Lords Amendment No. 110

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 6:00 pm on 22nd July 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith Attorney General, Law Officers' Department, Attorney General (Law Officers) 6:00 pm, 22nd July 2002

My Lords, I should make clear what I was going to say. It was not that the amendment has not been agreed and supported by the House; it plainly was, as the noble Lord said. My point was rather narrower: that during the earlier stages of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, was among the very few who objected to the concept of Part 5; others had supported it. The Government say now, and we said then, that with that exception, Part 5 would become unworkable. It is therefore inappropriate to have the exception in the Bill. I was not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, had not spoken on this matter; he did so briefly at Third Reading.

In the end, there is an exception, which the Reasons Committee said is inappropriate. That, ultimately, is the reason that lies behind the disagreement of the Commons to the amendment. I invite noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 110.

On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 110 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 110A but do propose Amendment No. 110B in lieu thereof?