Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.
Annan, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blackburn, Bp.
Blease, L.
Borrie, L.
Broadbridge, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L.
Chorley, L.
David, B.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Ezra, L.
Falkender, B.
Falkland, V.
Fisher of Rednal, B.
Fitt, L.
Gallacher, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Glenamara, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Gregson, L.
Grey, E.
Hacking, L.
Halsbury, E.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Ilchester, E.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Longford, E.
Lovell-Davis, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McNair, L.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Nicol, B.
Peston, L.
Redesdale, L.
Richard, L.
Russell, E.
Sainsbury, L.
Seear, B.
Sefton of Garston, L.
Serota, B.
Shaughnessy, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Stallard, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wharton, B.
White, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.
Addison, V.
Ailsa, M.
Alexander of Tunis, E.
Ampthill, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bridge of Harwich, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bruntisfield, L.
Butterworth, L.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carnock, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Courtown, E.
Craig of Radley, L.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Cranbrook, E.
Cuckney, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Davidson, V.
De Freyne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Ellenborough, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Flather, B.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Gainford, L.
Geddes, L.
Gisborough, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray, L.
Gray of Contin, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.
Hertford, M.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hothfield, L.
Howe, E.
Johnston of Rockport, L.
Kimball, L.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Leigh, L.
Liverpool, E.
Long, V. [Teller.]
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
McConnell, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Merrivale, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Mountgarret, V.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Noel-Buxton, L.
Norfolk, D.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Oliver of Aylmerton, L.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Orkney, E.
Orr-Ewing, L.
Pender, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Porter of Luddenham, L.
Rankeillour, L.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Renwick, L.
Saint Oswald, L.
Seccombe, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Strange, B.
Strathcarron, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Sudeley, L.
Swansea, L.
Swinfen, L.
Terrington, L.
Teynham, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Wilcox, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wise, L.
Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

22 Apr 1996 : Column 915

4.17 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 112:


Page 58, line 24, leave out from ("capacity") to end of line 25.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment and something which I did not pick up in Committee. It relates to certain activities of Her Majesty under Clause 102. I am sure that the noble Lord will explain to me why Her Majesty,


    "in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall"
should be exempt from the particular provisions of this part of the Bill. Although in her private capacity, as a resident, Her Majesty would be exempt, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are substantial

22 Apr 1996 : Column 916

businesses in their own right. I wonder why those are included in the Bill. I should be grateful if the noble Lord can put on the record exactly why they are included in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support my noble friend by drawing attention to the fact that the Duke of Cornwall, I believe, in this particular context, is a substantial promoter of construction matters, especially in a housing development in south west England. That is a perfectly proper thing for a developer to proceed with and to profit from in the ordinary way of business, but it is not perhaps an area which should be excluded from the Bill. It seems to me that the Duke of Cornwall--if I have mentioned the right chap because he has several names--at Poundsbury is not acting in any way different from any other developer. And why, if he differs in no way from any other developer, should he be excluded from the Bill? I may be wrong about that. I am wrong from time to time. Your Lordships will have noticed that. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will explain to me just where I am wrong. If I am right, I am sure that he will accede to me.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, the general rule of constitutional law is that an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown unless, and to the extent, specified in the Act. This Government's current policy is to ensure that government departments and other public offices are not protected by this rule. We were aware that many in the industry were anxious that these provisions should apply to contracts with government departments, and we have made sure that that would be achieved.

We did not seek, however, to bind the Crown in a private capacity or by virtue of its interests in the Royal duchies. I am pleased to see that the amendment would not affect our proposals with respect to the Crown in a private capacity. We will reflect upon comments on work in the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall and I will write to the noble Lord when we have done so. I am afraid that I cannot be more helpful than that at the moment, but we welcome the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for welcoming the amendment. It is, as I said, a probing amendment. I look forward to a considered response from the Government in the light of the comments that I and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon have made. I understand the complexities of the consultation in which no doubt the Government are engaged. I should not wish to intrude on any of those complexities. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 103 [Meaning of "construction operations"]:

Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 113:


Page 58, line 26, leave out (", subject as follows,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is a probing amendment, possibly a probing drafting amendment. Since I have been following Bills from this

22 Apr 1996 : Column 917

Front Bench I have believed in the principle of Occam's razor and "Entia non sunt multiplisanda praeter necessitatem" if I may quote the terms of the razor. The expression "subject as follows" seems to me to be otiose in the context of the clause, but parliamentary counsel may have good reasons for including the words. I beg to move.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, correctly points out, we are in the dark and mysterious world of legislative syntax here. I can confirm that parliamentary counsel like their choice of wording.

"Subject as follows" in the first line of subsection (1) of Clause 103 simply means that subsection (1) must be interpreted in the light of subsections (2), (3) and (4). Without this, the modifications suggested by the later subsections would fail to connect with subsection (1) and might even be seen to conflict with it. The phrase "subject as follows" is necessary to qualify the general definition in subsection (1) by reference to the exclusions in subsection (2), the inclusions in subsection (3) and any modifications made by order under subsection (4). With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. As he said, parliamentary counsel have their own ways of drafting Bills. I am grateful that the Minister produced the reasons that parliamentary counsel have for the drafting. I find it rather odd; nevertheless, if that is the way it is required, that is the way it is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 114:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page