Lord Norton of Louth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to reform the use of commencement orders.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to raise this Question and I am delighted that my noble friends Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and Lord Cormack are contributing.
Commencement orders may seem a dry and obscure subject—one little understood by the public or indeed by Members. When I mentioned to a colleague that I had this Question for Short Debate, I had to explain what commencement orders were. However, they are extremely important, and the fact that they are little understood is a major problem, bearing on public confidence in the political system. Commencement orders are essentially what stand between what Parliament has said can be the law and what is the law.
Unless an Act states otherwise, it takes effect upon Royal Assent. However, it is common to provide for provisions to take effect on dates stipulated by Ministers. Were provisions of Acts of Parliament brought into effect as a matter of course relatively soon after Royal Assent, allowing time for whatever administrative arrangements needed to be made, there would not be a problem. However, that is not what happens. There is a plethora of legislative provisions—agreed by Parliament and embodied in Acts of Parliament—which have never been brought into effect. These provisions are substantial, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Easter Act 1928 is frequently offered as an example of an Act that was never brought into force. However, there are modern-day equivalents. The statute book is littered with substantial parts of Acts which have never been given effect.
Some noble Lords have tabled Questions to the Government to find out how extensive this practice is of not bringing legislation into force. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in June 2010, asked which sections of, or schedules to, Acts passed since 1997 had not been commenced. On my count, the list encompassed no fewer than 147 Acts of Parliament that had sections or schedules that had never been commenced—147 Acts since 1997. They include one Act that is unimplemented in its entirety. The Acts were not minor pieces of legislation, with just one section or schedule unimplemented, although there were a number of those. They included major pieces of legislation with several sections or schedules unimplemented. One Act, for example, had, on my count, 45 sections and seven schedules unimplemented wholly or in part.
For Parliament to pass legislation that is not then given effect is an inefficient use of Parliament’s time—indeed, a waste of time. We spend time discussing the merits of provisions that we expect to become law but which then simply lay on the face of the Act without being brought into effect. Perhaps more importantly, it confuses the public. People think that when Parliament passes an Act the Act is then law and takes effect. They do not realise that its provisions may not take effect until an order is made to bring them into effect and that Ministers may not actually make such orders.
Some provisions are not commenced until the necessary administrative work is completed. I understand that. I know that there are now common commencement dates and departments are expected to comply with those. However, the Government may need to consider how they explain to those affected by a measure the reasons for any delay in giving effect to their provisions.
However, my principal concern is with legislative provisions never given effect at all. I should be interested to hear from my noble friend the justification for government not giving effect to that which Parliament has passed and how he would explain that to the public.
I appreciate that the responsibility for the current situation rests as much with Parliament as with government. The two Houses approve Bills that give power to Ministers to make orders to bring particular provisions into effect. We discuss the substantive provisions of Bills, but rarely give much attention, if any at all, to the supplementary provisions. We see the headings under the supplementary provisions—commencement, transitional provision, extent and Short Title—and tend to see them as standard provisions requiring little consideration. By that stage, Members tend to think that their work is done.
There is a case for Parliament to be more vigilant in future in checking such provisions and perhaps limiting their scope. Why allow Ministers an open-ended power to bring provisions of an Act into effect? Why not be more prescriptive or set a time period within which such orders may be made? My comments are addressed as much to colleagues in the House as they are to the Government. I wanted to get them on the record as a basis for pursuing the issue.
This is not the first time that I have addressed the issue. I chaired the Commission to Strengthen Parliament, which was set up by William Hague as Leader of the Opposition in 1999 and reported in 2000. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville was a member of the commission. We included commencement orders in our remit, and in our section on legislative scrutiny we concluded:
“Finally, we wish to see one particular change to existing practice. The commencement clauses normally give power for the Secretary of State to bring provisions in on dates set by the minister. Parliament could, of course, ensure that commencement clauses do not provide excessive latitude. We think there is a case for a more systematic constraint. In the Parliamentary Government Bill that he introduced in 1999, Lord Cranborne included a clause to provide that any provision of an enactment which is not commenced within five years of the passing of the Act shall cease to have effect. We find the argument for such a provision persuasive. We therefore recommend that there be a statutory provision that any sections of an Act which are not brought into effect within five years of Royal Assent shall cease to have effect”.
In other words, provisions of Acts that have not been brought into effect will be repealed. That will tidy up, and indeed shorten, the statute book. Introducing such a provision would also have a salutary effect on Ministers.
William Hague said that the report of the commission would be a road map for a future Conservative Government. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that the Government have not lost their sense of direction and will now address the issue. In particular, it will be helpful if my noble friend will put on the record the Government’s position on commencement orders and what they will be doing to ensure that in future the statute book is not littered with provisions that occupy the confusing position of being law but not law.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth in speaking to his admirable choice of subject for this short debate and to congratulate him on the speech with which he introduced it.
He has described our mutual participation in the Commission to Strengthen Parliament. It was set up in 1999 by the then Leader of the Conservative Party, my right honourable friend the present Foreign Secretary. It was chaired with characteristic scholarship by my noble friend, who was already in the Lords by that time. It contained three other former Conservative MPs, of whom two were by then Members of your Lordships’ House, the third being Matthew Parris, as well as a distinguished woman Oxford academic to counterbalance my noble friend, and finally me, as the only sitting MP.
By a remarkable coincidence, which occurred while I was sorting out books at home over the past fortnight, I came across our final report, which I had not seen for years—my library policy is one of accumulation rather than specific acquisition or ambition. I immediately rescued it from any potential cull, particularly one made by my wife. By a further remarkable coincidence, I received a letter from my noble friend drawing my attention to this debate and reminding me that our report had included the recommendation which underlies this debate and which he has just quoted. I have to confess that I had forgotten the recommendation. Since this debate may become a modest quarry for future students of the subject, I remark that that recommendation appears on page 43 of our report. It is the last major paragraph in a section headed, “Legislative Scrutiny”, and on page 63 it is the final item in a list of seven recommendations entitled “Legislative Scrutiny: Primary Legislation”. Its provenance was in the text of a Bill introduced also in 1999 by Viscount Cranborne, from whom we had taken oral evidence. His Bill was entitled Parliamentary Government.
On rereading our report this week, I was agreeably surprised by its universal good sense and also by how many of the issues that we raised have been taken up since. Nor am I in any way receding from the particular recommendation that we are debating. Its text runs, as my noble friend has demonstrated, to less than 150 words, so there is no great substance to disembowel, and it possesses a logic that invites agreement without provoking disagreement. The five years that we allocated as the fallow period during which the sections of an Act could survive untrammelled following Royal Assent without commencement orders have the additional virtue of being at a sufficient distance in time from Royal Assent for everyone to have forgotten who the Minister was who had fruitlessly introduced these now lapsed and neglected propositions and invited parliamentarians to use parliamentary time to dissect them. Moreover, those five years were a good test of any continuing relevance or any circumstance that made the sections less relevant after all. In a world where parliamentarians and commentators regret the sheer amount of legislation passed, their removal from availability as law may be a salutary prophylactic.
Of course, it is not as easy as that. There is a school of thought that does not want to throw anything out of Mother Hubbard’s cupboard, but parliamentarians have never hesitated to set limits for local authorities to monitor the duration of planning permissions being granted before the permission lapses, and these constraints are a notable stimulus to timely action. Overall, there would be a bonus in parliamentary time saved and intelligent scrutiny and courage.
As ever, I have been helped and my horizons extended by the excellent briefing provided by our Library. In this instance I particularly enjoyed the guidance for co-ordinators and policymakers and appreciated the statistics on Acts passed, especially when reinforced by subjects. The statistics show the volume of Acts passed in given calendar years and the subject breakdown in sessional years, which makes comparison less than totally accurate, but over a period of 30 years that prevents false or distorted impressions. My own computation was that over the period from 1983 to 2012 almost exactly 20% have been devoted to constitutional Acts and those embracing criminal justice.
Finally, there is a moral to be derived from the coincidence of the debates today in which my noble friend Lord Cormack is taking part. Here in the Moses Room, 50 of us have been given 60 minutes on a narrow but important issue, while elsewhere 30 Peers are going to be debating the monumental Magna Carta over 90 minutes and Back-Benchers will have 60% of the time that is allocated to us here to debate that massive subject. Of course it concentrates the mind and of course there is no way to adjust the imbalance but it does cast a searchlight on securing productive returns from the parliamentary time that we invest.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is both a pleasure and an honour to follow my two noble friends. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has performed many signal services to our parliamentary democracy in this country and his introducing this subject today with such concise and crisp logic was but another example of the services that he has rendered. Of course, my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has also been a marvellous public servant who has done so much to enhance the reputation of Parliament, which is more than can be said for many Ministers over the time that he served.
I was provoked into taking part in this debate by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth and I was delighted to respond to that provocation. We devote an enormous amount of time in the two Houses to debating legislation. Frequently, the cry goes up from your Lordships’ House that ill digested, ill considered legislation has been placed before us, whole chunks of which have never been debated, or have been debated only very briefly, in the House of Commons. That is bad enough.
Another thing that we complain about, as I did on many occasions in another place, is the number of Henry VIII clauses, as they are called, which give almost untrammelled powers to Ministers to do things within the general purview and ambit of the Act. I deplore both those things. Of course, when we are then brought up sharp by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as we were by the commission that he chaired all those years ago, and have it pointed out to us that many of the Acts over which we slave and to which we devote many parliamentary hours, either never come into force at all or whole chunks of them never come into force, we face what is no less than a parliamentary scandal. It is incumbent on us to address this subject at last with some vigorous action.
I entirely endorse the clinching recommendation based on the Marquess of Salisbury’s Private Member’s Bill, but I would go further than that and make one or two suggestions to your Lordships this afternoon. No Bill or Act should be introduced or passed by Parliament unless it is the specific and stated intention of the Government of the day to bring it into force within the lifetime of the Parliament in which it is passed. If any law passed by Parliament has not been brought into force by the end of that Parliament, it should disappear from the statute books. That is a sharpening- up of what I would call the Salisbury/Norton recommendation and something that the Government should take exceptionally seriously.
I am also a great believer in the efficacy of Joint Committees of both Houses and I think that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses on commencement orders. We talk often about the necessity for pre-legislative scrutiny; we talk about the desirability of post-legislative scrutiny; but we have not, as far as I remember, talked in any detail on the Floor of either Chamber in the 43 years that I have been here about commencement orders. If we had a Joint Committee of both Houses, which had as its remit the constant examination of this subject, surely it could only sharpen the minds of Ministers and make them consider: is this law truly necessary?
We pass far too many laws in this country. The extent to which the statute books have been increased during the time I have been a Member of one House or another is, frankly, horrifying. We should be concentrating our minds on trying to improve the quality of legislation, and the first question before introducing any Bill in either House should be: is this necessary and will it improve things? If the answer to both those questions is in the affirmative, it is indeed incumbent on those who have the ultimate control to ensure that the law in question comes into force.
At the root of all this is the whole question of the balance between the legislature and the Executive. I am often minded to quote Dunning’s famous Motion in 1780 that,
“the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished”,
and apply it to the present moment—whether it is a Government of my party, a coalition Government or a Government of the noble Baroness’s party—and say that the power of the Executive has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. One way we could diminish that is to ensure that ministerial minds are more concentrated on the need for the legislation that they place before us.
When he was talking about the report produced by the commission of which he was such a distinguished chairman, my noble friend Lord Norton said that our right honourable friend William Hague, who was then the leader of the party, defined it as being a road map. Being Foreign Secretary, Mr Hague knows all about maps now, and I hope that the present leadership of the Government will recognise that this was indeed a road map and that it is about time that it was looked at again and that its suggestions or refinements, such as I have put before your Lordships this afternoon, are thought about seriously and, much more importantly, implemented.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, there is very rarely an opportunity in a debate such as this for someone to leap into the gap but I am afraid that I am going to sin this afternoon.
I was absolutely horrified by the figures given by my noble friend Lord Norton of 147 Bills since 1977 not being enacted in full and one not implemented at all, and I wondered if there were some very good reasons for this. The first that occurred to me was that Bills that are not fully enacted or commenced straightaway might well suffer from a change of government, with the new Government not wanting a particular section to become law. The other thing that occurs to me is that it may well be a parliamentary accident that a Private Member’s Bill is not enacted at all or is enacted only in part.
Some 20 years ago, as Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment, I had responsibility for defending at Question Time the fact that a particular section of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 had not been brought into effect. I have not looked up what I said on that occasion nor to what extent I was criticised by Members of your Lordships’ House, but subsequent to that I became involved in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on which I served for nine years. That also prompted me to look at this particular subject and at statutory instruments in general, not least the terms in which they were couched.
I had always understood that the right body to look at Acts of Parliament and the current state of the statute book was the Law Society, which does such an amazing job at doing just that. The trouble with my noble friend Lord Norton’s proposal is that it would have to be done within departments. Civil servants are naturally cautious about changing what they or their colleagues have drafted with such immaculate care so I do not think that this is a job for civil servants, even in the Cabinet Office. I would leave it to the Law Society with the proviso that the Government then act thereupon.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for this interesting short debate about the statute book, which is indeed littered with legislation that has never been commenced. I was delighted to learn—for the first time, to my shame—of the important commission and the forthcoming report.
I think that this commission was set up by the Conservative Party but this is very much a non-political point and I would probably sign up to everything in the report—I do not know but I will certainly take a closer look now. As has been noted, Governments of all persuasions are equally culpable. It is an issue that I have thought about in the past in relation to our citizens’ trust and the relationship that we have with them because in Parliament we quite rightly spend a lot of time debating legislation and sometimes we incite the interest and concern of the public. The public know about these things going through Parliament and, understandably, they automatically assume that the Acts will be implemented but, as has been pointed out, far too many of them are not. Were the public to know this, they would be deeply concerned. This is one of the many things that we have to do in order to restore confidence with the public.
Interesting things have been said about the time that we as parliamentarians take in scrutinising legislation and, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, there is a contrast between what we are doing here today—having a very leisurely, enjoyable debate—and what is happening in the Chamber, and we really have to do something about that. Interestingly, someone told me that they overheard a colleague in the other place talking about a part of a piece of legislation that had not been implemented. It was said that this particular section of the legislation was introduced via an amendment in your Lordships’ House and the person down the other end of the Corridor was heard to say, “Well, it doesn’t really matter because they won’t implement it anyway”. That is an interesting view of what can happen and we really must do something about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the issue, which is potentially interesting, but I happen to think that there are two ways forward: first, if every piece of legislation, especially every constitutional piece of legislation, was subject to proper pre-legislative scrutiny, that should obviate the need for that sort of committee; secondly, noble Lords may recall that the Leader’s Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, who is not in his place today, recommended that there should be a committee on standards in legislation. If that sort of committee were to come into force, it could deal with some of these issues.
As I said, I probably would sign up to many of the recommendations of the report that has been mentioned and I think I would personally favour the recommendation made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that today. But I would like to take this slightly further. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned statutory instruments and spoke of his experience on what used to be called the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Of course, I well understand that not every statutory instrument deals with enactment or commencement orders but, having looked at the tables that were helpfully produced by the Library, they clearly demonstrate not only that there are far too many SIs but that they have become much more complex over the years. For example, in 1975 there were 1,340 SIs, which amounted to only 8,379 pages, whereas in 2009 there were slightly more SIs—1,420—but there were 11,414 pages. They have become a lot more complex and Governments of all persuasions these days are relying far too much on statutory instruments as a consequence of framework legislation.
I go back to the need that is clearly demonstrated so often for pre-legislative scrutiny and well drafted legislation that knows what it is doing and why it is there. There is much to be done in improving our system of government and the laws that come before us. We also have a duty as parliamentarians to ensure that the structures and systems that we follow are more effective in ensuring that we really can deliver what citizens think we are delivering and, therefore, regain their trust.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. I am particularly conscious of his long-standing interest in this issue and his experience in matters of constitutional law and practice. I am aware of the work he undertook for the commission for the Conservative Party. If I may say so, I was conscious that, should we achieve government, we should adhere to many aspects of that piece of work.
I also remark on the long and formidable experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friends Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, Lord Cormack and Lord Skelmersdale. It is a daunting prospect to reply when your Lordships have the experience that you all have, but I am glad your Lordships were all, if I may use the word, provoked to speak in this debate. I hope that it is helpful to set out the Government’s current policy and practice on the use of commencement orders.
The Government undoubtedly have responsibility for the maintenance of the statute book. I agree with noble Lords that it is not in principle desirable for there to be parts of enacted legislation on the statute book which remain uncommenced for long periods. In briefing myself on the debate, I became aware of the Easter Act—I must say that I was not before—which is of very long standing. I agree with the noble Baroness that that would undoubtedly cause confusion, indeed, probably bewilderment, among the public if they were to hear about that.
Again from study, I am conscious of the amount of legislation. I should say that in a different life, I have been a strong supporter of less legislation rather than more, and of higher quality legislation. My noble friend Lord Cormack was rightly strong on that point. Given the amount of legislation we have, actually a very small proportion of it is not brought into force within, at most, two to three years of it being passed, although I in no way downgrade the point made by my noble friend Lord Norton.
It has been a long-standing practice of all Governments to treat commencement of legislation on a case-by-case basis. Noble Lords will have seen a wide range of provisions relating to the commencement of legislation in their scrutiny of Bills. That reflects the fact that it is usually necessary to provide a certain amount of notice to those affected by the legislation before it takes effect and that the notice period required will depend on the nature and complexity of the Act concerned. I understand my noble friend Lord Cormack’s proposal about the end of a Parliament. The problem would be that in the last part of the Parliament, it would be particularly difficult to transact any sort of legislative programme.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That might bear out some of my earlier comments, but I believe that the truth is that all Governments seek to have legislation that is in the public interest, so there is a problem with my noble friend’s proposal, albeit that it is well meaning.
Sometimes, where legislation is relatively limited in effect or otherwise straightforward, it is possible for that notice period to be stated in the Act. A two-month period is often regarded as the minimum, but sometimes it may be appropriate for Acts to take effect immediately. Commencement orders are used to provide the Government with a degree of flexibility in the timing of implementation; I think that my noble friend Lord Norton agreed with that. That may be necessary to allow time for the establishment of new organisations, for industry to adjust to any new regulatory requirements or for consultation on the detail of implementation, which is often undertaken via secondary legislation—I am conscious of what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said about statutory instruments. Sometimes, a commencement order may be required to commence different parts of an Act on different days or for the Act to apply first in specific areas or to specific people or situations. It is also sensible for Ministers to retain the ability to ensure that everyone is fully prepared for implementation before legislation is brought into force.
It would perhaps be unduly restrictive or possibly counterproductive for Ministers to be held to an arbitrary time period fixed in the original legislation. This would not allow Ministers to take into account any changes in circumstance which might quite reasonably delay implementation. Conversely, it would not be wise to risk legislation being lost on account of a failure to agree the details of implementation by a specified time period. This is the potential consequence of certain sorts of sunset provision.
I accept entirely that in the vast majority of cases one should expect legislation to be fully brought into force within a year or two of Royal Assent. However, there may be exceptional circumstances in which it may not be possible to make progress within that timescale, but it is none the less desirable to keep open the possibility of implementation at a future date. However, that is not to say that sunset clauses should never be used; on the contrary, they may well be justified, but perhaps act to provide a degree of certainty to businesses that new regulations will not be introduced once a period of time has expired, or as a legislative backstop to be used if required.
I was particularly struck by the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which contained a statutory regulatory scheme that would be brought in if self-regulation by industry failed. The statutory scheme was subject to a five-year sunset clause if it was not needed. In the event, self-regulation worked and the provisions were accordingly repealed. I think that is a good example of what all of your Lordships are seeking. My point is that the desirability or otherwise of a sunset clause of this nature should be considered on its merits and on a case-by-case basis. In seeking to answer directly the question posed by my noble friend, I hope I will not shock your Lordships by saying that the Government do not have precise plans to reform the use of commencement orders. But if my noble friend is making the case that very careful consideration should be given to the use of commencement orders and to sunset clauses, I entirely agree and that is what the Government seek to do. I think it is, in good faith, what all Governments should seek and have sought to do.
I now turn to some of the additional ways in which the concerns expressed by your Lordships could be addressed. First, the Government believe that post-legislative scrutiny, which my noble friend Lord Cormack referred to, has a very important part to play in ensuring that the statute book is kept under review and up to date. For the benefit of Parliament and others, the Government publish a post-legislative assessment of every Act between three and five years after enactment. These assessments include an explanation for any provisions that have not been commenced. Indeed, your Lordships are already contributing to this scrutiny process. In the previous Session, the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation examined previous and forthcoming legislation on this subject. There are currently two committees of your Lordships’ House undertaking post-legislative scrutiny in respect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Inquiries Act 2005. Departmental Select Committees in the other place carry out similar inquiries from time to time, particularly in respect of Acts that have not been implemented fully or satisfactorily, so I believe that this scrutiny is entirely welcome.
Secondly, there is the work of the Law Commission—I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale meant the Law Commission rather than the Law Society.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The work of the Law Commission is extremely valuable. It undertakes periodic reviews of particular areas of legislation and does the detailed preparatory work on what we know as Statute Law (Repeals) Bills. These are valuable, if somewhat unsung, exercises which help to tidy up the statute book, by repealing unnecessary and uncommenced legislation. Noble Lords may recall one such Act, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013, which received Royal Assent recently.
I hope, but I am not sure, that all noble Lords are aware of the good law project that is currently being led by the Cabinet Office, in particular by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. It is designed to improve the quality of legislation by identifying ways to further improve its drafting and reduce complexity. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness: I have looked at some legislation and found it extremely difficult to understand. To reduce that complexity and make the law more accessible must be a good principle to hold. Among other things, the project is also considering how the law in both printed and digital form can be made more easily understood; for example, it may be possible to examine how information about whether provisions are in force is presented to online users of legislation. Although I am very conscious that many do not use online facilities, I think it is increasingly the case that many do. We should try to facilitate that.
I should have said at the outset that all suggestions from your Lordships are welcome in this project. This is a project of good will and it is in good faith that many of the points that your Lordships made today are understood. We need to find a resolution to how we can best ensure the quality to which my noble friend Lord Cormack referred. The quality of the statute book is important to us all, because we are its creators. If we are not happy with our work, we have not done particularly good work.
This has been an illuminating debate and briefing, and seeking to answer it has certainly been illuminating for me. I believe that your Lordships and my noble friend are right to hold the Government to account to maintain the statute book properly and uphold good legislative practice. I have mentioned post-legislative scrutiny, and I believe that pre-legislative scrutiny is a desirable thing as well. I expect that it is the case that all Governments have had moments—I freely admit it—when pre-legislative scrutiny would have been extremely desirable. I suspect that it is a note of caution to all Governments that pre-legislative scrutiny is a sound thing to do.
I have taken on all the comments made by your Lordships. I freely admit that it is daunting to be up before your Lordships’ great experience, but my role is to pass on the comments that have been made today. I will make sure that the good law project officials have a copy of Hansard, so that all the points that have been made can be reinforced. They are all good points, and they are all soundly based. I am grateful to all of your Lordships.