Lords Sitting of 24 May 1990

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Airport Capacity: CAA Report
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now been advised by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority of the date he expects to present his report on the adequacy of United Kingdom airport capacity in the period to 2005 and, if not, when they anticipate receiving such advice.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am unable to add to the reply that I gave to the noble Baroness on this matter on 19th April. The Government expect to receive the authority's advice in July.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I hope that the Minister feels some regret at having to read that Answer today which reflects credit on neither the CAA nor the Government. Does he understand, in view of the complacency of the Answer that he has given today, that I find it difficult to accept the government statement that they fully recognise the importance of the subject? Yet he made that statement in the House on 19th April? What redress has a Member when an organisation takes that attitude which I regard as being one either of contempt or of arrogance?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not accept anything that the noble Baroness has said. She will be aware of the complexities involved in producing a report of this nature. It has taken two years and at this stage the CAA is unable to give a firm date for publication. As well as placing a copy in the Library I can assure the noble Baroness that the department will forward to her a personal copy, which she deserves, as soon as it arrives.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that few of us would associate ourselves with the quite unnecessarily offensive observations about himself which the noble Baroness applied? Is he also aware that many of us would like to see the report in time for it to be debated before the House adjourns For the Summer Recess? Can he do his best to help to bring that about in view of the enormous importance of the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The authority's advice will be important as regards the way in which the Government take forward their airports strategy. In view of that, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would be a mistake to pressure the authority to publish its report before it is ready to do so. If it
1018
is ready to do so before the end of July I doubt whether I shall be able to comment substantively on what it says. We must first consider the report's contents.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the matter was raised on 19th April I referred to the report of the two-year review of air congestion carried out by IATA? Can he now say whether it is intended to respond to the document separately or whether a decision has been taken to consider it together with the CAA's report?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on 19th April I told the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I would pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend. I can now tell him that the proposals included in the IATA report will certainly be considered in the light of the CAA's recommendations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that considerable action is being taken to improve airport capacity on the continent of Europe? Is he also aware of the deleterious effects that that could have, unless action of the most urgent kind is taken, on our ability within the United Kingdom to function as an effective centre for air traffic?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the management of air space, not runways, is the main cause of congestion in the United Kingdom at present. Additional runways will not help to relieve that congestion. We must wait until we see the CAA's advice.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as regards the matter of urgency, does the Minister's brief contain the information that on 24th July last year I asked his noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, who was then the Minister concerned, whether he realised that there appeared to be no feeling of urgency about the matter and that until there was such a feeling we should simply go on waiting? Can the Minister do anything to impress that upon the Government.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions that there is urgency, about which we are aware. The department is already considering ways to take forward the CAA's advice when it is received. There is no question of the issue lying dormant.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not one of the problems facing the British Airways Authority the incredible length of time that planning decisions over where to site airports and whether to increase their capacity take?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord has a point. I still believe that we must wait and read the report before we discuss the matter further.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in view of the length of time any possible solution would take to implement, does not the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, underline the urgency of taking decisions quickly?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I have already said, the department has cleared its decks and its desks to work on the report the moment that it is received.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that we can agree on the matter or urgency. However, do I understand that in a reply given today the Minister said that if we receive the report before the end of July such and such an action might be taken? Does one assume that it is possible that we may not receive the report before the end of July?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said in my original Answer that we shall receive the report in July.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that the problem was lack of air space rather than airport space? There will never be any more air space but we can build more airports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I said that the management of air space is the main cause of congestion and not a lack of runways.

Medicines: Safeguards
11.13 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following Baroness Hooper's reply to the debate [Official Report, 9th May, col. 1433] whether they can estimate how many patients have died, been maimed or been born deformed as a result of treatment with products of the pharmaceutical industry through the medium of the National Health Service since 1948.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, it is difficult to make a reliable estimate on the information available, but stringent safeguards are built into the licensing provisions of the Medicines Act.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat inconclusive Answer. In the light of the punitive damages which have been awarded to those who have suffered such calamities in the past, is there any record of similar calamities occuring to those receiving treatment from herbal or other complementary and natural therapies?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it was as a direct result of the thalidomide situation that the controls to which I have referred were built in in terms of licensing procedures. Sometimes it is argued that some herbal and homoeopathic medicines are inherently safe because they are natural. But that is not always the case. For example, as regards herbal medicines, which are currently the only natural medicinal products to be reviewed, from time to time it has been necessary for the licensing authority to withdraw or restrict the use of particular herbs in medicinal products. Again, although homoeopathic
1020
products are considered safe by virtue of their high dilution, some of the starting materials are toxic and the dilution itself is no protection against, for example, poor hygiene in manufacturing processes or microbial contamination.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, no doubt such things are happening as are indicated in the Question. However, is the noble Baroness also aware that the remarkable contribution of the British Pharmaceutical Society via the NHS has literally saved millions of lives and prevented a great deal of suffering? While when something goes wrong, quite rightly, there are reports in the press and Questions asked in both Houses of Parliament, we should not forget the remarkable contribution made by the British Pharmaceutical Society in saving lives and easing pain. It has made a valuable contribution to our National Health Service.
Baroness Hooper: Indeed, yes, my Lords. I fully agree with the noble Lord on this occasion that it should not be forgotten that modern pharmaceutical advances have produced incalculable benefits to sick people, who would die or suffer needlessly without effective treatment; for example, organ transplants made possible by anti-rejection drugs, anti-cancer drugs enabling the cure of certain childhood leukaemias, the successful treatment of peptic ulcers with less recourse to surgery, and anti-infective drugs, without which many infections were previously fatal. One could go on and on. We look to new and further developments in modern pharmaceutical science for more lifesaving treatments in the future.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on this occasion I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy? Is she further aware that the Question of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam, although in order procedurally, is in the worst possible taste implying that numbers of people have lost their lives as a result of treatment by the health service or pharmaceutical drugs? Is she also aware that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is absolutely right that the record of our health and pharmaceutical services in saving lives has a reputation which is second to none in the world and we should be proud of that?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for underlining that point. I should also like to take the opportunity to re-emphasise the stringent safeguards built in to the licensing system and, indeed, the excellent system for voluntary notifications to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have visited a number of pharmaceutical installations and, quite apart from its safety record, the pharmaceutical industry does a great deal for this country's exports?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having voted against the Third Reading in another place of the National Health Service Act 1946, may I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and my noble friend Lord Nugent?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am happy to say to my noble friend that I welcome him to the consensus which prevails.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I never like to introduce a note of controversy and of course I entirely accept what has been said about the pharmaceutical industry. However, perhaps the noble Baroness will address the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. Does she agree that it is the case that any drug, because of the great amount of good it does, is always potentially dangerous? Because it can do some good, it can also do some harm. The nonsensical drugs put forward under the name of homoeopathy and so on may well have little effect in terms of doing harm but the reason is that they also have little effect in doing good?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, that is why those forms of treatment are available in this country.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that they are available because their effect is negligible and therefore the Government do not feel that there is need to intervene?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, they are available because we believe in freedom of choice.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is suggested that my question is in bad taste. I would remind my noble friend that my supplementary Question asks whether there is any record of such calamities occurring for those receiving treatment from natural therapies. With respect, that question has not been answered.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in referring to the original Question tabled by my noble friend which relates back to the debate we had some little time ago in your Lordships' House, I confirm that we see this as a risk situation and that I did not point to any specific evidence.

US Radar Station Proposal
11.20 a.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the United Kingdom contribution to the cost of the proposed US radar station at St. David's in Pembrokeshire, and whether the money will be redeemable from the US Government if they decide to move the radar equipment, which is designed to be moveable, somewhere else.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the cost of the United Kingdom's contribution to the proposed two-year joint trial of a US Navy over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom will be around £15.5 million.
1022
Once the trial begins both the United Kingdom and the United States fully intend to take it to its conclusion. However, should either participant seek to withdraw from the programme before the end of the trial, the detailed financial implications would be discussed at the time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helfpul answer. Perhaps I may ask a supplementary question about health. What independent advice have the Government obtained of the possible effect on health of this new type of radar station, which emits an unfamiliar pattern of electromagnetic radiation? When I say "independent advice", I mean advice apart from that given by the United States Navy.
Lord Reay: My Lords, our belief is that the transmitter will not give off radioactivity or microwaves. We have closely followed the guidelines of the National Radiological Protection Board on health and safety regarding the hazards of this type of transmitter. We believe that the precautions taken are satisfactory. However, the independent environmental impact assessment which is to be undertaken will also include an assessment of the effects of the proposed installation on health.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister is surely aware of local concern and anxiety regarding health hazards. He said that he and his colleagues are satisfied, but what steps have they taken to reassure the public? The Minister mentioned an environmental impact study. Can he say when that is likely to be available and whether it will be widely published and consulted upon? Bearing in mind the enormous change in the strategic need for installations of this kind in the light of swiftly changing defence commitments, are the Government prepared to consider the strategic necessity for this blot upon the landscape?
Lord Reay: My Lords, one of the steps taken to reassure the public was a visit to St. David's by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 10th May at the invitation of Mr. Nicholas Bennett MP. My honourable friend explained the essential background to the proposals and how it is intended to handle the consultation process. He also heard the concerns of constituents at first hand and undertook that they would be fully taken into account in the environmental impact assessment. The environmental impact assessment is to be carried out by a fully independent firm of planning consultants, W. S. Atkins, of Epsom, Surrey. We expect that to be completed later this summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that a very large number of people from the St. David's area came to meet Mr. Alan Clark and left him in no doubt about the deep concern of the inhabitants of the locality and their opposition to this project? Could the Minister confirm that Crown immunity will not be used to push the project through if the planning decisions show that the locality and the local authorities are against it?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I confirm that there have been a fair number of representations from the public expressing concern about these proposals. However, the Ministry of Defence will be commissioning a full environmental impact assessment for each site, which will support formal notices of the proposed development submitted to the relevant planning authorities in late summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, was not the Minister able to conclude after meeting the 700 or 800 people in St. David's that the locality is against the project?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the procedure that is to be followed is that a notice of proposed development will be submitted to the local planning authorities, together with an environmental impact assessment. It will then be necessary for the Government to consider what action to take.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this project is a major element in the Anglo-American defence co-operation on which the peace of the world has depended for many years and will continue to depend for many years to come?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The over-the-horizon radar could complement the coverage obtained by conventional radar and substantially improve our early-warning cover and therefore our air defences.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the Welsh viewpoint will be taken into account in this Anglo-American conclusion?
Lord Reay: My Lords, most certainly the Welsh viewpoint is taken account of.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: Thank you, my Lords.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us on what frequency the radar will transmit?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I do not have that information readily available. If I may I shall write to my noble friend.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to bring a large number of men and women to live in the beautiful area of St. David's can only be good for their health?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I appreciate the beauty of the area and look forward to an opportunity to visit it and its famous cathedral.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on whether the environmental impact assessment will be published?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I answered several questions put by the noble Lord. The environmental impact
1024
assessment, which will be produced at the same time as the planning applications, will, as far as I know, be published.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether this project is similar to the Fylingdales radar station? If it is, first, the Fylingdales station has done no harm to people; secondly, it has become quite an attractive feature of the landscape.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I certainly think that the visual impact of the transmitter has been exaggerated in some reports. It may well be smaller and less obtrusive than many people fear.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to assist? Is it not the case that Fylingdales is a phased array radar system and that the radar proposed at St. David's is not one of those? There is no technical precedent for what is being sited there, and that is the point of the health question.
Can the noble Lord be more specific in response to two questions which were put to him? The first one was whether the environmental impact statement would be published. He answered that it would be, he supposed. The second was whether the Government intended to use what my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition described as Crown privilege in ramming the proposal home, despite any objections which may appear at the planning inquiries. The last question surely requires a yes or no answer. Will that be considered or will it not?
Lord Reay: My Lords, formally speaking, the Crown is not bound by planning legislation. However, in common with other government departments, it is government practice to adhere strictly to planning processes in accordance with appropriate departmental guidelines.

Dogs: Control and Welfare
11.28 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they are considering for the control and welfare of dogs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, we remain committed to the package of measures outlined in the consultation paper Action on Dogs which we issued last year. These include duties on local authorities to deal with stray dogs and to enforce the existing requirement that dogs should wear a collar and identification tag.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and the degree of encouragement, indicating that he recognises that there is a need to ensure that existing legislation is made effective. Is he aware that there are roughly 500,000 stray dogs in this country, that we put down 1,000 a day humanely and that tens of thousands suffer appallingly? Evidence as to that can be given by the British Veterinary Association, the People's

1025
Dispensary for Sick Animals and the National Farmers Union. Could not the Government therefore consider the whole issue to ensure that the legislation which exists is put into effect and, where necessary, improved upon?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords or all sides of the House are well aware of the problems arising from irresponsible dog ownership, which the noble Lord elucidated with the figures that he gave. The Government are discussing with the RSPCA and others the consultation document which we produced last year. We may even be considering strengthening some of the recommendations or suggestions therein. Before the House rises for the summer Recess there may well be further opportunities to discuss these matters in greater detail.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, what is the Government's view about the danger of rabies in this country? Should rabies unfortunately arrive on these shores, what effect would that have on their views of dog registration?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government, and all governments I believe, are constantly vigilant in regard to rabies. As to the effect that rabies would have on a dog registration scheme, I take the example of Northern Ireland, where a licensing scheme has been operating for six years. Less than one-third of the dogs in Northern Ireland are part of that scheme. The Government have reservations about the effect of a registration scheme.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in legislation already on the statute book provision is made for a registration scheme? Will he assure the House that if in the legislation he expects to be before this House later this year an amendment is carried against the Government, they will treat that amendment differently to the defeat they suffered in previous legislation and will carry out the will of Parliament? Will the Government also acknowledge that, despite the defects in the effectiveness of Northern Ireland legislation, the people of Northern Ireland almost unanimously are satisfied and delighted with the impact on the problem of stray dogs and violent dogs in Northern Ireland? I ask the Government to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I refer back to the previous question I answered. If we are speaking about an effective control for rabies and we adopt a system which effectively registers only one-third of all dogs, apart from one's views of such a scheme, I would consider the success of using it as a tool against rabies to be doubtful. In regard to future activities, I am sure that the noble Lord would be extremely surprised to find a Minister speculating from this Dispatch Box.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the Minister referred to irresponsible dog owners, but does he not agree that the irresponsibility is not only on the side of dog owners? There are plenty of local authorities that do not want to bother with the organisation involved in starting such a scheme. Does he not agree that we should have a national system which all local authorities would accept and which would be absolutely infallible?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lord in regard to a dog registration scheme, but I refer him back to the figures I produced from Northern Ireland, where a licensing scheme has been in operation for six years but only one-third or less of the dogs are licensed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that during the debate on the now famous amendment which failed in the other place both its opposers and supporters were united in one respect? They all agreed on the need to implement properly the existing legislation and to review it so that it can be improved and acted on in an efficient manner.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord's first remarks. He also made the very good point, oft forgotten, that within my little file I have in front of me there is a weighty amount of paper filled with existing legislation and opportunities for local authorities which have not been taken up.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how he knows that only one-third of the dogs in Northern Ireland are licensed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it is on the basis of the figures given by those operating the scheme and what they believe. The figures are one-third for the whole of the Province and one-half in Belfast, which has more dog wardens.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that one of the advantages of a dog registration scheme is that, even if only a small amount of money is raised—he agrees that that has happened in Northern Ireland—more money would nevertheless be available for local authorities throughout the country generally to provide a dog warden service? That would be a most valuable check on irresponsible ownership of dogs.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is entirely true. I believe I am correct in saying that the proponents of a registration scheme are in favour of it being self-financing but the worrying fact is that that assumes a fairly high level of take-up. The figures I have seen convince me that the take-up will be low, in which case the proportionate cost of such a scheme will become extremely onerous.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
11.35 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2,
Schedule 1,
Clause 26,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 27 and 28,
Clauses 3, 4 and 29,
Clause 5,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 6 to 11,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 30 to 32,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 12, 13 and 36,
Clauses 14 to 17 and 33,
Clauses 18 and 34,
Clauses 19 and 20,
Schedule 4,
Clause 35,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 21 and 37,
Clauses 22 and 38,
Clauses 23 and 39,
Clauses 24 and 25,
Clauses 40 to 43,
Clause 57,
Clauses 44 and 58,
Clauses 45 to 47 and 53,
Clauses 48 and 56,
Clauses 49, 54, 50, 51, 52, 55, 59 to 61,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 62 to 66,
Schedule 9,
Schedule 10,
Clause 67.
— (Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Environmental Protection Bill
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Environmental Protection Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 7 to 31,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 32 to 75,
Clauses 130 to 132,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 76 to 78,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 79 to 93,
Schedule 4,
Clauses 94 to 99,
Schedule 5,
Clauses 100 to 118,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 119 and 120,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 121 to 123,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 124 to 127,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 128 and 129,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 133 and 134,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 135 to 145,
Schedules 13 and 14,
Clauses 145 and 146.
— (Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
11.36 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMON AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 128 as first printed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Page 115. line 46, leave out 'I' and insert 'II'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
I should point out to your Lordships that there has been an unfortunate mistake in the printing. The amendments relating to the Town and Country Planning Bill have been printed under the heading of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill, and conversely. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to be kind enough to refer to the amendments under the heading, Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill.
In moving Amendment No. 1, I speak to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. These amendments, apart from Amendment No. 3, are minor drafting corrections. Amendment No. 3 removes the privilege amendment which we insert in appropriate circumstances in sending a Bill to the other place. With your Lordships' leave I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc later.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1 .— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 215, line 34, leave out '102(5)' and insert '102(8)'.
3 Page 230, leave out lines 36 to 39.
4 Page 310, line 24, leave out '(5)' and insert '(8)'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 for the reasons I have explained.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
11.38a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 127 ax first primed for the Commons]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert "If'.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I refer now to the other list of amendments and speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. These amendments are all minor drafting corrections apart from, in this case, Amendment No. 4 which removes the privilege amendment. Again, with your Lordships' leave, I shall later move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Page 9, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
3 Page 9, line 4, leave out 'shall' and insert 'intend to grant listed building consent they shall first'.
4 Page 57. leave out lines 41 to 44.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
11.39 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
1030
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 59, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert: ("(7) Subsection (8) below applies in any case where—
(a) on the determination, whenever made, of a Commissioner or the court (the "relevant determination"), a decision made by an adjudicating authority is or was found to have been erroneous in point of law, and
(b) in consequence of that determination, any other decision—
(i) which was made before the date of that determination, and
(ii) which is referable to a claim made or treated as made by any person for any benefit,
falls (or would, apart from subsection (8) below, fall) to be revised on a review carried out under subsection (1A) above after the coming into force of this subsection.
(8) Where this subsection applies, any question arising on the review referred to in subsection (7)(b) above, or on any subsequent review of a decision which is referable to the same claim, as to any person's entitlement to, or right to payment of, any benefit—
(a) in respect of any period before the date of the relevant determination, or
(b) in the case of widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date,
shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (7)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law.
(9) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, subsection (8) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was so entitled before attaining that age.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (7) to (9) above—
(a) "adjudicating authority" and "the court" have the same meaning as they have in section 165D below;
(b) any reference to—
(i) a person's entitlement to benefit, or
(ii) a decision which is referable to a claim,
shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4) of that section; and
(c) the date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (5) of that section.").
The noble Lord said: We debated Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 when I moved Amendment No. 20, to which the Committee agreed on Monday. They provide that arrears of benefit payable on review of a claim, or of a new claim following a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority, are restricted back to the date of that reinterpretation. However, for new claims the maximum amount of arrears payable is limited to the current absolute time limit for the claiming of the benefit at issue or, where there is not one, 12 months.
The present arrangements provide a 12-month limitation on arrears where adjudication officers

1031
review decisions in consequence of a reinterpretation of the law by a higher appellate authority. Members of the Committee may recall from what I said on Monday that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration criticised that provision as inequitable in that where, on reinterpretation of the law, an affected case does not come to light immediately the claimant will effectively lose one week's arrears from every week's delay before a review decision is given.
Accordingly, we have decided to introduce the arrangements provided by Amendments Nos. 176 to 189 to give equity of treatment to all gainers from a reinterpretation of the law by providing a common start date for payment of arrears which the current back-dating arrangements lack. We believe these proposals to be fair, sensible and highly desirable. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I shall not detain the Committee for long. As my noble kinsman said, we debated these amendments on Monday evening. They were moved on Tuesday evening and put to a Division, and the Question was declared not decided. The words to which I and my noble friends took exception appear in Amendments Nos. 176 and 180, in proposed subsection (2)(b), which states that cases,
"shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (I)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law".
In effect, in the context covered by Clause 5, these amendments allow the Government to treat a court judgment as if it applied solely to the individual claimant and to ignore the effect on the entitlement of anyone else covered by the principle of the judgment. We believe that is driving a coach and horses through the rule of law.
Before I sit down, I shall quote what my noble friend Lady Seear said about this matter when we debated it on Monday:
"The moral of this whole sad story is that the Government should get their legislation right in the first place. They should not cheat when they get it wrong, which is what they propose. Because they have lost on this, they must ensure that the legislation is properly drafted, bring it back to the House and alter the law. They should not say that they will not do what the court says. Anyone can say that they do not wish to do what the court says. What a precedent to set".—[Official Report, 21/5/90; col. 688.]
Lord Henley: We debated these amendments on Monday. As my noble kinsman said, we debated and agreed to Amendment No. 20 to which these amendments are attached. On Tuesday my noble kinsman pressed the matter to a Division.
11.43 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 176) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E,

Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Beloff, L.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Morris, L.

Blatch, B.

Mottistone, L.

Borthwick, L,

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L,

Munster, E,

Brabazon of Tara, L,

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brightman, L,

Newall, L,

Brookes, L,

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L,

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Butterworth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L,

Caithness, E,

Porritt, L,

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Reay, L,

Carnock, L.

Renton, L,

Carr of Hadley, L,

Renwick, L.

Chilston, V.

Rodney, L,

Clanwilliam, E,

St, Davids, V,

Cottesloe, L,

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Craigavon, V,

Selkirk, E,

Cullen of Ashbourne, L,

Sempill, Ly,

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Shannon, E,

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Somerset, D.

Ferrers, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainford, L,

Gisborough, L,

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L,

Terrington, L.

Halsbury, E,

Teviot, L,

Hayter, L,

Tombs, L.

Henley, L.

Ullswater, V,

Hesketh, L,

Vaux of Harrowden, L,

Hooper, B.

Westbury, L,

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L,

Hughes, L,

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Blackstone, B.

John-Mackie, L,

Boston of Faversham, L,

Kirkhill, L,

Bottomley, L,

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L,

Listowel, E,

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L,

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L,

Mackie of Benshie, L,

Clinton-Davis, L.

Molloy, L.

David, B,

Mulley, L,

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oram, L,

Falkland, V, [Teller.]

Perry of Walton, L.

Feversham, L,

Peston, L.

Fitt, L,

Prys-Davies, L,

Gallacher, L,

Russell, E, [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L,

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L,

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L,

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L,

Hampton, L,

Underhill, L.

Hanworth, V.

Whaddon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L,

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L,

Willis, L.

Hooson, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L,

Houghton of Sowerby, L,

Winterbottom, L,

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 189:
Page 59, line 19, after ("determination") insert (", whenever made,").
Page 59, line 21, after ("is") insert ("or was").
Page 59, line 23, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) after both the coming into force of this section and the date of the relevant determination, a claim which falls, or which would apart from this section fall, to be decided in accordance with the relevant determination is made or treated as made by any person or any benefit.").
Page 59, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) Where this section applies, any question which arises on, or on the review of a decision which is referable to, the claim mentioned in subsection (l)(b) above and which relates to the entitlement of the claimant or any other person to any benefit—
(a) in respect of a period before the relevant date, or
(b) in the case of a widow's payment, in respect of a death occurring before that date,
shall be determined as if the decision referred to in subsection (l)(a) above had been found by the Commissioner or court in question not to have been erroneous in point of law.
(2A) In determining whether a person is entitled to benefit in a case where—
(a) his entitlement depends on his having been entitled to the same or some other benefit before attaining a particular age, and
(b) he attained that age—
(i) before both the date of the relevant determination and the date of the claim referred to in subsection (l)(b) above, but
(ii) not before the earliest day in respect of which benefit could, apart from this section, have been awarded on that claim,
subsection (2) above shall be disregarded for the purpose only of determining the question whether he was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.").
Page 59, line 41, after ("means") insert ("(a)").
Page 59, line 41, after ("officer") insert ("the Attendance Allowance Board").
Page 59, line 43, at end insert:
("(b) any of the following former bodies or officers, that is to say, the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, a benefit officer, an insurance officer or a supplementary officer; or
(c) any of the officers who, or tribunals or other bodies which, in Northern Ireland correspond to those mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above;").
Page 59, line 45, after ("Session") insert ("the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland").
Page 59, line 47, leave out ("later") and insert ("latest").
Page 59, line 49, leave out ("and (b) the day falling") and insert:
("(b) the date which falls").
Page 59 line 51, after ("claim") insert ("referred to in subsection (l)(b) above").
Page 59, line 51, at end insert ("and
(c) the earliest date in respect of which the claimant would, apart from this section, be entitled on that claim to the benefit in question.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) any reference in this section to entitlement to benefit includes a reference to entitlement—
(i) to any increase in the rate of a benefit, or
(ii) to a benefit, or increase of benefit, at a particular rate; and
(b) any reference to a decision which is "referable to" a claim is a reference to—
(i) a decision on the claim,
1034
(ii) a decision on a review of the decision on the claim, or
(iii) a decision on a subsequent review of the decision on the review,
and so on.
(5) The date of the relevant determination shall, in prescribed cases, be determined for the purposes of this section in accordance with any regulations made for that purpose.").
Page 59, line 51, at end insert:
("(3) In paragraph 48 of Schedule 10 to the 1986 Act (which applies sections 87 and 165A(1) of the principal Act to income-related benefits) at the end of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the words "and
(c) section 165D (restrictions on entitlement in certain cases of error".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 63, line 15, at end insert:
("Maternity allowance: contribution conditions for women paid otherwise than weekly
9A.—(1) In Schedule 3 to the principal Act, at the beginning of paragraph 3 (contribution conditions for maternity allowance) there shall be inserted the words—
"(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below,".
(2) At the end of that paragraph there shall be added—
"(2) In the case of a claimant who is or has been paid otherwise than weekly, any week—
(a) in respect of which she did not pay contributions of a relevant Class, but
(b) for which earnings were such that, had she been paid weekly, she would have been required to pay primary Class 1 contributions in respect of that week, and
(c) for which no such election as is mentioned in section 3(2)(a) of the Pensions Act (contributions at a reduced rate) was in force in her case.
shall be treated for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as a week in respect of which she actually paid such contributions otherwise than at a reduced rate.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the amount of the claimant's earnings for any week shall be determined in accordance with regulations.".").
The noble Lord said: The qualifying contribution condition for maternity allowance is that the claimant must have paid contributions of a relevant class in respect of 26 weeks in the 52 weeks immediately preceding the 14th week before the expected week of confinement. Difficulties in satisfying this test can arise when a claimant is paid other than weekly and the period of employment is exactly or very close to 26 weeks. For example, where employment begins and/or ends in the middle of a month, a monthly-paid claimant might not pay contributions in the first and last months because her earnings were below the monthly lower earnings limit. However, she might have earned sufficient in the weeks that she did work in those months to have paid contributions had she been paid on a weekly basis.
This wholly beneficial amendment provides that such weeks may be treated in accordance with regulations as weeks in which contributions were actually paid. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: As the Minister said, this is a wholly welcome amendment. Can he say whether any ex gratia payments of maternity allowance have been made to women who were unfairly excluded by this

1035
condition? If he does not have the answer, perhaps he will write to me about it.
Lord Henley: I do not have the answer to that question, but I shall certainly let the noble Lord know.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 64, line 28, at end insert:
("Statutory sick pay for NHS staff with divided contracts
14A. In section 26 of the 1982 Act (interpretation) after subsection (5) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted—
"(5A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part I of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a person's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling him to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe—
(a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a person is to be entitled to make such an election;
(b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made;
(c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given;
(d) the information which a person who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, he is to provide it;
(e) the time for which such an election is to have effect;
(0 which one of the person's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory sick pay as his employer under the one contract;
and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act."").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 191 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198. These amendments relate to statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and fulfil a commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health during the passage in another place of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
Under that Bill some NHS employees will have separate contracts of employment with a local health authority and an NHS trust when previously they had a single contract with the local health authority. In certain circumstances such employees could suffer a loss of statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay where their earnings fall below the lower earnings limit for such payments in both employments. To prevent this and to honour the guarantee given by the Secretary of State for Health, we consider it essential that the legislation be amended.
These wholly beneficial amendments safeguard their position. They enable regulations to be made which will provide transitional protection for employees with separate contracts of employment with both a health authority and an NHS trust to have those contracts treated as one where this would be to their advantage in determining their
1036
entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I am advised that the amendments are not wholly beneficial. At present the pay and conditions of many staff in the health service, including nurses, are determined within the Whitley Council framework by an independent pay review body. The National Health Service and Community Care Bill currently allows the NHS trusts to set aside the recommendations of that body. It seems that it would be perfectly possible for one of the NHS trusts to terminate all contracts and replace them with new ones and negotiate either individually or collectively with their staff. With new contracts, trusts would be entirely free to set aside previous arrangements, such as clinical grading for nursing staff Is that correct?
A whole range of employment conditions is involved—clinical grading, pay rates, sick pay and maternity pay, premature retirement benefits, and so on. I am sure the Committee would be interested to know whether the amendment, which the noble Lord described as wholly beneficial, allows the trusts to behave in that way.
Lord Henley: I think that the noble Lord is talking about occupational maternity pay rather than statutory maternity pay. It would be a mistake to become bogged down in a discussion on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill as further stages of that Bill remain. My understanding is that people would transfer to the new NHS trusts on existing terms. Thereafter it would be a matter for employees and the NHS trusts to arrange employment conditions as they wished. All this Bill lays down is that the two sets of pay will be aggregated so as to avoid a condition whereby there might be two sets of pay, both of which were below the limit. The noble Lord may wish to come back to the point at the next stage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, but on this Bill I do not think it is a valid point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert;
("15A. In Regulation 71 (1) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 the words "90% of" wherever they occur, shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 193 deals with the entitlement of refugees to income support. At present they receive income support at the reduced rate of 90 per cent., which is already low enough. We do not yet have a clear explanation of why that is so. We would like to understand. We get a different explanation every time the matter arises. I shall not deal with government explanations until 1 find out what they say today.
Life for a refugee costs no less than it does for anybody else. One cannot go into a supermarket and apply for a 10 per cent, refugee discount. We ought also to bear in mind that refugees are not allowed to work for their first six months in this country. There is no question here of their being addicted to a

1037
dependency culture. If a dependency culture is being created, it is by the existing law because they are simply not allowed to work. A great many of them would be extremely willing to do so if they could. Access to the social fund for the first six months on income support is also restricted. So they are facing hardship from a good many directions.
Over the years this country has owed a great deal to its refugees. If we were to succeed in diminishing the flow, it would be to our own loss in a great many ways, including economically. We ought also to bear in mind that income support is a passport to the social fund. There is evidence to suggest that the lower rate of 90 per cent, is acting as a hint to social fund officers when their budget is tight to treat refugees like young single people—with rather less favour than other applicants.
I know of a Somali couple with two children and the woman is six months pregnant. They were refused a community care grant for which they had asked because they had no clothes. I know of a Ugandan family just out of hospital who were refused a community care grant because they were more than six weeks out of hospital. They were refused a budgeting loan because they had been less than six months on income support. That is a Catch 22 situation and it illustrates how the effects of this 90 per cent, restriction stretch beyond the mere simple loss of income support. I cannot see why that is done. Before doing any more with it, I should like to find out. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: From these Benches we are pleased to support this important amendment. As the noble Earl said, the reason for the rule is not clear. In fact, the reasons continually change. We have been advised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux which lists a number of harrowing cases of refugee families who have been left without support It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could explain the rationale behind the rule.
12 noon.
Lord Henley: Rather than explain the rational—
Lord Carter: There is not one!
Lord Henley: Of course there is a rationale. But, as I said, rather than explain it, I should like to say to my noble kinsman and to the noble Lord that we have considerable sympathy for the spirit of the amendment and would like to consider it further. However, obviously I must point out that it goes wider than asylum seekers, although I appreciate that asylum seekers were the subject of my noble kinsman's remarks.
Any change in the system would cost money, and that is a factor we must always take into account. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Government could come to any decision on the matter during the passage of the Bill. But I can assure the noble Earl that primary legislation is unnecessary in order for a change to be made. Such a change could be made by means of regulation at a convenient time. I hope, therefore, that my noble kinsman will feel able to
1038
withdraw the amendment. I can give him an assurance that we shall give the matter very careful and sympathetic consideration.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful for that reply. It is the most encouraging reply I have received during the passage of the Bill. My noble kinsman has encouraged me to hope, and I am delighted by that fact. However, I hope that he will forgive me for reminding him that hope deferred maketh the heart go sick. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert:
("Prisoners. In column (2) of Schedule 7 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, for paragraph 8 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"8.—(a) Only the amount of any non-dependent deduction made in respect of him under paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 or under regulation 61 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987;
(b) Only that amount and such amount, if any, as may be applicable under regulation 17(l)(e)." ").
The noble Lord said: The amendment would mean that if a member of a claimant's household who was a non-dependant was a prisoner, no non-dependent deduction would be made from the claimant's income support or housing benefit while that member of the household remained in prison. Non-dependent deductions are made from income support and housing benefit where claimants have other people living in the household who are not financially dependent upon them and who are expected to contribute towards the housing costs, such as rent and mortgage interest.
Difficulties can arise where the non-dependant is in prison. It is fair to say that the prisoner will usually have no income, or an income that is drastically reduced, and will be exempt from paying the poll tax. However, it is not entirely clear why this rule exists and why an exception is made for prisoners. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why what is proposed in the amendment cannot be accepted. It would put right what seems an obvious injustice. I beg to move.
Ear! Russell: I rise simply to say that we on these Benches warmly support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment will provide a prisoner with the wherewithal from income support to pay the person with whom he formerly resided an amount equivalent to any non-dependent deduction made from that person's housing benefit. The amendment is flawed in two respects. First, and most obviously, there is no guarantee that such an amount would be paid over to the person remaining in the prisoner's former dwelling. Secondly, there would be administrative complexities involved in identifying where a deduction continues to be made. I shall return to that point in a moment.

1039
I should first outline to the Committee what is meant by non-dependent deductions. These are amounts, prescribed in regulations, which are deducted from housing benefit if the claimant has someone living in the household who can reasonably be expected to make a contribution towards housing costs. The same policy is applied in income support where housing costs—such as mortgage interest—are met by that benefit. It is clearly right, in both benefits, that the cost of the accommodation should be shared by those whose home it is. Deductions are at a flat rate, with a lower level for non-dependants who are low paid or unable to work. The deductions only apply in respect of rent. Non-dependants are personally liable to pay their own community charge and can get community charge benefit if they qualify. Prisoners are of course exempted from liability to pay the community charge.
These deductions are made only in respect of people who normally reside with the claimant in circumstances other than by a commercial board and lodging arrangement for which different rules apply. Such people are often grown up sons or daughters, or other relatives and friends. It is a matter for judgment by the local authority, or, in the case of income support, the local DSS adjudication officer, to determine whether the condition of normally residing with a claimant is fulfilled in any particular case. Temporary absences from home can, of course, arise for a variety of reasons. Examples are, holidays and short stays in hospital as well as short prison sentences or remand pending trial. Each type of absence and its expected duration is considered on its merits. Most short absences will not prevent someone from being treated as normally resident in his or her customary home. But a local authority or Department of Social Security adjudication officer may decide at the outset of a particular absence that the deductions should cease immediately. It is precisely because the present system allows for such wide flexibility that I am opposed to making it more prescriptive. Under current arrangements dissatisfied claimants can appeal in the case of income support, or request a review in the case of housing benefit.
I cannot accept the proposal in the amendment that any deduction should be compensated for by awarding an equivalent amount of benefit to the prisoner. Prisoners have no normal day-to-day living expenses. Their needs are met by, and in, the prison. This is and has always been reflected in income support and its predecessors. The only exception at present is for housing costs—particularly mortgage interest—for people remanded in custody who are awaiting trial or sentence. They can obtain help with such costs for up to 52 weeks to enable them to keep their home intact against possible release. I think that these existing arrangements are sufficient to protect the interests of those likely to be returned in the short term to society who are responsible for meeting their own housing costs.
However, non-dependants by definition do not have such responsibilities. The amendment before the Committee extends the modest help available to
1040
prisoners who are not liable for paying their housing costs; it is not the best way to help claimants remaining at home. Paying income support to such prisoners is not, to my mind, a prudent use of public funds.
There would, in any event, be very real difficulties in administering the measure proposed by the amendment. It would require close liaison between local authorities and DSS local offices to establish whether a non-dependent deduction was in fact being made. It would be necessary to establish new arrangements for claiming and paying income support in prisons. There would, finally, be no way of ensuring that any income support paid to prisoners was actually being handed over to the person responsible for meeting the housing costs. It is also possible that the availability of income support to prisoners would encourage local authorities to make non-dependent deductions in situations where they might previously have refrained from doing so. For all these reasons I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I shall have to read with care what the noble Baroness said. However, in passing, I should like to say that as regards some of the difficulty to which she referred in deciding whether someone was normally resident in a household and the period of their temporary absence, I should have thought that people in prison would be the one group in respect of which those questions could be easily answered. As I said, I shall read with care what was said. I reserve the right to return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 64, line 42, at end insert:
("Income support. In section 20(3) of the 1986 Act, at the end of paragraph (a) there shall be added the words 'or, by reason of pregnancy, she is incapable of work or unable to secure or retain a place on a training scheme approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section"").
The noble Earl said: I am afraid that I cannot promise to be as expeditious on this amendment as I have been on some others. The issue here is a major problem in the current social security system. In my view, significant damage is being done and probably a good deal of money wasted.
On Second Reading I said that I thought it was a basic principle of civilisation that fathers should support their children where possible. I do not believe there is any conflict between that principle and the provision contained in the amendment. It is also a basic principle that a civilisation ought to maintain its pregnant women by one means or another. It is fails to do so, it has lost some of its will to survive.
The amendment was moved last year. But it had the misfortune to fall due for consideration past midnight both in Committee and on Report. Consequently, many of the issues behind it were not adequately ventilated. The Government's present theory—which is perfectly all right as a theory—is

1041
that 16 year-old or 17 year-old pregnant women should be on YTS until the 28th week of their pregnancy. At that time, they receive income support at the lower rate.
The amendment does not address the question of the lower rate. That is a matter to which we shall have to return on another occasion. The effect of the amendment is to entitle those women to income support if they are either unable to work—as happens to pregnant women from time to time, because of toxaemia or for other reasons—or, having registered for YTS, they are unable to obtain a place.
The act of registering is enough to indicate the good faith of those young women and to discharge their responsibility, because once they have registered they have no control over whether they are given a place. As was discussed on Tuesday, YTS is to a large extent an employer-run service. Employers cannot be forced to accept someone on YTS. Many of them are dubious about taking on pregnant teenagers who they know are unlikely to be able to complete a training course.
A case was brought to my attention from Staffordshire where the prospective YTS employer said that it was not worth taking on the young woman. Another case was brought to my attention where the teenager involved said that she did not intend to apply to the YTS because she could not complete the course. I should like to know, and I should be grateful to receive a reply from the Minister on this point, whether the Government believe that her attitude was responsible when she said that she would not register because she could not complete the course. If the answer is no, that has alarming implications. It amounts to cocking a snook at the YTS. It is saying that the principle of training is not of that great importance; that being able to complete the training is not a necessary condition of being able to do the job properly.
It is not wise to encourage in young people the idea that they should not do a job properly. I should have thought that inability to complete a course was a respectable reason for not registering for it.
The Government are here making a familiar mistake. It is the type of mistake that governments have been making for centuries: assuming that because they do not want some people for a few weeks, an employer will take them on for those few weeks and then let them go. That is treating employers as a social service to a greater extent than is reasonable. I am reminded of a case in 1640 when the Government made that mistake. They pressed soldiers and then postponed the campaign. The Government did not want them for six weeks, and expected employers to take them on. Of course employers did not, and the result was mayhem. The result will not be mayhem in this case, but it represents severe hardship.
The YTS bridging allowance of £15 a week—not much on which to maintain a pregnant woman and nourish a child—lasts for eight weeks only. After that, there is nothing. Being a pregnant 16 or 17 year-old is a considerable enough shock in the first place. It does not make it any easier to have beyond the bridging allowance literally nothing upon which to live.
We shall of course have to consider the costs of this proposal, but it is a little difficult to cost it. In the first place, one cannot predict the rate of future pregnancies. The cheapest way of keeping down the cost of teenage pregnancy is family planning, something which might receive some attention. We also cannot predict the costs accurately until we know more about the future health of YTS. Over the past couple of days there have been reports in the press of cuts in that area causing hardship to the system. That would of course tend to push up the cost of the amendment. I hope that those matters can be rectified.
The Government should take into account, in this as in other places, the costs of not accepting the amendment. If we leave people with nothing upon which to live, and if they have the prospect of a child to maintain, they have to make a living somehow. I shall not go in to how they might do it. I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness David: I support the amendment which was so ably and fully moved by the noble Earl. It seems extremely unfair that pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds should be treated differently from 18 year-olds. Their problems are just as great if not greater. The noble Earl mentioned the cost of the amendment and said that it could not be costed. One hopes that there will be few cases. As he said, family planning could help with that. The allowance would be paid only if 16 or 17 year-olds were removed from YTS or were unable to obtain a YTS place or a job.
Entitlement to income support would ensure that all young pregnant women had an adequate diet and could pay for essential items such as gas, electricity, water and adequate clothing. Clothing is of course a problem; but those problems can occur well before they are six months pregnant. I hope the idea that the confirmation of the pregnancy should be the date from which support would be given could be looked on sympathetically by the Government.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment seeks to change the provisions for 16 and 17 year-olds by providing unlimited entitlement to income support for young women at any stage of pregnancy unable to secure a YTS place.
There are a number of reasons why I am unable to support this amendment. First, while most 16 and 17 year-olds are not entitled to income support, we have ensured that the most vulnerable groups are, and it is the most vulnerable groups that have been discussed. One of these groups is those who are pregnant and within 11 weeks of the expected date of confinement or who at a time before that date are incapable of work because of illness. Those are not rules which were made up specially for pregnant 16 and 17 year-olds. The same rules apply to all pregnant women who claim income support. They too are normally required to be available for and to be actively seeking work up to the 11th week before the expected date of confinement.
Secondly, we have guaranteed the offer of a YTS place to all young people who want one. The

1043
guarantee is being honoured. It includes pregnant young women. Those who are on YTS courses receive more each week (£29-50, or £35 in the second year) than they would receive on income support (£21-90, or £28-80 if away from home with good reason). Nevertheless, the Government have acknowledged that 16 and 17 year-olds in the early stages of pregnancy may in some cases experience practical difficulties in obtaining a YTS place. That is why the Secretary of State for Employment announced in March 1990 measures to ease access to training which is relevant to their needs; for example, through care-related courses which can develop into more dedicated occupational training as time goes on.
I believe that those important new measures will help to ensure that no pregnant 16 or 17 year-old need be without a training place. That must be good for the young women concerned, who will receive a training allowance which exceeds income support levels while undertaking training which is relevant to their needs; and it must also be good for the nation in the decade of demographic change to invest in the training of young women so that they are equipped to make an early return to employment if they wish to do so. That is far better all round than encouraging a reliance on the benefits system when the people concerned are still physically capable of undertaking training.
The noble Earl referred to pregnant girls who have to remain on YTS until the 29th week of their pregnancy. The rules are no different for women over 18 who are expected to be available or actively seeking work until 11 weeks before their confinement. If a young woman cannot go on a YTS course because of an incapacity, she can receive income support. Where a YTS place is unsuitable for a pregnant woman, she can ask her supervisor for a change to a more appropriate course. He also referred to an employer who would not accept a young pregnant woman on YTS. The Department of Employment's training agency has no firm evidence of cases where pregnant women have suffered the loss of a YTS place. If he has examples of such cases, we should like to hear them.
Pregnant young women must not be removed from the training programme without reference to the training agency's area office. The training agency is willing to investigate any cases of individual difficulty which are brought to its attention. Nevertheless, we recognise the practical difficulties that some women may face in holding down a mainstream place on YTS. It is for that reason that the changes were introduced in March this year.
I must keep repeating that there is a guarantee for all young people of a place on YTS. I repeat my invitation to the noble Earl to bring forward specific examples of cases if he has them. The noble Earl asked about the cost of the amendment. It is difficult to cost it because we do not know the number of young people pregnant or who may become pregnant in that age group, but the cost is certainly likely to exceed £1 million.
The noble Earl raised a point about bridging allowance paid for eight weeks only, and then
1044
nothing. Bridging allowance of £15 a week is paid to young people who lose a job or a YTS place after the extended child benefit period while looking for a new job or a new YTS placing. There is no need for bridging allowance to be extended beyond the current limits as there are more than enough YTS places available.
In a previous debate I stated that the present vacancy rate for YTS places was 160,000 at the end of March 1990. It is also worth repeating, as I have mentioned on a previous amendment, that severe hardship allowance can be claimed as well as bridging allowance, and when bridging allowance ceases. There is therefore no justification for giving automatic entitlement to income support to all pregnant girls before the point at which they are no longer required to be available for work. A claim for income support may be considered earlier in the pregnancy under the severe hardship provisions. The majority of pregnant young women who are considered under the severe hardship conditions are awarded income support. I ask the noble Earl whether he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she will answer the very specific question I asked her. Was the teenager who refused a YTS place because she could not complete the course behaving responsibly or not?
Baroness Blatch: It is not possible to reply specifically because I do not know the reasons why the young lady refused the place. The training agency would be very concerned to see that the guarantee was made. At the end of the day it is incumbent upon the girl herself to take the place or to refuse it. But if she refuses it she clearly accepts the consequences.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has expressed the view of these Benches extremely well. However, during discussion of the Bill there have been examples of the Government's hard-heartedness. On this amendment they are displaying that to a degree. On a practical point, I understand that morning sickness occurs in the first three months of pregnancy, with all the problems associated with it. From the Government's replies on these matters, they seem at times to be detached from reality. The Minister asked for evidence. We have much evidence from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux of individual and harrowing cases of problems which this amendment seeks to solve. Has the Minister read of the cases that have been reported by the NACAB?
Baroness Blatch: We are certainly aware of the briefing note and the evidence that has been presented by the citizens advice bureaux. First, there is the guarantee of a training place. If the young person refuses, the reasons are considered and appropriate placements are found if possible. There is also the scheme that allows a stepping stone on to YTS where there is considerable counselling of young people and modification of the YTS training, to prepare them for training, to take advantage of a

1045
YTS placement. There is the severe hardship allowance and the health of the young person is also taken into account. All those efforts are made for young people.
However, I repeat my assurance again. If there are individual cases that are slipping through the net and not receiving all the attention that we believe they should receive, we shall be pleased to consider those cases.
Earl Russell: I am beginning to think that Richmond House is something of an ivory tower. That reply does not come from the real world. I can see no point of connection between that and the experiences of ordinary people. The noble Baroness said that she must not keep repeating that the guarantee of YTS places is being honoured. I agree with her. She said that the rules are the same as those for availability for work. I accept that. But the cases are not parallel. When one is already established in work one can continue to work for a few weeks if one's health permits. If one is undertaking a course of training one cannot responsibly take that on unless one can complete the course. By producing that argument the noble Baroness creates a great deal of doubt in my mind about whether the YTS is genuinely a training scheme.
I have heard that doubt expressed from the Opposition Benches. This is the first time that I have heard it expressed from the Government Front Bench. I used the phrase "cocking a snook" at the YTS. I feel no need to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Earl be more explicit and state what I said that gave him the impression that I was in any way denigrating the YT scheme?
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness produced as a justification that for those over 18 the rules for the YTS were exactly the same as the rules for availability for work. The noble Baroness said that. I think that I am right. That seems to show complete indifference to the distinction between work and training. One can work for a limited period of time and then leave at the end of that period. One can work for a week and if one does one's job properly one has not wasted the time. But if one is on a six-month training course for only three months one has wasted one's time. I believe that the Government are cocking a snook at the YTS. I commend the amendment.
12.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 196) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 87.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Aircdale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Annan, L.

Birk, B.

1046

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Listowel, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff. L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L,

Nicol, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Northfield, L.

Feversham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Glenamara, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd. L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hanworth. V.

Thurso, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L,

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Bethell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Birdwood, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blatch, B.

Mersey, V.

Blyth, L.

Middleton, L.

Borthwick, L.

Morris, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L,

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brightman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brookes, L.

Munster, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Newall, L.

Caithness, E.

Norrie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Porritt, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Reay, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renwick, L.

Crathorne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fortescue, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Eraser of Carmyllie, L.

E.

Eraser of Kilmorack, L.

Swansea, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Gisborough, L.

Thurlow, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Tombs, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hayter, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.34 p.m.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert:
("Statutory maternity pay for NHS staff with divided contracts

1047
17B. In section 50 of the 1986 Act (interpretation) after subsection (2) (which confers power to treat two or more contracts of employment as one) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Where, in consequence of the establishment of one or more National Health Service trusts under Part 1 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, a woman's contract of employment is treated by a scheme under that Part or Act as divided so as to constitute two or more contracts, regulations may make provision enabling her to elect for all of those contracts to be treated as one contract for the purposes of this Part of this Act or of such provisions of this Part of this Act as may be prescribed; and any such regulations may prescribe—

(a) the conditions that must be satisfied if a woman is to be entitled to make such an election;

(b) the manner in which, and the time within which, such an election is to be made;

(c) the persons to whom, and the manner in which, notice of such an election is to be given;

(d) the information which a woman who makes such an election is to provide, and the persons to whom, and the time within which, she is to provide it;

(e) the time for which such an election is to have effect;

which one of the woman's employers under the two or more contracts is to be regarded for the purposes of statutory maternity pay as her employer under the one contract; and the powers conferred by this subsection are without prejudice to any other power to make regulations under this Part of this Act." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 65, line 20, at end insert:
("Income support: implementation of increases due to attainment of particular ages
18A. After section 64A of the 1986 Act (effect of alteration in component rates of income support) there shall be inserted the following section—
"Implement-ation of increases in income support due to attainment of particular ages.
64B.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) an award of income support is in force in favour of a person ("the recipient"); and

(b) there is a component which becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case if he or some other person attains a particular age.

(2) If, in a case where this section applies, the recipient or other person attains the particular age referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above and, in consequence,—

(a) the component in question becomes applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in the recipient's case (whether or not some other component ceases, for the same reason, to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case), and

(b) after taking account of any such cessation, the recipient becomes entitled to an increased amount of income support,

then, except as provided by subsection (3) below, as from the day on which he becomes so entitled, the amount of income support payable to or for him under the award shall be that increased amount, without any further decision of an adjudication of officer, and the award shall have effect accordingly.
(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in any case where, in consequence of the recipient or other person attaining the age in question, some question arises in relation to the recipient's entitlement to any benefit under the benefit Acts, other than—

(a) the question whether the component concerned, or any other component, becomes or ceases to be applicable, or applicable at a particular rate, in his case; and

(b) the question whether, in consequnce, the amount of his income support falls to be varied.

1048
(4) In this section "component", in relation to a person and his income support, means any of the sums specified in regulations under section 22(1) above." ").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to allow that, where there is an award of income support in force and either the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaches a certain age and is entitled to an increase in income support, there is no requirement for the adjudication officer to issue a further decision. Dates of birth are adjudicated upon at the outset of a claim for income support and there is no real need to adjudicate again.
This amendment also ensures that where, as a result of the claimant or a member of the assessment unit reaching a certain age, some other question arises in relation to entitlement to benefit, that question will be for an adjudication officer to decide. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 67, line 49, at end insert:
("Incapacity for work: councillor's allowances and expenses 23A.—(1) In Schedule 8 to that Act, paragraph 2 (which makes provision with respect to local authority councillors and incapacity for work) shall be amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) below.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2) (certain benefits to be reduced by the excess of the councillor's allowance over the earnings limit specified in regulation 3(3) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, which was £35 at the passing of this Act) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance".
(3) In the definition of "councillor's allowance" in sub-paragraph (6), the following shall be omitted—
(a) in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989"; and
(b) in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989".
(4) In that sub-paragraph, after the definition of "incapacity benefit" there shall be inserted—
" "net amount", in relation to any councillor's allowance to which a person is entitled, means the aggregate amount of the councillor's allowance or allowances to which he is entitled for the week in question, reduced by the amount of any expenses incurred by him in that week in connection with his membership of the council or councils in question:".
(5) In section 36(7) of the principal Act (regulations relating to severe disablement allowance), in paragraph (cc) (which was inserted by paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8 to the 1989 Act and authorises the reduction of benefit by the excess of the amount of councillor's allowance over a prescribed sum) for the words "the amount of councillor's allowance" there shall be substituted the words "the net amount of councillor's allowance".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 200 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 208. These amendments are wholly beneficial to local authority councillors. In Schedule 8, paragraph 2, of the 1989 Social Security Act the Government introduced an easement to the rules for local authority councillors in relation to entitlement to sickness and invalidity benefits and severe disablement allowance. Until then a councillor who was entitled to local government attendance allowance in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit

1049
(currently £35 a week) could lose entitlement to the whole of his sickness or invalidity benefits or severe disablement allowance.
The Government acknowledged the detrimental effect that this could have on the working of democracy and introduced the measure to ensure that benefit was only reduced by the amount by which local government attendance allowances exceeded the therapeutic earnings limit. It was intended that the amount of local government allowances to be taken into account should be net of any reasonable expenses incurred in council duties, but Schedule 8(2) of the 1989 Act provided for the total councillor's attendance allowance to be taken into account.
This amendment redefines a councillor's allowances to achieve the Government's original intention that only net allowances in excess of the therapeutic earnings limit affect entitlement to these benefits. In the light of this proposed redefinition the existing definition in paragraph 2(6) would need to be repealed and this would be achieved by the amendment to Schedule 7 at page 70, line 37, column 3. I commend both of these amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200A not moved.]
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 27, line 2, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 203, 204, 205, 206 and 207. They are all minor and consequential amendments to the clause governing commencement following other changes to the Bill that the Government have been making. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 201 A:
Page 27, line 13, leave out ("7").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Amendment No. 201A pre-empts Amendment No. 202. Therefore I cannot call Amendment No. 202.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 27 line 13, leave out ("15(1), (2), (4), (5), (8) and (9)") and insert ("15, other than subsection (11),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 21, leave out line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 207:
Page 27, line 16, leave out ("5").
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("11, 12, 14, 16") and insert ("1 I to 16").
Page 27, line 18, leave out ("and 21") and insert ("21 and 23A").
Page 27, line 34, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(9)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 204 to 207 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207A:
Page 27, leave out line 36.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 207B:
Page 27, leave out line 40.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 70. line 37, column 3, after ("8") insert—

("in paragraph 2(6), in the definition of "councillor's allowance", in the paragraph (a) substituted by paragraph 113 of Schedule 11 to the Local Government and Housing act 1989 the words "or in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989" and, in the paragraph (b) so substituted, the words "other than such an allowance as is mentioned in section 18(2) of that Act of 1989".").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to the amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
12.40 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass. This has been a demanding Bill dealing with matters of considerable substance.
I have been grateful for the general support that your Lordships have given to Part I of the Bill which introduces for the first time in Scotland provisions for the supervision of charities. Undoubtedly the area which has caused most concern to your Lordships' House is the question of how best to disclose the principal purposes of a charity to members of the public. Many noble Lords have

1051
spoken on the desirability of this and I have made clear that the Government fully recognise the need for members of the public to be able to discover the charitable purposes of any recognised body. It is for that reason that Clause 1 requires bodies to make available copies of their founding deed or explanatory document. Clause 4 similarly requires them to make available their accounts, including a report of their charitable activities over the financial year. As I have emphasised on several occasions, the power of the Revenue to disclose the names and addresses of the bodies recognised by them provides the key for the public, and for myself, to discover what are the charitable objects of any recognised body.
At Report stage I recognised the potential market for a directory of purposes of Scottish charities, particularly for the benefit of grant-seeking individuals and organisations. As I explained, the Scottish Office and Inland Revenue will assist the SCVO in obtaining information from recognised bodies so that a first directory can be prepared within the voluntary sector. Your Lordships welcomed that as a positive step.
A further matter of concern was the question of exemptions. Certain exemptions have been made for charitable companies which must meet the higher requirements of the companies legislation, and for educational endowments which are already governed by the provisions of the education Acts. In general, the legislation requires all bodies established in Scotland which claim to be charitable to register with the Inland Revenue and to comply with the full requirements of the Bill.
The Government have indicated that we wish to adhere to that arrangement which was strongly advocated on behalf of Scottish charities by the SCVO. However, there is one exception. Deep concern was expressed by many noble Lords about the apparent scope or conflict between Church and state which might arise through requiring all charities, including those formed for the advancement of religion, to comply with the provisions of the Bill and making them subject to my supervision and control in the event of mismanagement. I have emphasised to your Lordships that the Government have no desire to become involved in the control of established religious denominations, but we are concerned that unscrupulous people might seek to avoid control by setting up organisations ostensibly for the advancement of a religious objective. I have given an assurance to the House that this question is being urgently addressed and that an amendment will be brought forward in another place.
Since introduction, substantial amendments have been made to Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill which now provide an alternative to the cy pres procedures for trusts wishing to reorganise. The provisions of Clause 9, which enable small chartiable trusts to amalgamate or reorganise without recourse to a court of law, will be particularly welcomed by the many small trusts which are unable to put funds to effective use because of the procedural and financial obstacles placed in their way.
1052
Part I of the Bill will thus provide access to information as to which bodies are recognised as charitable, and access to their accounts. I am empowered to investigate abuse and to go to court to prevent it or remedy it. Trustees are given new rights to reorganise and amalgamate. This should lead to better use being made of funds locked up in small and obsolescent trusts. These are positive measures which should enhance respect for the very worthwhile work undertaken by charities. I commend Part I of the Bill to your Lordships.
It is Part II of the Bill which has given rise to most debate and which has changed most since Second Reading. In saying that, I do not in any sense wish to understate the importance of other parts of the Bill. I am pleased that the proposals have engendered some extremely productive discussions.
I am grateful to noble and learned Lords who contributed to our discussion in Committee on the provisions relating to executry services. I believe that Clause 17 of the Bill now fulfils the Government's aim of encouraging greater choice for the use of executry services while at the same time affording a proper degree of protection. On the conveyancing provisions, too, significant improvements have been made. Clearer signals have been given that conveyancing practitioners will be regulated by a code of conduct and I have assured your Lordships' House that the code will be made only after wide consultation with appropriate persons and bodies.
The clauses in the Bill relating to rights of audience have benefited from the accumulated expertise and wisdom of your Lordships' House in such matters. In Clause 22 in particular the helpful amendments and interventions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, have resulted in significant improvements. His unrivalled knowledge of the practice and procedure of the Scottish courts has been brought to bear in a most productive fashion and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach. The level playing field featured again in that clause. I am now satisfied that a workable structure is in place which will allow solicitors the opportunity to develop their pleading powers to the full while at the same time ensuring that their rules derive from common principles—in relation to matters such as ensuring representation for all clients—as do those of advocates.
There remain one or two matters which the House discussed at Report stage with which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to deal in another place. These include the question of whether there should be a power for the Lord President and the Secretary of State to revoke any practising rights acquired under Clause 23. The Secretary of State will also consider whether it would be appropriate for the Lord President and the Secretary of State to have a power, acting jointly, to require a review of a particular conduct rule. He will also be giving consideration to the question of what publicity should be given to applications for practising rights under that clause.
Part II of the Bill now provides in a refined way for the extension of the right to provide legal services and therefore increases the range of choice

1053
potentially available to the customer. Appropriate safeguards arc maintained. Indeed, the bulk of Part II comprises the safeguards rather than the simple extension of the right to provide services. None of this will diminish the standing of the legal profession. Indeed, I believe that that standing will be enhanced.
In Part III of the Bill, dealing with liquor licensing, we have considered the various provisions fully. In the light of the consideration which the House has given to the details of some of them, a number of very useful amendments have again been made. The Government have considered carefully the many contributions to the debate from all quarters. Where we have concluded that we are not able to agree to changes in the Bill we have generally done so on the basis of the outcome of the comprehensive consultation exercise which we undertook in the preparation of the Bill.
For example, in the case of the Sunday opening of public houses the Bill does not propose any change to the present hours, namely from 12.30 to 2.30 and from 6.30 to 11 o'clock. We recognise that these are more limited opening times than those for hotels and. in the light of the amending provisions in the Bill, for off-licences, but we have concluded that the balance of the argument nevertheless remains on the side of no change. In this respect we have had regard to the outcome of the consultation exercise which showed that an overwhelming majority of those who expressed a view were in favour of no change. The Government believe that that clear expression of opinion should be respected, not least because of the traditional view that Sunday afternoon is a time of peace and quiet which ought not to be at risk of disruption from the opening of public houses, many of which are in residential areas.
A second issue where we have considered the arguments very carefully is on appeals to the sheriff against refusals of extensions of permitted hours on days other than Sundays.
The Bill contains new and more precise criteria for the grant and refusal of extensions to permitted hours and we shall draw those to the attention of all licensing boards. Again, having regard to the results of our consultation exercise, which showed that a clear majority were opposed to the introduction of a right of appeal on that point and that decisions need to be based on detailed local knowledge, we have concluded that the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance as they stand.
We have also had an important debate, stretching over both Committee and Report stages, on the question of supervision of alcohol sales by young persons, in off-licence premises. There is, I think it is fair to say, a consensus in the House that the problem of under-age drinking in Scotland is serious and that all practical steps need to be taken to deal with it In the light of the debate in Committee, however, we were persuaded that there was not a strong case for different regimes for supermarkets from other shops and we introduced appropriate amendments at Report stage. If the provisions in the Bill in due course become law, we have however made it clear that we shall consider amending legislation urgently if it appears that there is in practice a significant problem of sales to under-age persons through supermarkets.
1054
On 17th May, noble Lords concluded that the Bill should not be amended. To those who remain concerned about the provisions, I should say that I have every confidence that chief constables will ensure that, if enacted, the new powers of arrest, about which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was concerned, are exercised with great care and with due regard to the understandable sensitivities of members and of club management.
The package of reforms in Part III of the Bill and the associated schedule build on the licensing structure set up in the 1976 Act. It makes a number of significant improvements based on practical experience of the operation of the existing provisions over the last 14 years; and your Lordships' House has made a significant contribution to the further improvement of the licensing regime during the passage of the Bill.
The final package in the Bill consists of miscellaneous provisions. The provisions in the Bill setting in place 100 per cent, government funding of probation supervision, social inquiry report provisions and aspects of parole supervision are a significant step forward in enabling offenders to be dealt with within the community. Improving and expanding those services in accordance with agreed national standards will improve the level of service available to the courts and will encourage them to have confidence in disposals which are intended to provide offenders with practical help and supervision.
Part IV also contains provisions which will allow the courts greater flexibility when dealing with offenders who have defaulted in payment of fines imposed by the court; and there are enabling provisions to set up a unit fine experiment to allow courts to relate fines more closely to an offender's ability to pay. All those proposals have the common objective of reducing the prison population to those for whom imprisonment is clearly appropriate.
The inclusion in the Bill of provisions to allow Scotland to take a full part in the fight against the evils of drug trafficking has been welcomed. The Government continue to attach priority to taking all possible steps to deter those who deal in drugs and the provisions in the Bill will ensure that those people will find no haven in Scotland.
I am also pleased that it has been possible to take advantage of the Bill to amend homelessness legislation. The changes that we have made will be of benefit particularly to people at risk of violence from someone formerly residing with them.
The UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration is given the force of law in Scotland. Schedule 5 to the Bill sets out the procedures which will apply to international commercial arbitrations which take place in Scotland. I am glad that Scotland will be joining those other countries which, by adopting the model law, are making the helpful model law procedures generally available. At Second Reading the traditional criticisms of miscellaneous provisions Bills were made, but I observed that that did not prevent a number of new clauses being tabled on a wide range of issues by those who originally voiced the criticisms. I was glad to accept a number of them,

1055
recognising that they will be valuable in various areas; for example, mental health and judicial factors.
Our deliberations have been wide ranging and have covered important areas of Scottish legislation. Your Lordships have given their customary careful and deliberate scrutiny to our proposals. On such Bills, it is sometimes thought that only Scottish Peers are entitled to contribute to the debates. I should like to disabuse anyone who suffers under that misapprehension. Anyone who chooses to contribute to our debates and improve the law of Scotland is more than welcome to do so. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, those of us who have been involved in the consideration of this extensive and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, exhausing piece of legislation are probably glad to have reached this stage in the Bill, which covers many aspects of legal and social reform for Scotland. As was anticipated at the outset and as the noble and learned Lord indicated, being a miscellaneous provisions Bill its Long Title became longer by the day. For that reason alone, we are glad to have reached this stage. The Title must be one of the longest currently on the statute book.
We on this side of the House welcome the changes in the charities law to catch, if possible, unscrupulous people who deal in charities. Among the other social aspects of the Bill outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, we also welcome the control of young people gaining access to alcohol and so on, and the efforts to reduce the prison population.
In so far as it deals with legal matters, the Bill is to some extent a mirror image of the Courts and Legal Services Bill applicable to England and Wales and, like that Bill, it was met at the start with a barrage of judicial and legal hostility. One problem of any radical reform is that the parties who see themselves or their institutions threatened or affected by the legislation sometimes stay too close to the event itself and do not take time to stand back and ponder and think about what is going on rather than launch into an all-out assault. Given some of the contributions which have been made in this House on both Bills, I wonder whether, when people read what they have said, they will consider that they might have made a more proper approach to the Bill; but that is a matter for each individual.
Only time will tell whether the Bill, in relation to the law, was necessary and whether it will improve the legal system, but it recognises, as I do from this side of the House, that there is now within society a large body of persons who, with their education and training, are or will be capable of representing themselves and others in the court process. It is correct that they should be allowed at least the opportunity to do so, subject to the safeguards of adequate training and the application of an appropriate code of conduct to all parties appearing
1056
in court. Those provisions are strongly built into the Bill as it now stands.
It is always useful to remind ourselves and others that the courts and the legal processes are not the sole property of the judges and lawyers. The legal system is for the benefit and protection of the citizen and the safeguarding of his or her rights. We have a better educated and more articulate population now than in former days when perhaps only the lawyer could have articulated the problem for the individual. The opening up of the courts to people other than lawyers reflects that advance in society.
It is unfortunate that the Bill did not deal with access to courts in the shape of legal aid. Although the Bill is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, legal aid is probably one of the few things not included, apart from being in one clause. However, as I understand the position, eligibility is being reviewed at the moment and we shall no doubt come to that matter in due course as it causes great concern in the legal profession.
We on this side of the House welcome many of the positive reforms and recognise the consideration given by the Government in the shape—if that is the correct phrase—of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, to the many amendments moved to the Bill. However, although I hold no brief for the publicans of Scotland, I am bound to say that they still harbour a severe sense of grievance about being excluded from Sunday afternoon opening when every other place which sells alcohol is apparently to be allowed to sell it.
All amendments tabled from this side of the House were tabled with the aim of improving the Bill, as we set out to do, in the earlier stages. We hope that that has been achieved and that the Bill is the better for the consideration that it has received in your Lordships' House.
I must express disappointment that the Government did not accept the amendments to abolish the iniquitous domestic warrant sales which we discussed during the Committee stage and to limit police entry to the clubs (the amendment was put forward at Report stage). However, those are issues which will be raised in another place and no doubt will be discussed again in this Chamber.
I noted that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was discussing this part of the Bill he inadvertently referred to a power of arrest rather than to a power of entry. I hope that that is not a portent of things to come. The chief constables will no doubt note his words with interest.
The law is a never-ending tale of change and advance as time goes by. It is encouraged by the excellent and positive work of the Scottish Law Commission. No doubt another miscellaneous provisions Bill will make its way into the House in a few years' time.
I should like to put on record our thanks to the various bodies and institutions which have taken an interest in the Bill and brought forward positive amendments for consideration. On most occasions those amendments were rejected but in other cases they found acceptance or at least were considered.

1057
It is interesting that the Law Society of Scotland responded positively and helpfully, as did the Faculty of Advocates, and, so far as it is possible to find a satisfied lawyer, there appears to be silence on those two fronts at the moment. The Bill has set the framework for the future and we await its implementation with interest.
To conclude I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on his consideration and courtesy in steering this particular ship through what were at times stormy and tempestuous waters. He accepted criticism. I must say that at times some of it was almost on a personal level, which went very close to contravening what I understand to be the traditions of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord guided the Bill through its very difficult stages with dignity. He concentrated on the issues rather than be side-tracked by any such perceived attacks upon himself. I do not for one moment suggest that they were meant to be personal attacks. I merely observe how they were perceived on this side of the Chamber. I may be wrong and, if so, no doubt I shall be corrected.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, conducted the passage of the Bill in a responsive manner which made life for us all that little bit more pleasant than it might have been.
1 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I should like to say that it has been a great privilege for a layman such as myself to watch the legal luminaries of Scotland at work. I have a very high opinion of them, though obviously not as high as they have of themselves.
The Bill concerns itself with the improvement of the law in Scotland. Personally I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having done something about the two amendments which I brought forward at other people's behest. Throughout the passage of the Bill he has shown great willingness to accept that Members of the House have a contribution to make to this miscellaneous collection of legal matters.
There are two matters with which I am a little disappointed, or perhaps I should say I am a little fearful of their effect. One is the effect on the rural lawyers of Scotland who for a long time have provided a form of legal aid because of the money that they collect from conveyancing. I know that we have been promised that that matter will be carefully monitored, but monitoring often comes too late. I hope and trust that the scheme for producing non-legal conveyancers will fall flat on its face, which is the hope of many other people. In this case I believe that competition has come into the legal profession, to a very large extent owing to previous Bills, and it appears to me to be unnecessary and a little dangerous.
I must say that the incursion of the English lawyers into a Scottish debate in order to make a purely political point about war crimes trials seem to me to be wholly regrettable. The matter should have been debated under the War Crimes Bill and not
1058
have arisen under a Scottish miscellaneous provisions Bill. We look forward to next Monday when that matter is debated once more.
This has been an interesting Bill and I am sure that it will be useful. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on his performance. I am sure that he has come out of the experience a better and wiser man.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall say a few very brief words about two particular aspects of the Bill in which I have taken a special interest. I believe that it will be a considerable improvement to Scots law when ordinary people are able to obtain more information about what charities exist and who runs them. By definition charities are excused from income and corporation tax so in a sense they are contributed to by all taxpayers as well as by those who give money to them and raise money for them direct. It seems to me helpful and right that information will become more accessible. I hope that very soon a truly informative list of charities will be made available from whatever organisation is nominated to perform that service.
I believe also that the reforms about how lawyers will operate are very much in the interests of all Scots who find themselves needing to use the law. This House has considerably improved the Bill in that respect. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the way in which he has responded to amendments which I moved on behalf of organisations representing consumers, especially in relation to what happens when a person buys or sells a house.
As time goes on ordinary people, I am sure, will find that conveyancing services become more keenly priced and more user friendly. To that extent I disagree a little with my noble friend and neighbour Lord Mackie of Benshie. At the same time I am extremely glad that the Government have given an undertaking to watch the effect of the new competition on solicitors. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I believe that that is a very important aspect of the changes in conveyancing. We need local lawyers and if some aspects of the Bill threaten their presence in our country towns, something has to be done about it.
The passage of the Bill through this House has been somewhat unusual in that by far the majority of amendments, and indeed the main political opposition to the Bill, seemed to come not from the Opposition Benches but from the Cross-Benches. At times one wondered whether in fact the main Opposition party was not a lot more in favour of the Bill than it always made plain. I am sure that that will become clear when the Bill reaches another place, when the Cross-Benches are not there.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive my intervention. I am assuming for the sake of accuracy—and perhaps she will confirm it—that she means political with a small 'p' and not a large 'P'.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at times I was not absolutely sure how large the "p" was on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, rightly reminded us that the law and courts are not the property of lawyers but the property of all the people of Scotland. I am sure that as the Bill proceeds that will become clearer in another place than at times it was here.
That having been said, many useful changes have been made as a result of proposals from all sides of the House. Those changes have been accepted by the Government. My noble and learned friend has proved himself to be a listening Lord Advocate and, by implication, we have a Secretary of State who is a listening Secretary of State for Scotland. I thank both my noble and learned friend and my noble friend on the Front Bench for all their hard work. I must express appreciation also of the hard work of the Benches opposite. I believe that we have improved this Bill and when it emerges from another place it will be of very great benefit to the people of Scotland.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
1.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 22 [Power to require harbour authorities to promote searches in harbour areas]:
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 25, line 15, leave out from ("then") to ("any") in line 16 and insert ("subject to subsections (4) and (4A) below, if a constable or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Noble Lords will recall that on Report I gave an undertaking to enhance the contents of Clause 22(4) to strengthen the rights of private householders in harbour areas in circumstances where a search of their homes was necessary. I believe that there was total agreement on that fundamental point and that the previous wording was accepted only on the understanding that it would be amended along the lines that I now propose.
The amendments present two safeguards for householders who, often by accident of geography and history, find themselves living within harbour areas. First, only constables with a warrant will be able to carry out searches of private residences under the Bill's powers. That brings the Bill's provisions in line with general practice. As a consequence of requiring constables to have a warrant it is necessary to enable them to obtain warrants. The amendment provides for that.
Secondly, only certain constables will be able to carry out such searches. The amendment that we agreed on Report limited the right to search private
1060
dwellings to constables, thereby excluding security guards. The proposal now before the House limits that right still further.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked exactly how "constable" would be defined for the purposes of this subsection. It is a very important point as under Clause 46 "constable" has a very wide definition which includes all types of constables such as British Transport Police and ports police. The amendment includes constables in a body maintained by a police authority and constables in certain other police forces. A police authority, I should explain, means an authority for a police force maintained under the Police Act 1964 or, in Scotland, the Police (Scotland) Act 1976.
The amendment also makes it specifically clear that in respect of private police forces it is only those constables from constabularies which have entered into agreements with the Police Complaints Authority who are able to carry out searches of private residences. These agreements are entered under Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act l984 and in effect draw the participating forces into the codes of practice employed under PACE. As far as I am aware only two of the relevant private police forces have entered into Section 96 agreements: these are the British Transport Police and the Port of London Police. However, two more port police forces are considering doing so.This does not, however, imply that private residences exist in the harbour areas for which they are responsible.
1 should like to take this opportunity to elaborate on an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about applying this change to searches of private residences outside harbour areas. Although it is true that such searches, if required, would be by constables with a warrant I should explain that searches of private dwellings outside harbour areas would be under other provisions as they are not possible under the terms of this Bill. Under Clause 23 there is a power to require persons who have access to a restricted zone of a harbour for the purposes of a business carried on by him to arrange searches of any land he occupies outside the harbour area. However, under subsection (2)(b)(i), those searches can only be of land occupied for the purposes of his business and not of private residences.
Finally, despite the profound changes that we have made to Clause 22, I stress that it was never the Government's intention to use the powers in the Bill to require private residences to be searched by security guards. Indeed, careful consideration would have been given to the need for any private residences to be searched at all and where that proved necessary the Secretary of State would have required it to be carried out by constables. However, as that proviso would always have been implemented, it seems to me both sensible and prudent to formalise this particular matter with these amendments to the Bill. I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that noble Lords who took part in discussions on the Bill will

1061
be grateful to the Minister for carrying out his promise to look into the matter and for bringing forward amendments which will achieve unanimous agreement.
I recall that during our discussions on the port developments at Harwich reference was made to security guards becoming special constables under certain circumstances. In such cases would they be covered by the amendment and included in the definition of a constable? That may be an important question in view of some of the points raised in another place about defence.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, Harwich does not have a ports police force and, therefore, those constables would not be allowed to search private residences. In any event, they would not be allowed to do so unless they put themselves under the relevant section of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If they formed themselves into a police force such as the British Transport Police or the Port of London Police they could be covered by the provision but at present that is extremely unlikely.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I join with noble Lords in welcoming the amendment. It is thoroughly to be applauded from two points of view. The first is from that of civil liberties. It is wrong that someone who inhabits a private dwelling should be subject to search without a warrant. That is particularly so because Clause 22 makes it clear that force may be used in carrying out a search. Secondly, it is right that the normal rules which bind the police in such matters should be applicable to any search made of a private dwelling wherever that may be.
In declaring my interest as a parliamentary representative of the Police Federation, I welcome the gesture which the amendment makes towards the proper work of police constables in England and Wales. I approve of the provision contained in the amendment whereby only constables should be authorised to carry out certain duties.
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I press him a little on an answer that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly but he appeared to be leaving the door open to the idea that ports police sworn in as special constables by a magistrate, as is possible in certain ports under outdated legislation (dating from 1850 in the case of Harwich), could be entitled to carry out searches under the provisions of the amendment. I believe that my noble friend said that it is unlikely, but can he go a little further and say that it will be impossible for special constables to carry out such searches under the amendment?
My understanding of the amendment is that only regular police constables will be able to carry out these searches, armed with a warrant and subject to normal police procedure. No other police officers, special constables or others will be entitled to do so. I am sorry to press my noble friend on the issue but it is important. As a result of events at Harwich it has exercised the Police Federation over the past few years. I should be grateful if he would clarify that small but important point. I welcome the amendment and see it as a significant improvement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bethell. I had not realised that he wished to make a point on this amendment.
Nothing in the Bill will give to police forces any additional powers. The Harwich special constables will not be able to carry out those searches. I was trying to imply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that if the Harwich authority formed a special police force in the same way as the Port of London is doing and followed the procedures of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, perhaps it would be allowed to carry out those searches. However, those would be the only circumstances in which that would be permitted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 25, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("premises") in line 31 and insert ("In the case of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 25, line 32, at end insert ("any power to search or enter conferred by subsection (3) above may not be exercised except—
(a) under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice of the peace; and
(b) by a constable who is a member of a body of constables maintained—
(i) in England, Scotland or Wales by a police authority or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Police Complaints Authority under section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or
(ii) in Northern Ireland, by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland or an authority which has entered into an agreement with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland under Article 16 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.
(4A) If, on an application made by a constable, a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an article to which subsection (3) above applies is in any premises used only as a private dwelling, he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises").
Lord Bethell: My Lords, perhaps I may detain your Lordships because, through absence elsewhere, I was unable to take part in the previous stages of the Bill. Again I declare my interest as a representative of the Police Federation. I welcome this Bill. However, I invite my noble friend to say a few more words about the wide powers which this Bill confers upon Ministers to appoint private security employees to various jobs in ports and airports.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am advised that my noble friend should speak on the Motion that the Bill do now pass rather than on this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I hope your Lordships will agree that we can look back with some satisfaction at the time we have spent on this Bill over the past couple of months. We have had four sessions during which we have had some useful debates and have been able to fine-tune some of the provisions of the Bill.

1063
I was heartened to know from the start of your Lordships' consideration that this piece of legislation was welcomed and broadly supported. Amendments were put forward in a spirit of helpfulness to try to improve the existing provisions or to add to the new ones. Even though only government amendments were passed—some at the suggestion of other noble Lords—the debates on all the amendments provided us with an opportunity to explain in greater detail the purpose of the various provisions in the Bill.
I should like to make particular mention of the major part which the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, who is not able to be here today, played in our debates. Their contributions were always most constructive and offered in a courteous manner. I shall not mention by name all the other noble Lords who have spoken. Without exception, their contributions were most valuable and helped to ensure that our work was in the best traditions of this House. We may have had our disagreements but they have not spoilt the positive approach your Lordships have given to the consideration of this Bill. I thank all those who have contributed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this is one occasion when I am delighted to give full approval to the Motion that the Bill do now pass because, as I said on Second Reading, on these Benches we are completely in support of the principles of the Bill, settling as it does the questions of aviation and maritime security.
The amendments which we tabled were, we thought, in the interests of security, to clarify certain matters and to have certain assurances written into the Bill. As I expected, the Minister repeated the assurances and when he gave them, we accepted them. We should have liked to have seen those assurances written into the Bill for obvious reasons. As I said time and time again, the Minister may not be here and the courts will determine only what is in the Bill and not the words that the noble Lord has spoken, which we fully accept. However, I assure the House and the Minister that those who have advised me, particularly the officers' union, the National Union of Seamen and also the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, have noted with great care the assurances that have been given and will be filing them away in case they need to be raised at any time.
As always, the Minister has given courteous attention to the points which we raised. When he has promised to look into a matter, he has done so. We always appreciate that from the Minister. I repeat that this is one of those occasions when I can give full support to the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to beg the House's pardon for intervening earlier. I add my support to this Bill. I believe that it is important from the point of view of the Police Federation that as much attention as possible is paid to the guidelines mentioned by my noble friend at earlier stages. I
1064
should have preferred those guidelines to be enshrined in the Bill or a statute but if that cannot be, I trust that they will be followed by my noble friend's successors.
My noble friend made the valid point that some jobs in ports and airports should not be carried out by police constables; for example, searching a bag or a small case. That is most appropriately done by a private security employee. However, I am sure that he will appreciate the anxiety of the Police Federation that there should not be a slow but sure shifting of various tasks from the police to employees of private firms. If the federation sees that that is happening, it will have justifiable cause for concern.
I ask my noble friend to clarify one point. I am sorry to revert to the question of private police forces in ports, but can he clarify the question of a review which I believe the Government are undertaking on private employees being appointed as constables in ports? I believe that the Government are reviewing that matter. Can he also say at this stage whether the review has already commenced, what its tasks are and when he expects to be able to report the results to the House?
With those observations, I join with other noble Lords in supporting the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and my noble friend Lord Bethell who have spoken on this Motion. I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord and my noble friend that they support fully the principles enshrined in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, had asked that certain assurances should be written into the Bill. I gave my reasons for believing that that was not a good idea. Everything is written down and I hope that that will be satisfactory for him.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bethell was not able to be present during consideration of the Bill at its earlier stages. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me slightly to bend the rules of the House on consideration of this Motion in order to answer my noble friend's questions. In answer to his last point, perhaps I may say that the Government intend shortly to undertake a review of the port police forces. I am unable to provide any more details of the timing of that review. I referred to that at an earlier stage of the Bill.
My noble friend also suggested that wider power had been given to Ministers to appoint private security guards. This Bill gives no wider powers on the shipping side than have existed for a long time on the aviation side. The Bill only enables the Secretary of State to give directions to harbour authorities, shipowners and others. He cannot himself employ or direct private security guards. However, harbour authorities or others may employ private security guards. They are often the most appropriate people to carry out searches and guard harbours, as my noble friend acknowledged. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State can and will lay down the qualifications for those people as he has done in the aviation field.

1065
I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Bill. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to wish noble Lords a happy recess. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
Town and Country Planning Act,
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act,
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act,
Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act.

South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit (No. 2) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and the Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with an amendment.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-eight minutes before two o'clock.