House of Lords

Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Minutes and Order Papers

HOUSE OF LORDS

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday 30th June 2005

The House met at a quarter before ten o’clock.

PRAYERS were read by the Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Judicial Business

1.  National Westminster Bank plc (Respondents) v. Spectrum Plus Limited and others and others (Appellants)—The cause was considered; it was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 12th July 2004 be set aside and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Order of the Vice-Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt in the High Court of Justice Chancery Division Companies Court of 15th January 2004 restored; and that the respondents do pay to the appellants and to the liquidators of Spectrum Plus Limited their costs in this House and below, the amount of such costs in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2005] UKHL 41

2.  Mark (Respondent) v. Mark (Appellant)—It was moved by the Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, That the 3rd Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 19th February 2004 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2005] UKHL 42

3.  Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (Respondents) v. Impregilo SpA and others (Appellants)—The cause was considered; it was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 31st July 2003 and the Order of Mr Justice Morison in the Commercial Court of 15th November 2002 be set aside and the arbitration application of the employer (the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority) dismissed; and that the respondents do pay to the appellants their costs in this House and below, the amount of such costs in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2005] UKHL 43

4.  West Bromwich Building Society (Appellants) v. Wilkinson and another (Respondents)—It was moved by the Lord Hoffmann, That the 4th Report from the Appellate Committee be agreed to; the motion was agreed to. It was ordered and adjudged that the Order of the Court of Appeal of 30th July 2004 be affirmed and the appeal dismissed with costs, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments if not agreed between the parties. [2005] UKHL 44

5.  Appeal Committee—The 15th Report from the Appeal Committee was agreed to and the following Orders were made—

Fengate Developments (a partnership) (Petitioners) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise (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.

Jones (trading as Shamrock Coaches) (Petitioner) v. Department of Transport Welsh Traffic Area (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.

Osmani (FC) (Petitioner) v. London Borough of Camden (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.

Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Limited (Petitioners) v. ALTS Limited (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.

Royle (Petitioner) v. Manchester City Football Club plc (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.

Warmisham (Petitioner) v. Kenneth Beavis & Co (a firm) (Respondents)—That the petition be dismissed as inadmissible.

The House was adjourned during pleasure.The House was resumed.

Papers

6.  Command Papers—The following papers were presented to the House by command of Her Majesty and ordered to lie on the Table:

1.  Transport—Government response to the Report of the House of Commons Transport Committee, Session 2004-05, on disabled people’s access to transport: a year’s worth of improvements?;    (6558)

2.  Sustainable Development—Government response to the Report of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2004-05, on Education for Sustainable Development;    (6594)

3.  Education—Government Response to the Ninth Report of the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, Session 2004-05: Every Child Matters;    (6610)

4.  European Union—Prospects for the EU in 2005: The UK Presidency of the European Union.    (6611)

7.  Affirmative Instrument—The following instrument was laid before the House for approval by resolution and ordered to lie on the Table:

Draft International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2005, laid under the International Organisations Act 1968, together with an Explanatory Memorandum.

8.  Negative Instruments—The following instruments were laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table:

1.  Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2005, laid under the European Communities Act 1972;  (1725)

2.  Railways Act 2005 (Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2005, laid under the Railways Act 2005;  (1735)

3.  Railways (Rail Passengers’ Council and Rail Passengers’ Committees) (Exemptions) (Amendment) Order 2005, laid under the Railways Act 1993;  (1737)

4.  Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 2005, laid under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975;  (1748)

5.  Football Spectators (Seating) Order 2005, laid under the Football Spectators Act 1989.  (1751)

9.  Papers not subject to parliamentary proceedings—The following papers were laid before the House and ordered to lie on the Table:

1.  Report on Consultation on the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 2005, laid under the Government Trading Funds Act 1973;

2.  Report for 2004-05 on Assistance to Business by the Department for Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales, laid under the Industrial Development Act 1982;

3.  Report and Accounts for 2003-04 of the Construction Industry Training Board, laid under the Northern Ireland Act 2000.

Public Business

10.  Business of the House—It was moved by the Lord President (Baroness Amos) that the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Phillips of Sudbury set down for today shall be limited to 4 hours; the motion was agreed to.

11.  Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2005—It was moved by the Lord President (Baroness Amos) that the draft Order be referred to a Grand Committee; the motion was agreed to.

1.  12.  Children and Adoption Bill [HL]—It was moved by the Lord Adonis that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Children and Adoption Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:

13.  Decentralisation (4-hour debate)—It was moved by the Lord Phillips of Sudbury that there be laid before the House papers relating to the case for decentralisation and greater local autonomy and their effect on citizen and community vitality; after debate, the motion was (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

14.  Community Interest Company Regulations 2005—It was moved by the Lord McKenzie of Luton that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1st March be approved; after debate, the motion was agreed to.

15.  Extradition: United Kingdom and the United States—The Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of experience and the fact that the United Kingdom has ratified the Treaty while the United States has not, they will now review the operation of the 2003 Extradition Treaty with the United States; after debate, the question was answered by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal.

The House was adjourned at eleven minutes past five o’clock

to Monday next, half-past two o’clock.

PAUL HAYTER

  Clerk of the Parliaments