HC Deb 31 October 1995 vol 265 cc167-79

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert— ("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider who—

  1. (a) treats a person who has a physical or mental impairment that does not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, as having a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities;
  2. (b) treats a person who does not have a physical or mental impairment as having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Burt.]

7.30 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke

Of all our discussions today, this is easily the most serious. Many thousands of people outwith this place will attach their concern about parliamentary democracy to the manner in which we respond to the clear decision in another place. The amendment was carried in another place in the face of opposition from the Government Front Bench, and it is a matter for regret, but not for surprise, that Ministers are not prepared to accept the verdict of the other place.

The Lords amendment is yet another challenge to the inadequate scope and coverage of the Bill. Ministers were forced to concede that the Bill should protect those with a history of disability and those likely to be disabled in future, and they suffered defeat in the Lords because of their refusal to extend protection to those with an ill-founded reputation for disability.

The effect of the Lords amendment is to outlaw discrimination against those wrongly perceived by providers of goods and services to be disabled. If we accepted the Government's original proposals, to which they now wish to return, a service provider alleged to have discriminated would win a court case if it could be shown that the victim of the discrimination was not actually disabled, or had a disability that did not meet the narrow definition in the Bill.

The perverse effect of that would be that well-founded discrimination based on prejudice would be unlawful, but ill-founded discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice would remain lawful. For example, if a restaurant owner refused to serve a customer whom he believed to be epileptic and the customer really was epileptic, the customer would have a case against him. But if the customer were not epileptic but suffered from a lesser form of ailment not covered by the Bill, the discrimination would be perfectly acceptable and within the law, and the customer would have no right to redress whatever. That is wholly unacceptable.

The Lords amendment lays down that that the problem is the discrimination itself, not the precise degree of disability. To discriminate on the grounds of disability is wrong whether the perception of disability is well founded or not, just as would be the case with any other sort of discrimination. To ban a customer because he was Scottish would be unlawful, even if he was not a Scot at all. The same logic should apply to discrimination on grounds of disability.

The Lords amendment would achieve that, with the support not only of their Lordships' House but of every organisation I know of and for disabled people, and that of every disabled person whom I have ever met, including some people who have been discriminated against because they merely have a reputation, or whose history is perceived by others as being covered by the word "disability".

Ministers may argue that the amendment would lead to inconsistency, because perceived disability is not covered in the part of the Bill dealing with employment. However, that would be the least of the inconsistencies in the Bill. Its overall structure draws a false and unnecessary dividing line between employment and other spheres.

The Opposition have been the most persistent critics of that divide, and our criticism remains. Government amendments to the employment parts of the Bill no longer allow an employer's subjective opinion as a ground for less favourable treatment. We welcome that change, but Ministers saw fit to leave the subjective opinion of a service provider as grounds for less favourable treatment.

It is a result of the Government's approach, not of ours, that objective criteria must be satisfied for an employer to treat a disabled person unfavourably, but that no such principle applies to service providers. Clearly that is repugnant. If subjective opinion can be a ground for less favourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, but not in employment, it would make as much sense for the Bill to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of subjective opinion in employment but not in the provision of goods and services.

It is unsatisfactory that the two areas of employment and the provision of goods and services should be so needlessly kept apart in the Bill, despite all the evidence, all the representations and all the arguments. However, the blame for that lies firmly with Ministers, and not with other parties or with the Lords amendment.

Ministers have argued that there cannot be protection for people perceived to be disabled without the Bill's becoming open-ended. The Government argued that only those who meet the criteria of disability should be protected by the Bill, but they can no longer advance that argument as they have conceded that those with a history of disability should be protected, even if they do not necessarily meet the narrow definition of actual or current disability.

The Bill should address the problem of discrimination on the grounds of disability. We should shift the onus of proof from the alleged victim of discrimination to the alleged perpetrator. It should not be up to the victim to prove that he or she is disabled, and therefore protected by law. The onus should be on the service provider not to discriminate on the grounds of disability, which is why we believe that the amendment should be passed.

The Minister said that the Opposition's attitude was "gung-ho". I took the opportunity during a Division to look up in a dictionary that the House would find acceptable the definition of "gung-ho". I found that the United States marines used that expression during the second world war to indicate that they were "enthusiastic, eager, zealous". When the House refuses to emulate that approach to put right that which is wrong, we will no longer be serving the democratic rights of our people, or the rights and needs of 6.5 million of our fellow citizens.

Ms Lynne

I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.

Lords amendment No. 30 proposes to outlaw discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice: I believe that most discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice. It aims to prevent a provider of goods or services from acting in a discriminatory manner just because someone is perceived to have a disability.

We debated this issue in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have moved slightly on the history of disability. I am saddened, however, that they have not moved on the reputation of disability. I hope that they will agree with the Lords amendment. In many instances, people who have no disability, but who have a reputation of disability, are perceived to have such a disability—for example, those who are perceived to have mental health problems or HIV.

Are we saying that it is justifiable to discriminate on a perception that somebody has a mental illness? Is it justifiable to be prejudiced against someone who is believed to be HIV positive? If the House does not pass the Lords amendment, that is exactly what it will say. Discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice, and we must take that on board when we consider the amendment.

At long last, disabled people are to be protected in law to a certain extent. I say "to a certain extent", because, without a commission to enforce the rights of disabled people, the Bill will not give disabled people what they need. People who are perceived to have a disability—even if they do not have that disability—will not be protected, and that is not fair and does not make sense. The amendment is vital, and the Government must not oppose it. It will give a clear message that any discrimination relating to disability is wrong, whether it is related to an actual disability or a perceived disability.

Mr. Wigley

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief intervention in the debate.

In rejecting the Lords amendment, the Government will leave a massive loophole in the Bill, and I wish to address my remarks to that matter. Under the Bill, a person providing a service may discriminate against a disabled person on the basis not of that disability but of a belief that the disabled person has more severe disabilities.

If we do not agree the Lords amendment, we will give any provider of goods or services a defence against an accusation of discrimination against a disabled person on the basis of an acknowledged disability. The provider alleged to have discriminated will be able to say that he or she did so on the basis of not an acknowledged disability but a perception of a far-reaching disability. That will be a watertight defence in any action, and the provision intended by this part of the Bill will be flawed. The Government have not thought this matter through, and the Lords amendment should be agreed.

7.45 pm
Mr. Barnes

There are two main distinctions between the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill. One is the lack of an enforcement agency, which is not proposed in the amendment, and the other is the scope of its application. Who does the Disability Discrimination Bill apply to?

We have always made it clear that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill applied to anyone who was disabled or who was perceived to have a disability—at least 10 per cent. of the population. We do not know how many people are covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Bill's details of definition are hedged with all sorts of medical provisions and a host of exemptions; considerable powers over those exemptions are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment gives us a chance to extend the areas of definition within that limited scope, and therefore to extend the Bill's areas of application. The Lords amendment would ensure that the discriminator could not use the argument that the person discriminated against had a perceived disability.

The Lords amendment still does not make the Bill fully acceptable to the civil rights movement, but it is important. If it is passed, we will be in a better position to amend the legislation or to introduce a measure based on the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. All hon. Members who have supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this House should be in the Lobby to defend this Lords amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth

Anybody who doubts the existence and extent of prejudice within our society against minorities, including disabled people, need consider only the performance of the tabloids in recent weeks in their commentary on the distribution of funds from the National Lottery Charities Board. There were outpourings of venom against minorities, based—as much as anything—on ignorance. Again and again we find that ignorance is at the root of prejudice, and we must act to deal with the unacceptable consequences of such ignorance and confusion.

The Bill aims to remedy one of a range of injustices: discrimination against someone who has an actual impairment of long-term and substantial impact. But if the Government win the vote and Lords amendment No. 30 is not passed, we will fail to address another range of injustices that occurs when someone with a minor disability—or no disability at all—experiences discrimination as though he or she did have a substantial disability. When that occurs it is just as damaging and objectionable.

If the Government vote against the Lords amendment, the less disabled one is, the more one can be discriminated against. That is the most astonishing policy for the Government to adopt. It puzzles me that they should intend it to be within the law to discriminate on the basis of imaginary disability.

The Minister promised that guidance will be issued, and that will, no doubt, be helpful to a degree, but the principle needs to be solidly established in the legislation.

At the heart of the problem is the Government's conception of the nature of disability. They insist on the medical model, hence their insistence on the definition of disability in the Bill as being its fulcrum. That insistence is misguided even on the Government's terms because the definitions have failed to be definitive and are woolly. The phrases, "long-term and substantial impact" and "normal day-to-day activities" are susceptible to infinite debate and argument. What does it mean to talk of a clinically well-recognised medical condition"? The truth of the matter is that the definitions that the Government have offered will be a challenge to litigation and a paradise for lawyers. They should have sought universally to establish the principle that it is unacceptable to discriminate on grounds of disability and allowed sensible exemptions on the basis of reasonableness.

The Government should take as their conception the social model. After all, one cannot legislate against impairment, which arises as a fact of life out of natural or accidental causes, but one can and must legislate to constrain anti-social behaviour and to improve social behaviour in all the areas relevant to disability.

The measure is called the Disability Discrimination Bill and it is designed to prevent discrimination. It is discrimination itself that disables and further impairs those who are unfortunate enough to be impaired already and to be the victims of discrimination. It impairs not only those individuals but all of us, because, to the extent to which discrimination on grounds of disability may still be licensed within our society, so we shall tend the more to have a society characterised by aggression, harshness, guilt, distrust, fear and injustice. It follows from that analysis that the evil against which we are legislating is discrimination itself, whether based on an objectively ascertained reality or a mistaken perception.

It seems particularly strange that the Government are unwilling to accept the Lords amendment, given their acceptance earlier that it should not be lawful to discriminate against someone who has a history of disability but is no longer disabled. In accepting that principle they have gone a significant way towards acknowledging that they must act to deal with mistaken perception. I cannot understand how they can leave that task uncompleted and be willing to accept that discrimination on grounds of disability should still be permissible under certain circumstances and how, if they are to allow people to be stigmatised and disadvantaged in such a way, they can claim to be the Government of a party committed to one nation.

The Government should, indeed, have tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment to ensure that it covered employment as well as the provision of goods and services.

The Government put forward considerations of expediency. They are concerned about costs, but there is no need to fear the costs given the principle of reasonableness that permeates the legislation. Nor need the Government fear that service providers are going to spend disproportionate amounts of time poring over the small print in part III of the Bill. That simply is not the way in which life works. Civil servants study the small print of legislation, as do lawyers and a few Members of Parliament, but employers and providers of goods and services do not, so the Government need not fear that either.

Nor need the Government fear that, if they accept the amendment, it would lead to great quantities of litigation. They must recognise that it will always be hard for the victim of such discrimination to prove their point about the motives of people who discriminated. What matters is that the declaration of principle should be enshrined in the Bill. The principle should be paramount.

Sadly, I must ask one last question of the Minister. At the meeting that he was kind enough to hold with the all-party disablement group last week, I asked whether he would be willing to accept as a fallback position that the Government should take powers to introduce the substance of this amendment in secondary legislation. I would greatly prefer that it should be clearly established in the primary legislation, which would be the right principle, but surely it would at least be a prudent precaution to take a reserve power to implement the substance of the Lords amendment in secondary legislation if experience should prove it to be necessary. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the possibility of the Government taking such a power is provided for and, if not, why will they not take it?

Mr. Berry

In opposing the Lords amendment, the Government are placing themselves in a ridiculous position. After many years, they have been convinced that discrimination is wrong if a service provider discriminates against someone whose impairment falls within their definition, but they seem to think it acceptable if a provider discriminates against someone in the belief that he or she has an impairment that falls within the definition and has made a secret of the fact.

One cannot discriminate against someone who has epilepsy, but one can discriminate if one believes that they have it. One cannot discriminate against someone with mental illness, but one can do so against someone who is believed to have it. One cannot discriminate against someone who has a serious hearing impairment, but I guess that the Bill will allow one to discriminate against someone who uses a hearing aid. Plainly, that is a nonsense.

If the Government are concerned because they feel that there will be litigation, may I point out that someone who wishes to complain under this part of the Bill will do so only if their complaint can stand up in court? If someone can prove that they have suffered discrimination because of their perceived disability, surely they should have the right to justice.

The Government should listen to what the Law Society and members of the Bow Group have to say and should support the Lords amendment and say that they really believe that discrimination is worth abolishing.

Mr. Burt

Let us try to settle this matter in context and to explain why things are not quite as they have been portrayed. The amendment extends the coverage of part III of the Bill to people who are treated by service providers as though they have a disability.

Last week, I had an opportunity to discuss the amendment with a delegation from the all-party disablement group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who, as always, has done sterling work throughout the passage of the Bill on behalf of disabled people. He was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is also present, and the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), both of whom have spoken

I am grateful to them for explaining the ostensible purpose of the amendment. I do not doubt their sincerity. Indeed, I have much sympathy with their concern that people who are not disabled but have minor impairments might he treated unfairly. Extending the definition as they propose, however, would create a number of problems, which would seriously undermine the operation of the Bill. Not only would it lead to confusion, but its provisions would be unworkable.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned principle, but to establish a point of principle that cannot then be enforced is, to my mind, to take a dangerous step. The whole point of the Bill—and why it is important—is that the principles that it enshrines can be delivered. I am not prepared to allow the base of the Bill to be undermined by taking a step that might sound right but which will not deliver the goods and will provide only an opportunity for the unwary to fall into traps. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.

The amendment is a development of others discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. The exact terminology has changed; it is now framed in terms of treating someone as disabled instead of as perceiving someone as disabled, but its intention remains the same.

During its passage, the Government have emphasised that the Disability Discrimination Bill is concerned solely with discrimination against people who are, or have been, disabled. It cannot provide the solution for all those who may possibly face discrimination. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. The definition that the Bill uses is clear. The people covered are those who have, or have had, a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. We are talking about people who are disabled in common-sense terms.

Any attempt to introduce provisions to widen the Bill's scope to include people who are merely thought to be, or are treated as, disabled would damage the Bill and dramatically reduce its effectiveness. I fear that a change of that nature would lead to a good deal of spurious and vexatious litigation. It would—this is the crucial point—be extremely difficult to establish legally what was in the mind of a service provider accused of having perceived someone as having disability or to prove that someone had been treated as if they were disabled.

8 pm

Perception is necessarily the response of an individual person. In my view, it is simply not possible to base important legal issues on such uncertainty. What evidence can be produced to answer the statement, "I have no such perception"? We cannot look inside a person's mind in that way, still less provide for legal disputes on the point. The concept of perception is irredeemably flawed in that context. The attempt to move away from perception to treatment does little to remove the potential for confusion. We spent much time and trouble getting the definition right. It would be bizarre if we were now to allow those who did not meet that definition to benefit from the protection afforded by part III through the loophole that the amendment would create.

We have heard no argument advanced by the Opposition about the burden on the service providers, upon whom the successful implementation of the Bill depends. The great advance of the Bill is in the requirement on service providers to change policies and practices, provide auxiliary aids and remove physical barriers, where reasonable. Failure to make such changes could amount to unlawful discrimination. The concept of reasonable adjustment that that implies—taking practical steps to make jobs and services accessible—is crucial to the Bill. It is right to require those adjustments but the case for that duty is based on two key arguments: first, that it is right to ask society to make changes to help those with a substantial disability; secondly, that the extent and nature of the changes required can be predicted because only those with a substantial disability are covered.

If the Bill covered non-disabled people and those with minor conditions, it would result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty on the part of the service provider, who would never know for certain whether the person in front of him or her was someone for whom some form of adjustment was necessary. Of course, service providers would not have to make adjustments on a major scale for those who are not disabled or who have only minor disabilities. However, they would have to consider the full range of duties, including changing policies and practice that made access unreasonably difficult, to ensure that they were operating within the law. That would create a considerable burden for small business trying to come to terms with its duties under the Bill.

There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the degree of disability covered by the Bill's definitions. I am seeking to be reassuring. People think that substantial disability means severe disability. That is wrong. The word "substantial" is used in the definition to indicate an effect more than minor. As a result, many disabled people who may think that the Bill does not cover them will find that they enjoy its protection. That will become clearer once we have published guidance on the matter.

The amendment will be resisted because the Bill as now drafted fulfils not only the aims of the House but those of the wider public. For the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in access to employment, goods, services and facilities. A National Disability Council will advise the Government and assist us in drawing up the regulations needed to put the Bill into practice, and because a workable and coherent definition of disability is in the Bill, we can proceed with confidence, recognising the interests of those who supply employment, goods and facilities, as well as the aspirations of disabled people. Without such a constructive relationship, the further change that we seek in society's attitudes towards disabled people is made more difficult.

The Bill is therefore a fundamental advance for disabled people put forward by a Conservative Government, like so much other excellent legislation for supporting disabled people. It is easily as significant as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was passed, as the House well knows, after a substantial climbdown by the then Labour Government, which had originally decided not to take the measure forward. I therefore ask the House to support the Bill and reject the amendment.

Mr. Tom Clarke

I have no doubt that those who listened to our debate, and especially to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and of other hon. Members from all the Opposition parties, will remain completely unconvinced by the argument that the Minister has advanced. If the Government are supported in the Lobby tonight, let it be remembered that those who do so will make an absolute mockery of the speech made at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool by the Secretary of State for Social Security.

The Bill is a betrayal of disabled people, and those who are perceived or considered to be disabled. The Government have had the opportunity, by embracing the wisdom and decision of another place, to put the matter right. They are culpable because of that. They have considered the matter. Let no one therefore doubt that nothing that the Government propose is in the interests of those whose disability, or perceived disability, will be held against them as a result of the law introduced by the Government. On that basis, I invite the House to join us in the No Lobby, and to do so with pride and so oppose a position that will, in time, be reversed by the House.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 250.

Division No. 226] [8.07 pm
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) Bellingham, Henry
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan Bendall, Vivian
Alexander, Richard Beresford, Sir Paul
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) Biffen, Rt Hon John
Allason, Rupert (Torbay) Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Amess, David Booth, Hartley
Arbuthnot, James Boswell, Tim
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Ashby, David Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert Bowden, Sir Andrew
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) Bowis, John
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Baldry, Tony Brandreth, Gyles
Banks, Matthew (Southport) Brazier, Julian
Banks, Robert (Harrogate) Bright, Sir Graham
Bates, Michael Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Batiste, Spencer Browning, Mrs Angela
Bruce, Ian (Dorset) Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Budgen, Nicholas Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Burt, Alistair Hampson, Dr Keith
Butcher, John Hartley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Butterfill, John Hargreaves, Andrew
Carlisle, John (Luton North) Harris, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln) Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Carttiss, Michael Hawkins, Nick
Cash, William Hawksley, Warren
Channon, Rt Hon Paul Hayes, Jerry
Chapman, Sir Sydney Heald, Oliver
Churchill, Mr Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Clappison, James Heathcoat-Amory, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Hendry, Charles
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif) Hicks, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Coe, Sebastian Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Colvin, Michael Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Congdon, David Horam, John
Conway, Derek Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon) Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Cormack, Sir Patrick Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Couchman, James Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Cran, James Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) Hunter, Andrew
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) Jack, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry) Jenkin, Bernard
Day, Stephen Jessel, Toby
Deva, Nirj Joseph Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Devlin, Tim Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Duncan, Alan King, Rt Hon Tom
Duncan-Smith, Iain Kirkhope, Timothy
Dunn, Bob Knapman, Roger
Durant, Sir Anthony Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Elletson, Harold Knox, Sir David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Evans, Roger (Monmouth) Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Evennett, David Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Faber, David Leigh, Edward
Fabricant, Michael Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Fenner, Dame Peggy Lidington, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) Lightbown, Sir David
Fishburn, Dudley Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling) Lord, Michael
Forth, Eric Luff, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger MacKay, Andrew
French, Douglas Maclean, Rt Hon David
Fry, Sir Peter McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Gale, Roger Madel, Sir David
Gallie, Phil Maitland, Lady Olga
Gardiner, Sir George Major, Rt Hon John
Garel-Jones, Fit Hon Tristan Malone, Gerald
Garnier, Edward Mans, Keith
Gill, Christopher Marland, Paul
Gillan, Cheryl Marlow, Tony
Goodlad, Ftt Hon Alastair Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Gorst, Sir John Mates, Michael
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs) Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) Merchant, Piers
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Grylls, Sir Michael Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Hague, Rt Hon William Moate, Sir Roger
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Needham, Rt Hon Richard Steen, Anthony
Neubert, Sir Michael Stephen, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony Stern, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick Stewart, Allan
Nicholson, David (Taunton) Streeter, Gary
Nonis, Steve Sumberg, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley Sweeney, Walter
Oppenheim, Phillip Sykes, John
Ottaway, Richard Tapsell, Sir Peter
Page, Richard Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Paice, James Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Patnick, Sir Irvine Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Patten, Rt Hon John Temple-Morris, Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Thomason, Roy
Pawsey, James Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Pickles, Eric Thurnham, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Porter, David (Waveney) Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael Tracey, Richard
Tredinnick, David
Powell, William (Corby) Trend, Michael
Rathbone, Tim Trotter, Neville
Redwood, Rt Hon John Twinn, Dr Ian
Renton, Rt Hon Tim Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Richards, Rod Viggers, Peter
Riddick, Graham Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm Walden, George
Robatnan, Andrew Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn Waller, Gary
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) Ward, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton) Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) Waterson, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) Watts, John
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela Wells, Bowen
Sackville, Tom Whitney, Ray
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy Whittingdale, John
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Shaw, David (Dover) Wilkinson, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) Willetts, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian Wilshire, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Sims, Roger Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wood, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas Yeo, Tim
Speed, Sir Keith Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Spencer, Sir Derek
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) Tellers for the Ayes:
Spring, Richard Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.
Sproat, Iain
Abbott, Ms Diane Boateng, Paul
Adams, Mrs Irene Bradley, Keith
Ainger, Nick Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Allen, Graham Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle upon
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) Tyne East)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) Burden, Richard
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy Byers, Stephen
Ashton, Joe Callaghan, Jim
Austin-Walker, John Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Barnes, Harry Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Barron, Kevin Campbell-Savours, D N
Bayley, Hugh Canavan, Dennis
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret Cann, Jamie
Beith, Rt Hon A J Chisholm, Malcolm
Bell, Stuart Church, Judith
Bennett, Andrew F Clapham, Michael
Bermingham, Gerald Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Berry, Roger Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Betts, Clive Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Blunkett, David Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann Ingram, Adam
Coffey, Ann Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Cohen, Harry Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Connarty, Michael Jamieson, David
Corbett, Robin Janner, Greville
Corston, Jean Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Cousins, Jim Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Cox, Tom Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Cunliffe, Lawrence Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Cunningham, Roseanna Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Dafis, Cynog Keen, Alan
Dalyell, Tam Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Darling, Alistair Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Davidson, Ian Khabra, Piara S
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) Kilfoyle, Peter
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth) Kirkwood, Archy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) Lewis, Terry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l) Liddell, Mrs Helen
Denham, John Litherland, Robert
Dewar, Donald Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dixon, Don Llwyd, Elfyn
Donohoe, Brian H Lynne, Ms Liz
Dowd, Jim McAllion, John
Eagle, Ms Angela McAvoy, Thomas
Eastham, Ken McCartney, Ian
Etherington, Bill McCrea, The Reverend William
Evans, John (St Helens N) McFall, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret McKelvey, William
Fatchett, Derek Mackinlay, Andrew
Fisher, Mark McLeish, Henry
Flynn, Paul Maclennan, Robert
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) McMaster, Gordon
Foster, Rt Hon Derek MacShane, Denis
Foster, Don (Bath) McWilliam, John
Foulkes, George Madden, Max
Fraser, John Maddock, Diana
Fyfe, Maria Mahon, Alice
Galbraith, Sam Mandelson, Peter
Gapes, Mike Marek, Dr John
Garrett, John Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gerrard, Neil Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Godman, Dr Norman A Martlew, Eric
Godsiff, Roger Maxton, John
Golding, Mrs Llin Meacher, Michael
Gordon, Mildred Meale, Alan
Graham, Thomas Michael, Alun
Grant, Bemie (Tottenham) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Milburn, Alan
Grocott, Bruce Miller, Andrew
Gunnell, John Mitchell, Austin (Greaf Grimsby)
Hain, Peter Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Mike Morgan, Rhodri
Hanson, David Moriey, Elliot
Hardy, Peter Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Harman, Ms Harriet Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Henderson, Doug Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Heppell, John Mudie, George
Hill, Keith (Streatham) Mullin, Chris
Hinchliffe, David Murphy, Paul
Hoey, Kate Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) O'Hara, Edward
Home Robertson, John Olner, Bill
Hood, Jimmy O'Neill, Martin
Hoon, Geoffrey Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) Pearson, Ian
Howarth, George (Knowsley North) Pickthall, Colin
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd) Pike, Peter L
Hoyle, Doug Pope, Greg
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN) Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hutton, John Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Illsley, Eric Primarob, Dawn
Purchase, Ken Stevenson, George
Quin, Ms Joyce Stott, Roger
Radice, Giles Strang, Dr. Gavin
Raynsford, Nick Straw, Jack
Reid, Dr John Sutcliffe, Gerry
Rendel, David Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Robertson, George (Hamilton) Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'tryNW) Timms, Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara Touhig, Don
Rogers, Allan Turner, Dennis
Rooker, Jeff Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) Wallace, James
Rowlands, Ted Walley, Joan
Ruddock, Joan Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wareing, Robert N
Salmond, Alex Welsh, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry Wicks, Malcolm
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Wigley, Dafydd
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Short, Clare Wilson, Brian
Simpson, Alan Winnick, David
Skinner, Dennis Wise, Audrey
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) Worthington, Tony
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) Wray, Jimmy
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) Wright, Dr Tony
Soley, Clive Young, David (Bolton SE)
Spearing, Nigel
Spellar, John Tellers for the Noes:
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. John Cummings.
Steinberg, Gerry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to amendment No. 30: Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Richard Ottaway; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

To withdraw immediately.