Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend but tempted again I have been—on this occasion just to show how even-handed I am—to join in a little bit with the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie, with due apologies to my noble friend Lord Jenkin. It is the third arm of this that worries me most. It says,

“any other person whom the authority considers to have an interest which is likely to be affected by any steps that the authority may take to give effect to the result of the referendum”.

It is not just airports. Major commercial developments, for example, have effects over a wide area. Leaving aside Stansted, about which I know a good deal, and which would certainly be said to have effects over 30, 40, 50 or 100 or more miles, Lakeside at Thurrock has had effects on shopping centres all over Essex. It is unimaginable that the local authority would really have to consult the people of Thurrock, Chelmsford, Colchester, Braintree and Brentwood—to name the Secretary of State’s constituency and indeed that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. We need some caution before going down the path scripted in this amendment. That is all I would say. There may be merit in the purpose but the wording needs very careful consideration.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have been rather eager to stand because I feel that this gets to the nub of the issue. I am not entirely sure whether my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who has presented these amendments, is the same noble Lord who just the other day was urging me to trust local people to run these affairs. Localism is the name of the Bill; localism is what it is about. I urge him to read his own speech in Hansard to realise why it is that the Government do not want to bind this policy up. If any organisation of significance feels that it is vulnerable to popular opinion and is so out of touch with local opinion that it is not able to realise that a referendum is being carried on which might affect its interests, it deserves all the expression of popular opinion that may come its way. I am sorry to be so frank but I am motivated by the nature of this argument.

I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, was in the Chamber when I introduced government amendments earlier today which excluded planning applications from the referendum process. That is very important to understand in this context.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is a suggestion that we would like to consider. It is the spirit of this Committee that we appreciate approaches that are different from the text of the Bill and might define things better. I am happy to consider that matter and I thank the noble Lord for the idea.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Before my noble friend sits down and the experts start coming in, I welcome the clarity of his statement about planning applications, leaving aside the more complex high-level issues raised by my noble friend Lord True. Thinking back on my time as an MP, I see that it would sometimes have been very pleasing to have been able to point constituents aggrieved by the granting of an application in the direction of a petition. Looking at it objectively, though, I am bound to say that the whole area of the application of planning policy would turn into a nightmare world, so I very much welcome the clarity of what has been said.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is fortunate that I have an opportunity to respond to my noble friend so quickly. He has drawn a portrait of the Bill that I scarcely recognise. There are a number of bodies that we reflected on and considered in Committee, but we are still on track for the reform of the public bodies sector and we have, I think, the support of the whole House on the general terms in which that project is being undertaken.

My noble friend’s Amendments 3 and 23 are designed to amend Clauses 1 and 2 to make it clear that an order made under those clauses would transfer a function to another body regardless of whether that body was listed in the Bill. My noble friend is right to assert that, in many cases, it may be desirable that functions are transferred to an existing public body from a body that is abolished or merged. However, I can confirm that this is already provided for in the Bill. As Clause 1(3)(b) makes clear, the definition of “eligible person”, to whom a function can be transferred, includes,

“any other person exercising public functions”.

I assure my noble friend that this definition has been drafted to include public bodies both within and outside the scope of the Bill—bodies that, by their very nature, exercise public functions by virtue of statute or royal charter.

Noble Lords will be aware that some public functions are carried out by non-statutory bodies, such as most advisory NDPBs, many of which are Crown bodies and legally part of their parent department. It would be possible to transfer statutory functions to such bodies by two mechanisms. First, the function could be transferred to a Minister under Clause 1(3)(a), provided that such a transfer was permissible within the restrictions set out in the Bill, such as those in Clause 16 concerning the independence of certain functions. Secondly, a function could be abolished in statute but replicated using existing prerogative powers. This is the process envisaged for the Valuation Tribunal Service, for example, the functions of which will be replicated by the Tribunals Service as an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. In each case, the Government expect that the explanatory document provided with the draft order will provide clarity regarding any changes in the exercise of public functions. In the light of this explanation, I trust that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Unless the opposition Front Bench wishes to come in, I will give an immediate demonstration of my docility and deference by endorsing entirely my noble friend’s comments about the Valuation Tribunal Service, which belongs in the unified Tribunals Service—anybody who is harbouring hopes of my support for leaving it out of the Bill had better abandon them. Meanwhile, in light of the charming reassurances that my noble friend has given me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and claim another little round of brownie points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I support that. The noble Baroness and I have not conspired on, but discussed, various matters of interest to us both on the Bill. She has a point and I hope that my noble friend will respond constructively.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would never wish to do other than respond constructively to an amendment from the noble Baroness. I thank her for tabling these amendments and for giving us a chance to debate them. As she will know, the Government have indeed tabled their own amendments to Clause 8. They address the problem that her amendments seek to address.

These amendments to Clauses 1 to 6 specifically require a Minister to,

“have regard to the aims, objectives or functions of the body where these are specified in legislation”,

before making orders. I recognise the motivation behind the amendments, because they speak to the very considerations that form part of the decision-making process during a review of public bodies. In considering whether a public body is required, the Government must first consider whether its functions are needed, and then consider whether those functions should be exercised at arm’s length from government. This process lies at the heart of the public bodies review to which the Bill relates.

However, I do not believe that these amendments would add any protection or clarity in practice. In this context, I note that your Lordships’ House has recognised that the Bill has moved on. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, commented on the way in which the Bill moved on a great deal at the Committee stage and since then in the amendments that the Government have tabled, particularly since amendments of this nature were first debated in late November. It seems a long time ago.

For example, the removal of Schedule 7 and Clause 11 has greatly reduced the scope of the Bill and a number of important restrictions on ministerial powers have been introduced. In this new context, these amendments are not necessary. The Government envisage that the purpose of the Bill is to support the improvement of public functions by making changes to public bodies. This is captured in our new amendment to Clause 8, Amendment 60A. In deciding whether to make an order for this purpose, it is not conceivable that a Minister would not have considered the aims, objectives or functions of that body, including whether they remain necessary or whether any improvement could be made in their delivery.

The requirement to lay an explanatory document setting out the rationale and justification for the order will require a Minister clearly to account for his reasoning in this regard, and the capacity of Parliament to select an enhanced scrutiny procedure for the order will give both Houses the opportunity fully to consider the Government’s assessment. Furthermore, the addition of Clause 16 places significant restrictions on the capacity of Ministers with regard to the independent exercise of some public functions.

I hope that this provides significant reassurance to the noble Baroness in relation to some of the bodies to which she referred in Committee. The matters and purpose in the revised Clause 8—the requirement to justify in an explanatory document why an order is being brought forward—and the revised restrictions in Clause 16 represent an effective and comprehensive way to limit ministerial power and require a clear explanation of the reasoning for orders in relation to the existing functions and objectives of a body listed in the schedule. This is done in a way that also protects ministerial discretion on how functions are delivered. The amendments do not add to this. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for introducing this amendment and for the discussions that we had between Committee and this item coming up at Report. They were very useful and focused the Government’s mind on the importance of disability. All Members of the House will, I think, share the view that while much has been achieved in making the world a better one for people with disabilities, so much more remains to be done. I hope in responding to this debate that I can convey how the Government intend to approach this task and give an example of how the process of abolishing DPTAC is an opportunity for the Government to focus in future on tackling the task of the world of the disabled.

It was really very useful to have the contributions from all noble Lords from around the House on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said that there needed to be a new focus not only on the physical world but on the behavioural world in which disabled people had to live. While disabled people make use of the facilities that may be there, operatives and members of the public may not be aware of the necessity for behaviour also to adapt to others’ disabilities. I am grateful for the involvement of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, because I think in the Ipswich model he shows that there is so much still to be done—albeit the lifts are there. There is a huge task in making the world of the disabled less disadvantaged than it is for others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, pointed out when she graphically drew the attention of the House to the contrast between the world of the able-bodied and the challenges facing those with a wide range of disabilities.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I had not really thought about mentioning Ipswich until I got up, but it is not just disabled people who are affected. I once stood on one side of Ipswich station with a lady with a baby in a pushchair who could not use the stairs and a woman with a suitcase nearly as big as she was who could not use the stairs, either. I do not think that the other two wanted to go to London, but I did—and I stood and watched the London train come in and I stood and watched the London train go out. This is just not sensible in this day and age. It is not just disabled people who are affected.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, I think that Members of the House would acknowledge that and would acknowledge from their direct experience of their own family and friends how difficult sometimes the physical world can be.

I acknowledge the contribution made by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the role of veterans. They are individuals to whom we owe such a great deal and who find themselves, through their sacrifice, in the world of the disabled. Often the fittest and most robust of individuals find themselves having to cope with the world of the disabled and the contrast of that world.

I want to demonstrate that the Government's approach to disability has moved forward substantially since 1985, when the DPTAC was established, and the important issues of disability equality are now a core element of departmental policy and delivery. This covers all departments, but particularly the Department for Transport. At a practical level, although there is much more that still can be done, access to all modes of travel has been transformed over the past two and a half decades. That is not to say that it was very poor before. Rather than seeking access for disabled people as a specialist topic, transport operators across the sector are now expected to incorporate their needs into the mainstream of their transport planning and delivery. Against this background, and while recognising the valuable work that the committee has done for the department in areas such as accessibility and mobility policy, there is scope to reform the way in which disability advice is delivered.

The Department for Transport intends to issue a discussion document before the summer to inform its proposals in this regard. This will enable the Government to take the concerns of stakeholders into account in the development of successor arrangements. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Low, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, are concerned to ensure that the details of successor arrangements, supported by relevant stakeholders, are in place before an order to abolish DPTAC is laid before Parliament, and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree prior to Report to discuss their concerns. I am delighted that this proposed amendment gives the Government the chance to put on record the fact that the Department for Transport does not intend to bring forward an order to abolish DPTAC until, following a substantial consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders, the department has a clear proposition as to the successor arrangements that will be put in place.

I can further assure noble Lords that, under Clause 10, the explanatory document laid with any draft order will need to set out how a Minister considers that the considerations in Clause 8(2) have been met. These considerations, alongside existing legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, will require Ministers to consider equalities issues when bringing forward an order under the Bill. Until those successor arrangements are established and firm proposals are in place, there is no question of abolishing DPTAC. Given this, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course and I would like to feel that the noble Lord would know that I wish to continue the very useful dialogue we have had on this Bill. I felt it would help the noble Lord if I defined the areas where I feel there is going to be more scope for improving the Bill—as we would both describe it—and areas where I think it is not going to be possible. I thought it was better to be upfront and frank about it and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that. We want to maintain our dialogue because, despite the difficulties the Bill had in its early days, I believe this could be a very useful piece of legislation and one which suits both Government and Parliament in its operation provided we put the proper work into the foundations. We will have a chance to talk about that when we come to other amendments in this now slightly enhanced grouping.

As I said, this is why I cannot accept Amendment 118B or Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which makes provision regarding the commencement date of amending orders using wording which appears to be drawn from the Civil Contingencies Act. That Act was designed to create a framework for dealing with emergency regulations, which, by their extreme nature, circumvent the usual channels of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not accept that there is a parallel between such orders and those which would be made under this Bill.

Originally my speaking note at this point mentioned sunsetting; then my speaking note did not mention sunsetting because the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was going to be taken separately. If the noble Lord does not mind I will put it at the end because I think it is quite important that I can say a few words on it.

Amendment 176 would prevent an order being made under this Act from applying to more than one body or office. I understand the thinking behind the amendment which seeks to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of these important orders. However, I am also anxious that the Bill is not amended in such a way that will restrict the sensible decision-making of departments or overburden Parliament with a requirement to consider separately multiple orders of a similar class. I am thinking, for example, of the multiplicity of drainage boards which might have similar requirements for secondary legislation. I hope that any wording covering this would not exclude that because it would not be in the interests of efficient use of parliamentary time, particularly given that the changes to be taken forward by the said orders will in most cases have been debated thoroughly in primary legislation.

We do not accept the argument that in all cases the use of omnibus orders would necessarily reduce the level of parliamentary scrutiny. I should also say to the noble Lord that the particular amendments under discussion would have what I believe are unintended consequences by preventing any orders to merge bodies using the power in Clause 2 as such orders would by their nature apply to more than one body or office. However, I am willing to consider again whether some form of restriction on the use of omnibus orders might be appropriate. I would be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord prior to Report stage. So that is another item for our agenda.

Amendment 177 would remove the provision in Clause 27 that aims to give certainty to the order-making procedure and to avoid lengthy debates on hybridity that could unnecessarily delay reforms from being taken forward by Ministers. This sort of provision is not without precedent; nor does it broaden the powers of Ministers in any significant way. Indeed, similar provisions form parts of a number of Acts passed by the previous Administration, including the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Charities Act 2006, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Equality Act 2010. In addition, I am happy to assure the Committee that the Government’s initial assessment was that none of the proposed orders to take forward the reform of bodies listed in Schedules 1 to 6 could be considered hybrid.

Amendment 178 would require an annual report from a Minister regarding the use of order-making powers. I understand that the intention of this amendment is to ensure that the Government are properly held to account for their use of these powers, which is of course right and proper. However, the exercise of the powers will be a matter of public record, as is the case in the exercise of any powers made by statutory instrument. In addition, parliamentarians have a variety of means by which to question the Government on all aspects of policy relating to public bodies via Parliamentary Questions and the Select Committee process. I am unclear what is expected to be gained by the creation of a new reporting burden.

It is also the case that these powers will not be exercised centrally via the Cabinet Office but elsewhere by individual Ministers in departments, who will each have set out their own approach to public body reform in their departmental business plans. It is by reference to those documents that the Government have committed to be held to account and departments will report quarterly on them as a matter of course.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Goodhart’s amendments, which seek to sunset the order-making powers contained in Clauses 1 to 6, 13, 17 and 18 so that they could no longer be used after the dissolution of the present Parliament. As noble Lords will know, perhaps all too well, this is not the first time that we have debated this issue. Since our first day in Committee, the architecture of the Bill has changed as the Government have listened and responded to concerns raised by noble Lords. Most recently, that has resulted in the removal of Clause 11 and Schedule 7. For that reason, this is a timely debate as it allows the Committee to consider the issue in the new context in which we find ourselves.

The issue of sunsetting all the parts of the Bill is a complex one. I can see logic in not leaving bodies in schedules in perpetuity; I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay made a similar point. Although this is something that the Government are still considering, there is perhaps more merit in the option proposed recently by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, of sunsetting the contents of the schedules to the Bill rather than the powers themselves. That is all the more persuasive in the light of the removal of Schedule 7, which has drastically limited the scope of these powers, something that had not happened when my noble friend Lord Goodhart tabled his amendment.

Inserting a sunset clause that would limit the period in which powers could be used could now be counterproductive and potentially leave us in the same position as we are in today—that is, without a mechanism to take forward reforms following the regular review of public bodies that the Government will take forward, which I hope will continue in future. By contrast, leaving the powers on the statute book would leave open the possibility for Parliament to debate and consent to the repopulation of the Bill’s schedules through later primary legislation, without having to cover what would be well trodden ground. However, as I made clear to the noble Lord, the Government have already committed to consider this issue further prior to Report stage. I do not intend to renege on that agreement. I am happy to engage on this issue with my noble friend Lord Goodhart and other noble Lords. In that spirit, I hope that he will not press his amendment.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and who have engaged in discussions at earlier stages as this is a culmination of other debates on mechanisms in this Bill. I have made it clear that we continue to look at Clause 8. I hope that my responses today and the amendments and the commitments that the Government have already made reassure the Committee that this Government will ensure that the procedure applicable to orders made under this Bill is proportionate and sensible and allows for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers’ actions. In light of those assurances, I invite my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I need hardly say that I intend to withdraw the amendment. However, I wish to make a few observations. If I understood my noble friend aright, he said that there was no possibility that any order made in relation to any of these bodies could be hybrid.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That was our assessment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I hope that I might, without abusing the rules of Committee stage, make a brief further intervention as I had not anticipated the thrust of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on her Amendment 107, for which I apologise. It may be helpful to the Minister if I give him notice of this. As I understood it, the noble Baroness was complaining that the provision in Clause 8 about efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability was not sufficient. I hope that my Amendment 106A focuses on that point at least as clearly by saying that one should also take into account,

“fairness, openness, transparency and justice”.

I would like to see some values incorporated into what the Government have to take account of in these matters. Even if my noble friend cannot give me an assurance on that today, I hope that he will reflect on it.

When I made a somewhat similar point to the previous Government, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, immediately took the point and brought forward an amendment to introduce values in a similar context into the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Therefore, I hope that that precedent will carry some weight, whether today or in the future.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for initiating this debate with his amendments as it is agreeable to return to the way in which the Bill operates, having discussed individual bodies at length. The noble Lord gave very good value, as he always does. I thank all noble Lords who have participated. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, drew the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and, indeed, that of my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree, to Clause 8. We are still looking at Clause 8 as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked us to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has a slightly jaundiced view of the way in which the Government have established dialogue on the Bill. We are genuinely seeking to introduce a necessary vehicle to deal with the reform of public bodies. I think that there is general agreement on that across the Committee. The previous Government had such a policy and we seek to pursue it in our turn.

The group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require that, before laying an order under Clauses 2 to 6, a Minister must lay before Parliament a report setting out the reasoning for any change in the status of a body or bodies he or she proposes to make, with the said report being subject to debate and approval by resolution in each House. Amendment 119 would introduce an additional requirement for a report where an order affects a body or office within a particular set of categories. I hope the noble Lord will agree with that summary of what he is seeking to do.

The Government agree that Parliament should have access to appropriate information regarding any proposals to use powers under the Bill. The government amendments that we have introduced in Committee reflect this. In the first instance we have sought, along with Peers from across the House, to introduce a new requirement for Ministers to consult in relation to proposed changes under the Bill. Secondly, government amendments have been tabled which would require any draft instrument laid before Parliament to include an explanatory document which includes details setting out the reasoning behind the order.

These requirements give Parliament ample opportunity to scrutinise the reasoning behind the laying of an order. Amendment 113 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would effectively require an additional affirmative resolution process for a report concerning a proposed order before the order itself could be made. This amendment risks Parliament being asked to debate a report on a proposed order prior to the consultation on the said order having been concluded. Additionally, it would create a new burden on Parliament itself and on departments as they seek to deliver on the reform package to which the coalition Government are committed.

Amendment 119 would require a Minister making an order affecting a group defined as an economic regulator or a consumer body to place a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the proposals in the context of that group of bodies as a whole. The Government, of course, recognise that changes to public bodies should not be considered in isolation. I assure the noble Lord that this was not the case for those reforms set out by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 14 October. In this instance all reforms were agreed at Cabinet level and involved extensive dialogue between departments. I particularly appreciate the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment in relation to relatively discrete groups of bodies such as the so-called economic regulators, where a shift in regulatory practice for one could potentially impact on regulatory stability across the sector, and where it is therefore right that Government act in a proportionate, joined-up manner.

As I said at Second Reading—I am happy to reiterate it—the Government intend the economic and regulatory functions of bodies such as Ofcom and Ofgem to be excluded from the powers of the Bill for precisely this reason. I do not believe that it is necessary to place such a requirement in the Bill, because the Government expect Ministers to consider such issues as a matter of course and because our Amendment 118, which requires Ministers to produce an explanatory document with a draft statutory instrument setting out the reasons for an order, will provide another opportunity to inform Parliament of such matters. For example, where a change is proposed to a consumer body or any other body, the Government will be required by Amendment 118 to give reasons for the order that relate to considerations including efficiency, accountability and effective delivery of public functions.

I take note of this debate, in which there have been valuable contributions—not least the ideas on Clause 8 proposed by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—and I hope that, given my assurances with regard to our commitment to sharing information with the House, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

Does that mean that we will have the ultimate absurdity of the Government abolishing the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council for England while the Scottish and Welsh Administrations decide that they need a similar body in Scotland and Wales? It gets dafter by the minute.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is entirely up to the devolved authorities to determine. I make no apologies; there is logic behind that. The tribunal system in the devolved authorities has not undergone the same development as has been undergone in England. The specific development in England occurred during the previous Government, and that situation could continue, although I think that it is unlikely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I am aware that the House wants to get on, but, before my noble friend concludes, perhaps I may make just three points. First, he referred to users. When I was chair, the Tribunals Service asked me, on behalf of the council, to chair the users’ groups for mental health and for war pensions on the grounds that the council could do it better than it could. I should like to know whether the Government know the view of the senior president of tribunals on this proposal. How will the position of a body such as the Down’s Syndrome Association, which has recently written to me—I have its letter here, but I will not read it, in which it raises concerns about the reduction in legal aid, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred—be represented by the Ministry of Justice? It is complaining about the effect on tribunals, and the proposals on legal aid have come from another part of the same department under the same Secretary of State. How can that be the case?

There are a lot of other questions. I could say a lot more, but I am deeply depressed by the fact that my noble friend has not felt able to go further in terms of being willing to look at this. The Government should look at this again and should recognise the strength of feeling that is by no means confined to the opposition Benches, as is very clear. I hope that, even now, he will say that further consideration will be given to this, so that those of us who would like to reach a rational, considered, thought-through conclusion can at least have some chance of hope that that might happen.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that the proceedings of this House will be widely studied. I am certain that the Government want to take note of all that is said in the debates on this Bill. But I return to my previous comment to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and hope that he will withdraw his amendment.