House of Lords Journal 240 (Session 2006-07) |
Lords Journals Contents General Index Judicial Index Membership of the House Minutes and Order Papers |
Wednesday 6 December 2006 The House met at 9.45am The following Lords Spiritual and Temporal were present: Hayman, B. (Lord Speaker)
Page 70 2006-07 Volume 240
Page 71 2006-07 Volume 240 Back to top
Prayers were read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Judicial Business For judicial business see below. The House adjourned. The House resumed. Page 72 2006-07 Volume 240 Back to topSelect Committee Reports 1 Statutory Instruments The following Report from the Joint Committee was made and ordered to be printed: 3rd Report on certain statutory instruments, including the following affirmative instrument: Draft Films (Definition of “British Film”) (No. 2) Order 2006. (HL Paper 12) 2 Constitution The following Report from the Select Committee was made and ordered to be printed: First Report on the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]. (HL Paper 13) Public Business 3 Shipping: Naval wrecks A question was asked by Lord Faulkner of Worcester and answered by Baroness Crawley. 4 Export licences A question was asked by Lord Razzall and answered by Lord Truscott. 5 Railways: Channel Tunnel A question was asked by Lord Bradshaw and answered by Lord Davies of Oldham. 6 Immigration: Harmondsworth Removal Centre A question was asked by Baroness Williams of Crosby and answered by Baroness Scotland of Asthal. 7 Business of the House Lord Rooker, on behalf of the Lord President (Baroness Amos), moved that leave be given to advance the motion for the approval of the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2006 from Tuesday 12 December to Monday 11 December. The motion was agreed to. 8 Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2006 Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 November be approved. The motion was agreed to. 9 Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2006 Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved that the draft Order laid before the House on 6 November be approved. The motion was agreed to. 10 Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 3) Order 2006 Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved that the draft Order laid before the House on 6 November be approved. The motion was agreed to. 11 Legal Services Bill [HL] Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved that the bill be now read a second time. After debate, the motion was agreed to and the bill was committed to a Committee of the Whole House. 12 Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) (England) Regulations 2006 Lord Willoughby de Broke moved to resolve that this House calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to revoke the Regulations laid before the House on 17 October (SI 2006/2787). After debate, the motion was withdrawn. 13 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 A question was asked by Lord Dholakia and, after debate, answered by Baroness Scotland of Asthal. The House adjourned at 8.39pm until Thursday 7 December at 11.00am. Papers All statutory instruments laid before the House are accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum presented by command of Her Majesty, unless otherwise indicated. Page 73 2006-07 Volume 240 Back to topCommand Papers The following papers were presented to the House by command of Her Majesty: 1 Social Security—Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee preceded by a statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2006. (6974) 2 Budget—Pre-Budget Report December 2006: Investing in Britain’s potential: Building our long-term future. (6984) Negative Instruments The following instruments were laid before the House: 1 Education (Local Education Authority Performance Targets) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, laid under the Education Act 1996. (3150) 2 Education (School Performance Targets) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2006, laid under the Education Act 1997. (3151) 3 Newark and Sherwood College (Dissolution) Order 2006, laid under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. (3160) 4 Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2006, laid under the Social Security Administration Act 1992. (3188) 5 Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Leicester) Order 2006, laid under the Road Traffic Act 1991. (3211) 6 Bus Lane Contraventions (Approved Local Authorities) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 2006, laid under the Transport Act 2000. (3212) 7 Asylum (Designated States) (Amendment) Order 2006, laid under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. (3215) 8 Excise Duties (Road Fuel Gas) (Reliefs) (Revocation) Regulations 2006, laid under the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979. (3234) 9 Crown Court (Amendment) Rules (Northern Ireland) 2006, laid under the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. (SR499) 10 (1) Statute made by the Governing Body of the University of Oxford on 25 April 2006 amending the Existing Provisions Governing the Glasstone Benefaction (—) (2) Statute made by the Governing Body of the University of Oxford on 13 June 2006 amending Statutes VI and VII (—) laid under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923. Judicial Business 1 Regina v. London Borough of Bromley (Respondents) ex parte Barker (FC) (Appellant) It was moved by Lord Bingham of Cornhill that the 3rd Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the appeal be allowed; that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 23 November 2001 be set aside; that the Orders of Mr Justice Jackson in the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division of 3 and 17 April 2000 also be set aside; that it be declared: (i) that by precluding any consideration for the need for an environmental impact assessment at the stage when, following the grant of outline planning permission, consideration is being given to an application for approval of reserved matters, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 failed fully and properly to implement the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, and (ii) that the Page 74 2006-07 Volume 240 Back to toprespondents misdirected themselves in law when they decided that they had no power to require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the said Directive at that stage; it was further ordered that the respondents and the Secretary of State do each pay or cause to be paid to the appellant one half of her costs in this House, including proceedings in the European Court of Justice, the amount of such costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties; that the respondents do pay or cause to be paid to the appellant her costs in the courts below save that the Secretary of State do pay or cause to be paid to the appellant her costs that are solely attributable to the Secretary of State’s application to intervene referred to in paragraph 5 of the Order of the Court of Appeal of 23 November 2001, the amount of such costs to be paid by the respondents and by the Secretary of State to be determined by a Costs Judge if not agreed between the parties; and that the costs of the appellant be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999. [2006] UKHL 52 2 C (FC) (Appellant) v. Middlesbrough Council (Respondents) (England) The appeal of C was presented and it was ordered that in accordance with Standing Order VI the statement and appendix thereto be lodged on or before 17 January. 3 Parsai (Petitioner) v. Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary and another (Respondents) The petition of Aresh Parsai praying for leave to appeal was presented without payment of the fee, such fee having been waived by the Appeal Committee pursuant to Standing Order XIII; the said petition was referred to an Appeal Committee (lodged 4 November). 4 Appeal Committee The following Order was made pursuant to the 137th Report (Session 2005-06): Chen (Petitioner) v. Government of Romania (Respondents) That leave to appeal be refused. 5 Appeal Committee The 9th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made: Myatt and others (Petitioners) v. National Coal Board (Respondents) That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Myatt and others (Petitioners) v. National Coal Board (Respondents) That the petition of the Law Society of England and Wales that they might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said petition for leave to appeal be refused. 6 Appeal Committee The 10th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made: Garrett (Petitioner) v. Halton Borough Council (Respondents) That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Garrett (Petitioner) v. Halton Borough Council (Respondents) That the petition of the Law Society of England and Wales that they might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said petition for leave to appeal be refused. 7 Appeal Committee The 11th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made: Flora (Respondent) v. Wakom (Heathrow) Limited (formerly Abela Airline Catering Limited) (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(d); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. Hampshire County Council (Respondents) v. Supportways Community Services Limited (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be refused; that the respondents be at liberty to apply for their costs in Page 75 2006-07 Volume 240 Back to topaccordance with direction 5.1(d); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties.R+V Versicherung AG (Respondent) v. Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA and others (Petitioners) That leave to appeal be refused. Gotham (as trustee in bankruptcy of Kevin Leonard Doodes) (Respondent) v. Doodes (FC) (Petitioner) That leave to appeal be refused; that the costs of the petitioner be taxed in accordance with the Access to Justice Act 1999; and that the respondent be at liberty to apply for his costs in accordance with direction 5.1(c); and, if the application is granted, that the amount thereof be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. 8 Appeal Committee The 12th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Order was made: R (on the application of Hurst) (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Appellant) That the petition of the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs that he might be heard or otherwise intervene in the said appeal be allowed.
|