HL Deb 03 April 1984 vol 450 cc660-71

7 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 2 [Appointment and duties of Disablement Commission]:

The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 20, leave out ("people who are") and insert ("either").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to the second amendment.

Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 20, at end insert ("or qualified to represent such disabled people, at least a quarter of the total being themselves disabled.").

They represent a way of amending the composition of the commission that is to be set up. It will be noticed from the Bill, as it now stands, that there is to be a commission consisting of at least eight but not more than 15 individuals. For the sake of argument, to make this concrete, may I talk in terms of a commission of 12? I do not say it will be that but let us talk in terms of a commission of 12. To be sympathetic with the disabled, one is inclined to start with the idea that half the commission should be disabled. Then one reflects that this covers the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, who would not be capable of playing a proper part in the commission. So I have brought forward a proposal which I should like to make comprehensible by again taking this figure of a commission of 12. Under the plan that I am now proposing, out of 12 in a commission, six of them would have to be either disabled or representative of the disabled, and at least three—that is a quarter—would have to be themselves disabled. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I should like very briefly to support this amendment. It seems to have succeeded admirably in meeting both the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the representation of the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick in the commission and also the requirements of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that a substantial number of the members of the commission should be themselves disabled. I certainly think the noble Earl has the balance just about right now and I am very happy to support the amendment.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, we warmly support this amendment. The voice of the disabled, and in relation to the needs of the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill, the voice of a near relative or a friend or those voluntary bodies which have evinced, shown and demonstrated an interest in the services for the handicapped, should be heard effectively in the commission. It would appear to us that the dialogue with the disabled should be accepted as central and should therefore be reflected in the commission. We consider that the amendment represents a considerable improvement and we are pleased to support it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 2:

[Printed above.]

On Question, amendment agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, that the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Longford.)

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I and other Members of your Lordships' House, who think as I do, consider it would be wrong to allow this Bill to leave this House with apparently unanimous approval.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, am I in order in asking the noble Baroness whether she will wait while I just say a few final words? I was proposing to say a few words and it may be that the noble Baroness would wish to comment on them adversely or otherwise.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, certainly.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I was not intending to keep silent altogether because I must at least begin by expressing gratitude to all the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have given such close attention to this Bill, whether by attendance, speech, or both—and that refers to noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have been sympathetic and to those who have been unsympathetic.

I am happy to think that the House on two occasions at least has demonstrated its favourable attitude. There have been a number of changes in the Bill since I introduced it here, but the principle remains intact, the principle that discrimination against the disabled should be made unlawful. I am the last person to suppose that any Bill introduced by myself or anyone else is likely to be perfect; but I look upon this Bill as something to be proud of.

The new definition of disability, which owes much to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), can no doubt be criticised, as indeed can any definition of obscenity or any definition of anything. But I am happy to stand over the new definition without saying that this is the law of the Medes and the Persians which cannot be improved elsewhere.

I hope in this respect and in other respects that the House will feel that proper consideration has been given by the promoters of the Bill to arguments which have been brought forward on both sides of the Chamber. The noble work of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the disabled is well known to all of us here. I am particularly glad therefore to have been able to meet their insistence that it should be made plain from the beginning that the discrimination we are seeking to outlaw is unreasonable discrimination. That is made plain at the beginning of the present Bill.

I will not seek to restate the arguments for the Bill, which I brought forward at the Second Reading or my replies to possible objections. I have certain ideas in my mind as to an initiative that could suitably be taken now, but I would not wish to unfold that to the House before I have had the opportunity of discussing it with colleagues elsewhere.

We who bring forward this measure are passionately convinced of three propositions: first, that any discrimination against a disabled person is utterly unChristian—and for that matter utterly unethical, although it may often be due to ignorance and indifference even more than malice. Secondly, that it is our Christian and our ethical duty to take every step in our power to bring such discrimination to an end. Thirdly, we are equally convinced that this discrimination is far more widespread than is tolerable in a civilised community.

The first two propositions I believe will hardly be disputed and will be accepted by all of us. But the third, our insistence that this discrimination is widespread and quite repugnant, may not as yet be accepted so widely or by everyone here. As time goes on, I am sure the truth of it will become ever more obvious. If all three propositions are accepted, the fourth follows inevitably: that legislation to outlaw discrimination is an urgent necessity.

There was a famous statesmen who remarked more than once that if he wanted to know what his countrymen thought, he need only to look into his own heart. I need hardly say that is not my own attitude towards the disabled. It would be an impertinence for me to lay down the law from personal knowledge in front of some who have done much more for the disabled than I have and who are themselves disabled. But as I said on the Second Reading—and I repeat it now—the great majority of those well equipped to speak for the disabled, strongly support this measure. It has been and will remain a privilege for me to be their unworthy standard bearer, most of all in a House where so many noble Lords and Noble Baronesses—whether or not they approve of the present Bill—are so profoundly concerned for the disabled.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, having sat mute on the Government Front Bench throughout most of this Bill's passage and been gently chided on some occasions for doing so, I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and those others who have taken part would expect me to say a little at this stage. I of course share fully on behalf of the Government the concern expressed generally for the well-being of disabled people. The Government understand entirely the reasons lying behind the noble Earl's wish to legislate in this way. Additionally, I would of course be the first to acknowledge the work which he and others have done to improve, as they see it, the Bill during its examination in your Lordships' House. But I have to tell your Lordships that the Government's view remains the same as I expressed previously. The Government set great store by the other routes that they are exploring and developing to improve the lot of disabled people. However worthy and sincere the motives behind the Bill, we do not believe that it would be right to adopt the legislative framework which the Bill proposes. I would rather urge the noble Earl and those who share his views to continue to give their support and encouragement to the schemes that the Government already promote, so that they may bear more of the fruit which the disabled so richly deserve.

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, it seems to me that the point about discrimination is as follows. If one has discrimination, one has to take discrimination against and discrimination in favour. If one does not have discrimination, one does not have the discrimination against, but one loses the discrimination in favour. So it seems to me that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, I should feel much happier if I were able to agree with the noble Earl, who I know has worked so very hard on this Bill; but alas, I simply cannot be such a hypocrite as to do that. I, and other Members of your Lordships' House who think as I do, consider that it would be wrong to allow the Bill to leave this House with apparently unanimous approval. On Second Reading I made it very clear that it seemed to me that despite its name, the Bill goes against the interests of disabled people. Through co-operation on behalf of employers and individuals, and especially through chairmen and chief executives (to which I made reference in this House last Wednesday in the debate on training for jobs) much has been achieved in helping disabled people to careers. Now the National Access Committee is just starting and it shows good promise. Various clauses were inserted in the Telecommunications Bill during its different stages in this House, protecting the interests of disabled people. These suggest that the director general of Oftel should have an advisory body on disablement affairs; and British Telecom already has such a body at work.

With such constructive moves going on I believe that this is not at all an appropriate moment to plan to spend large sums on setting up a commission, making inroads into the scarce resources for disablement causes, and to threaten legislation against able-bodied people. This Bill is unlikely to do what is required of it and is unlikely to result in what, unfortunately, disabled people have too often been led to expect of it. It will segregate disabled people still further, when for years we have sought to be more closely integrated into the community. For those reasons I voice very strongly my opposition to the passing of the Bill.

Lord Renton

My Lords, at earlier stages I said that I was speaking for myself in criticising the Bill, but last Friday I attended a meeting of the management committee of MENCAP and found that they share my misgivings and are not in favour of the Bill. But they would have liked it to go to a Select Committee, though I understand that it is now too late for that to be done. We at MENCAP are as resolutely opposed to unreasonable discrimination as is the noble Earl; there is no dispute in any part of the House about that.

But the question is whether the Bill is the best way to achieve further progress. MENCAP has done more to reduce discrimination over the years, especially in recent years with Brian Rix as our secretary-general, than any Act of Parliament could have done, and we want that good work to continue. We feel that it is more likely to do so if we are not hampered by threatening people with a commission or with legal proceedings. Indeed, we feel that that would be counter-productive and that the legal proceedings so far as the mentally handicapped and their parents are concerned could, as I explained at the Committee stage, give rise to false hopes. We feel, as my noble friend has just mentioned, that the large sums needed to implement the Bill would be better spent helping the handicapped in other ways.

Although the Bill was slightly improved at Report stage, it still has the disadvantages mentioned in different parts of your Lordships' House during the earlier stages. The definition of disability introduced into Clause 1 will have the strange result that people suffering from mental illness or mental handicap could be affected by the Bill only if their condition was due to—and I quote from the definition: any psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function". or, if they had "severe disfigurement"; and not all mentally handicapped people would come within that. So I join with my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox in saying that we should not pass this well-intentioned, but misguided, Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and I hope that the House will pass it in its present form. I say that with some temerity because I accept the sincerity of the arguments to which I have listened throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I have the greatest respect and admiration for all those who have worked, and who still work, in the field of disablement. I shall not repeat what I said at the Second Reading, when in my support for the Bill I drew on my 30-odd years' experience of helping and working in the field of the physically and mentally handicapped. People who have opposed the Bill—and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said this on Second Reading and repeated it tonight—have said that it would be counter-productive if we were to introduce legislation. They say that it would be far better for us to build on the goodwill that has been established.

I certainly do not want to be churlish, nor speak from a standpoint of sour grapes about the progress that we have all helped to achieve over the years in the field of disablement. But I often wonder why, when we talk about the disabled, we say that they should rely on goodwill. We must accept that there is discrimination. We could probably spend hours tonight giving examples of discrimination. Every voluntary organisation has file upon file of examples of discrimination in almost every field. So we accept that there is discrimination against the disabled, but we say they should rely on goodwill. We accept that there is discrimination against women, but we say that it needs legislation. We accept that there is discrimination against the blacks, but we say that it needs legislation. Why then do we say that the disabled should rely on goodwill?

It was Peter Large, who, in a recent article, wrote—I paraphrase—that if goodwill is to disappear because we introduce legislation (as the opponents of the Bill seem to say), what kind of goodwill was it in the first place? Do we have to rely on that kind of goodwill?

We must remember that the disabled are about the only people who have no redress under any law. They are discriminated against and, as I have said, there are numerous examples of this. I should like to mention a few at random: People like them should not be allowed out", was how one publican excused himself to customers for refusing to serve two disabled people. I have enough sick, lame and lazy", an employer told a youngster who was seeking work. A man with an artificial leg was offered an engineering draftsman's job, but the offer was withdrawn when his disability was discovered. I could go on and on giving examples. Here is another: deaf people were refused a drink in a public house because the publican said that their sign language would upset the rest of the customers. We could go on into the field of housing and other areas where we know there is this kind of discrimination, for whatever reason. Yet the only redress is this supplication and sympathy. There is no legal redress for this kind of discrimination.

As I have said, I have spent a great part of my life trying to operate the educative process, to do everything that has been recommended during all the stages of the Bill, to argue for and support all the moves made by Government—the present Government as well as past Governments. Many excellent initiatives have been started. We have all supported them. We have pushed them as far as we could. We have publicised them at local, regional, and national levels through all the bodies and organisations with which we have been concerned.

But there has always been something missing. There was never enough bite, never enough push. Local authorities, employers, and so on, have always been able to slide out of it. Fire regulations have always been a good excuse. So have access problems, as the noble Baroness said. There are umpteen excuses, and the disabled person has had no redress, only sympathy. We say that the time has passed when the disabled are the only group who have to rely on sympathy. The time has now come when we need legislation. We need a framework. The commission is an excellent framework of conciliation procedures where many of these problems could be dealt with or funnelled to the right place.

Baroness Lane-Fox

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? I think that the noble Lord got me wrong. He suggested that I was using access as an excuse. Not at all. I was drawing attention to the new national access committee that shows great promise.

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I am sorry. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she thinks that I got her wrong. I was saying that employers and others who want to slide out of a commitment, or a possible commitment, to a disabled person still use, in spite of improvements in legislation and codes of guidance, access problems to get out of this position. We know of many examples.

I have supported the educative process. I do not see that the legislation is opposed to education. I see the two as running in parallel. Education is concomitant with the legislation. One does not go against the other. We need legislation if the education process is to begin to mean what we think it should mean.

I have heard it stated, and people do say, that to give the disabled preferential treatment may cause problems. I have never looked upon the Bill, the motives behind the Bill and the motives of those who have sponsored and helped to support it, as asking for preferential treatment. I have always maintained that the legislation merely gives disabled people access to the law to secure equal treatment. It is a different thing to give someone access to equal treatment. We need legislation, in my view, to achieve that. I hope that your Lordships will accept the arguments in favour of the legislation as put forward by the sponsors of the Bill, and that the House will pass the Bill tonight.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he give any quotations? I know of many instances where discrimination has been in favour of disabled people. People will take in a blind person or someone on crutches perhaps because, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says, they are Christian people. However, the noble Lord also said that he had many instances of those who discri-minated against. Is the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, able to give the House instances of discrimination against the disabled?

Lord Stallard

My Lords, I do not want to take up the time of the House. I gave instances on Second Reading and repeated or implied again tonight that I did not want to appear churlish because I am only too well aware, from sitting with employers and voluntary organisations, of the many examples that exist of conscientious and progressive employers who take the attitude outlined by the noble Baroness. I accept that. However, it is not enough. There are the others. I gave statistics on Second Reading of the many thousands of employers who still ignore the quota percentage relationship among employees. It is in that area that we have to introduce legislation to chivvy them on to come into line with those excellent employers and other organisations that already have some conscience about the problems.

7.24 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (De Knayth)

My Lords, may I add a few brief words of support for the Bill? I think that the Bill is necessary. We have, I believe, improved it, and I hope that it is more acceptable now that it relates only to unreasonable discrimination. It had to a certain extent been misunderstood previously. Now that it relates to unreasonable discrimination against, I should have thought it would be more palatable to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod and to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun.

The Bill is not to be brandished as a cudgel to give offence to every law-abiding citizen who may unthinkingly discriminate against the disabled, but is to provide a firm base from which to work hand in hand with education, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, to strengthen the hand of the commission when it is required to conciliate, to be a yardstick of behaviour and to make people question their attitudes. It is not comfortable to have to question your attitudes. You may not like what you find out about yourself. I suggest that it can be equally uncomfortable for the disabled. Some disabled who think that they are discriminated against and who are always blasting off complaints about it may equally find that they are wrong. It would be quite healthy for all of us to look at ourselves. Equally, when new legislation is being drafted, consideration would have to be given to the implications, for the disabled if the Bill is passed. You would have to get things right from the start. That would save time and money.

I appreciate what the noble Lord the Minister said about the Government helping the disabled with benefits, new benefits and new committees, et cetera.They are constructive moves, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, called them. I would submit that the fact of making unreasonable discrimination unlawful is totally different. It is not adding another prop to the scenery like another benefit or another committee to look into access. It is designed to change the whole scene. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for taking on the Bill and to congratulate him for piloting it so successfully through its stages. I hope that it does not get stuck in a backwater. I believe that it is necessary, and I wish it godspeed.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, we have considerable respect for my noble friend Lord Longford. I wish to express my appreciation of his contribution. We are greatly indebted to him. Indeed, the House must be grateful to all those who have been tilling the soil in Committee. I regret deeply that I was unable to assist at that stage. I appreciate fully that there are members of your Lordships' House who are well qualified to express a considered opinion on this measure and who are unable to go along with its provisions. I accept their position. I appreciate their point of view. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has expressed her forebodings and her objections. So has the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It seems to me, that the House is in agreement on the broad objectives for which we should be striving but that there is disagreement as to how to achieve the objectives.

Discrimination has been accumulating for over 100 years and for various reasons, not the least being the attitude of society at large. To bring about changes in attitude is probably the most difficult of all the changes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that over the past 10 or 15 years, attitudes have been slowly changing as a result mainly of initiatives taken by the voluntary bodies. I accept that. But, rightly or wrongly, we on these Benches believe that we want even more rapid change. There is still a great deal of discrimination. We think that the time has come to change gear.

The Bill is not a magic wand. It will not bring about a revolution overnight. But it should help to pull down barriers and to remove obstacles and therefore to promote integration. If we are to do that over the next decade or two, then we require leadership from a body or commission that will be seen to have authority.

It has been my experience that on the whole the statutory authorities—and I have assisted with a statutory authority—are in general resistant to complaints to an extent that would surprise an outsider. It will not be easy to overcome that resistance. It appears to me that a central body such as that envisaged in the Bill—and noble Lords opposite see the need for a central body to receive complaints and to send them on their way to the appropriate Government department—will ensure not only that the leadership is available, but that complaints are treated in a similar manner at whatever level in the community and in whatever part of the country the complaint originates.

So we are sorry that the Government are unable to give their blessing to this measure. It has been much improved in Committee. There is need indeed to have another look at Clause 1 and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has underlined one of the difficulties. But it is our view that in another place other people can improve the Bill. Its encactment would be a considerable milestone, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for having tilled this ground so thoroughly.

7.32 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill and I assume that the remarks of my noble friend a moment ago do not necessarily bring the debate to a conclusion. My worry about the Bill right from the beginning has been that to proceed with it puts this House and the Bill in a false position. The Bill has already been rejected in another place and whether it was in circumstances that we liked or of which we disapproved does not matter. It was defeated in another place.

We are placed in the invidious position of trying to deal with a situation which is the product—if I may say so with great respect—of the misjudgment of my noble friend Lord Longford. The mischief in which we are placed today is due to the impulsive introduction of this Bill so soon after its rejection in another place without considering the type of dilemma that we would be in as of today. Although it gives me a pain in the stomach to talk about reference to Select Committees after yesterday, I believe, along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is eminently a Bill which should have gone to a Select Committee because there are no contentious principles about it. There is nothing to divide the House or a Select Committee as regards the main purpose of the Bill. The complicated details of administration and definition contained in the Bill would have been sorted out in a Select Committee. But here we are; the Bill did not go to a Select Committee. It was a mistake to go on with it because the Bill went through its several stages in quite a false atmosphere.

The truth is that we are not doing legislative business this afternoon. I do not like debates on legislation which are falsehoods in legislative terms. A debate on a Motion during which we can have a wide-ranging survey of a situation and express different points of view is a good thing. But here we are trying to make the law. If we are trying to make the law. then we are being untrue to ourselves if we pass a Bill which is not good law and which cannot in fact be a workable law as it stands at the present time.

It is no good going into all the details to support that point of view. I am very sad about it, but I cannot help it. I am a practical man on matters of this type and I like to see a workmanlike job done. Indeed, this House, lays great claim on public estimation and general approval because of its capacity to revise legislation and to rectify defects and omissions in it. Here we are turning out a Bill which is full of trouble and difficulty. Because we have been told that the Government cannot co-operate in giving any help to the Bill, we have been handicapped right from the beginning in not having the benefit of expert advice especially on matters of administration. So this is really and truly an amateur attempt to get a Bill on a profoundly important matter.

It is with deep regret that I must say that I cannot support the passing of this Bill. It pains me deeply to have to say so, but there it is; I cannot help it. I do not think that we are doing the right thing. We are not doing the right thing by the disabled and we are not doing the right thing by this House or by Parliament. We had better do the only honest thing and that is to have the advantage of the progress that has been made in discussing this matter throughout the course of the Bill, but stop short now and say that the Bill will not make further progress. It would be a mistake to give the impression that it will or might make further progress.

We should reserve further consideration to another occasion on which I am sure more practical and better work can be done. The achievement of the purpose of the Bill will come. But, in the meantime, there is not the slightest doubt about it in my judgment: facilities for the disabled are more urgent than more law.

Lord Howard of Henderskelfe

My Lords, I only want to add one or two words to the many that have already been spoken on this Bill, and in particular I wish to support my lifelong friend the noble Baroness, Ladv Lane-Fox. I cannot describe her in technical terms as my noble friend because we do not sit on the same Benches, but in every other respect she is my noble friend. She has overcome—in a way which would embarrass everyone, and particularly her, to hear—the problems which have faced her in her life due to her disablement, and so have many other people.

The problem that faces us tonight is that we have a Bill which I do not believe is the right way in which to approach the situation. I believe that the money which it would cost to implement the Bill can be far better used for the actual alleviation of the problems of the disabled. Yet we have hesitated to say too much for fear that we might be thought to be hard-hearted and to be ignoring the problems of the disabled. I believe—and I must be frank about this—that the noble Earl, for whose abilities, compassion and many qualities I have enormous admiration, has done us and this House a disservice in placing us in this position in which, if we believe that this is not the right road to follow, we will actually have to divide the House and appear to be in favour of discrimination against the disabled.

Of course, those of us who are opposed to the Bill are not in favour of discrimination against the disabled. Who could for one moment think that we were in favour of it? I only fear that that is the position in which many noble Lords may have felt they may be placed if they record their vote as not being in favour of what would in many other circumstances be regarded as a Bill for which they would have every respect.

7.39 p.m.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

My Lords, I would just like to say a few words. First, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his kind feelings towards disabled people, whatever happens to the Bill. Also I should like to say, as I said on Second Reading, that I think that the name of the Bill is wrong. "Discrimination" is a difficult word. I would far rather that it had been "equal opportunities for disabled people".

The young disabled people of our country are not so patient as the older generation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, belongs. We have to move with the times. They want to get on with living by being equal. A hardness of attitude has set in over car parking. Only today I was speaking to a young man who has broken his neck. He is working as a director of a voluntary association and has been summonsed by a City of London court and in April will face a parking charge. What are severely disabled people to do if they cannot use public transport, if they cannot walk and they cannot find a parking meter?

Whatever happens to this Bill, this matter will no doubt appear again. Perhaps it should have gone to a Select Committee, as two wise noble Lords on either side of the House have said. If the Bill goes to another place, perhaps it could still go to a Select Committee. At least evidence could be taken from all sorts of people—young people and older people—who represent disabled people and the organistions. The problems of disability will not go away. They will not be swept under the carpet. They are very wide and very difficult. I hope that something good will result from the work that has been put into this Bill.

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I did not propose to say any more after the effective reply—

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, with the leave of the House!

The Earl of Longford

My Lords, I had not intended to say a few words, or any words at all, because the matter has been so well dealt with by those who support this Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised one point which I should like to emphasise, although it was on the constitutional issue. The noble Lord and I are both senior citizens, but I have been here many more years than the noble Lord and I shall not be told that this is in some way improper and untrue to the traditions of the House.

The merits of this Bill were never voted on in the House of Commons. It was defeated by a procedural device. I know that with one or two exceptions, this House generally does not divide on the Second Reading of Bills. We accept the idea that the principle must be accepted from the Commons. But this is not such a case, and it should not go on record as such in case anyone reading the debate afterwards wonders whether I was intimidated by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I can assure the noble Lord that I have the greatest respect for him. but I hope that I shall never be intimidated to that extent.

The noble Lord. Lord Howard, was kind enough to say such nice but undeserved things about me that I must accept his censure in saying that I have rendered a disservice on this occasion. He appeared to believe that anyone who votes against this Bill—and I hope that no noble Lords propose to do so—will be in danger of being censured. They will not be censured by me. If he had followed what I said at the beginning, he would know that I was paying tribute to all Members of the House, whatever line they are taking on this Bill.

7.44 p.m.

On Question, That the Bill do now pass?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 68.

Airedale, L. Masham of Ilton, B.
Attlee, E. Melchett, L.
Banks, L. Mulley, L.
Bishopston, L. Northfield, L.
Blease, L. Phillips, B.
Bottomley, L. Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Brockway, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Prys-Davies, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. Rea, L. [Teller.]
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. Rhodes, L.
Collison, L. Ross of Marnock, L.
Darcy (de Knayth), B. Serota, B.
David, B. Simon, V.
Graham of Edmonton, L. Stallard, L.
Hanworth, V. Stedman. B.
Harris of Greenwich, L. Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L. Stone, L.
Hooson, L. Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Taylor of Mansfield, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L. Tordoff, L.
John-Mackie, L. Underhill, L.
Kilmarnock, L. Wigoder, L.
Longford, E. [Teller.] Wilson of Langside, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L. Winstanley, L.
McNair, L.
Abinger, L. Kinnaird, L.
Airey of Abingdon, B. Lane-Fox, B. [Teller.]
Ampthill. L. Lawrence, L.
Auckland, L. Long, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L. McFadzean, L.
Beloff, L. Macleod of Borve, B.
Belstead, L. Margadale, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L. Marshall of Leeds, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Bruce-Gardyne, L. Milverton, L.
Buxton of Alsa, L. Mottistone, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B. Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Cathcart, E. Newall, L.
Colville of Culross, V. Orkney, E.
Cork and Orrery, E. Pender, L.
Cox. B. Rankeillour. L.
Crathorne, L. Renton, L.
Davidson, V. Rochdale. V.
Denham, L. Saint Oswald. L.
Drumalbyn, L. Saltoun, Ly.
Effingham, E. Skelmersdale, L.
Faithfull, B. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Fortescue, E. Suffield, L.
Gisborough, L. Swinton, E.
Glenarthur, L. Teviot, L.
Greenway, L. Trenchard. V.
Grimston of Westbury, L. Trumpington, B.
Harvington, L. Tryon, L.
Hives, L. Ullswater, V.
Houghton of Sowerby, L. Vickers, B.
Howard of Henderskelfe, Whitelaw, V.
[Teller.] Windlesham, L.
Hylton-Foster, B. Wise, L.
Kaberry of Adel, L. Wynford. L.
Kimberley, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.