Lords amendment: No. 171, in page 64, line 3, at end insert—
(3) Each relevant authority which is a charging authority in relation to the Personal Community Charge shall, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, make arrangements for—
§ The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302 to 304 and 390.
§ Mr. Ridley
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been able to modify it in sensible ways to reflect genuinely held concerns and many amendments have been made. We have demonstrated our flexibility and our desire to meet good cases, but these amendments come up against one of the fundamental principles of the community charge and no compromise is possible. Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with them.
The amendments are complex, but their purpose is straightforward. They provide that people who are disabled, as defined in Lords amendment No. 303, and who receive rebates should receive in addition to their rebate an element equal to the difference between 20 per cent. of the average community charge and 20 per cent. of the community charge that they have to pay. In a somewhat roundabout way the amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on low incomes are fully compensated for the fact that they have to pay the charge, whatever it is. The amendments adopt this indirect approach because in Committee the other place defeated an amendment by Lord Allen seeking 100 per cent. rebates for disabled people which would have been a straightforward way of achieving the same purpose.
1144 The amendments as drafted are defective and would not achieve the effect they intend, but it is because of the policy behind them that the Government cannot accept them. Under our proposed rebate arrangements people whose net income is at or below income support level will be entitled to 80 per cent. rebates and income support recipients will also have an element included in their benefit, reflecting 20 per cent. of the average community charge. That means that someone living in an area where the community charge is below the national average will be in pocket, while people who live in areas where the charge is higher than the average will have to use a small amount of their income support to make up the difference. The fundamental principle which the amendment breaches is that everyone should have a direct interest in the level of their community charge.
§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Is the Secretary of State aware that in Scotland there is a charitable hospital, the Erskine hospital for the military disabled, for people who have been so severely wounded during their military service that they cannot continue to live outside? There are houses within the grounds in which some disabled people live. Under this law those in the hospital itself will be wholly exempt. Those living in the houses, who at present pay no rates because they are part of a charitable hospital, will have to pay the community charge. Because they are on war disability pensions, they will certainly pay above the 20 per cent. level, if not the full charge. How does the Secretary of State explain to people who have given so much in service to their country that the Government will force them to pay taxes which they have never paid previously?
§ Mr. Ridley
I do not know of that hospital or the circumstances of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. The rebate system is available and, as he knows, benefits have been uprated to meet the 20 per cent.
§ Mr. Ridley
If the hon. Gentleman gets the local authority in which the hospital is located to have a reasonable community charge, many of those people will be in pocket as a result, and not losing.
Our whole policy aims to ensure that in taking spending decisions local authorities know that they will have an impact on all charge payers in their area who can then pass judgment in local elections. We have provided exemptions only where accountability clearly cannot work—for example, in the case of severely mentally handicapped people. There have been some serious misunderstandings on that point. In the past few days several individual cases have featured in press and radio discussions of these amendments and all the cases of which I am aware concern mentally handicapped young people living with their parents. All those individuals on the facts described would be exempt from the personal community charge. Under no circumstances would they be required to pay anything, so no question of a rebate would arise.
§ Mr. Ridley
I am not giving way.
I hope that I have cleared up those misunderstandings about mentally handicapped people. Obviously, those who 1145 do not have the capacity to comprehend the community charge should not be asked to pay it. The same is not true of people who are physically handicapped. That is the key reason why we must disagree with their Lordships over this amendment.
In moving the amendment in another place Lord Allen of Abbeydale made clear the thinking behind it when he said:to my mind, it is unrealistic to believe that the people I am talking about—namely, the blind, the halt, the lame and the mentally handicapped—should be seriously considered to be reasonable voters, balancing and assessing these nice considerations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]I find that an extraordinary statement, and one that I suspect many physically handicapped people would find patronising. if not offensive. A physical handicap is no bar to playing a part in local democracy, as many people have proved. I do not accept that the majority of such disabled people would agree that they should be given special treatment in this one respect. I emphasise the words "in this one respect", because our proposed rebate system is specifically directed towards meeting the special needs of those disabled people who are not exempt, including their need to meet the 20 per cent. contribution. The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support.
§ Mr. Ridley
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) but, as this is a short debate, I shall not give way again.
§ Mr. Dalyell
Anyone who has the privilege of knowing Lord Allen of Abbeydale knows that one thing he is not is patronising. Is the Secretary of State saying that he is wrong in his assessment of the human reaction of the blind and other disabled people?
§ Mr. Ridley
I strongly disagree with anybody who says that disabled people have not the ability to play their part in democracy, whether it be local or national. As the basis of the charge is that people put in funds to the minimum extent necessary to pay the minimum 20 per cent. of that charge—they have an incentive to vote according to which party they think will be the better stewards of the council—it would deny those people the respect that the House should accord to them.
§ Mr. Ridley
I said that I would not give way again.
The rebate system is based on the net income levels used for income support. Those are £13.05 a week higher for disabled people than for their able-bodied counterparts. Moreover, £15 of any income that disabled people have is disregarded for rebate purposes, as opposed to £5 for able-bodied people. The whole of any mobility or attendance allowance is disregarded as well as the first £5 of any war pension. Those are very generous arrangements, which, when applied to our proposed rebate system for this charge, will ensure that all will be able to afford their 20 per cent.
Understandably, there has been concern about the position of disabled people who live in some high-spending inner-city areas. That has been based on forecasts of the community charge at current spending levels. There is 1146 ample scope for reduction in spending by 1990. Last month we announced illustrative figures for the community charge based on budgets for this financial year. In the extreme example of Camden, which has already been quoted in this context, the figures show a reduction of £143 from the illustrative charge based on last year's spending. There is no reason why that reduction should not continue and every reason to believe that it will. It is in the hands of the local authority to reduce it still further if it is concerned about disabled people or people with lower means.
That people in some areas will pay more community charge than others is not arbitrary, nor an accident of geography, but the result of deliberate spending decisions by local authorities. It is not true that Camden needs to raise more from its community charge payers because, as an inner-city area, it has greater needs. The Government grant system acknowledges that different areas have different needs. For example, Camden's assessment shows a need to spend at the rate of £1,181 per adult, which is more than twice that of an area such as Guildford, with an assessment of £576. Therefore, the grant system acknowledges such variation in need and is so arranged that an authority, whether urban or rural, spending at need would require a community charge of £202. The gap between that and the £639 that Camden would have to charge if it spends at this year's level is quite simply a measure of overspending.
§ Mr. Ridley
I said that I would not give way. I want to let the debate take place.
It is an essential part of our proposed system that those who take such spending decisions should be accountable to all those capable of taking part in the democratic process. Physically disabled people certainly fall within that category. We have ensured that their special needs are taken care of in the rebate system and we have provided that people who are unable to play a part in local democracy because of severe mental disability will be exempt.
I accept that these amendments were made in another place because of a genuinely held anxiety about disabled people, but I believe there may have been some misunderstanding about the basis of the exemption for severely mentally handicapped people. The Government's record of helping disabled people is superior to that of any of their predecessors. Their needs are fully taken account of in our proposals and this extra help is unnecessary and goes against the principle of the Bill. I suggest that the House reject the amendment.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
I shall begin by putting the words of Lord Allen of Abbeygate into their correct context. I thought that it was not permissible within our Standing Orders to quote those in another place who are not Ministers, but, as the Secretary of State has been allowed to do so, I presume that I shall be allowed to do the same. Lord Allen said:Whatever the complexion of the authority, it is difficult to see how many authorities in the inner-city areas with high social needs will ever be anything but above the average … It is not practicable for the poor disabled people of whom I am talking simply to up sticks and move to another area.1147 Immediately after the words quoted by the Secretary of State—assessing these nice considerationsLord Allen said:That is simply not the real world. Most of them will never struggle to the polling booths at all or wrestle with postal voting papers. Moreover, if they do, although I am no politician, it seems to me that they and their families are more likely to vote against the political party which has put them into this mess rather than trying to turn out the councillors responsible for supplying them with their much needed social services."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 5 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 148.]That is a fair assessment of Lord Allen's speech.
If this were a matter of either an 80 or a 100 per cent. rebate for the disabled, we would be speaking to another set of amendments altogether. These amendments have been tabled only because, in some panic during the general election last year, the Government announced that all poor people on means-tested benefits would have the minimum 20 per cent. poll tax added to their benefits. That was announced by another Minister. It was made clear later that the amount added to the national benefit scales would be 20 per cent. based on the national average, not the actual 20 per cent. of the poll tax. If we are not saying that every local authority, every village, every town, every shire or every city should be the same, clearly for some the poll tax will be more than the average and for some it will be less. The amendment ensures that the poor disabled on means-tested income support will not suffer by having to pay more than 20 per cent.
The Secretary of State mentioned accountability, but he has not said that in those areas where the poll tax is below average the poor disabled will receive not a 100 per cent. rebate, but a 105 per cent., 110 per cent. or even more. They will make a net gain. How does that improve their accountability with the local council? The argument about accountability is complete fiction.
On 5 July the Lords carried an amendment to make sure that the poor disabled get what was intended. During the general election, Ministers sought to imply, "We will operate the benefits to take account of the 20 per cent." I want to use only one set of figures.
§ Mr. Ridley
During the general election, and indeed on a television broadcast with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who is not here, but I do not blame him for that, I made it absolutely clear that it was 20 per cent. of the average and not of each community charge. There was no doubt about that.
§ Mr. Rooker
Whatever the Secretary of State might have said on television, that was not implied in the original statement. He did not spell it out in the reality of the pounds that people must spend. On last year's figures, the national average poll tax figure that was given to us was £225. We know that 20 per cent. of that is £45. That will be added to the national benefits scales.
A poor disabled person may live in an area in which the poll tax is £325. I am not talking about the type of authorities to which the Secretary of State referred. There will be many areas above and below, within a margin of, say, £100. Many will be way above—several hundreds of pounds in some inner London authorities. Let us say that it is £325, and of course 25 per cent. of that is £65. The 1148 poor disabled will have to find £20 for food and fuel. That is the reality, and this amendment will prevent that reality coming about. They may live in a poll tax area that is below average. A good example is Kensington. The new hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) mentioned £122. That is what the Conservative party said. Twenty per cent. in Kensington is only £24, yet the benefit will be increased by £45. It does not seem fair. As Lord Allen said, disabled people cannot pull up sticks and move. It is not as simple as that in the world outside, whatever the Secretary of State might think.
§ Mr. Wigley
Is it not coming over clearly to the House that the Secretary of State is using disabled people as a lever in high rate areas that might have high poll taxes? Is it not disgraceful that disabled people should be used in that way for the party political purposes of the Conservative party?
§ Mr. Rooker
It is the intention of the Conservative party—it is obscene, but it is its intention—to force poor disabled people on means-tested benefits to spearhead campaigns in local authority areas to cut the poll tax to destroy their own services. That is what the Conservative party wants. It wants the bizarre situation in which poor disabled people lead campaigns to cut the very services on which they depend.
The other place should at least have an opportunity—I suspect that it will—to look at the obscenity that the Secretary of State is proposing to the House. After all the concessions that the Government are alleged to have given—as one of my hon. Friends said, they give millions of pounds to salmon owners in Scotland—they come here to screw the poor disabled, while seeking to give the impression that such people will have their benefits made up. They will not. It is a fraud and we should support the Lords.
§ Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)
The panic in the last election occurred on Opposition Benches, when Opposition Members found their credibility ebbing away, largely because of the Government's record on spending on the disabled. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) looked at the spending figures, he would see the Government's record, with an 80 per cent. increase in real terms. Two thirds may represent an increase in numbers, but one third, representing £1 billion, represents real terms increases per person. The hon. Gentleman should bear that point in mind.
We are not debating whether we should help the disabled but how we should best help them, and whether we should help them through social security benefits or by tampering with the basic principle of the community charge, which is fair and means that everybody should pay. Disabled people can play their part in society the same as everybody else. There is no reason to suppose that we should tamper with the community charge. We should look at the benefits and consider whether social security benefits are good enough.
The average increase in reforms is £4.50 per week for the disabled and long-term sick on income support. We are talking about an average increase of £4.50 a week. If we look at the extra payments that might be called for in high-spending areas and work out the figures for Camden, on the present figures—there is scope for them to improve 1149 —the maximum amount that people are likely to pay is £1.30 per week. The two figures are completely out of kilter.
It may be that an individual does not get the £4.50 per week, because of the way in which the social security reforms work, but is liable to pay the £1.30. We know that the social security reforms will be monitored. I look for changes in the administration of social security rather than a blanket increase to help the small number of individuals who may be affected.
Their Lordships were confused. If they had looked at the social security legislation they would have realised that that is the area in which we should act to secure benefits. If we rule out the ILEA element, we are talking about only 70p a week in Camden. In Greenwich, it is 30p a week less, so there we are talking about only 40p. They are relatively small sums of money to set against an increase on average of £4.50 a week.
That is the Government's record. The Government are helping the long-term disabled and sick. Conservative Members are helping them properly, through the social security reforms, not by tampering with every other piece of legislation. We do not ask that electricity should be cheaper for the sick and disabled. We ask them to play their proper part in society and to pay their bills the same as everybody else does. But if they need help, we should help them through social security reforms. If hon. Members find examples of people who are not being properly helped, I ask them to call for changes in social security arrangements, not to look for massive changes in the administration of the community charge. That is the way to do it.
Hon. Members should remember the Government's excellent record on the long-term sick and disabled, with an 80 per cent. increase in spending. There are increases in invalidity benefit, attendance allowance, mobility allowance, industrial disability benefit, and the earnings limit allowances to which my hon. Friend has referred. High-spending councils should consider the ways in which they have been profligate, and should not load burdens on to the disabled. They should cut their spending accordingly.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)
The Minister's speech was insensitive and, some may think, deeply unworthy of any debate on these important amendments. It gave the impression that we on this side of the House—and, by implication, the majority by which Lord Allen's amendments were approved by the House of Lords—are engaged in party warfare against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the amendments were carried in another place with the support of Conservative peers who were acknowledged to speak with a lifetime's experience of the problems of disabled people.
This is not principally a conflict between the two sides of this House, but one that divides the Secretary of State from voluntary organisations of such renown that they have become household names in this country. The conflict is also one between the Secretary of State and disabled people themselves.
My purpose in intervening in the debate is to let the House hear what disabled people and their organisations are known to feel about the Government's decision to oppose Lord Allen's amendments. In a letter sent to me for this debate, Ian Bruce, the director general of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, states: 1150On behalf of the estimated 40,000 visually handicapped people on income support, I would ask you to encourage the Government not to take this backward step. Poverty does not foster accountability: there is no greater harrier to involvement in the community for disabled people than financial hardship. We believe that the benefit system fails adequately to recognise the additional costs of disability. Rejecting this amendment can only increase those costs for many elderly blind people.That is not the language of party politics but one of anxious concern for some of the most vulnerable people from a distinguished representative of their cause.
Listen also to Brian Lamb, speaking for the Spastics Society, and the very severely disabled people whom it represents. He was quoted last weekend as saying:A total rebate would cost the government peanuts but the alternative may cost some disabled people their independence.For MENCAP, Sir Geoffrey Dalton, its secretary general, has put it to me as follows:May I … point out that these amendments will promote community care … We believe that the Bill as amended in the House of Lords will enable … disabled people to play their part in community accountability, and will … provide appropriate compensation to … people on low incomes, irrespective of geographical location. We urge you to resist any attempt to reverse these amendments.For the Secretary of State to have given the impression that this is simply an exercise in party politics is an outrageous misrepresentation of those in the voluntary organisations who conceived and, by persuasive advocacy, won majority support for the amendment in another place. I hope that the House will do them as much justice tonight.
There can be no doubt whatever that, if the amendments are now defeated, more disabled people will find themselves in residential institutions where, as the House knows, poll tax will not be payable. The Government sloganise about community care, but the reality of their approach to these amendments is that they are content to condemn more and more disabled people to institutional care. Their policy is not only wrong but self-defeating and inhumane. It will cost the public purse more than the extremely modest cost of the amendments and is thus irresponsible in financial terms.
The amounts that we are discussing are trivial to the Treasury but, as Brian Lamb said for the Spastics Society, they are huge to people desperate to stay in their homes and to parents caring for their severely disabled adult children. It has been estimated that, in some localities, they will have to find in excess of £100 a year. They are people for whom every pound is a. struggle to find.
This is a timely debate. It comes on the day of the publication by the King's Fund Institute of an independent report by Virginia Beardshaw entitled "Last on the List: Community Services for People with Physical Disabilities". I quote the first two sentences of the report's conclusions:This report paints a bleak picture. It highlights substantial inadequacies in the health and social services currently available to disabled people.That is a report that the Secretary of State should read. If he does, he must agree that to defeat these amendments will pile handicap on handicap for disabled people. The Government promised to single out disabled people for special help. The defeat of these amendments will single them out for special hardship.
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that these amendments seek only to ensure that disabled people on low incomes will receive a genuine 100 per cent. rebate, irrespective of where they live. We were told by The 1151 Sunday Times last weekend that the decision by the Secretary of State to resist the amendments will trigger a Tory rebellion at the end of the debate. Much to his credit, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) was quoted as saying:We will be doing what we can … to persuade the Government not to reverse these amendments. A considerable number of disabled people will be hit hard.I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman's views, speaking as he does as an hon. Member who has given outstanding service to many organisations of and for disabled people, will be listened to with respect by Conservative Members. I ask his colleagues not to act party politically but to join in supporting amendments which, outside the House, have won enormous support from people of all parties and of none.
§ Mr. Hannam
I have listened carefully to the explanation given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for asking the House to reject the Lords amendment, which seeks to give parity to all disabled people on low incomes. I regret to say that I cannot accept the Government's position. I say that with some regret because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), in all other respects I have the greatest admiration for the help given to the handicapped by the Government.
Here we have a compassionate measure introduced in the other place by Lord Allen of Abbeydale, the president of MENCAP and a former much respected senior civil servant. It was supported by 124 peers of all parties and has the backing of all the major disablement charities, plus the Royal College of Nursing. The amendment provides a formula whereby the maximum rebate level not only applies where the community charge is lower than or equal to the national average but ensures that disabled people on low incomes in all areas get the 100 per cent. rebate. The amendment is designed primarily to help those people who are disabled and on income support—the poorest of the disabled. Only those people will receive 100 per cent. rebate, regardless of where they live. That is the crux of the debate.
The Government's position, which I can understand in theory, is that these people will receive a 100 per cent. rebate only if they live in an area where the community charge is average or below average and that in higher spending authorities the principle of voting accountability must apply. Being what it means, an average has to produce a large number above the median level and a large number below, and the highest charges will generally fall in deprived inner-city areas where greater concentrations of low-income disabled people inevitably live.
In effect, the Government are saying that a disabled person on a low income living in a local authority area where the community charge will be average or below average will get a 100 per cent. rebate, or even, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has admitted, more than 100 per cent. A poor disabled resident who lives in an above-average spending area will, for the sake of a theoretical voting pressure, have to pay the extra and will not get a full rebate, and this extra will amount to £75 or £100 each year.
1152 What are these people supposed to do? Like most severely disabled, blind or mentally subnormal people living in the community, they cannot easily move across the boundary into another area. First, the cost of moving is far too great, and, secondly, suitable housing and support facilities would have to be available in the area. This is particularly unrealistic if we look at the number of special needs housing and mobility starts made now compared with 10 years ago. The number has decreased from 10,560 then to only 1,239 last year. We have reached a plateau of special needs housing, which means that there is not the flexibility to allow those disabled people to move easily from one area to another. In inner-city areas there are more low-income disabled, and their needs are one reason why those areas often have higher than average expenditure.
The alternative for those disabled people and for the mentally subnormal, who are often included in this category, is to stay in institutional care. This is one of the great worries of disablement organisations, especially the Royal College of Nursing, which has written specifically about this to me.
People in residential care do not have to pay the community charge, but if they move out into the community they will be liable to pay it. That runs counter to the Government's philosophy on the care in the community programme. Surely we should not penalise disabled people for moving into the community just because that area happens to have a high-spending local authority as opposed to a low-spending one.
The principle of accountability for this small group of people, which runs through the debate and about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious, is liable to act as a direct disincentive to the care in the community programme. Going back into residential care would, of course, cost astronomically more than the amount that would be required to make up the 100 per cent. rebate.
What kind of disabled family are we talking about? Often, we find that one disabled person marries another disabled person. As we know, the community charge multiplies the payment that has to be made by the number of people in the household. Many disabled people are married, and they may have a handicapped child. There are many cases of families with two or three disabled and handicapped people living in the same house and needing special care at home. Often, they are not sufficiently severely mentally handicapped to qualify for exemption. From postbags and constituency experience, all hon. Members know of the stresses and strains inherent in looking after such handicapped adults in the family. Is it right to force another financial burden on those families, just because they happen to live in an inner-city area rather than in one where the community charge is lower than the average?
When the Scottish Bill was going through the House of Lords, Lord Glenarthur, the Minister, gave a commitment that certain groups of disabled people would be eligible for 100 per cent. rebates. He repeated the commitment when he was questioned, but it was never honoured, although the Government carried out their side of the bargain, to the extent that they wanted, through the income support level and its uprating. The increase of £1.25, which is the national weekly average of the community charge, is hardly 100 per cent. compensation for the community charge in high-spending areas. A disabled person in a 1153 below-average area will get more than 100 per cent. of the charge, whereas others, who are equally poor and disabled but who live in above-average areas, will be penalised.
Lord Allen's vital amendment seeks to ensure that disabled people on benefit will not face a new financial burden because of the community charge. The crucial point is that that does not contradict the basic principle of the Bill. Disabled people on low incomes will still have to make an initial payment of their community charge for the cost of local services. They will then have to apply for the rebate, which they will receive at a later date. All of them will receive the initial impact of the expenditure of their local authority and the amount that they will have to pay, so accountability will be preserved, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is so anxious to ensure.
The amount of money involved is not large from the Government's perspective, but for the disabled person on the bottom level of income and who faces all the extra costs associated with disability, an extra £10, £20, £25, £50 or £75 can represent an impossible burden. I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about accountabilty and I support that principle. But when it is applied differently in different areas to people with similar disabilities it is wrong. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in voting for the retention of this worthwhile and compassionate amendment.
§ Mr. Matthew Taylor
When we discuss Lords amendment No. 171, we must consider Lords amendments Nos. 300, 302, 303 and 304, although they are timetabled to be debated later on. Lords amendment No. 171 is essentially a paving amendment to others that seek to help people with disabilities.
The amendment was proposed in the other place by the Cross Bencher, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and it seeks to help elderly and disabled people to pay their poll tax. It is similar in that respect to amendments tabled by myself and others in the House of Commons. There are, however, crucial differences between the amendment that I moved and Lords amendment No. 171. I sought to introduce a potential 100 per cent. rebate for those on certain benefits. The Government's response was that the amendment was unacceptable because it undermined the concept of accountability. Lord Allen did all that he could to take that point on board and he modified his amendment as a result.
Under the amendment, all old and disabled people, as defined by eligibility by certain benefits, will still have to pay 20 per cent. of their poll tax. In theory, they should get that 20 per cent. contribution back through upratings in benefit that the Government have promised. As has been said, the problem is that the uprating will be based on the national average for the poll tax, so that people living in areas of higher than average poll tax will be out of pocket. Those people—by definition—will be the most vulnerable members of the community. Without exception, they will be those least able to pay the poll tax.
The Lord Allen amendment proposes a community charge additional element to help those who would otherwise lose. It would bridge the gap between the amount that they receive in their benefit towards their 20 per cent. contribution and their actual poll tax liability.
In promising benefit upratings, the Government acknowledge that the very poorest need help in paying their 20 per cent. poll tax contribution. It is on the basis of 1154 need that that help will be given. However, by linking the upratings to the national average poll tax level the Government would create a hopelessly imprecise system. Some people will not have enough to meet their poll tax bill, whereas others will gain. By contrast the amendment seeks to target resources precisely. It would carry through what the Government said they would do and what they acknowledge is necessary. After all, they are giving the money because it is needed; it is not a handout. It is riot a reward for living in a low-spending authority area. Its non-payment is not a penalty for living in a high-spending authority area. It is based on need.
§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)
Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the Government and the Bill will not cause people to be out of pocket? It is the high-spending authorities that will cause the problems.
§ Mr. Taylor
The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are talking not about the present arrangements but about the arrangements that the Government wish to introduce, and that is an end to the matter.
§ Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry)
Does the Lords amendment prescribe that excess relief in low-spending authorities should be withdrawn and, if not, where is the logic in that?
§ Mr. Taylor
If the Government or the hon. Gentleman should wish to propose such an amendment to help the disabled people who will lose, it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, that is not the basis of the Government's argument, which is that there should be a penalty and an attempt to bribe people into voting one way or another—or more accurately, as they cannot do without the money, to force them to vote one way or the other.
The precise targeting of benefit is one of the stock lines of the Department of Health and Social Security. We hear it from the Government whenever they threaten to abolish the universal payment of child benefit. Ministers tell us that resources must be directed to where they are needed most. Why, then, do they propose to add amounts to benefits that will be more than some people need but much less than others need? It is not even sensible in the Government's financial terms because it will force people out of community care and into residential care. That will cost more in the end because those disabled people will be unable to vote for proper community care services within their local authority.
Perhaps the most despicable argument advanced by the Government against the amendment is that it would cost too much. A report in The Guardian on 19 July—no doubt the result of a Department of the Environment briefing—said that the Government found Lord Allen's proposal unacceptable because it could cost up to £100 million in lost poll tax revenue. But that £100 million of revenue represents the amount paid by the very poorest among the old and the disabled.
§ Mr. Ridley
I may make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that in no circumstances should The Guardian ever be taken as representing what is one word of Government policy.
§ 7 pm
§ Mr. Taylor
Perhaps the Secretary of State will elaborate. Can he tell the House whether the figure of £100 million is one that the Department of the Environment calculated, and whether it gave it to The Guardian? Can he confirm whether that is the scale of the expected cost? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to answer that question, obviously the answer must be yes.
As I have said, that £100 million is the amount that will be paid by the very poorest and the oldest in meeting the differences between the help they receive in benefit to pay poll tax and their actual poll tax bill. It is not money from benefits but money from their own pockets. It is money that the Government said the very poorest—let alone the elderly and the disabled—would not have to pay. It is money that the Government said they needed to live on, to heat their homes, and to clothe themselves. Yet the Government will not allow them that money if the Lords amendment is rejected. If those payments add up to £100 million, that in itself is a condemnation of the poll tax. It is a £100 million tax bill being dumped on the elderly and disabled, with no rebate, no extra benefit, and no assistance being given.
Conservative Members who have voted for a certain level of benefit, because the Government recognised the needs of the elderly and the disabled, should reflect on the fact that if they now back the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment, they are saying to them, "We said that you needed those benefits, and that you could not get by without them. But if you are unlucky enough to live in the area of a local authority that spends above the average, you will have those benefits taken away from you." Do Conservative Members accept that there is still that need for benefits, or will they reject that and go for the greed of a Government who would rather buy votes than accept their responsibilities?
§ Sir George Young (Ealing, Acton)
I hope that the House will leave the Lords amendment untouched. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he advised the House to resist the amendment. His argument rested on accountability, and that the philosophy behind the Bill was that councils should take spending decisions in the knowledge that they will have an impact on all the community charge payers in their area. He commented that it was patronising towards the disabled to exempt them and that they wanted to be treated as ordinary members of the community.
My right hon. Friend's case begins to disintegrate, however, because the Government have accepted exemption for a group of people who have a lesser claim than those for whom the amendment seeks exemption. I refer to residents of nursing homes and residential care homes, many of which hon. Members have visited in their own constituencies. Everyone in such homes is entitled to vote. Many of them benefit from local authority services, particularly if the residential care home is run by a local authority. Many have substantial sums of money and are well off. Others suffer no disability but are simply fragile. They are all totally insulated from the community charge, and the Government have said that they are not part of the accountability argument.
If such people are to be exempt, and if they are to be no worse off because of the community charge, the poor and disabled have at least as strong a case for exemption. I 1156 have general reservations about the whole impact of this policy, but if the Government have exempted well-off people in nursing homes—who can vote, who benefit from local authority services, and who know what is going on—then, in fairness, the Government ought also to insulate the poor and the disabled, whom another place has quite rightly identified in this amendment.
§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Tonight is an occasion for frank speaking. We ought to recognise and remember that we hold in trust the hopes of many thousands of very severely disabled people. The House must choose between defending their interests and being spurred on by political claptrap. We have heard a great deal of political claptrap from the Secretary of State, who should be ashamed of the speech that he made. He was wise to refuse interruptions because, although he doubtless read his brief very well, he made one of the worst cases that I have heard for a very long time.
It really gets my goat when the Government say it is a matter of pride for the disabled to participate in society, but then proceed to kick them, to hit their pockets, and to pretend that they are concerned with the pride of disabled people. If we are concerned about the disabled, the way to help them to keep their pride is to give them enough cash to live decently. The Secretary of State greatly upsets me when he claims that giving assistance would be to patronise the disabled. It is only patronising if one talks down to the disabled and says, "Of course they can play their part in society", but then refuses to help them. I am very sorry that the Secretary of State unfortunately made the kind of speech that he did.
Lords amendment No. 171 gives to very disabled people on income support a 100 per cent. rebate of community charge, regardless of where they live, whereas the Government are forcing them to be reluctant participants in a monstrous lottery. In that enforced gamble, the disabled will win or lose according to where they live. The Secretary of State was wrong to say that it is not a matter of geography, because it is. The outcome will depend entirely on where a person lives as to whether he will gain or lose. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that most disabled are very poor and cannot afford to move. They find themselves hopelessly and helplessly trapped where they are, and they are being cornered by the Government. I believe that that is the Government's intention.
I do not want to get too personal, but I wish to warn the Secretary of State that people are very worried that the Government are not doing what they can to help the disabled. In the House of Lords, Conservative peers were simply trying to help the severely disabled. I refer not to someone who has lost a finger or who is hard of hearing, but to the severely disabled.
Tonight, the House must be left in no doubt about the consequences of voting down this amendment. The first consequence will be the imposition of severe and, in some cases, unbearable burdens on the losers among the severely disabled. I accept the Secretary of State's assurance that the mentally handicapped will not be included. He was right to correct their Lordships on that point, and I accept his correction. Nevertheless, there remain the gravely disabled who are paralysed or fragile and who are unable to wash, dress or feed themselves. They are in a dreadful situation. I am not speaking of people suffering only from 1157 minor physical blemishes. They will be the losers if this amendment is defeated, and I hope that Conservative Members will bear that in mind.
Rejecting the amendment will mean dividing families, because some disabled people will be forced into institutions. There is no shadow of doubt about that. That will be at enormous personal cost to the people involved and tremendous financial cost to the Government.
Forcing severely disabled people into institutions is to rob them of their independence. That is the crime of totalitarian Governments across the world—I place it as high as that. It is serious to rob anybody of his or her independence, yet that is what will happen if the amendment is defeated. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider and I beg his supporters, who are entitled to back him on other issues, to think again.
The defeat of the amendment will expose Ministers as dogmatic and heartless political theorists acting on a bogus political principle against people who are helpless. It will also establish the amazing precedent of a Government admitting their willingness—indeed, determination—to hit some very severely disabled people. No verbal dexterity can rationalise or excuse that.
The defeat of the amendment will provoke the House of Lords into bringing it forward again and embarrassing the Government. If the Secretary of State wants to challenge that group in the House of Lords, it is a matter for his political judgment. I think that he is making a terrible political error, and I urge him to think again. I urge Conservative Members to ensure that the amendment is not defeated. If they obey the party Whips, they will be condoning a disgraceful and shameful attack on the most vulnerable members of our society. Only a sick society and a pathetic House of Commons would allow that.
§ Mr. John Maples (Lewisham, West)
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is always listened to with great respect when he speaks on this subject. He has, as always, spoken with great conviction and passion on behalf of the disabled. His arguments may amount to a good case for more generous treatment of the disabled by our social security system, but I do not think—I hope that I can demonstrate why—that his arguments amount to a case for a blanket exemption from a general system of local taxation, which is different.
The Labour party's enthusiasm for the amendment makes one wonder why it did not propose it and why it waited for an Independent peer to do so. It makes one wonder whether their enthusiasm is slightly artificial and whether it is yet another opportunity to make mischief and drag out the debate.
The provisions in the amendment are unnecessary and misconceived. They are unnecessary because already under the rebate system substantial additional provisions are made for the disabled, designed to take account of their additional needs, and that is right. The applicable amounts for deduction from the incomes of disabled people are considerably higher. If disabled people were receiving the additional social security benefit to which they are entitled, they could be receiving an income of up to about £80 a week more than an able-bodied person before losing any of their community charge rebate. Therefore, a substantial move has already been made towards making the system easier on the disabled.
We are talking about relatively small sums of money. I know that what may appear to be small sums of money for 1158 most of us may not be so for those on benefit. However, in this case we are talking about small sums of money. The large community charge figures bandied around are notional figures. They ignore the safety net. I think that I am right in saying that of all the community charge areas in London that will have high figures, very few of them will be over £300 or £350 in the first year of the safety net. Therefore, we are talking about £20 or £25 over the year, or about 40p a week.
I do not believe that the community charge in areas such as mine—Lewisham—will be equivalent to the figures bandied about. Enormous savings can be made and there are five years in which to make them. The scope for the reduction of the community charge is great. Lewisham at present has a notional figure of £575. Incidentally, it is £100 less than last year, with no appreciable pain and suffering among the users of Lewisham council's services. The scope for reducing that by a further £100 a year for another three years and having a community charge of about £275 is easy to realise. If that is the case, one would be talking about the amendment saving people about 30p or 40p a week. Therefore, we are talking about a minimal sum.
The amendment is misconceived for two reasons. First, it runs counter to the principle of accountability, which is central to the idea of the community charge. That principle is that people should play some role in local government by their vote or their participation in it. It makes sense to exempt the mentally handicapped on the ground that they cannot participate, but it is palpably untrue to say that the physically handicapped cannot do so.
Secondly, there may be arguments for providing particular groups in our community with additional social security benefit. However, those are not of themselves arguments for exempting those people from particular systems of taxation. I believe the contrary. It is part of the universal benefits argument. It results in the misapplication of money. If disabled people ought to be receiving higher social security benefit, let us have an argument about that. However, it is not an argument for exempting them from part of a general system of taxation. There are plenty of other groups which I am sure the Opposition could latch on to in the same way if they so desired.
If this is such an important matter and such an important principle is at stake, one cannot help wondering why the Opposition did not think of it themselves. I cannot understand why they did not propose it in respect of the 20 per cent. of rates that people have to pay in the intervening period.
§ Mr. Rooker
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that we are under a guillotine motion, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying from a Central Office brief is not true. The Labour party proposed the amendments in Committee and the Government rejected them.
§ Mr. Maples
I do not think that that was a point of order and I am reading, not from a Central Office brief, but from my own handwriting. I asked why the Opposition needed an Independent peer to propose the amendment and why they did not do so themselves.
§ Mr. Maples
It leads one to believe that they are jumping on a bandwagon that somebody else has set in motion. The Opposition are dragging out this debate on something that is unnecessary and misconceived.
§ Mr. Douglas
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who referred to a group of people who will be totally exempt from the community charge—those who live in residential homes. What do politicians do when elections are called, either for local government or central Government? One of the first groups of people that we ensure are covered by the provision of a vote are those who reside in old folks' homes. We want them to vote. The Secretary of State's principle of accountability is nullified in relation to that group of people.
In my constituency we would be foolish politicians if we did not make darn sure early in the campaign that everyone who is eligible is given a postal vote. However, the Secretary of State says that he is exempting that group of people. Where is the principle of accountability?
The Secretary of State said that we have maligned the disabled because there is a suggestion that they are not fit to participate in the affairs of the community. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the severely mentally handicapped who are exempt under the Bill? Does that mean that someone who is exempt under this obnoxious Bill should be removed from the electoral roll? Is that a quid pro quo?
Earlier, the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to cry, "Stupid," from a sedentary position, let me tell them that the Minister of State alluded to my perambulations. I do not want to detain the House in this important debate, but my impression, within the past two or three weeks, is that the more the people of this country know about the Bill, the less they like it. I challenge any of the pussy-footing guys on the other side of the House to come back with me to Edinburgh and explain the Bill to the folk, particularly in England.
My last speech of the last Parliament related to the subject of the severely mentally handicapped. The Bill states:A person is severely mentally handicapped if he is suffering from a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which involves severe impairment of intelligence and social functioning.That must be certified by a medical practitioner. The Secretary of State is not just asking people to identify the poor, which is bad enough; he is also asking people with elderly relatives to identify them so that they can obtain exemption when this spurious piece of legislation is on the statute book. I believe that, on other occasions, the Secretary of State is quite humane.
This is a farce of a Bill. The more people get to know about it, the less they like it. If it is so good, why do we not all have it at the same time? If it is so good, let us all have it in 1989 or, conversely, let the people of Scotland wait until 1990, like the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, so that we can all suffer equally.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) has won the argument to date. He has a record of working very hard on issues of this kind; that is well recognised on both sides of the House.
1160 I am sorry to have to say it, but the principle of everyone paying at least 20 per cent. is not the only valuable principle. It has its merits, and I certainly support it as a general principle, but that does not mean that there cannot be any exceptions to it. Legislating is to do with general principles. It is also to do with making human exceptions to those. It is a matter of balance. That is what our legislation is about, and I have to say that the balance of the argument goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter and those who have supported this important set of amendments—people from all parties in the other place—and that is why I shall find myself in the Lobby in favour of the series of amendments passed from another place.
§ Mr. O'Brien
A couple of points should be placed on record on the important subject of the poll tax and how it applies to the disabled. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) raised a number of issues which were not new. They were raised by Labour Members in Committee. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has not read the Official Report or taken note of what was said in Committee and I must put it on record that the points that we raised were turned down by his colleagues in Committee.
I also want to make it clear to the Secretary of State that, when the Labour party was in office, it increased expenditure on the disabled over five years by over 300 per cent. One of the issues with which we dealt was the mobility allowance, which is very much appreciated by people. The Labour Government therefore made considerable provision for expenditure on the disabled.
We also hope that the Minister will clarify the issue of the uprating of the compensation element year on year because no provision has been made for the uprating of the element and it will soon lose value in relation to the poll tax if there is no assurance that uprating will take place each year.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of some of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the important issue of the application of the poll tax to disabled people. I hope that we shall uphold the decision of the House of Lords on this important issue.
§ Mr. Ridley
I shall first answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) about the compensation element. All DHSS benefits, of which that is one, are uprated annually in the annual social security review according to the figures at that time.
Typically, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) scored a pretty good own goal at the beginning of our debate. He quoted Lord Allen and went on to say that it was difficult to see how many authorities in the inner city would ever be anything but above the average. Let me draw his attention to the fact that, in Birmingham, on this year's figures, the charge is £218, whereas the average is £246. I congratulate that inner city area of Birmingham.
§ Mr. Ridley
Throughout the debate, we have referred to figures without including the safety net. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with that.
That is an inner-city area where the disabled benefit from what we have proposed, as have other people who will be on rebates because they have a council that performs effectively at a low community charge rate. If 1161 councils want to help the less well-off, whether or not they are disabled, they will have it in their own means to have a below-average community charge, like the inner-city area of Birmingham.
§ Mr. Ridley
I pay tribute to that. The way that the Opposition have suggested that it is an accident that there are high community charges in some places and not in others is absolutely monstrous.
§ Mr. Ridley
If the Opposition want to have low community charges for people on low means, they have the solution in their own hands.
§ Mr. Ridley
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) got the point right. He pointed out that the highest amount in Camden by which anybody could fall short on their 20 per cent. payment was £1.30 a week or £83 a year, not the £100 that has been quoted.
§ Mr. Wigley
That is a lot of money to disabled people. Has the Secretary of State ever tried living on that sort of money?
§ Mr. Ridley
That figure is the highest of all councils in this country. I challenge Camden council to reduce its figure. It is up to Camden to do that.
I should like to make it quite clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) has said, the amount that the Government have added to the average weekly income of disabled people in the social security review is £4.50 per week, which in many cases leaves disabled people £80 per week better off than their able-bodied counterparts——
§ Mr. Ridley
The way to help disabled people is the way that the Government have chosen over the years—to give disabled people more disposable income of their own——
§ Mr. Ridley
That is the right way to do it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign".]—and Opposition Members know it.
§ It being half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
§ The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 216.1165
|Division No. 428]||[7.30 pm|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Amery, Rt Hon Julian|
|Alexander, Richard||Amos, Alan|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Arbuthnot, James|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Fenner, Dame Peggy|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)|
|Ashby, David||Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey|
|Atkins, Robert||Fishburn, John Dudley|
|Atkinson, David||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Forman, Nigel|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)|
|Baldry, Tony||Forth, Eric|
|Banks, Robert (Harrogate)||Fox, Sir Marcus|
|Batiste, Spencer||Franks, Cecil|
|Bellingham, Henry||Freeman, Roger|
|Bendall, Vivian||French, Douglas|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Fry, Peter|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Gale, Roger|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Gardiner, George|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Gill, Christopher|
|Body, Sir Richard||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Boswell, Tim||Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles|
|Bottomley, Peter||Gorman, Mrs Teresa|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Gorst, John|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Gow, Ian|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Bowis, John||Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Greenway, John (Ryedale)|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Gregory, Conal|
|Brazier, Julian||Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)|
|Bright, Graham||Grist, Ian|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Ground, Patrick|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Hanley, Jeremy|
|Buck, Sir Antony||Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')|
|Burns, Simon||Harris, David|
|Burt, Alistair||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Butcher, John||Hayes, Jerry|
|Butler, Chris||Hayward, Robert|
|Butterfill, John||Heathcoat-Amory, David|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Heddle, John|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)|
|Cash, William||Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.|
|Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda||Hill, James|
|Channon, Rt Hon Paul||Hind, Kenneth|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Chope, Christopher||Holt, Richard|
|Churchill, Mr||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)||Howard, Michael|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Colvin, Michael||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Conway, Derek||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Hunter, Andrew|
|Couchman, James||Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas|
|Cran, James||Irving, Charles|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Jack, Michael|
|Curry, David||Jackson, Robert|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||Janman, Tim|
|Davis, David (Boothferry)||Jessel, Toby|
|Day, Stephen||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Devlin, Tim||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Dicks, Terry||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Key, Robert|
|Dover, Den||Kilfedder, James|
|Dunn, Bob||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Durant, Tony||King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Knapman, Roger|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Evennett, David||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas||Knowles, Michael|
|Fallon, Michael||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Farr, Sir John||Lang, Ian|
|Favell, Tony||Latham, Michael|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rumbold, Mrs Angela|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Ryder, Richard|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Lightbown, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Lilley, Peter||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Lord, Michael||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Luce, Rt Hon Richard||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Lyell, Sir Nicholas||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|McCrindle, Robert||Shersby, Michael|
|Macfarlane, Sir Neil||Sims, Roger|
|MacGregor, Rt Hon John||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Maclean, David||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Speed, Keith|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Madel, David||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Major, Rt Hon John||Stanley, Rt Hon John|
|Malins, Humfrey||Stern, Michael|
|Mans, Keith||Stevens, Lewis|
|Maples, John||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Marland, Paul||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Marlow, Tony||Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)|
|Marshall, John (Hendon S)||Stokes, Sir John|
|Marshall, Michael (Arundel)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Martin, David (Portsmouth S)||Sumberg, David|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Summerson, Hugo|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Mellor, David||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Miller, Sir Hal||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Mills, Iain||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)||Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret|
|Mitchell, David (Hants NW)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Moate, Roger||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Monro, Sir Hector||Thorne, Neil|
|Montgomery, Sir Fergus||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Moore, Rt Hon John||Thurnham, Peter|
|Morris, M (N'hampton S)||Townend, John (Bridlington)|
|Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Moss, Malcolm||Tracey, Richard|
|Moynihan, Hon Colin||Tredinnick, David|
|Mudd, David||Trippier, David|
|Neale, Gerrard||Trotter, Neville|
|Nelson, Anthony||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Neubert, Michael||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Newton, Rt Hon Tony||Viggers, Peter|
|Nicholls, Patrick||Waddington, Rt Hon David|
|Nicholson, David (Taunton)||Wakeham, Rt Hon John|
|Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley||Walden, George|
|Page, Richard||Waller, Gary|
|Paice, James||Ward, John|
|Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Patnick, Irvine||Warren, Kenneth|
|Patten, Chris (Bath)||Watts, John|
|Patten, John (Oxford W)||Wells, Bowen|
|Pawsey, James||Wheeler, John|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Whitney, Ray|
|Portillo, Michael||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Price, Sir David||Wilkinson, John|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Wilshire, David|
|Redwood, John||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Riddick, Graham||Wolfson, Mark|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Wood, Timothy|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Woodcock, Mike|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm||Yeo, Tim|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Rost, Peter||Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Adley, Robert|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Allen, Graham|
|Alton, David||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Anderson, Donald||George, Bruce|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Gould, Bryan|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Graham, Thomas|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Barron, Kevin||Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)|
|Battle, John||Grocott, Bruce|
|Beckett, Margaret||Hannam, John|
|Beggs, Roy||Hardy, Peter|
|Bell, Stuart||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy|
|Benyon, W.||Healey, Rt Hon Denis|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Henderson, Doug|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hinchliffe, David|
|Blair, Tony||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Boateng, Paul||Home Robertson, John|
|Boyes, Roland||Hood, Jimmy|
|Bradley, Keith||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Buckley, George J.||Illsley, Eric|
|Caborn, Richard||Janner, Greville|
|Callaghan, Jim||John, Brynmor|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil|
|Cartwright, John||Kirkwood, Archy|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Lambie, David|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Lamond, James|
|Clay, Bob||Leighton, Ron|
|Clelland, David||Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Lestor, Joan (Eccles)|
|Cohen, Harry||Lewis, Terry|
|Coleman, Donald||Litherland, Robert|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Livingstone, Ken|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Corbett, Robin||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Loyden, Eddie|
|Cousins, Jim||McAllion, John|
|Cox, Tom||McAvoy, Thomas|
|Cryer, Bob||McCartney, Ian|
|Cummings, John||McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||McKelvey, William|
|Cunningham, Dr John||McLeish, Henry|
|Dalyell, Tam||McNamara, Kevin|
|Darling, Alistair||McTaggart, Bob|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||McWilliam, John|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Madden, Max|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Maginnis, Ken|
|Dewar, Donald||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Dixon, Don||Marek, Dr John|
|Dobson, Frank||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Doran, Frank||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Douglas, Dick||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Martlew, Eric|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Maxton, John|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Eastham, Ken||Meacher, Michael|
|Evans, John (St Helens N)||Meale, Alan|
|Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)||Michael, Alun|
|Fatchett, Derek||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Fisher, Mark||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Flannery, Martin||Molyneaux, Rt Hon James|
|Flynn, Paul||Morley, Elliott|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Foster, Derek||Mullin, Chris|
|Foulkes, George||Murphy, Paul|
|Fraser, John||Nellist, Dave|
|Fyfe, Maria||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Galbraith, Sam||O'Brien, William|
|Galloway, George||O'Neill, Martin|
|Garrett, John (Norwich South)||Parry, Robert|
|Patchett, Terry||Spearing, Nigel|
|Pike, Peter L.||Squire, Robin|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Prescott, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Straw, Jack|
|Quin, Ms Joyce||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Radice, Giles||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Redmond, Martin||Turner, Dennis|
|Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn||Vaz, Keith|
|Reid, Dr John||Wall, Pat|
|Richardson, Jo||Walley, Joan|
|Roberts, Allan (Bootle)||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Robertson, George||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Robinson, Geoffrey||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Rogers, Allan||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Rooker, Jeff||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Rowlands, Ted||Wilson, Brian|
|Ruddock, Joan||Winnick, David|
|Sedgemore, Brian||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert||Worthington, Tony|
|Shore, Rt Hon Peter||Wray, Jimmy|
|Short, Clare||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Skinner, Dennis||Young, Sir George (Acton)|
|Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)||Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Adam Ingram.|
§ Question agreed to.
§ Lords amendment 171 accordingly disagreed to.
§ MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
§ Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 24 and 26:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 177.1168
|Division No. 429]||[7.46 pm|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Burt, Alistair|
|Alexander, Richard||Butcher, John|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Butler, Chris|
|Amos, Alan||Butterfill, John|
|Arbuthnot, James||Carlisle, John, (Luton N)|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Carrington, Matthew|
|Atkins, Robert||Cash, William|
|Atkinson, David||Chapman, Sydney|
|Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)||Chope, Christopher|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Churchill, Mr|
|Baldry, Tony||Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)|
|Batiste, Spencer||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Colvin, Michael|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Conway, Derek|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter||Cope, Rt Hon John|
|Body, Sir Richard||Couchman, James|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Cran, James|
|Boswell, Tim||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Bottomley, Mrs Virginia||Curry, David|
|Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Day, Stephen|
|Bowis, John||Devlin, Tim|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Dicks, Terry|
|Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James|
|Brazier, Julian||Dover, Den|
|Bright, Graham||Dunn, Bob|
|Brittan, Rt Hon Leon||Durant, Tony|
|Brooke, Rt Hon Peter||Dykes, Hugh|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Emery, Sir Peter|
|Browne, John (Winchester)||Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)|
|Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)||Evennett, David|
|Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)||Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas|
|Fallon, Michael||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Farr, Sir John||Lightbown, David|
|Favell, Tony||Lilley, Peter|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Lord, Michael|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||McCrindle, Robert|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||MacGregor, Rt Hon John|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Forman, Nigel||McKelvey, William|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Maclean, David|
|Forth, Eric||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Franks, Cecil||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Freeman, Roger||Madel, David|
|French, Douglas||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Fry, Peter||Malins, Humfrey|
|Gale, Roger||Mans, Keith|
|Gardiner, George||Maples, John|
|Gill, Christopher||Marland, Paul|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Marlow, Tony|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Gow, Ian||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Mellor, David|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Gregory, Conal||Mills, Iain|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Grist, Ian||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Moate, Roger|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Hannam,John||Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Moss, Malcolm|
|Harris, David||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Mudd, David|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Neale, Gerrard|
|Hayes, Jerry||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hayward, Robert||Neubert, Michael|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Hill, James||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Hind, Kenneth||Page, Richard|
|Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)||Paice, James|
|Holt, Richard||Patnick, Irvine|
|Hordern, Sir Peter||Patten, Chris (Bath)|
|Howard, Michael||Patten, John (Oxford W)|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Pawsey, James|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey||Portillo, Michael|
|Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Price, Sir David|
|Hunt, David (Wirral W)||Raison, Rt Hon Timothy|
|Hunter, Andrew||Redwood, John|
|Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Irving, Charles||Riddick, Graham|
|Jack, Michael||Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas|
|Jackson, Robert||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Janman, Tim||Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm|
|Jessel, Toby||Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Roe, Mrs Marion|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Rossi, Sir Hugh|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Rost, Peter|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Rowe, Andrew|
|Key, Robert||Ryder, Richard|
|Kilfedder, James||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Sainsbury, Hon Tim|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Sayeed, Jonathan|
|Knapman, Roger||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|Knowles, Michael||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Lamont, Rt Hon Norman||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Lang, Ian||Shersby, Michael|
|Latham, Michael||Sims, Roger|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Tracey, Richard|
|Speed, Keith||Tredinnick, David|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Trotter, Neville|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Viggers, Peter|
|Stanley, Rt Hon John||Walden, George|
|Stern, Michael||Wallace, James|
|Stevens, Lewis||Waller, Gary|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)||Ward, John|
|Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Stokes, Sir John||Watts, John|
|Stradling Thomas, Sir John||Wells, Bowen|
|Sumberg, David||Wheeler, John|
|Summerson, Hugo||Whitney, Ray|
|Taylor, Ian (Esher)||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Taylor, John M (Solihull)||Wilkinson, John|
|Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)||Wilshire, David|
|Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman||Wolfson, Mark|
|Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)||Wood, Timothy|
|Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)||Yeo, Tim|
|Thorne, Neil||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Thurnham, Peter||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Townend, John (Bridlington)||Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.|
|Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Allen, Graham||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Anderson, Donald||Eastham, Ken|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Fatchett, Derek|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Fisher, Mark|
|Barron, Kevin||Flannery, Martin|
|Battle, John||Flynn, Paul|
|Beckett, Margaret||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Beggs, Roy||Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)|
|Bell, Stuart||Foulkes, George|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Fyfe, Maria|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Galbraith, Sam|
|Blair, Tony||Galloway, George|
|Boateng, Paul||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Boyes, Roland||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Bradley, Keith||George, Bruce|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Graham, Thomas|
|Buckley, George J.||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Caborn, Richard||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Callaghan, Jim||Grocott, Bruce|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Hardy, Peter|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Canavan, Dennis||Haynes, Frank|
|Cartwright, John||Henderson, Doug|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Hinchliffe, David|
|Clay, Bob||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Clwyd, Mrs Ann||Home Robertson, John|
|Cohen, Harry||Howarth, George (Knowsley N)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Corbett, Robin||Hughes, Roy (Newport E)|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)|
|Cousins, Jim||Illsley, Eric|
|Cryer, Bob||Ingram, Adam|
|Cummings, John||John, Brynmor|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|
|Darling, Alistair||Lambie, David|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)||Lamond, James|
|Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)||Leighton, Ron|
|Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)||Lestor, Joan (Eccles)|
|Dixon, Don||Lewis, Terry|
|Dobson, Frank||Litherland, Robert|
|Doran, Frank||Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)|
|Douglas, Dick||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Loyden, Eddie||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|McAllion, John||Reid, Dr John|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Richardson, Jo|
|McCartney, Ian||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|McLeish, Henry||Rogers, Allan|
|McNamara, Kevin||Rowlands, Ted|
|McWilliam, John||Ruddock, Joan|
|Madden, Max||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Maginnis, Ken||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Short, Clare|
|Marek, Dr John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Martlew, Eric||Soley, Clive|
|Maxton, John||Spearing, Nigel|
|Meacher, Michael||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Meale, Alan||Strang, Gavin|
|Michael, Alun||Straw, Jack|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Turner, Dennis|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Vaz, Keith|
|Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)||Wall, Pat|
|Molyneaux, Rt Hon James||Walley, Joan|
|Morley, Elliott||Warden, Gareth (Gower)|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Murphy, Paul||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Nellist, Dave||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon||Wilson, Brian|
|O'Neill, Martin||Winnick, David|
|Parry, Robert||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Patchett, Terry||Worthington, Tony|
|Pike, Peter L.||Wray, Jimmy|
|Powell, Ray (Ogmore)||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Primarolo, Dawn||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Radice, Giles||Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. William McKelvey.|
§ Question agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 26 agreed to. [Special Entry.]
§ Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be noted that the Government offered a concession on the last group of amendments on which the House was forced to vote. Have we not just been through an enormous waste of time——
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a debating point, not a point of order for the Chair.
§ Question put forthwith, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 157.1171
|Division No. 430]||[7.57 pm|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter|
|Alexander, Richard||Body, Sir Richard|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Bonsor, Sir Nicholas|
|Amos, Alan||Boscawen, Hon Robert|
|Arbuthnot, James||Boswell, Tim|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Bottomley, Mrs Virginia|
|Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)||Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)|
|Atkins, Robert||Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)|
|Atkinson, David||Bowis, John|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes|
|Baldry, Tony||Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard|
|Batiste, Spencer||Brandon-Bravo, Martin|
|Bellingham, Henry||Brazier, Julian|
|Bendall, Vivian||Bright, Graham|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Brooke, Rt Hon Peter|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)|
|Biggs-Davison, Sir John||Browne, John (Winchester)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)|
|Burt, Alistair||Hind, Kenneth|
|Butcher, John||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)|
|Butler, Chris||Holt, Richard|
|Butterfill, John||Hordern, Sir Peter|
|Carlisle, John, (Luton N)||Howard, Michael|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)|
|Carrington, Matthew||Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)|
|Cash, William||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Chapman, Sydney||Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)|
|Chope, Christopher||Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)|
|Churchill, Mr||Hunt, David (Wirral W)|
|Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)||Hunter, Andrew|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Irving, Charles|
|Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)||Jack, Michael|
|Colvin, Michael||Jackson, Robert|
|Conway, Derek||Janman, Tim|
|Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)||Jessel, Toby|
|Coombs, Simon (Swindon)||Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey|
|Cope, Rt Hon John||Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)|
|Couchman, James||Jones, Robert B (Herts W)|
|Cran, James||Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine|
|Currie, Mrs Edwina||Key, Robert|
|Curry, David||Kilfedder, James|
|Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)||King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)|
|Day, Stephen||Kirkhope, Timothy|
|Devlin, Tim||Knapman, Roger|
|Dicks, Terry||Knight, Greg (Derby North)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Knowles, Michael|
|Dover, Den||Lamont, Rt Hon Norman|
|Dunn, Bob||Lang, Ian|
|Durant, Tony||Latham, Michael|
|Emery, Sir Peter||Lawrence, Ivan|
|Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)||Lee, John (Pendle)|
|Evennett, David||Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark|
|Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas||Lilley, Peter|
|Fallon, Michael||Lord, Michael|
|Farr, Sir John||Luce, Rt Hon Richard|
|Favell, Tony||Lyell, Sir Nicholas|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||McCrindle, Robert|
|Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)||MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||McKelvey, William|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Maclean, David|
|Forman, Nigel||McLoughlin, Patrick|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael|
|Forth, Eric||McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Madel, David|
|Franks, Cecil||Major, Rt Hon John|
|Freeman, Roger||Malins, Humfrey|
|French, Douglas||Mans, Keith|
|Fry, Peter||Maples, John|
|Gale, Roger||Marland, Paul|
|Garel-Jones, Tristan||Marlow, Tony|
|Gill, Christopher||Marshall, John (Hendon S)|
|Glyn, Dr Alan||Martin, David (Portsmouth S)|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Maude, Hon Francis|
|Gorman, Mrs Teresa||Mawhinney, Dr Brian|
|Gow, Ian||Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin|
|Gower, Sir Raymond||Mellor, David|
|Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)||Mills, Iain|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Gregory, Conal||Mitchell, David (Hants NW)|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Moate, Roger|
|Grist, Ian||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn||Montgomery, Sir Fergus|
|Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)||Moore, Rt Hon John|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)|
|Hanley, Jeremy||Moss, Malcolm|
|Hannam, John||Moynihan, Hon Colin|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Mudd, David|
|Harris, David||Neale, Gerrard|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Nelson, Anthony|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Neubert, Michael|
|Hayes, Jerry||Newton, Rt Hon Tony|
|Hayward, Robert||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Heathcoat-Amory, David||Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Oppenheim, Phillip|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Page, Richard|
|Hill, James||Paice, James|
|Patnick, Irvine||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Patten, Chris (Bath)||Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)|
|Patten, John (Oxford W)||Stokes, Sir John|
|Porter, David (Waveney)||Stradling Thomas, Sir John|
|Portillo, Michael||Sumberg, David|
|Powell, William (Corby)||Summerson, Hugo|
|Price, Sir David||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Raison, Rt Hon Timothy||Taylor, John M (Solihull)|
|Redwood, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Rhodes James, Robert||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Riddick, Graham||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas||Thorne, Neil|
|Ridsdale, Sir Julian||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm||Thurnham, Peter|
|Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)||Tracey, Richard|
|Roe, Mrs Marion||Tredinnick, David|
|Rossi, Sir Hugh||Trippier, David|
|Rost, Peter||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Rowe, Andrew||Viggers, Peter|
|Sackville, Hon Tom||Walden, George|
|Sainsbury, Hon Tim||Waller, Gary|
|Sayeed, Jonathan||Ward, John|
|Shaw, David (Dover)||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)||Watts, John|
|Shelton, William (Streatham)||Wells, Bowen|
|Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)||Wheeler, John|
|Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)||Whitney, Ray|
|Sims, Roger||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Skeet, Sir Trevor||Wilkinson, John|
|Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)||Wilshire, David|
|Soames, Hon Nicholas||Wolfson, Mark|
|Speed, Keith||Wood, Timothy|
|Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)||Yeo, Tim|
|Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Stanley, Rt Hon John||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Stern, Michael||Mr. David Lightbown and|
|Stevens, Lewis||Mr. Richard Ryder.|
|Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Cummings, John|
|Adams, Allen (Paisley N)||Cunliffe, Lawrence|
|Allen, Graham||Dalyell, Tam|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Darling, Alistair|
|Armstrong, Hilary||Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||Dixon, Don|
|Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)||Dobson, Frank|
|Barron, Kevin||Doran, Frank|
|Battle, John||Douglas, Dick|
|Beckett, Margaret||Dunnachie, Jimmy|
|Beggs, Roy||Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth|
|Bell, Stuart||Eastham, Ken|
|Bermingham, Gerald||Evans, John (St Helens N)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Fatchett, Derek|
|Blair, Tony||Field, Frank (Birkenhead)|
|Boateng, Paul||Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)|
|Bradley, Keith||Fisher, Mark|
|Bray, Dr Jeremy||Flannery, Martin|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Flynn, Paul|
|Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)||Foot, Rt Hon Michael|
|Buckley, George J.||Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)|
|Caborn, Richard||Foulkes, George|
|Callaghan, Jim||Galbraith, Sam|
|Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)||Garrett, John (Norwich South)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)|
|Canavan, Dennis||George, Bruce|
|Cartwright, John||Godman, Dr Norman A.|
|Clark, Dr David (S Shields)||Golding, Mrs Llin|
|Clay, Bob||Graham, Thomas|
|Cohen, Harry||Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)|
|Cook, Frank (Stockton N)||Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)|
|Cook, Robin (Livingston)||Grocott, Bruce|
|Corbett, Robin||Hardy, Peter|
|Corbyn, Jeremy||Harman, Ms Harriet|
|Cousins, Jim||Haynes, Frank|
|Cox, Tom||Hinchliffe, David|
|Cryer, Bob||Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)|
|Home Robertson, John||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Howarth, George (Knowsley N)||Parry, Robert|
|Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)||Patchett, Terry|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)||Pike, Peter L.|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport E)||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)||Prescott, John|
|Illsley, Eric||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Ingram, Adam||Redmond, Martin|
|John, Brynmor||Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)||Reid, Dr John|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)||Richardson, Jo|
|Kennedy, Charles||Rogers, Allan|
|Lamond, James||Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)|
|Leighton, Ron||Rowlands, Ted|
|Lewis, Terry||Ruddock, Joan|
|Litherland, Robert||Sedgemore, Brian|
|Lofthouse, Geoffrey||Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert|
|Loyden, Eddie||Short, Clare|
|McAllion, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|McAvoy, Thomas||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|McCartney, Ian||Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)|
|McKelvey, William||Steinberg, Gerry|
|McLeish, Henry||Strang, Gavin|
|McNamara, Kevin||Straw, Jack|
|McWilliam, John||Turner, Dennis|
|Madden, Max||Vaz, Keith|
|Maginnis, Ken||Wall, Pat|
|Mahon, Mrs Alice||Walley, Joan|
|Marek, Dr John||Wardell, Gareth (Gower)|
|Marshall, David (Shettleston)||Wareing, Robert N.|
|Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Maxton, John||Wilson, Brian|
|Meale, Alan||Winnick, David|
|Michael, Alun||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)||Worthington, Tony|
|Millan, Rt Hon Bruce||Wray, Jimmy|
|Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Mullin, Chris||Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. George Galloway.|
§ Question agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 218 to 233 agreed to.