understood him correctly. But since the noble and learned Lord has expressed such a contemptuous view of your Lordships' House and its role in the legislative process today, how can that agreement mean anything?

    My Lords. I have certainly not expressed a contemptuous view about this House. Since I have been here for the past seven years, I have always understood the constitutional position to be, as someone said, that we have the power to delay and we have the power by that power to delay to make the other place think again. We have used that power. There are legitimate and bona fide reasons why the other place has taken the view that the sunset clause is not the appropriate way to deal with it.

    I ask this House to accept the bona fides of the other place in that respect; I ask the House to accept the bona fides of the Government in taking this view; and I ask this House to stop blocking the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

    My Lords, shortly after the debate, which started at five o'clock this morning, I was walking along a corridor in your Lordships' House when I happened to pass the Home Secretary. He glared at me and said, "You made a terrible speech". I took that as something of a compliment. But that attitude shows why the ping-pong on this occasion has been so contentious. Indeed, it is by far the most contentious of any that I have seen in the past seven and a half years.

    A sunset clause is, of course, an essential element in any deal that is to be done to ensure that this legislation goes through. As my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said, a review is simply not good enough. One only has to look at what happened to the report of the Newton committee, which reviewed the anti-terrorism Bill. That was simply thrown into the wastepaper basket—until it had to be dug out again following the decision of the Law Lords, when the Government suddenly began to realise that they ought to take notice of what it said.

    My Lords, I apologise for intervening. Is it the position of noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches that if we do not agree to the sunset clause they will veto the Bill?

    My Lords, so far as we are concerned, the answer would be "Yes". I cannot, of course, speak for the Conservative Benches. We of course welcome the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and of my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood for the sunset clause. We will, of course, support—and continue to support—the Motion to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for a sunset clause. If he intends to continue to divide the House on that, we shall continue to support him.

    However, we believe that a sunset clause is not the only necessary element. We need to ensure that judges make—and do not just review—control orders, and all kinds of control order. We need to ensure that there is an adequate standard of proof. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that the balance of probabilities was not a suitable test for analysing risk. The balance of probabilities test does not, in fact, apply to risk. It applies to the question of whether there is evidence that the defendant has been involved in terrorist activities. That issue is perfectly appropriate for test on the balance of probabilities.

    In that context, I particularly welcome the very powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. He made a very strong case for a judicial and not an Executive process and pointed to the severe problems which an Executive process had caused in Northern Ireland. He spoke from his enormous experience of those matters.

    Of course we on these Benches support the Government in their desire to introduce control orders. But the Government's proposals infringe civil liberties in a way which is wholly unnecessary to their purpose. I seek to test the opinion of the House.

    12.42 p.m.

    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. A1) shall be agreed to?

    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 176; Not-Contents, 128.

    Division No. 12


    Ackner, L.Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
    Addington, L.Chalker of Wallasey, B.
    Ahmed, L.Clement-Jones, L.
    Alliance, L.Cope of Berkeley, L.
    Ampthill, L.Crickhowell, L.
    Anelay of St Johns, B.Cumberlege, B.
    Arran, E.Dholakia, L.
    Astor, V.Dixon-Smith, L.
    Astor of Hever, L.Dykes, L.
    Avebury, L.Eccles of Moulton, B.
    Baker of Dorking, L.Eden of Winton, L.
    Barker, B.Elles, B.
    Beaumont of Whitley, L.Elliott of Morpeth, L.
    Bell, L.Elton, L.
    Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.Erroll, E.
    Bradshaw, L.Falkland, V.
    Bridgeman, V.Falker of Margravine, B.
    Bridges, L.Feldman, L.
    Brittan of Spennithorne, L.Ferrers, E.
    Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.Fookes, B.
    Brougham and Vaux, L.Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
    Buscombe, B.Fowler, L.
    Byford. B.Freeman, L.
    Campbell of Alloway, L.Garden, L.

    Gardner of Parkes, B.Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
    Garel-Jones, L.O'Cathain, B.
    Geddes, L.Onslow, E.
    Glentoran, L.Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
    Goodhart, L.Palumbo, L.
    Goschen, V.Park of Monmouth, B.
    Greaves, L.Parkinson, L.
    Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.Pearson of Rannoch, L.
    Hamwee, B.Perry of Southwark, B.
    Hanham, B.Phillips of Sudbury, L.
    Harris of High Cross, L.Plumb, L.
    Harris of Peckham, L.Portsmouth, Bp.
    Harris of Richmond, B.Quirk, L.
    Hayhoe, L.Rawlings, B.
    Henley, L.Razzall, L.
    Higgins, L.Redesdale, L.
    Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
    Hogg, B.Rennard, L.
    Home, E.Renton, L.
    Hooper, B.Roberts of Llandudno, L.
    Hooson, L.Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
    Howard of Rising, L.Rogan, L.
    Howe, E.Roper, L. [Teller]
    Howe of Aberavon, L.Russell-Johnston, L.
    Howe of Idlicote. B.Ryder of Wensum, L.
    Jenkin of Roding, L.Saatchi, L.
    Kalms, L.St John of Fawsley, L.
    Kennedy of The Shaws, B.Sandberg, L.
    Kimball, L.Scott of Needham Market, B.
    King of Bridgwater, L.Seccombe, B.[Teller]
    Kingsland, L.Selborne, E.
    Knight of Collingtree, B.Selkirk of Douglas, L.
    Laing of Dunphail, L.Selsdon, L.
    Laird, L.Sharp of Guildford, L.
    Lamont of Lerwick. L.Shaw of Northstead, L.
    Lang of Monkton, L.Shutt of Greetland, L.
    Linklater of Butterstone, B.Slim, V.
    Liverpool, E.Smith of Clifton, L.
    Livsey of Talgarth, L.Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
    Lloyd of Berwick, L.Steel of Aikwood, L.
    Lucas, L.Sterling of Plaistow, L.
    Ludford, B.Stewartby, L.
    Luke, L.Stoddart of Swindon, L.
    Lyell, L.Strathclyde, L.
    McColl of Dulwich, L.Taverne, L.
    Maclennan of Rogart, L.Thatcher, B.
    McNally, L.Thomas of Gresford, L.
    Maddock, B.Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
    Mancroft, L.Thomas of Walliswood, B.
    Marlesford, L.Thomson of Monifieth, L.
    Mayhew of Twysden, L.Tombs, L.
    Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.Tope, L.
    Miller of Hendon, B.Tordoff, L.
    Montrose, D.Trumpington, B.
    Moore of Lower Marsh, L.Ullswater, V.
    Morris of Bolton, B.Vallance of Tummel, L.
    Mowbray and Stourton, L.Waddington, L.
    Naseby, L.Wakeham, L.
    Neuberger, B.Wallace of Saltaire, L.
    Newby, L.Walmsley, B.
    Northbrook. L.Watson of Richmond, L.
    Northesk, E.Wilcox, B.
    Northover, B.Williams of Crosby, B.
    Norton of Louth, L.Willoughby de Broke, L.


    Alli, L.Bragg, L.
    Andrews, B.Brett, L.
    Ashton of Upholland, B.Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
    Bach, L.Brookman, L.
    Bassam of Brighton, L.Campbell-Savours, L.
    Bernstein of Craigweil, L.Carter, L.
    Bhattacharyya, L.Carter of Coles, L.
    Billingham, B.Christopher, L.
    Blackstone, B.Clake of Hampstead, L.

    Clinton-Davis, L.Lockwood, B.
    Condon, L.McDonagh, B.
    Corbett of Castle Vale, L.Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
    Crawley, B.McIntosh of Haringey, L.
    Davies of Coity. L.McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
    Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]McKenzie of Luton, L.
    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.Marsh, L.
    Dearing, L.Massey of Darwen, B.
    Desai, L.Maxton, L.
    Donoughue, L.Merlyn-Rees, L.
    Drayson. L.Mitchell, L.
    Dubs, L.Morgan of Drefelin, B.
    Elder. L.Morgan of Huyton, B.
    Evans of Temple Guiting, L.Morris of Aberavon, L.
    Falconer of Thoroton, L. (LordPaul, L.


    Pendry, L.
    Farrington of Ribbleton. B.Peston, L.
    Faulkner of Worcester, L.Plant of Highfield, L.
    Filkin, L.Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
    Gale, B.Prosser, B.
    Giddens, L.Radice, L.
    Gilbert, L.Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
    Golding, B.Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
    Goldsmith, L.Rendell of Babergh, B.
    Goudie, B.Renwick of Clifton, L.
    Gould of Brookwood, L.Richard, L.
    Gould of Potternewton, B.Rooker, L.
    Graham of Edmonton, L.Rosser, L.
    Greengross, B.Rowlands, L.
    Griffiths of Burry Port, L.Royall of Blaisdon, B.
    Grocott, L. [Teller]Sainsbury of Turville, L.
    Harris of Haringey, L.Sawyer, L.
    Hart of Chilton, L.Scotland of Asthal, B.
    Haskel, L.Sewel, L.
    Haworth. L.Simon, V.
    Henig, B.Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
    Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.Stone of Blackheath, L.
    Hollis of Heigham, B.Strabolgi, L.
    Howarth of Breckland, B.Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
    Howells of St. Davids, B.Thornton, B.
    Hoyle, L.Tomlinson, L.
    Hughes of Woodside, L.Triesman, L.
    Hunt of Kings Heath, L.Truscott, L.
    Janner of Braunstone, L.Tunnicliffe, L.
    Jay of Paddington, B.Turnberg, L.
    Jones, L.Turner of Camden, B.
    Jordan, L.Wall of New Barnet, B.
    Kilclooney, L.Warner, L.
    King of West Bromwich, L.Waverley, V.
    Laming, L.Weatherill, L.
    Layard, L.Weidenfeld, L.
    Leitch, L.Whitaker, B.
    Levy, L.Whitty, L.
    Lipsey, L.Williams of Elvel, L.
    Listowel, E.Winston, L.
    Young of Norwood Green, L.

    Resolved in the affirmative and amendment agreed to accordingly.

    On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

    12.53 p.m.